From an Ex-Christian - My Big Objections to Christianity

[MrFrankZito]

As an atheist, naturally, I have many, many objections to Christianity.

Here are a few:

The Resurrection is scientifically impossible. When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered brain death. Brain death is defined as, "Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time." The key word in all that is "irreversible." Jesus could not have risen from the dead after dozens of hours, because Jesus could not have recovered from brain death. Certainly, no alleged witnesses attested to a brain-dead zombie roaming the streets.

Besides brain death, dead people suffer from other negative symptoms. After dozens of hours of being dead, Jesus would be a corpse with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin, and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells. Again, in that state, Jesus certainly would not be in any condition to roam. One of my major objections to Christianity, thus, is that The Resurrection story is scientifically impossible. Brain death, by definition, is irreversible; thus, upon suffering it, Jesus could not recover from it.

Another top objection of mine relates to Genesis, and the Bible’s overall take on the “creation” of the universe, Earth and human life. The scientific consensus is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, with an uncertainty of 200 million years. The age of the Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion years. This immediately contradicts with Genesis, which asserts, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” More than 9 billion years separate them. However, Genesis does not get any better.

Genesis’ creation account lists 10 major events in the following order. (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man. That’s entirely wrong.

“The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants.”
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html

Interpreting the word “day” to mean “millennium,” for instance, does not help at all. The timeline in Genesis is fundamentally incorrect.

With respect to evolution, the Bible’s account of “special creation” is entirely incompatible with science. Universal Common Descent is accepted by about 95% of scientists overall, and more than 99% of scientists who actually work in fields relevant to life origins, such as biology.

“Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.”
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

If you want proof of just how widely accepted the Theory of Evolution is, just read your local newspaper. Frequently, you will see references to “30-million-year-old fossils” or “200 million years ago.” Truly, there is no debate raging in the scientific community. The debate has ended, just as the debate has ended about whether the universe is geocentric or heliocentric. However, based upon a recent survey that demonstrated some 20% of adult Americans believe in the geocentric universe model, we can conclude that a fictitious debate about settled scientific issues indeed does rage on among those not educated in the relevant fields.

Acceptance of evolution does not necessarily go along with rejection of the Christian religion. However, acceptance of evolution, as well as acceptance of other settled science, does necessarily require rejection of Genesis. Genesis and science are wholly incompatible, from Genesis’ substantially incorrect natural timeline to Genesis’ omission of Universal Common Descent to explain the appearance of humans.

Recognizing the utter scientific impossibility of The Resurrection, however, does seem necessarily to include rejection of the Christian religion. If one accepts science, one rejects The Resurrection. If one rejects The Resurrection, how can one possibly accept Christianity? If any leap of faith among Christians absolutely is required, it surely is the tremendous leap of faith that Jesus rose from the dead after a few dozen hours as a corpse. However, that's a leap of faith one who accepts science cannot take.

At this point, many Christians will cite “miracles” to explain The Resurrection. That’s inappropriate. One cannot substantiate Unsubstantiated Assertion A by appealing to Unsubstantiated Phenomenon B. In other words, one cannot cite something that’s doubtful in order to explain something that’s doubtful. My classic analogy is this: One cannot cite “Unicorn Jockeys” in order to prove the legitimacy of “Unicorns.” To use one thing to substantiate another thing, a person first must demonstrate that one of the two entities is indeed legitimate. Certainly, The Resurrection is doubtful. Certainly, the concept of a “miracle” is doubtful. Thus, one may not be used to substantiate the other.

[slingblade]

No thanks, I'm full.

[Pauliesonne]

As an atheist, naturally, I have many, many objections to Christianity.

Here are a few:

The Resurrection is scientifically impossible. When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered brain death. Brain death is defined as, "Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time." The key word in all that is "irreversible." Jesus could not have risen from the dead after dozens of hours, because Jesus could not have recovered from brain death. Certainly, no alleged witnesses attested to a brain-dead zombie roaming the streets.

Besides brain death, dead people suffer from other negative symptoms. After dozens of hours of being dead, Jesus would be a corpse with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin, and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells. Again, in that state, Jesus certainly would not be in any condition to roam. One of my major objections to Christianity, thus, is that The Resurrection story is scientifically impossible. Brain death, by definition, is irreversible; thus, upon suffering it, Jesus could not recover from it.

Another top objection of mine relates to Genesis, and the Bible’s overall take on the “creation” of the universe, Earth and human life. The scientific consensus is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, with an uncertainty of 200 million years. The age of the Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion years. This immediately contradicts with Genesis, which asserts, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” More than 9 billion years separate them. However, Genesis does not get any better.

Genesis’ creation account lists 10 major events in the following order. (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man. That’s entirely wrong.

“The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants.”
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html

Interpreting the word “day” to mean “millennium,” for instance, does not help at all. The timeline in Genesis is fundamentally incorrect.

With respect to evolution, the Bible’s account of “special creation” is entirely incompatible with science. Universal Common Descent is accepted by about 95% of scientists overall, and more than 99% of scientists who actually work in fields relevant to life origins, such as biology.

“Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.”
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

If you want proof of just how widely accepted the Theory of Evolution is, just read your local newspaper. Frequently, you will see references to “30-million-year-old fossils” or “200 million years ago.” Truly, there is no debate raging in the scientific community. The debate has ended, just as the debate has ended about whether the universe is geocentric or heliocentric. However, based upon a recent survey that demonstrated some 20% of adult Americans believe in the geocentric universe model, we can conclude that a fictitious debate about settled scientific issues indeed does rage on among those not educated in the relevant fields.

Acceptance of evolution does not necessarily go along with rejection of the Christian religion. However, acceptance of evolution, as well as acceptance of other settled science, does necessarily require rejection of Genesis. Genesis and science are wholly incompatible, from Genesis’ substantially incorrect natural timeline to Genesis’ omission of Universal Common Descent to explain the appearance of humans.

Recognizing the utter scientific impossibility of The Resurrection, however, does seem necessarily to include rejection of the Christian religion. If one accepts science, one rejects The Resurrection. If one rejects The Resurrection, how can one possibly accept Christianity? If any leap of faith among Christians absolutely is required, it surely is the tremendous leap of faith that Jesus rose from the dead after a few dozen hours as a corpse. However, that's a leap of faith one who accepts science cannot take.

At this point, many Christians will cite “miracles” to explain The Resurrection. That’s inappropriate. One cannot substantiate Unsubstantiated Assertion A by appealing to Unsubstantiated Phenomenon B. In other words, one cannot cite something that’s doubtful in order to explain something that’s doubtful. My classic analogy is this: One cannot cite “Unicorn Jockeys” in order to prove the legitimacy of “Unicorns.” To use one thing to substantiate another thing, a person first must demonstrate that one of the two entities is indeed legitimate. Certainly, The Resurrection is doubtful. Certainly, the concept of a “miracle” is doubtful. Thus, one may not be used to substantiate the other.

Just to kick sand in the face of christianity even more the creation story and the ressurection story can be traced back through pre-biblical stories only with different settings different characters.

Thank you Michael Shermer!

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Just to kick sand in the face of christianity even more the creation story and the ressurection story can be traced back through pre-biblical stories only with different settings different characters.

Thank you Michael Shermer!

Apart from making endless inane comments you have now taken to quoting the entire text of long posts. Do you do this just to annoy people?

[Pauliesonne]

ah, you know you love me.......

[ImaginalDisc]

ah, you know you love me.......

All those who love pauliesonne, say "Aye".

I won't hold my breath.

[Pauliesonne]

God loves me.

( Damn, I crack myself up. )

[David Swidler]

The Genesis thing has been discussed a number of times in recent months on these boards (no comment on the Jesus bits of your essay; as a Jew I won't play the Christian apologist). The points you raise in the OP argue against a literal reading of the creation narrative, but that's not necessarily the prevailing view among believers - in fact even absent the scientific evidence the text is impossible to understand literally: a single river that splits into the far apart Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon and Pishon? What the hell is a "firmament" (a so-so translation of a vague Hebrew term)? These and plenty of other elements make the literal reading of the author's intent unlikely at best.

Regarding Pauliesonne's mention of existing mythologies, that's hardly news, and certainly wouldn't have been to Genesis's initial audience. The author(s) could easily have consciously invoked preexisting cultural references, much as an American might sprinkle his speech with baseball or football references requiring explanation to those unfamiliar with the culture.

[Carn]

The arguments against genesis only help against fundamentalist christians, most others do not take the literal meaning.
E.g. the vatikan has a observatory somewhere near rome, though many working there are priest or something like that, all have studied astronomy or related things, so they certainly do not believe genesis to be literal and the pope doesn't believe either, otherwise he wouldn't pay them.

As an atheist, naturally, I have many, many objections to Christianity.

Here are a few:

The Resurrection is scientifically impossible. When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered brain death. Brain death is defined as, "Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time." The key word in all that is "irreversible." Jesus could not have risen from the dead after dozens of hours, because Jesus could not have recovered from brain death. Certainly, no alleged witnesses attested to a brain-dead zombie roaming the streets.

Besides brain death, dead people suffer from other negative symptoms. After dozens of hours of being dead, Jesus would be a corpse with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin, and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells. Again, in that state, Jesus certainly would not be in any condition to roam. One of my major objections to Christianity, thus, is that The Resurrection story is scientifically impossible. Brain death, by definition, is irreversible; thus, upon suffering it, Jesus could not recover from it.



I think this argument is faulty.
We are close to being able to clone somebody.
One day we might be able to copy the contents of a brain to another similar one.
So we might be able to one day copy a brain right before death into a clone.
This is true resurection, as according to science 2 things are identical, when there is no difference and here there would be no difference, same body, same genes, same brain, same memory and behaviour.

If we are one day able to resurect someone, then it is a safe assumption, that a creature, that created the universe is able to do it as well.

The real weak point of christianity is of course the assumption of such a creature in the first place.

Carn

[ChristineR]

None of your points correspond to my objections to Christianity. The whole point of the resurrection is that it was a demonstration of God's power to do something that cannot be done under normal circumstances. Plus, there are several non-supernatural explanations to the story, which could support the claim that the story is accurately reported, but confuse the whole question of what it all means.

Despite what it seems, the majority of Christians accept evolution and the basic beliefs concerning the cosmological timeline. They just believe God had a hand in it. The creation story if read literally simply makes God look like an idiot. If read symbolically, it has profound insight into the nature of the human animal and our transition into self-aware beings driven by abstract thought.

[Beerina]

None of your points correspond to my objections to Christianity. The whole point of the resurrection is that it was a demonstration of God's power to do something that cannot be done under normal circumstances. Plus, there are several non-supernatural explanations to the story, which could support the claim that the story is accurately reported, but confuse the whole question of what it all means.

I recall an observation made about Christians pointing out how this or that conjunction of planets could have made a bright star over Bethlehem -- there is no need to do this if it were a miracle. If God intervened in the laws of physics and changed things, the sky is the limit. Hence he could repair dead and decaying cells, remove bacteria or blowfly maggots, etc. and literally resurrect someone.

No need to presume such an event actually happened, when there were any number of similar stories floating around at the time. Heck, in 90 AD or some such there was some emperor who basically was laying claim to the exact same feats as Jesus -- rising from the dead after three days, etc. There's no need to presume Jesus even actually existed, much less the common skeptic viewpoint that he did exist, but was just another preacher and rabblerouser who got axed for threatening the Romans too much.

Despite what it seems, the majority of Christians accept evolution and the basic beliefs concerning the cosmological timeline. They just believe God had a hand in it. The creation story if read literally simply makes God look like an idiot. If read symbolically, it has profound insight into the nature of the human animal and our transition into self-aware beings driven by abstract thought.

This is true, but figurative interpretations are a rather modern convenience. Through most of history, and certainly originally, the stories were intended as literal. How did Mankind get created? Women and men as different? Why are there different languages? Here's why...

And even modern re-interpretations, like eon-long days for god, don't match up with the order of things since thinks actually occured, nor are these days even remotely proportional to one another, again casting doubt on it even as a proverbial story.

So if it's not even that, then what is it? Why is it there? What is it supposed to teach? And isn't its design flawed if it's so easy for people to misinterpret?

[Pauliesonne]

Regarding Pauliesonne's mention of existing mythologies, that's hardly news, and certainly wouldn't have been to Genesis's initial audience. The author(s) could easily have consciously invoked preexisting cultural references, much as an American might sprinkle his speech with baseball or football references requiring explanation to those unfamiliar with the culture.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1457354#post1457354

[ChristineR]

I recall an observation made about Christians pointing out how this or that conjunction of planets could have made a bright star over Bethlehem -- there is no need to do this if it were a miracle. If God intervened in the laws of physics and changed things, the sky is the limit. Hence he could repair dead and decaying cells, remove bacteria or blowfly maggots, etc. and literally resurrect someone.

No need to presume such an event actually happened, when there were any number of similar stories floating around at the time. Heck, in 90 AD or some such there was some emperor who basically was laying claim to the exact same feats as Jesus -- rising from the dead after three days, etc. There's no need to presume Jesus even actually existed, much less the common skeptic viewpoint that he did exist, but was just another preacher and rabblerouser who got axed for threatening the Romans too much.



This is true, but figurative interpretations are a rather modern convenience. Through most of history, and certainly originally, the stories were intended as literal. How did Mankind get created? Women and men as different? Why are there different languages? Here's why...

And even modern re-interpretations, like eon-long days for god, don't match up with the order of things since thinks actually occured, nor are these days even remotely proportional to one another, again casting doubt on it even as a proverbial story.

So if it's not even that, then what is it? Why is it there? What is it supposed to teach? And isn't its design flawed if it's so easy for people to misinterpret?


Just because these stories are myths doesn't make them worthless from a literary or a moral standpoint. And the fact that there are other similar myths out there doesn't change the fact that these myths are the ones that still play important parts in millions of lives, that these myths are the ones that transformed European civilization. No one is worshipping all the other Roman rabble rousers, even the ones that were resurrected by the Gods after wrongful cruxification.

[Pauliesonne]

Just because these stories are myths doesn't make them worthless from a literary or a moral standpoint. And the fact that there are other similar myths out there doesn't change the fact that these myths are the ones that still play important parts in millions of lives, that these myths are the ones that transformed European civilization. No one is worshipping all the other Roman rabble rousers, even the ones that were resurrected by the Gods after wrongful cruxification.

Moral standpoint? I live by own morals and I think I do a pretty good job. I do not need a fictional god to tell me otherwise.

Just because these myths still play important parts in millions of lives means nothing if they're fictional.
But then again, some people need these beliefs like some children need to believe in Santa Claus.

oh, and just because these myths are the ones that transformed European civilization means bull!

[Pauliesonne]

None of your points correspond to my objections to Christianity. The whole point of the resurrection is that it was a demonstration of God's power to do something that cannot be done under normal circumstances. Plus, there are several non-supernatural explanations to the story, which could support the claim that the story is accurately reported, but confuse the whole question of what it all means.

Despite what it seems, the majority of Christians accept evolution and the basic beliefs concerning the cosmological timeline. They just believe God had a hand in it. The creation story if read literally simply makes God look like an idiot. If read symbolically, it has profound insight into the nature of the human animal and our transition into self-aware beings driven by abstract thought.

It doesn't make God an idiot.

It makes God fictional.

But if you want to go down the other route and say the fossils were placed there by satan, then we can go down Shermer's / Callahan's route.

But that's just me.

[Pauliesonne]

The arguments against genesis only help against fundamentalist christians, most others do not take the literal meaning.
E.g. the vatikan has a observatory somewhere near rome, though many working there are priest or something like that, all have studied astronomy or related things, so they certainly do not believe genesis to be literal and the pope doesn't believe either, otherwise he wouldn't pay them.



Carn



The " job " of the pope was created in private with no " ordinary " people watching.

Now, is it me or is that a little troubling.

[drkitten]

It doesn't make God an idiot.

It makes God fictional.

No more than the burning cakes story makes Alfred the Great fictional, or the chopping down a cherry tree story makes George Washington fictional, or the recantation on his deathbed story makes Charles Darwin fictional.

[ChristineR]

Moral standpoint? I live by own morals and I think I do a pretty good job. I do not need a fictional god to tell me otherwise.

Just because these myths still play important parts in millions of lives means nothing if they're fictional.
But then again, some people need these beliefs like some children need to believe in Santa Claus.

oh, and just because these myths are the ones that transformed European civilization means bull!


That's a pretty out there stance. Just because you have morals doesn't mean that you can't benefit from studying the moral viewpoints of millions of people, many of whom I'm sure were smarter than me.

[ChristineR]

It doesn't make God an idiot.

It makes God fictional.

But if you want to go down the other route and say the fossils were placed there by satan, then we can go down Shermer's / Callahan's route.

But that's just me.

I have to echo kittennh here. I really don't see how you jump from "the Bible is largely symbolic" to "God doesn't exist." And I really, really don't see where you are going with the "Satan buried the fossils idea." It isn't really a popular idea even among fundalmentalists. The majority of Christians believe that Satan had nothing to do with fossils, that God created the man via evolution, and that the Bible was written by men and contains symbolic, not literal truths.

I also don't see your points about Shermer and Callahan. Neither believes the fossils were buried by Satan.

[Pauliesonne]

Christianity is a moral viewpoint that promotes intolerance and bigotry and what makes it even worse is the fact it is based on a fictional god.

I do not want to be influenced by that moral viewpoint.

[Pauliesonne]

I have to echo kittennh here. I really don't see how you jump from "the Bible is largely symbolic" to "God doesn't exist." And I really, really don't see where you are going with the "Satan buried the fossils idea." It isn't really a popular idea even among fundalmentalists. The majority of Christians believe that Satan had nothing to do with fossils, that God created the man via evolution, and that the Bible was written by men and contains symbolic, not literal truths.

I also don't see your points about Shermer and Callahan. Neither believes the fossils were buried by Satan.

I did not mean that Shermer and Callahan believed that, so I apologise.

[Genesius]

Christianity is a moral viewpoint that promotes intolerance and bigotry and what makes it even worse is the fact it is based on a fictional god.

I do not want to be influenced by that moral viewpoint.

As much as it galls me to come in on the side of the believers. . .

You have proof the Christian God is fictional? The way your post is phrased seems to indicate a statement of fact rather than expressing an opinion, so I hope you have evidence to back it up.

[Pauliesonne]

I'll rather not risk sounding like a Jack***, so I submit to you and admit I do not have, as you so amply put it, evidence to back it up.

[Genesius]

OK. As it happens, I think you're probably right. But, this being a skeptics board when someone makes a claim like that I've just got to ask for evidence.

I dunno, maybe I've been reading too many of Claus' posts. He's rubbing off on me. I have been noticing a strange desire to wear helmets with large horns. . .

;)

[gnome]

Weak points--the ressurection may be scientifically impossible, but there are no Christians I am aware of that claim it happened scientifically. The "miracle" idea doesn't substantiate the resurrection... it merely is a description of how believers think it happened. There is no inherent contradiction in believing a supernatural force ressurected Jesus.

[MrFrankZito]

I think this argument is faulty.
We are close to being able to clone somebody.
One day we might be able to copy the contents of a brain to another similar one.
So we might be able to one day copy a brain right before death into a clone.
This is true resurection, as according to science 2 things are identical, when there is no difference and here there would be no difference, same body, same genes, same brain, same memory and behaviour.

If we are one day able to resurect someone, then it is a safe assumption, that a creature, that created the universe is able to do it as well.

The real weak point of christianity is of course the assumption of such a creature in the first place.

Citing God is a non-explanation, just like citing "miracles" is a non-explanation.

God is doubtful.
Miracles are doubtful.

Thus, neither can be used to substantiate something else that's doubtful.

Despite what it seems, the majority of Christians accept evolution and the basic beliefs concerning the cosmological timeline. They just believe God had a hand in it.

I disagree. I don't even think a majority of Americans accept evolution. Based upon public opinion polls, I believe Creationism still narrowly wins out. However, among scientists, particularly relevant scientists, creationists represent only a few tenths of a percentage point.

Weak points--the ressurection may be scientifically impossible, but there are no Christians I am aware of that claim it happened scientifically. The "miracle" idea doesn't substantiate the resurrection... it merely is a description of how believers think it happened. There is no inherent contradiction in believing a supernatural force ressurected Jesus.

The burden of proof is on those who claim miracles exist or the supernatural exists. Until I see convincing evidence, I'll presume non-existence, just as I do for Chinese-speaking pink elephants. It makes perfect logical sense to presume non-existence in the absence of evidence indicating existence.

[Pauliesonne]

I hate to repeat myself, but the ressurection story has beeen told in pre-biblical times only with different settings and different characters.

So in retrospect, at least in my pov, the whole Jesus rises from the dead thang means nothing.

But ofcourse, just like David Swidler suggested the writers of the bible may have basically plagarized the stories before them to make it easier for the people to understand.

Personally, I don't buy his explanation and that's not because I can't stand the thought of christians stretching the bible even FURTHER to reconcile their faith!

[ChristineR]

I don't even think a majority of Americans accept evolution. Based upon public opinion polls, I believe Creationism still narrowly wins out. However, among scientists, particularly relevant scientists, creationists represent only a few tenths of a percentage point.

Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)are some numbers. These surveys are easy to rig depending on how you ask the questions, and there's no doubt that American Christians are more creationist than Christians worldwide. I delibrately did not specifiy American Christians.

[Carn]

Citing God is a non-explanation, just like citing "miracles" is a non-explanation.

God is doubtful.
Miracles are doubtful.

Thus, neither can be used to substantiate something else that's doubtful.



It's simply a matter of assumption.

One can assume, that all missing items are stolen by fairies, living and hiding in the woods. The logic consequences would be searching for lost items in the woods, video surveillance of woods, going there and threatening the fairies(who you cannot see as they are hiding) verbally to give the stolen items back and then as last consequence burn all woods, so the fairies die with them and items are no longer "lost".

If one attacks the idea, that the items are stolen by fairies, e.g. the fairies could not have stolen all things, as some were locked away, therefore stealing fairies do not exist, the believers can just adjust or only specify the assumption(e.g. no mentioning of fairy size, so they are simply small enough to get into locks and open them from inside).
So nothing is gained.

If the assumption, that some (all)powerful and (all)knowing universe creator exists, then it is logical, that he might be able to perform the resurection feature .

It is always this, that with the right set of assumptions, any consequence will be a logical conclusion of that assumptions. Then the only possible attack can be upon the assumptions.

Take Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as an further example - as far as i read it, i could see an unwritten set of assumptions there. The logical conclusions of those assumptions were WW2 and Holocaust.

Carn

[Beerina]

No more than the burning cakes story makes Alfred the Great fictional, or the chopping down a cherry tree story makes George Washington fictional, or the recantation on his deathbed story makes Charles Darwin fictional.

People aren't burned at the stake because they claim that Geo. Washington was real but that the cherry tree story was a bunch of BS.

[Beerina]

I don't think it's so much plagiarizing stories in the modern sense. It'd be more like followers of Scientology seeing the George Washing cherry tree story, liking it, then claiming L. Ron Hubbard actually chopped down two apple trees and a cherry tree, gave the wood to the poor, then refused to lie about it.

I.e. Inhale the story, modify it a little (deliberately or just story drift as word of mouth had it travel) then re-apply to your local hero.

The existence of four different gospels (official) and many others not considered canonical shows how stories floating around at the time got copied and modified and diverged in the space of 50 years. That they are all consistent, inspired Word of God is the Monday morning quarterbacking on a very real, well-studied process in this and many other ancient writings.

[Iacchus]

As an atheist, naturally, I have many, many objections to Christianity.So long as they don't bang me over the head with it, I couldn't care less.

[elliotfc]

Frank Zito, as a Christian...frankly, your points are overwhelming. I might have to stop being a Christian. I'll sleep on this, and get back to you tomorrow. I liked the brain-dead zombie bit too.

-Elliot

[gnome]

I disagree. I don't even think a majority of Americans accept evolution. Based upon public opinion polls, I believe Creationism still narrowly wins out. However, among scientists, particularly relevant scientists, creationists represent only a few tenths of a percentage point.
I think that the results may depend on how it is phrased. If asked simply, "Do you believe in Evolution?" years of propaganda about humans inexplicably descending from apes triggers a rejection buzzer in many people.

Ask if they think that complex life forms developed from simpler ones over billions of years of natural selection, and you'll probably get a yes. Ask if they think humans are a part of that process, and you'll probably get more "yes" than if you call it "evolution".

[elliotfc]

I hate to repeat myself, but the ressurection story has beeen told in pre-biblical times only with different settings and different characters.

No, there are notable differences, and I'll be happy to walk you through them in another thread if you'd like.

Also...let's say we read a story about...let's say a war. There's a war. One king leads his army against another king's army. Now, a person could say "Well, I've heard that story before! An army vs. another army? Poppycock! Somebody told that story once, and then everybody just copied the story!"

Similarities between narratives do not mean that the later narratives were re-tellings of earlier narratives. To me, personally, the question isn't whether or not religious narratives are similar. My God, they could hardly be radically and essentially different, could they? The question is whether or not the narratives are true or not.

Citing similarites to confirm the already maintained position that the narrative is a complete myth just proves the already held bias. Because you can very well recognize similarites and not believe that events were merely copied. Leibnitz and Newton developed the calculus separately, they didn't copy from each other, even though we recognize the similarities today.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Citing God is a non-explanation, just like citing "miracles" is a non-explanation.

It is an explanation actually, your moral/intellectual sense considers it to be a vacant explanation I reckon, but it is an explanation for many people who aren't you.

God is doubtful.
Miracles are doubtful.

Thus, neither can be used to substantiate something else that's doubtful.

I can follow your internal logic; if you postulate that God and miracles are doubtful, you are correct.

I don't even think a majority of Americans accept evolution. Based upon public opinion polls, I believe Creationism still narrowly wins out. However, among scientists, particularly relevant scientists, creationists represent only a few tenths of a percentage point.

I think people's understanding of what evolution is, and how the general mechanism *explains* the history of biotic life on earth varies. Also, like someone else pointed out, there are straw horses which people equate with meaning evolution. I don't put a lot of stock into these polls, because evolution means a million things to a million people.

The burden of proof is on those who claim miracles exist or the supernatural exists. Until I see convincing evidence, I'll presume non-existence, just as I do for Chinese-speaking pink elephants. It makes perfect logical sense to presume non-existence in the absence of evidence indicating existence.

The thing about Chinese-speaking pink elephants...I've never seen anyone claim to have interacted with one.

The only reason I ever seriously reconsidered Christianity is that people claimed to have interacted with the resurrected Christ. Their behavior, martyrdoms, etc., are suggestive to me. That you had to create the concept of "Chinese-speaking pink elephants" indicates to me that you have no interest in the reported interactions between humans and the...out-of-the-ordinary. That's on you...but maybe you can consider looking at it from a non-dogmatic point of view.

-Elliot

[geetarmoore]

No, there are notable differences, and I'll be happy to walk you through them in another thread if you'd like.

Also...let's say we read a story about...let's say a war. There's a war. One king leads his army against another king's army. Now, a person could say "Well, I've heard that story before! An army vs. another army? Poppycock! Somebody told that story once, and then everybody just copied the story!"

Similarities between narratives do not mean that the later narratives were re-tellings of earlier narratives. To me, personally, the question isn't whether or not religious narratives are similar. My God, they could hardly be radically and essentially different, could they? The question is whether or not the narratives are true or not.

Citing similarites to confirm the already maintained position that the narrative is a complete myth just proves the already held bias. Because you can very well recognize similarites and not believe that events were merely copied. Leibnitz and Newton developed the calculus separately, they didn't copy from each other, even though we recognize the similarities today.


-Elliot


The similarities between the narratives aren't the only point of evidence used to debunk religious claims. They are but a very small piece of a rather large network of problems.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
No, there are notable differences, and I'll be happy to walk you through them in another thread if you'd like.
Wasn’t the whole resurrection story supposed to show Big Daddy’s power over death?

The only reason I ever seriously reconsidered Christianity is that people claimed to have interacted with the resurrected Christ. Their behavior, martyrdoms, etc., are suggestive to me. In that case why don’t you follow Islam? Their last representative of god was much more in your face and had thousands of followers that went out and spread his message.

Or to put it another way, people going out and doing stupid things, like dying for their beliefs in a nonexistent entity, does not make their beliefs correct. If you want a more up-to-date example look at soccer hooligans.
‘Oh no, our team lost. Let’s go riot!’
or
‘Yea! Our team won! Let’s go riot!’
The point is that people are going to do/say/believe stupid things for a variety of reasons.

Ossai

[geetarmoore]

The only reason I ever seriously reconsidered Christianity is that people claimed to have interacted with the resurrected Christ.
-Elliot

Historical proof?

Were any writings made at the time of the supposed event?

Why didn't 'Mark' know about the interaction with the resurrected Christ?

[geetarmoore]

You have proof the Christian God is fictional? The way your post is phrased seems to indicate a statement of fact rather than expressing an opinion, so I hope you have evidence to back it up.


I think the proof is rather apparent that the God of the Jews is fictional. I'd say that the proof of this non-existence is right in the bible, once you combine, compare and contrast what is in it with the actual historical and archeological record.

The evidence for the fictional of the Christian part of that God (JC) is rapidly beginning to gain favor. Based on my study of both Christian apologists and Mythicicst scholars, the mythicists have answers, logical theories and written historical evidence, while the apologists seem to have boatloads of excuses.

Can proof only come in the form of a smoking gun? A lost letter from Peter saying... "I made it all up!", perhaps?

I don't think so. I am an atheist when it comes to the Judeo/Christian God, because all of the evidence points to proof. If not, I'd be an agnostic.

It's much the same way we know evolution to be fact. Evolution doesn't have a 'smoking' gun - it just has piles and piles of evidence that all points toward evolution being the correct answer.

[LW]

Heck, in 90 AD or some such there was some emperor who basically was laying claim to the exact same feats as Jesus -- rising from the dead after three days, etc.

I'm honestly interested in this claim. Could you tell which emperor of which empire and what the source for this is?

Though, I suspect that this is a corruption of the event that Suetonius told about Vespasianus:
Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success.

[elliotfc]

The similarities between the narratives aren't the only point of evidence used to debunk religious claims. They are but a very small piece of a rather large network of problems.

Fair enough.

Has everyone heard about the fictional tale about the "Titan"? The similarities between it, and the Titanic, are absolutely stunning, and the story pre-dates the Titanic. Of course, that doesn't make the Titanic a contrived event. 'twas my only point.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Historical proof?

The reality is there were no newspapers back then. The writings that are extent are almost exclusively the results of archives from scholars or religious scribes...and these people weren't day-to-day reporters. They wouldn't get around to copying things until they reached a certain level of...hindsight importance I guess. And it shouldn't be surprising that people who wrote accounts for a living wouldn't have written about this. They were paid either by the state, or by rich sponsors, and the things they wrote about would appeal to the people paying them.

I can't give you the historical proof as you're thinking about it because that was a completely different time. We don't have eye-witness accounts of anything that happened before people existed. You do what you can. We don't have historical proof for 99.99% of the things that happened around that time.

Were any writings made at the time of the supposed event?

Probably, or, certainly. Personal letters or correspondences. But until they reached the hands of people who made it their lives to copy them over and over again...

There was no understanding that historical documentation had to be made. Why would it occur to them? The earliest Christians were Jews, Jews were not spread throughout the whole world but extremely localized, the Gospel was apparently most effectively spread by having one of the Twelve going, in person, from town to town, delivering the message in person. As difficult as it may be for someone living today to believe, the need for historical documentation to satisfy people living hundreds/thousands of years later could not have been farther from their minds.

Anyhow, they date 1 Thessalonians between 50-55 AD. They date mark 65-70 AD. It's believed that Mark had, besides Peter (he's thought to be a disciple of Peter) documents that he referred to in writing the gospel.

Why didn't 'Mark' know about the interaction with the resurrected Christ?

This may (or may not) have something to do with the "Messianic Secret" motif in Mark.

There are many theories about the ending of Mark. -Elliot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

[elliotfc]

I think the proof is rather apparent that the God of the Jews is fictional.

Given your personal standards and working postulates, it's probably more than rather apparent.

I'd say that the proof of this non-existence is right in the bible, once you combine, compare and contrast what is in it with the actual historical and archeological record.

Personally, studying the history and the archaeology led me to take the OT seriously. But that's just me.

The evidence for the fictional of the Christian part of that God (JC) is rapidly beginning to gain favor.

I'm not sure this is correct (do you have any poll/data for this assertion)?

When you have 6 billion people on the planet, you will always appear to have more and more people picking up certain theories...sheer numbers will drive that.

I do agree that more and more Christians, in the West, appear to be interested in either alternative/conspiratorial theories regarding the bible. But I don't know how much of that is based on *evidence*. It has to do with secular pop culture (the DaVinci Code fad) and the negligible authority of the western churches.

Based on my study of both Christian apologists and Mythicicst scholars, the mythicists have answers, logical theories and written historical evidence, while the apologists seem to have boatloads of excuses.

The excuse would be directed to what is perceived to be an unfair standard. If you have the standard, you will perceive it as an excuse. At the very least it is an explanation, and the word excuse is not inherently negative. If it addresses the question, it is what it is.

Can proof only come in the form of a smoking gun? A lost letter from Peter saying... "I made it all up!", perhaps?

The bones of Jesus maybe, but it's tough to imagine the scenario where they would appear, or, the faithful would see it as a sure-fire illegitimate hoax.

It's probably very difficult to understand that the typical religious believer is satisfied with what they have. You would explain this away by pointing out certain deficiencies in the believer. These deficiencies...well, they certainly aren't Darwinian or evolutionary. They don't affect lifespan or reproductive fitness. Do they affect personal contentment happiness? Probably or certainly. How does this fit in with the *direction* that humanity is going? Tough to say. The direction is always forward (chronological reality); progression or regression are loaded and pre-determined classifications. Is it a question of intelligence? Maybe, maybe not. You don't have to be intelligent to accept the postulates and standards of the standard skeptic. Actually, I don't see how it's intellectually difficult to accept the postulates and standards of the standard skeptic...they are not difficult to appreciate, they are not unreasonable, etc.

That the gospels or the messages of the Bible satisfy many people is rather obvious. That they don't satisfy other people is also obvious. If it's oblivion after our life-span, it really doesn't matter I guess. Unless it does. That would be up to the individual.

Anyhow...you're wondering what would be the proof to prove non-existence. The things I come up with would be viewed skeptically (believers can be skeptical as well you know).

I do think that as time goes on, it will be generally harder and harder to accept the gospels. If humanity continues for another...8000 years...I find it difficult to believe that Christianity will be a major philosophical/religious institution. There are 2 billion Christians...that's a third of the population...maybe only half of those are true, dogmatic believers (Jesus was God/died/rose, attend church every week or frequently, take the bible seriously). Who knows.

It's much the same way we know evolution to be fact. Evolution doesn't have a 'smoking' gun - it just has piles and piles of evidence that all points toward evolution being the correct answer.

*Everybody* believes in evolution, defined in a billion different ways.

-Elliot

[Riddick]

Recognizing the utter scientific impossibility of The Resurrection...you sound like a very discerning atheist. im certain that you present a mind numbing case, not matter what that case may be.

[elliotfc]

you sound like a very discerning atheist. im certain that you present a mind numbing case, not matter what that case may be.

'sup Riddick!

Some people think that objective reality is limited to what science can explain. That is a personal choice, a deficiency we should look at sympathetically. I think God looks at it sympathetically as well.

Objective reality existed before science, and is completely independent of science. Inflating science to subjugate objective reality by dogmatic decree is mere intellectual authoritarianism. I say *mere* because it's useless beyond individual intellectual satisfaction. Once we die, it means nothing.

-Elliot

[gnome]

Some people think that objective reality is limited to what science can explain. That is a personal choice, a deficiency we should look at sympathetically. I think God looks at it sympathetically as well.

Objective reality existed before science, and is completely independent of science. Inflating science to subjugate objective reality by dogmatic decree is mere intellectual authoritarianism. I say *mere* because it's useless beyond individual intellectual satisfaction. Once we die, it means nothing.

-Elliot

It's a good thing there are so very few that actually believe this. I think you perceive the belief where it doesn't exist.

Show of hands, anyone who thinks that objective reality is subjugated by science?

[Jekyll]

It's a good thing there are so very few that actually believe this. I think you perceive the belief where it doesn't exist.

Show of hands, anyone who thinks that objective reality is subjugated by science?
My hand is up, but not up in objective reality, unless it's been verified by repeated measurements.:covereyes