120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

It isn't necessary for a Christ believer to cherish "The Ten Commandments" as a direct set of rules imposed onto humans by God, literally dictated by him.

Man.
That's some impressive cherry-picking, there, Lumpy.
You accept the descriptions of Jesus' miracles at face value and think that makes him the Christ.
You don't accept the bit where he was quoted as saying that he came to uphold the law from the old testament.
And you don't necessarily accept the 10C, which were a direct set of rules imposed onto humans by God, literally dictated by him.

Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about the central figure that Christianity is about, namely, Jesus Christ, who demonstrated to humans a life-giving power that could save us or give us eternal life. Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about this Christ person in order to qualify as relevant and needing a response.

Well, that'll certainly save you a lot of time, not having to pony up bullshit to the questions you don't want to answer, but if you're going to accept the Christ based on the contents of The Bible, and reject parts of the Bible, then YOU need to provide the rules whereby you decide what parts are meant to affect Christains.
After all, the messiah's coming was foretold in the OT. You need at least parts of the OT in order to justify your belief that Jesus was the Messiah and had powers beyond what he demonstrated (assuming anything was actually demonstrated).

This half-assed 'cherry picking of scripture' process seems to be a good reason to reject Christainity. Or at least, to reject your defense of Christainity because you are clearly worthless as an apologist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So all in all, Lumpy, your faith in Christainity, your resistance to rejecting Christainity, is based in large parts on rejecting Christainity. At least, those parts that would require you to behave any differently, or adopt a certain moral code, or see Christainity as anything different than any other basic human ideology.

You apparently want nothing more from the Christ than a promise of eternal life and in return offer to believe that unnameable authors listened to gossip maybe 30 years old, and faithfully wrote down the acts of Jesus' traveling magic show, and to believe that raising the dead is direct evidence of Jesus' authority to welcome you to an afterlife.

You're not willing to believe that anything else in the Bible is a faithful copy of what transpired, including anything attributed to God or Jesus as direct statements, divine inspiration, or demonstrations of divine power.

Seems you have less use for Christainity than even Kyroot does....

 

[skepticalbip]

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

I have attempted to discredit Christianity by hitting it at all angles, leaving it looking like a spike ball. Some of these points will not persuade all, but all will be persuaded by some.

http://www.kyroot.com

We seem to have very different approaches. You seem to start with the assumption that acceptance is the default condition so rejection of a proposition requires sound reasons. I start with the assumption that rejection is the default condition so acceptance of any proposition requires sound reasons. So far I have seen no Christian claims, arguments, myths, or stories that are convincing.

 

[jonJ]

But maybe the alternative long wishlist above would have been too complicated and would have placed humanity on a trajectory of confusion and chaos and thus a worse outcome than the one we have experienced.

You think that list was complicated? Seriously? Calls for compassion and justice would have been too much for the ancient people to handle, and might have sent them on an even WORSE course than they have already?

The command "Thou shalt not own another being as property" was too much for people to handle, and would have to wait almost 2000 years before it finally became unacceptable?

The concept of racial equality would have "confused" people so badly that they would have mistreated their fellow human beings even worse than they already have?

The command "thou shalt not rape" was too confusing to understand?

A command to help others in need would have led to worse abuse?

Really?

And I thought Lumpy's God was omnipotent. Couldn't an omnipotent God have made people smart enough to understand simple instructions about being nice to each other?

 

[skepticalbip]

You think that list was complicated? Seriously? Calls for compassion and justice would have been too much for the ancient people to handle, and might have sent them on an even WORSE course than they have already?

The command "Thou shalt not own another being as property" was too much for people to handle, and would have to wait almost 2000 years before it finally became unacceptable?

The concept of racial equality would have "confused" people so badly that they would have mistreated their fellow human beings even worse than they already have?

The command "thou shalt not rape" was too confusing to understand?

A command to help others in need would have led to worse abuse?

Really?

And I thought Lumpy's God was omnipotent. Couldn't an omnipotent God have made people smart enough to understand simple instructions about being nice to each other?

Given that this God is defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, the logical conclusion can only be that He is also omnisadistic.

 

[Atheos]

Well, it's complicated you see. If you were god you'd understand.

 

[Atheos]

This "reason to reject Christianity" may unwittingly be the best one on the list (currently 409 total), because each time I re-read it to try to find something to disagree with, I fall asleep from boredom. Certainly one way to win a debate is to bore your opponent to death so he can't respond.

Maybe now you know how the rest of us feel when you write one of your major boring page-spanning diatribes. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's not enough that "lots of things were written about" Mohammed or Krishna or whatever figure you're claiming had power. Name the written sources which describe their power, and quote from them so we can read of their miracle acts.

I can't help but wonder what people will think about Superman or any of our other super heroes in another two thousand years. Will wars be fought over which comic book hero is the "true" hero or will people be burned at the stake for questioning Superman's "rightful place"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

This "reason to reject Christianity" may unwittingly be the best one on the list (currently 409 total), because each time I re-read it to try to find something to disagree with, I fall asleep from boredom. Certainly one way to win a debate is to bore your opponent to death so he can't respond.

Maybe now you know how the rest of us feel when you write one of your major boring page-spanning diatribes. Pot, meet kettle.

Introspection? I think his conversion to one of those religions he knows nothing about is more likely. Mithraism, Hinduism, Catholicism...

I was more amused by the idea that he's going to ignore problems with the OT.
But he's the one that denied some sects ignore the OT.

 

[atrib]

Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about the central figure that Christianity is about, namely, Jesus Christ, who demonstrated to humans a life-giving power that could save us or give us eternal life.

Jesus Christ did not demonstrate any supernatural powers that there is any evidence for. In fact, you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Jesus Christ described in the Bible even existed. Yet you keep repeating this lie as if it were an established fact. This is a primary characteristic of the fundamentalist Christian apologist behavior where facts are not allowed to get in the way of the apologetics.

 

[Atheos]

You think that list was complicated? Seriously? Calls for compassion and justice would have been too much for the ancient people to handle, and might have sent them on an even WORSE course than they have already?

The command "Thou shalt not own another being as property" was too much for people to handle, and would have to wait almost 2000 years before it finally became unacceptable?

The concept of racial equality would have "confused" people so badly that they would have mistreated their fellow human beings even worse than they already have?

The command "thou shalt not rape" was too confusing to understand?

A command to help others in need would have led to worse abuse?

Really?

And I thought Lumpy's God was omnipotent. Couldn't an omnipotent God have made people smart enough to understand simple instructions about being nice to each other?

To me that seems to be the biggest weakness in all of the apologies Lumpenproletariat and others like him tend to make. The apology itself is metaphorically like putting a bandaid over a melanoma and pronouncing the problem solved. The problem still remains until it has been addressed.

What most folks refer to as the 10 Commandments is only a small portion of a very complex set of rules and regulations enumerated in Exodus, expounded upon in Leviticus and further enhanced in Deuteronomy. If one's entire argument is based on the idea that this god person was trying to keep things simple to avoid confusion and chaos the argument is trumped from the get-go by the literally thousands of directives entailing the context in which this "wishlist" is found.

This complex set of laws prescribes directions for everything from treating leprosy with 2 birds and a rubber band to prohibitions against seething a baby goat in its mother's milk to regulations on just how long a delay there has to be between beating your slave to death and his actual death so you don't get punished for killing a slave.

Far from being a simple wishlist calculated to strike a fine balance between the most necessary stuff and not overwhelming folks with too much for them to handle, it took the U.S. Tax Code to finally best this set of laws for complexity and obfuscation.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

True belief -- even without "hard evidence" -- is better than false belief. Christ belief = reason + "common sense" + some evidence

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other;

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --

Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --

And without the hard evidence, they are not true?

So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.

Lucky you.

However.

Don't you think it might have been better for everyone if this 'common sense' came with actual evidence?

It DID come with some "evidence" already, but not the "hard evidence" or "data" from rigid scientific research. So the "facts" were not in yet, but there was reasonable belief based on some "common sense" and limited evidence. So this reasonable belief was appropriate given the limited evidence available.

We always wish we could have more certainty. Of course it's better to have 100% of the facts and absolute certainty. But we usually don't have that.

Then your church might have been able to convince other people that it was a bad thing. Then your 'belief' might have been accepted by people who did not accept your church as an authority.

Again, there was some limited evidence. It wasn't based on pure "authority" alone. When the scientific "facts" are not yet in, it's reasonable to judge based on the limited evidence available. This true belief was beneficial to some who acted upon it.

True belief is valuable even when the scientific "facts" or "data" are not yet in.

Without evidence, then one church's belief that smoking was bad is no different from another church's belief that smoking was good for you.

But there WAS some limited evidence. The belief that smoking was bad was correct, and it was supported by some limited evidence. It was good that this correct belief, though not proven fact, was proclaimed by some preachers and believed by some. And this true belief was superior and different from the contrary belief that smoking was harmless.

Without evidence, neither one was in a position to convince bystanders that they were offering facts.

But there WAS some evidence -- it just wasn't the "hard evidence" of scientific research, as per bilby's demand.

The point is that we do not need the "facts" of "hard evidence" in order to have true belief which is useful or valuable to us. So it is not true that one "belief" is just as good as another or that only proven "facts" are useful as a connection to the truth.

I have relatives who believe the most moral stance is not to trust anyone who won't drink with you. They won't do business with anyone who's afraid to let their hair down and get at least a little tipsy. Of course, i also have relatives who think alcohol is sinful and defiles the body and risks the soul. They drink grape juice for the sacrament.

The one side can't offer evidence that teatotallers WILL cheat you in a contract.

The other side can't offer evidence that anyone has a soul.

Which side is wrong?

Both sides were partly right and partly wrong.

Can't tell.

So, yes, while it's reduced to a belief, without evidence, the any one is just as valid (or just as invalid) as any other.

I was taught not to smoke, too.

And not to drink.

And not to masturbate.

WHAT? That's going too far!

And not to do a lot of things.

The reason offered most often was 'Because God.'

If that's the argument, then once someone stops believing in that god, one stops believing in those prohibitions.

But that's NOT usually the whole argument. Again, there is usually some "common sense" or limited evidence also. And one can continue to believe the prohibition based on that, even if they stop believing in the "god" part. And also, even if the "god" part is rejected generally, usually the disbeliever still has some doubts and is not a total absolute atheist, and there is still some guilt feeling and fear that evil consequences will follow from the prohibited practice.

Which worked out well. I'd never have gotten so happily married if i'd listened to all the 'don'ts' i grew up with.

You are better off that you listened to some of them, even in cases where the evidence was limited.

I don't really see a downside of rejecting evidence-free, god-based prohibitions and looking for actual evidence.

That's not what we're talking about. This is about whether "Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other" because they're not proven fact, like prohibitions against smoking were not proven, only because they are lacking the "hard evidence" demanded above by bilby. I.e., demanding that "beliefs" are of no value, or that ALL beliefs are equally worthless and that only "facts" based on "hard evidence" are useful in decision-making.

Sometimes it's best to believe something even if it's not based on proven scientific "data" but on some "common sense" and only limited evidence.

Christ belief is based on some actual evidence and is not "evidence-free" as most non-Christian religious beliefs are.

 

[DBT]

Sometimes it's best to believe something even if it's not based on proven scientific "data" but on some "common sense" and only limited evidence.

Best...for what reason? Is it useful to believe that something is true even if probability shows that what you believe is probably not true? What then is a reason to form a conviction on the basis of limited evidence --- evidence which may not actually support the proposition that is being believed.

Not that there is even limited evidence to support the proposition that Yahweh the fierce, vindictive god of the tribe of Israel is an actual god, an entity that actually exists, and not what the evidence supports, that the god of the bible is a religious artifact constructed for the purpose of social cohesion, control and an explanation for the existence of the world and mankind's place in the world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Christ belief is based on some actual evidence and is not "evidence-free" as most non-Christian religious beliefs are.

No. 'Fraid not.
IF your evidence is no better than the written-down tales of every non-Christain religious belief, then your belief is not evidence based.
At least, not as MUCH evidence based as, say, the Mormons who have direct testimony of the witnesses.

The fact that you keep repeating this lie does not reflect well on your integrity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have relatives who believe the most moral stance is not to trust anyone who won't drink with you. They won't do business with anyone who's afraid to let their hair down and get at least a little tipsy. Of course, i also have relatives who think alcohol is sinful and defiles the body and risks the soul. They drink grape juice for the sacrament.

The one side can't offer evidence that teatotallers WILL cheat you in a contract.

The other side can't offer evidence that anyone has a soul.

Which side is wrong?

Both sides were partly right and partly wrong.

You say that. But whatever you're using to come to that conclusion, it's still a fact that neither side has offered real evidence for their side. And your response is just to cherry pick other people's statements for what you want to believe.

 

[Atheos]

There sure are a lot of scare quotes in Lumpenproletariat's latest rejoinder. On a positive note it's not one of his common long, drawn-out diatribes that results in little else besides eye-glazing and just addressing the first error found (aka the first sentence).

It was not that long ago that Lumpenproletariat was parroting the oft-quoted apologetic untruth that Jesus was "The most well-evidenced figure in history." It is quite obvious that this unwarranted claim resonates strongly with an accepting audience disinclined to require substantiation. But the claim crumples to dust like a thoroughly incinerated campfire twig the moment it is touched with nothing more than a moment's critique.

Which leaves Lumpenproletariat desperately trying to slip this historically bereft myth in with terms like "common sense" and "evidence" as opposed to "hard evidence." He's now arguing it's simply better to believe in this myth than to not believe in it, something for which he cannot offer any justification.

I have a friend with ALS. He's dying. In a few months I watched him go from being an athletic picture of health to a bedridden man who gets every breath through a mask forcing it in through his nose, and who cannot even fix his mask if it gets displaced because he can't even move his hands.

I'd like to believe my buddy doesn't have ALS. Truth doesn't care what I would prefer. Truth stands on its own because there actually is evidence for it.

There is absolutely no evidence of an afterlife, of life that can subsist eternally, of events that require supernatural intervention to be explained, etc. There are stories about such things, just as there are stories about UFO's, Vampires, Leprechauns, Cyclops and a million other fantastic things conjured up in the fertile imagination of creative human beings. Stories are not evidence. Never have been, never will be. The fact that some people believe stories is also not evidence of anything other than gullibility or lack of inclination to investigate and determine if the stories are actually true.

There is nothing but stories of this Jesus person performing miracles. Stories no better than the stories of Leprechauns and Vampires. People believe all three. Everything else is an appeal to popularity.

 

[skepticalbip]

True belief -- even without "hard evidence" -- is better than false belief. Christ belief = reason + "common sense" + some evidence

Common sense tells us the Earth is flat - evidence tells us the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Common sense tells us the Earth is the center of the universe - evidence tells us the Earth orbits the Sun which orbits the center of mass of the galaxy which moves under influence of the gravity of the local cluster which is moving toward the vicinity of the Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster.

Common sense is a collection of prejudices formed from our ignorance of reality.

Beliefs generally cause more harm than good. Beliefs rather than understanding is why people waste money on lottery tickets that is needed to feed, shelter, and cloth the family. Beliefs rather than understanding is why there are religious wars. Beliefs rather than understanding is why some people die praying for a miracle rather than seeking medical help. etc.

 

[James Brown]

Yup. Someone asked Carl Sagan what he thought about something supernatural. Sagan replied, "I haven't seen any evidence for that."

Yeah, the questioner responded, but take a guess. What do you feel in your gut?

"Sorry," Sagan replied, "but I try not to think with my gut."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Believing the truth is good, even if you don't know for sure, or don't have proof.

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other; Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence - at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

If you can demonstrate that something is true, then it's not a belief, it's a fact.

Why can't it be both? Isn't it a "belief" for the believer who cannot demonstrate that it's true? He believes it, with some reason, but not demonstrable proof. Perhaps his reason is weak, but still it's a fact which can be demonstrated by someone else who has more evidence.

And isn't this a "true belief" held by the believer who cannot provide the proof? Why isn't it good for people to hold such true beliefs? Why isn't this kind of belief better than a false belief? Either way the believer cannot demonstrate that it's true, but in one case it's a true belief and in the other case it's a false belief. And isn't the true belief better than the false belief?

If you cannot demonstrate that something is true, it is exactly as valid as any other claim you can't prove.

But "valid" isn't all that matters. A true belief is better than a false belief, isn't it? Even if the evidence for either is equally weak? Isn't it good for those who have evidence to promote this truth they have, or this true belief, which is supported by evidence, and for others to learn of it and to believe it, if it is in fact the truth? Even if these indirect believers don't have sufficient evidence, still isn't it good that they have this truth, as opposed to not having it?

Just because it's preferable to have strong evidence, which is even better, isn't it also good to have the truth even if only with weak evidence? Regardless how much evidence you have, isn't simple true belief preferable to having no belief or having a false belief?

If the quantity of evidence is the same in either case, but one belief is true and the other false, isn't it preferable for a person to hold the true belief, with the weak evidence, as opposed to the false belief? Isn't there something basically good about true belief per se? regardless how much evidence there is for that person's belief?

Furthermore, if you can't demonstrate that something is true, you can't say that it is true, . . .

Why not? You can say you BELIEVE it's true. And you might have some reason to believe it, even though there's a high level of doubt. And just because you can't demonstrate that it's true doesn't change whether it's true -- it might be true even though you can't demonstrate it. And if it is true, though not demostrable, isn't it still good that one believes it?

. . . nor can you say that you know it.

I know that the speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. But I can't demonstrate it. I can say it's true and that I "know" it's true.

This "knowledge" is as good as my knowledge that George Washington was the first president or that Julius Caesar was assassinated or that the same object on earth is heavier than it is on the moon.

I think most "knowledge" that we have as individuals is not demonstrable by us. Most of our knowledge requires "faith" as a precondition. So the statement "if you can't demonstrate that something is true, you can't say that it is true" is false.

 

[DBT]

The Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Muslim, etc, etc, all believe that their religion is the truth, that what they believe is indeed factual knowledge about the world and how it works. Logically, they can't all be right....and given what science has discovered about the world through rigorous testing, most probably all religious belief is mistaken in relation to how the world works.

That is why it is called 'faith'