120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Tom Sawyer]

But again, you're using an argument that works equally well for positions that counter your own. You offer as evidence that people are willing to suffer for their beliefs as if it somehow makes the object of their belief more factual.
There have been pacifists besides 'early Christains.'
There have been those willing to suffer for their beliefs, but you don't seem to hold their beliefs in equally high regard, do you?

So why bring up the suffering of some people, if it doesn't work for all people who choose to suffer for their beliefs?

I don't think pagans of that era were equally as willing to die for their beliefs as Christians.
Those pagans ostensibly worshipped Caesar as a god. So they weren't exactly on Rome's 'hit list'.

In any case, where we see a theist, pagan or otherwise, willing to suffer for their sincerely-held beliefs that divinity of some kind exists, that doesn't weigh against the testimony of every other theist willing to do the same.

If a Hindu sees Moses talking to a burning bush the Hindu might think Moses was talking to Shiva or Vishnu or Krishna. And yet both the Hindu and Moses could equally and honestly defy the religious persecution of a dictator like Domitian (or Stalin.)

Well, it was less that they weren't as willing to die for their beliefs during that era as it was that there weren't as many opportunities for them to die for their beliefs since there wasn't anyone putting in much of an effort to kill them for those beliefs during that era. It was only after Christianity became a state religion that the pagans were really given a chance to step up and die for their beliefs. Once that happened, Christians stopped dying for their beliefs in such great numbers and it opened up the opportunity for them to be sainted for committing mass murder as opposed to getting sainted for being the victims of mass murder.

 

[hyzer]

I don't think pagans of that era were equally as willing to die for their beliefs as Christians.
Those pagans ostensibly worshipped Caesar as a god. So they weren't exactly on Rome's 'hit list'.

In any case, where we see a theist, pagan or otherwise, willing to suffer for their sincerely-held beliefs that divinity of some kind exists, that doesn't weigh against the testimony of every other theist willing to do the same.

If a Hindu sees Moses talking to a burning bush the Hindu might think Moses was talking to Shiva or Vishnu or Krishna. And yet both the Hindu and Moses could equally and honestly defy the religious persecution of a dictator like Domitian (or Stalin.)

Well, it was less that they weren't as willing to die for their beliefs during that era as it was that there weren't as many opportunities for them to die for their beliefs since there wasn't anyone putting in much of an effort to kill them for those beliefs during that era. It was only after Christianity became a state religion that the pagans were really given a chance to step up and die for their beliefs. Once that happened, Christians stopped dying for their beliefs in such great numbers and it opened up the opportunity for them to be sainted for committing mass murder as opposed to getting sainted for being the victims of mass murder.

Exactly. As Gen. Patton said "the goal isn't to die for your beliefs, the goal is to make the other guy die for his." And in that we see the real reason for the success of Christianity. Convert or die. The marching orders for Christians for nearly 2,000 years.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle stories are inconsistent with the "context" of the first century --

. . . despite misstatements of your favorite Jesus-debunker guru, Dr. Carrier, etc.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997). Richard Carrier

It's easy to cite a long article and imagine that you've proved something. But Carrier's examples prove nothing. He offers nothing to show that there was anything peculiarly superstitious about the 1st century AD which could explain the rise of the Jesus miracle legend.

All the facts show that the Christ miracles of the 1st century AD are totally out of place -- unless we assume that the miracle acts described in the gospels actually did happen, around 30 AD, and this would explain how a new rash of miracle stories breaks out in the early 2nd century and later.

Since the Carrier article is too long, the following will be only on the first paragraph, to be continued later:

We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context.

The context is that such tales were NOT common in the 1st century BC and were becoming fewer from earlier times. And in the 1st century AD we have only the new Jesus miracle stories emerging, no others. Carrier has no examples to show otherwise. All the tales of miracles he offers date only from 100 AD and later, or were from several centuries earlier, based on ancient deities or sages far removed from the period of the new Christ miracles, not on any recent miracle heroes or new legends.

The CONTEXT is that such tales were DECREASING from the earlier time, so that hardly any new miracle tales were popping up in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, so that fewer and fewer such tales were being told. But then, out of nowhere, the Christ miracles burst in on the scene at around 30 AD, or through the following decades, with no others -- only these Jesus miracle stories appear during the 1st century. The only exception to this would be the stories about the apostles, appearing around 90-100 AD, obviously inspired by the earlier gospel accounts for which there is no explanation.

But then, the context is that later, around 100 AD and beyond, there's a sudden explosion of new miracle stories.

Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, . . .

Not more than at other times. But let's assume there was an extra supply of rebels or revolutionary figures, like Judas the Galilean and John the Baptist and others, some of whom were militant insurrectionists against the Roman Empire, or against "The Establishment" of those times. This is easily explained by the political developments, BUT these have nothing to do with superstitions and miracle tales. These various "messiahs" or charlatans or prophets or dissidents etc. were not reputed miracle-workers or a product of superstition. They were anti-Establishment figures who were able to win a following, but there's virtually no miracle stories or "tales" which circulated. It was hatred of the Establishment which drove their popularity, and of course their charisma.

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are part of this context, show no miracle tales, but only a trend of resistance against the religious Establishment in Jerusalem. The Teacher of Righteousness, probably a real person, has no miracle acts attributed to him, no healings, no resurrection, nothing comparable to the miracle acts of Jesus.

Likewise in the other literature appearing at the time, Book of Enoch, etc., there were no new miracle heroes emerging, no new miracle events, but only rehashing of the ancient ones.

So, what is this "context"?

. . . from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, . . .

There were frauds from every age, not just this one. In the case of miracle-worker frauds, these were rejected by 99% of the population. Just because they won 2 or 3 dozen idiot followers doesn't show that this age was any more superstitious than others. Those followers were less than .1% of the people who were exposed to them and observed whatever they did. And virtually all these observers rejected the charlatans, which is why there is no written evidence from the time attesting to any of their alleged miracle deeds.

. . . even innocent men mistaken for divine, . . .

There's virtually no evidence of this. Jesus is the only case of this for which there is any evidence.

. . . and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them.

There's probably not one case for whom we can determine that there were as many as even 100 followers. If there happens to be 1 or 2, that's an extremely rare exception. Even 50 is unlikely for any case you can name. And those who gained more than a couple dozen required many years, decades, during which to accumulate so many disciples. It's only the political dissidents/militants who acquired a large following, and these were not reported miracle-workers.

For the political charlatans/messiahs it is said in 1 or 2 cases that they made a claim of being able to perform some spectacular deed, but there's no report from any source saying that they did in fact perform any miracle act, nor that anyone actually believed they performed such an act.

Carrier cannot give any example of a source claiming a quack actually performed any miracle act. He pretends there is such evidence, but gives none. There were "leaders" of dissident groups, rebels, revolutionaries, but these political disturbances he refers to have nothing to do with miracles performed by anyone.

Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, . . .

There is NO other source reporting that any miracle acts were performed by anyone, or reporting that anyone believed claims of such a thing. The gospel accounts stick out conspicuously as the ONLY written documents (plus the Paul epistles reporting the resurrection of Jesus) presenting reports of some new hero doing a miracle act. Over a period of several centuries, up to about 100 AD -- for at least 400 years there is NOTHING ELSE in all the literature claiming that some new miracle-worker appeared and amazed crowds by performing any superhuman acts.

Josephus is sometimes cited, but there's virtually nothing there. He mentions one "exorcist" who seems to have caused a bucket of water to be overturned when supposedly a demon was cast out, but that's it. He says nothing about the victim being cured by the exorcist. He attributes no miracle acts to the various "messiah"-type figures who pop up here and there.

Carrier cannot give one example of such a thing. That's the context. No new reported miracle heroes. The closest there is to such a phenomenon are the many healing stories of worshipers at statues and temples of the ancient deities, claiming that the ancient deity answered their prayer. No charlatan, no instant miracle-worker, no new miracle hero cult. At most there were only priests performing ancient rites and promoting the ancient healing deities, not any recent charlatan-messiah.

And the praying at statues and testimonials by the worshipers was an ancient practice, from many centuries earlier, with no trend of these increasing up to the 1st century AD to provide a "context" for the Jesus stories to appear. If such ancient worshiping practices would lead to the creation of new miracle healing heroes or charlatans, then we should see some indication of this in the several centuries earlier, from 500 BC to 30 AD, before the Christ cult(s) appeared.

. . . and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority.

They were a small minority at ANY time, both before and after the Gospels were written. There's no evidence that there were more "skeptics" at other time periods than when the Gospels were written.

Carrier mentions no "skeptics" which confirm his point, but only examples which contradict him. He mentions some in the 2nd century, e.g., Lucian, who are motivated by the recent rash of Christian miracle claims appearing in the 1st century AD and later, and who also criticize some of the ancient miracle legends. Carrier has no examples of any skeptic criticizing cults or superstitions from 400 or 300 BC up to the time when the Christ cults appeared.

Meanwhile, Carrier cites Plutarch, a 1st-century skeptic, which contradicts Carrier, because this skeptic was contemporary to the time "when the Gospels were written," so Carrier himself gives this evidence of skeptics during this time, contradicting his insinuation that there were fewer skeptics during the time when the Jesus miracle stories appeared.

His best "skeptic" example is Lucian, late 2nd century, who was mostly a reactionary against Christianity, but also poking fun at others -- and yet ALL the examples of superstitions condemned by Lucian are either the Christ stories and others after this, from 100 AD onward, or the EARLY legends, the ancient pagan gods and their worshipers, all prior to 400 BC. Nothing at all from 400 BC and later up to when the new Christ cult(s) appeared. Why this omission? Because the miracle superstition practices were DEcreasing and there were fewer and fewer examples of them going forward to the time when the Christ miracles suddenly pop up from nowhere contrary to the historical pattern taking place.

This "context" argument, to make any sense, has to be a claim that the Christ miracle stories were CAUSED by these conditions of superstition and miracle tales which reflect a mindset of the period which caused people to believe such stories. And yet, the "context" Carrier describes is about something which existed only AFTER the Christ miracles appeared, and also MANY CENTURIES BEFORE, but not during the 200-300 years just prior, which is the critical "context" period which might have a causal connection to the sudden rise of the new Christ miracle legend. Rather, those conditions were DEcreasing at the beginning of the 1st century AD and had been decreasing for at least 300 years.

So the exact opposite of Carrier's theory is the truth of what was happening.

Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.

There is no evidence for this, other than conventional belief in ancient deities only. The evidence is that the vast majority of the people did not believe in the supernatural stories, other than those of the ancient deities/heroes. Not claims of recent charlatans performing wonders. These had very few followers, and nothing of their supposed mighty deeds was taken seriously enough to be recorded by anyone.

Recent charlatans, claiming to perform wonders, were rejected by 99% of the population in the 1st century as they are today, and accumulated only a tiny following of disciples. The stories that were taken seriously were not about current charlatans who only recently appeared, but those of ancient prophets and deities, and also earlier gurus (e.g., Gautama) who had a long career and had accumulated a reputation over several generations/centuries.

The occasional charlatan who appears to be successful at winning disciples who believe in his superhuman power, winning a large following perhaps within only a few years rather than decades or generations, is always a case of one identifying with a specific ancient deity in whose name he performs his acts. E.g., mostly modern examples, cult founders, etc.

The Jesus of the gospels does not fit any of these patterns, which easily explain the miracle tales about the ancient deities, but which are contradicted by the sudden appearance of the new Christ cult(s), putting the Christ miracle legend totally OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of the 1st century AD and of the whole ancient period, from the first writings around 2000 BC forward into the Middle Ages.


(This Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's easy to cite a long article and imagine that you've proved something.

That's the funniest thing i've seen all day, Lumpy.
Where's the long article supporting ANY of your interpretations of how historians work?
Where's ANY published article to connect your fantasy observations about miracle stories being on par with everything else we know about history?

 

[Learner]

Having trust in one's convictions without verifiable evidence is trust based on faith...which makes this type of 'trust' indistinguishable from faith. As this is nothing like the trust we build with direct first hand experience with people and things, it is defined as faith regardless of what the person who holds a conviction without verifiable evidence may like to call his or own belief.

Christianity and the bible was built on first hand experience and the direct witnessed interactions ends with Jesus's apostles and people who were there. Only the teachings of Christ is to be continued till the last days and in this regard your term for 'faith' would fit here of course but we/of the faith also believe 'Ceasar existed' just like Jesus.

Not true. The existence of most of Rome's emperors has support from multiple accounts and independent sources, statues, buildings erected, monuments, wars fought, etc, etc.

Emperors combined do you mean? Statues, monuments and buildings seems flawed imo. For one thing the source or rather the builders were Roman and even if you were to say that staues were throughout Europe and North Africa, these would just be equivalent to the atheists argumentative phrase copies of copies like statues of jupiter and venus gods (adding another point) . Ceasar(s) would not in person be in a majority of those places in the Roman empire.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Christianity and the bible was built on first hand experience

Except for the fact that none of the gospels self-identify as people with first-hand experience of Jesus. But it's a nice story to believe, I suppose.

and the direct witnessed interactions ends with Jesus's apostles and people who were there.

Nope. The gospels were attributed to 'people who were there' by later authorities, not any account within the gospels.

Only the teachings of Christ is to be continued till the last days and in this regard your term for 'faith' would fit here of course but we/of the faith also believe 'Ceasar existed' just like Jesus.

But the belief in Caesar is not a matter of faith.

So you're conflating disequal things again.

Not true. The existence of most of Rome's emperors has support from multiple accounts and independent sources, statues, buildings erected, monuments, wars fought, etc, etc.

Statues, monuments and buildings seems flawed imo.

I notice that seems to be the ONLY evidence you can try to discount.

So, sure, throw out the monuments. Even the coins. All our coins say 'in god we trust' so that's not necessarily evidence.

Now, deal with the rest....?

 

[Barbarian]

Miracle stories are implicitly treated as false for quite some time. There's no need for an explicit decree: it's as implicit as the rule followed by car makers which would say, if made explicit, that cars don't just float up into space so there's no need to shield them for re-entry.

That's a very bad analogy, because no one is making any such claim about cars. There's no need to correct claims which are not being made.

I did not bring up that claim to be corrected; I brought it up as an analogy to the tactics you chose, that of demanding an explicit statement by historians referring to the inadmissibility of miracles, which you must have known won't be forthcoming because rejecting miracle claims is an implicit rule by now and nobody bothers stating it anymore. The analogy works well for that purpose, and whether anyone made the claim or not is absolutely irrelevant in this respect.

And there is nothing about history which disproves miracle claims generally.

Except they don't happen on camera, ever, and they don't leave physical traces, ever. And people lie and hallucinate all the time, so what's more likely: that miracles ceased to happen as soon as objective records could be made about them, or that they never used to happen?

The proof for the implied existence of such decrees is that you still could not present a miracle story accepted by historians, . . .

Yes I did. The story of Rasputin the mad monk who healed the Czar's child is accepted by historians.

Leaving aside the fact that both of my sources from which I've heard this claim before treated it with scepticism ('allegedly' and the like, e.g. Pipes' The History of the Russian Revolution) that would not be a miracle because it does not contradict what we know, admittedly mostly because we know so little about placebo effects.

You seem to wish to muddy the waters by claiming that anything unusual is a miracle. What I am objecting to here is walking on water, resurrecting the dead, multiplying the fish, turning wine into water etc. These are miracles because they contravene established physics. Healing by placebo effects is something we don't know enough about. But we know a bit about how certain processes should go and why we never see certain other processes. For instance water doesn't usually turn into wine, and we know why - you'd need large amounts of energy from nowhere to create the new elements needed, because wine is a suspension of all sorts of organic stuff in a mixture of water and alcohol, laced with glycerine and whatnot, and even if you'd create the additional elements, you'd need to extract entropy from the sludge because wine is not the most disorganized state a mixture of the necessary elements could be found.

There was a History Channel documentary in which an historian said that the healing event did happen and that Rasputin had some unusual power to make this happen.

History Channel does not do history at all, it's a tabloid channel by now. This is the source of your claims about historians? Soundbites from between two UFO documentaries?

It's true that "miracle stories" are generally not "accepted" by historians if you mean the latter don't declare the stories to be true.

That's exactly what I mean. In what other sense could they be accepted? Spiritually accepted, like, you know, the last judgment only spiritually happened according to the late Harold Camping? Or what do you even think we were arguing about these years?

The powers displayed by savants are essentially in the "miracle" category.

Which physical law, verified every day countless times by operating machinery depending on it, is being contradicted here? Because otherwise it's not a miracle, lest you are prepared to claim that any special talent is a miracle.

No, there is nothing about what we "know" that makes all "miracles" impossible.

Thou shalt speak in singular.

The miracle acts of Jesus might have happened without negating anything known to science.

Walking on water cannot happen because Archimedes' law and gravity. Bodily ascension of Jesus out of this universe could not happen because of the first law of thermodynamics. Resurrecting the dead can not happen because of the second law of thermodynamics. Multiplying the fish could not happen because both the first and the second law of thermodynamics. Turning water into wine I've touched upon already.

If all you mean by "superstitious age" is a period when many new religious writings appear, that description fits, but these new writings contain no new miracle stories other than rehashing those of many centuries earlier, such as the Moses stories, or the Flood, etc.

No, by a superstitious age I mean an age when the average Roman subject believed a shitload of impossibilities, like the miracles of Simon of Cyrene and the fireproof nature of salamanders and sympathetic magic and numerology and astrology and all this stuff. They did not yet know that these things are impossible, so they believed them. Men in some African nations believe right now that witches can steal their penises by simply walking past them and they will swear it's absolutely happening left and right. Would you make the claim that this is proof of penis-stealing miracles or perhaps you'd concede they are superstitious and believe because everyone around them believes the same? Almost exactly the same kind of stories were widely believed in late medieval Europe too, see for instance Jean Delumeau's La Peur en Occident, or even the Malleus Malleficarum for colorful stories of this very kind. Were they true then and not true now, or were those also superstitious ages?

Also note that I'm making a concession here by saying that it would be enough for a miracle to break some well-established physical law. For myself, I'd only accept a clear case of strong emergence as a miracle, but I think the standard can safely be lowered in this case.

 

[Lion IRC]

Walking on water cannot happen because Archimedes' law and gravity.

Ice is water.

...Bodily ascension of Jesus out of this universe could not happen because of the first law of thermodynamics.

You mean out of this multiverse?
I think quantum weirdness allows the ascension of particles/matter/energy and many other spooky things.

...Resurrecting the dead can not happen because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Does the second law apply to souls?

...Multiplying the fish could not happen because both the first and the second law of thermodynamics.

Folks like Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger say matter can come into existence out of nothing.

...Turning water into wine I've touched upon already.

I can turn fruit juice into wine.

 

[none]

There, we just got five more reasons to reject Christianity

 

[Juma]

There, we just got five more reasons to reject Christianity

nah, just to reject Lion IRC. but that was really not needed...

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Ice is water.

And walking on ice is no miracle.

You mean out of this multiverse?
I think quantum weirdness allows the ascension of particles/matter/energy and many other spooky things.

A human body is a good deal more than a single particle.

Does the second law apply to souls?

Before discussing that, you'd have to demonstrate the existence and nature of a "soul".

Folks like Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger say matter can come into existence out of nothing.

Single particles, not fish sandwiches.

I can turn fruit juice into wine.

Through a long, complicated chemical process, not by waving your hands and saying "abracadabra".

In any case, what you seem to be saying is that all these "miracles" could have been the result of natural processes (except maybe the "soul" one, where you're positing the existence of a supernatural entity you can't show to exist). Which means they're not miracles. In attempting to explain them away in this fashion, you've just thrown the whole "miracle" claim under the bus. Congratulations.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Folks like Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger say matter can come into existence out of nothing.

"Nothing" is just language, not a physical state. It's a word used to communicate. When they say something from nothing, they simply mean a particle where there was no particle before. "Nothing" was just something other than a particle.

We can't make something into nothing, that's scientific reality. If you think it still works the other way around that's interesting.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think there's anything 'miraculous' about Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine etc. All so-called miracles cease being called miracles once we understand how they are done.

Like showing an instant flame cigarette lighter to primitive cave people.

You think Jesus doesn't understand how to cure leprosy by the power of His words?

You think God doesn't understand how to create something out of nothing? As joedad says, it's just language.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

[Atheos]

This "willing to die therefore there was something to what they believed" bullshit has to be the lamest argument ever in the history of lameness. The dumbasses who committed suicide to go on ahead to the Hale-Bopp comet at the behest of Marshall Applewhite. The assholes who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers. The countless religious zealots who died on both sides of the crusades. The koolaid-drinking idiots in Guyana. The Waco fiasco.

These are merely examples everyone in this discussion is probably old enough to remember or look up on their own in recent history. You don't have to go back much further to find other cults equally eager to give their lives because they've been brainwashed into believing some stupid religious dogma.

Do those of you presenting this argument somehow believe human nature changed that much in the last 2000 years?

 

[Lion IRC]

Most of the fighters in the crusades were mercinaries hoping to make a buck.

 

[Lion IRC]

Note also that a religious motive for killing someone is different to a religious motive for enduring torture and death.

 

[Lion IRC]

The misguided people who flew planes into the twin towers can be distinguished from those who used them as pawns. You don't see Usama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi leading by example.

 

[Lion IRC]

"While some refer to the events in Jonestown as mass suicide, many others, including Jonestown survivors, regard them as mass murder. All who drank poison did so under duress..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Over 300 children murdered at Jonestown

 

[Atheos]

The misguided people who flew planes into the twin towers can be distinguished from those who used them as pawns. You don't see Usama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi leading by example.

It doesn't matter whether or not the people who did the brainwashing also became martyrs. The point of every one of these examples is that people can be convinced (misguided) into believing that something is worth dying for when it's really just horseshit. The existence of people willing to die for bullshit is enough to demonstrate that Christianity has no monopoly on idiots willing to die for their beliefs. But such people are few and far between. I have no desire to find out but I would wager that at any given point in history (including now) the number of people willing to get beheaded or renounce Jesus accounts for less than 1% of the overall number of people who claim to be Christians. One percenters generally get a lot of attention though.

 

[Lion IRC]

Your 1% versus 99% proves the argument.
Most people 99%+ will NOT die for something they disbelieve or know is false.
So when we see people who ARE willing to die, we are justified to consider that their motive could involve a real reason for sincere belief.