120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm not sure we're more intelligent considering how many people are voting for Trump.

 

[skepticalbip]

Also, we can't leave out plants and rocks. A roach is superior to a rock. Life forms are superior to non-life forms.

"Higher life form" is an illusion based on arbitrary definitions of "higher."

No, we can define this objectively. One clear criterion for "higher" vs. "lower" is that the "higher" forms are less expendable. I.e., we have to give higher priority to their welfare than to the "lower" forms.

"Less expendable" is a rather odd criterion to determine "superiority" but let's assume that it is valid. This would make humanity one of the less "superior" species. Eliminate humanity (or even all the great apes) and all other life on Earth would get along fine. Eliminate all bacteria and all other life on Earth would suffer greatly if not vanish. Does this make bacteria the most superior form of life on the planet? Bacteria is certainly one of the least expendable.

But then if you want to include rocks and dirt then they are much less expendable. Without them there would be no Earth for any living things to live on.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm not sure we're more intelligent considering how many people are voting for Trump.

It is worse than that. Although ~40% of voters think Trump is great, ~40% think Hillary is great. The remaining ~20% are the only ones thinking WTF... this election is like being given the choice of contracting either leprosy or AIDS.

 

[abaddon]

One clear criterion for "higher" vs. "lower" is that the "higher" forms are less expendable. I.e., we have to give higher priority to their welfare than to the "lower" forms.

There are microbial organisms whose disappearance would kill off a lot of other life. If phytoplankton ceased to exist, so would much of the life in the oceans. In comparison, the extinction of humans would inconvenience maybe a parasite or two. Life in general would flourish better.

Humans are about as expendable as it gets. Anthropocentric valuation (“value this tidbit a lot, these few others some, the rest not much at all”) is one of the things humans do to make ourselves worse than expendable but actually a menace.

We don't know for sure what the highest life form is, but the highest we know of is whatever Power or Entity Jesus Christ was connected to. Just based on empirical evidence or historical evidence, that's the highest our species has encountered.

More devaluing nonhuman nature. The highest is invisible and not of this world...

When theism is not valued, there is greater hope for life. That’s a good reason to reject Christianity.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Humans have the highest value, apes a little less, zebras a little less, frogs a little less, etc.

Also, we can't leave out plants and rocks. A roach is superior to a rock. Life forms are superior to non-life forms.

"Higher life form" is an illusion based on arbitrary definitions of "higher."

No, we can define this objectively. One clear criterion for "higher" vs. "lower" is that the "higher" forms are less expendable. I.e., we have to give higher priority to their welfare than to the "lower" forms.

"Less expendable" is a rather odd criterion to determine "superiority" but let's assume that it is valid. This would make humanity one of the less "superior" species.

OK, "expendable" might be the wrong word. I mean that we all agree that some species have to be protected in preference to others.

I.e., it's OK to kill an ant or a fly. But it's not OK to kill a dog, or a horse. We have rules giving preference to some animals over others, and highest on this preference list are the humans. Not because we're human, but because humans have the greatest value of all the animals we know of.

If you don't agree, then you must mean that it should be a crime to kill a mouse or a lizard, just as it is a crime to kill a human. As long as you agree that we must protect some animals more than other, and we agree mostly on the hierarchy, then you are agreeing with me about some animals, like horses or pandas or bald eagles having more value than rodents or insects, etc. And that humans are at the top of the list.

Eliminate humanity (or even all the great apes) and all other life on Earth would get along fine.

The world would be worse without the humans. This would be a change for the worse. Humans have much greater value. You can make reasonable arguments about some fewer humans, in a sense, but the total elimination of the human species would be a great loss, or a harm. (If there is such a thing as "harm.")

You agree with this, even if you deny it. You would try to prevent the elimination of the human species, not just because you're human, but because you know this would be bad in the objective sense that there is such a thing as anything "bad."

Eliminate all bacteria and all other life on Earth would suffer greatly if not vanish.

For the sake of other superior life forms it would be bad to eliminate all the bacteria. But the bacteria have little value for their own sake. Rabbits and monkeys and squirrels have much greater value than bacteria, for their own sake.

But you're right that bacteria are needed for the sake of other higher life forms. But not for their own sake.

Does this make bacteria the most superior form of life on the planet?

No, because they have little or no value for their own sake. They are valuable only as a means to an end, i.e., for the survival of other life forms which are superior to bacteria.

Bacteria is certainly one of the least expendable.

But you're just obsessing on the word "expendable" which might not have been the best word to use. The point is that we have to protect the higher life forms, because it's right, or because these have greater value in and for themselves, and less as a means to an end. But all animals in the "hierarchy" also have a "means-to-an-end" value as well as the "end-in-itself" value.

This has to be true, because otherwise it makes no sense to say we have to protect pandas or giraffes or bald eagles, but not ants.

But then if you want to include rocks and dirt then they are much less expendable. Without them there would be no Earth for any living things to live on.

Again, their value is totally as a means-to-an-end. Even as objects of beauty to observe, they are valuable only to the observer. So rocks and dirt have no value for their own sake.

 

[Learner]

Quibbling over about 7-10 years of difference on the date GMark was written is irrelevant. The vast majority of consensus is 70 AD, placing it roughly 40 years removed from the events in question. However the part of this post with which I most strenuously object is Lumpenproletariat's habit of baselessly asserting things like "Mark ... were on similar missions." Since we have no clue who wrote this book, much less whether it was the result of a single author or a collaborative work of a group, making unsupported claims like this and then using them as a foundation for an entire line of argumentation is a waste of everyone's time.

I have no problem with 70 AD but the difference 7-10 years was just a mention in passing but 'yes', it was irrelevant. So even if we are to say there have been collaborative contributing efforts by those in the company of the main author credited . This was still accepted as Marks gospel (he put together) according to those who 'acknowledged' him, the early church and writings from other apostles.

In reply to the previous. I was just explaining why it may not neccessarily be ' impossible' for Mark to end up thousand of miles away in Rome and write his gospels. Prior to his writings ,there was time enough (on his mission) to travel about before then.

The point of the post to which Lumpenproletariat was responding was that GMark is not presented as a documentary, especially as one similar to those Learner referenced in which interviews with people involved in wartime conflict were cited. I stand behind that statement.

Narrowing down to my point we see 'generally' that gospels of Jesus are often stated as; 'just suddenly appearing years later' after his death giving the 'false notion' that gospels appearing years later should therefore be understood to mean; 'All made up'. I was trying to demostrate about the development of the 'story' decades later using that analogy and the intention was not the presentation as that of a documentary.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, we can define this objectively. One clear criterion for "higher" vs. "lower" is that the "higher" forms are less expendable. I.e., we have to give higher priority to their welfare than to the "lower" forms.

OK, "expendable" might be the wrong word. I mean that we all agree that some species have to be protected in preference to others.

But 'expendable' was what you offered in your clear, and clearly ad hoc, 'objective' standard for determining higher life forms.

You're obviously just making shit up, again. You should stop trying to play when you're in over your head.

But you're just obsessing on the word "expendable" which might not have been the best word to use.

Lumpy, 'expendable' was critical to the objective definition YOU provided. You can't blame anyone else for pointing out the hole in your silly pretension towards science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We don't know for sure what the highest life form is, but the highest we know of is whatever Power or Entity Jesus Christ was connected to. Just based on empirical evidence or historical evidence, that's the highest our species has encountered.

Lumpy, the whole point of the argument is to prove that gods exist. If you're just going to assume that gods exist, why bother to plug that into the argument you're trying to support? It doesn't help to turn the argument into a presuppositionist fallacy.

 

[Atheos]

If we can't explain how the miracle stories emerged as fictions, then it's reasonable to believe they're true.

Several very reasonable scenarios have been presented in this thread that easily explain how these miracle stories emerged. Additionally, there are dozens of potential scenarios that haven't been presented. Pretending these explanations aren't reasonable demonstrates little else besides an inability to accept the truth. Lumpenproletariat offers nothing else besides fallacy riddled arguments with irrelevant criteria uniquely combined as if it somehow lends credence to this god-myth. It doesn't. Believers believe because charismatic people convinced them that it was true, not because there is evidence any of it is true. Produce evidence that doesn't amount to "someone said it, so I believe it" and we've got something to work with here.

Millions of miracle stories have been fabricated over the rich history of human endeavor. The ones that are testable always end up getting falsified. Some people inevitably believe the rest.

The god of parlor tricks is just something I do not find impressive. For that I will not apologize. If this neurotic god who is going to send a nice guy like me to hell simply because my skeptical nature finds these stories no more convincing that those presented by Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Scientologists so be it.

 

[Learner]

Which Mark is the real Mark? Was that Mark the Evangelist, or John Mark, or Mark the cousin of Barnabas, or even another Mark?

Yes there is speculative thought of there being more than one, since Mark was a common name. However the narrative relating to Rome fits all three of the above by associated relationships mentioned in other writings seperate from Mark.

Except that in court they don’t like people faking shit into the record, as it is called perjury. As with Mark, someone(s) didn’t like the ending so they added a better ending to fit in with the later Gospels. We have other instances where it is known that verses were tweaked to make things like the Trinity better substantiated. We don’t tend to like it when police add details to make the suspect look guiltier for good reason. It tends to reduce the credibility of the witness. Every church across the empire was claiming founding disciples and relics to bolster their perceived importance and status, not seeming to care about “honesty”. Some Christian(s) forged information into the writings of Josephus as they didn’t like Jesus being left out of his writings. It seems that the early followers of The Way acted just like all other humans….

Bolstering the perception of the 'belief' would understandably seem likey with the early church. Your description of bolstering the importance of status by a dishonesty may seem so but is more likely with some of much later denominations appearing after. It is acknowledged that Josephus mentioning Jesus is true according to a concensus of scholars, granted not accepted by all. Forgeries is misleading when applied here even when there is that one controversial noted area where he writes in good light and favour of Christianity bringing a natural cloud of suspicion to scholars.Even then this is not considered a forgery but rather an 'interpolation' according to scholars. Unlike his other mention of Jesus and Christians in the usual manner of dislike and unimportance.

 

[funinspace]

Yes there is speculative thought of there being more than one, since Mark was a common name. However the narrative relating to Rome fits all three of the above by associated relationships mentioned in other writings seperate from Mark.

The point is that the authorship is this weakly known. The Gospel assigned names are based upon tradition, not on some substantial paper trail.

Except that in court they don’t like people faking shit into the record, as it is called perjury. As with Mark, someone(s) didn’t like the ending so they added a better ending to fit in with the later Gospels. We have other instances where it is known that verses were tweaked to make things like the Trinity better substantiated. We don’t tend to like it when police add details to make the suspect look guiltier for good reason. It tends to reduce the credibility of the witness. Every church across the empire was claiming founding disciples and relics to bolster their perceived importance and status, not seeming to care about “honesty”. Some Christian(s) forged information into the writings of Josephus as they didn’t like Jesus being left out of his writings. It seems that the early followers of The Way acted just like all other humans….

Bolstering the perception of the 'belief' would understandably seem likey with the early church. Your description of bolstering the importance of status by a dishonesty may seem so but is more likely with some of much later denominations appearing after. It is acknowledged that Josephus mentioning Jesus is true according to a concensus of scholars, granted not accepted by all. Forgeries is misleading when applied here even when there is that one controversial noted area where he writes in good light and favour of Christianity bringing a natural cloud of suspicion to scholars.Even then this is not considered a forgery but rather an 'interpolation' according to scholars. Unlike his other mention of Jesus and Christians in the usual manner of dislike and unimportance.

One of Josephus' quotes is plausibly accurate, where he refers to the stoning of James the 'brother of Jesus the so-called Christ'. However, the more important one to Christians is most likely not. But it would be fun to see a real 'scholar poll' on it from people qualified to have a learned opinion...
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/is-this-mention-of-jesus-a-forgery

Josephus was certainly not a Christian, and so it is unlikely that he would have used phrases like, “if it be lawful to call him a man,” or “he was the Christ.” The majority of scholars of early Judaism and experts on the writings of Josephus believe this was likely touched-up by Christian scribes at a later time.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Does anything at all matter? If everything is suddenly annihilated, would that be bad?

There are microbial organisms whose disappearance would kill off a lot of other life. If phytoplankton ceased to exist, so would much of the life in the oceans. In comparison, the extinction of humans would inconvenience maybe a parasite or two. Life in general would flourish better.

But you're assuming it's good for life to "flourish better." What's good about that? What good are any life forms? What harm would it be to just eliminate ALL life and ALL objects and leave nothing at all?

If we assume something should exist at all, or that there is any such thing as "good" or anything that matters in the universe, then human life has the highest value of anything existing that we know of. This is a value in-itself, not as a means to preserving some other life form.

Those micro-organisms are valuable, but only as a means to promoting the interests of the higher life forms which depend on them. In themselves the microbes have little or no value. Their only value is as a means to an end.

Humans are about as expendable as it gets.

As a means to an end, maybe. But humans have the greatest value or superiority as something we have to protect in preference to other animals.

If you don't agree with this, then you are saying you would kill a human who is about to kill some ants, in order to protect the ants which have more value (being a larger number) than the human. And yet you have no problem with a human killing the ants, because you consider the humans to be superior to the ants.

And similarly you consider a dog or cat to be superior to the ants, and would give priority to their lives over the ants.

Anthropocentric valuation (“value this tidbit a lot, these few others some, the rest not much at all”) is one of the things humans do to make ourselves worse than expendable but actually a menace.

If you really believed this, you'd have to say it's good for you to be killed by someone, to eliminate you as a menace.

Our enjoyment or pleasure has value which is greater than that of the lower animals. You practice this, as we all do. We don't sacrifice our interests for theirs, in the sense of giving them equal value to ourselves. We kill them as necessary, such as pests, because our pleasure has higher value than theirs.

We don't know for sure what the highest life form is, but the highest we know of is whatever Power or Entity Jesus Christ was connected to. Just based on empirical evidence or historical evidence, that's the highest our species has encountered.

More devaluing nonhuman nature.

No, there might be nonhumans superior to us. If so, they have HIGHER value. Humans are the highest life form we know of. But there could be other nonhuman life we don't know of that is superior.

(Jesus might be superior human life, but still human. Or a combination of human and something higher than human.)

The highest is invisible and not of this world.

If you say so.

When theism is not valued, there is greater hope for life.

You could put that to music.

That’s a good reason to reject Christianity.

But what is the pressing need to find a "reason to reject Christianity"? Is this giving someone sleepless nights?

Isn't it "good news" if Christ really had power and offers us eternal life? Is that BAD news if it's true? Since there's evidence (not proof) that it's true, it's not unreasonable to hope that it's true.

Is it disloyal to humankind to hope it's true? a kind of collaboration with the enemy? treason? I'm just hoping there's something more, or something beyond this life, so that death does not mean we're annihilated. If so, then isn't that "good news" rather than bad news?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What harm would it be to just eliminate ALL life and ALL objects and leave nothing at all?

Why would that be our only option? If by your argument there would be no reason to be nice to anyone, by extension there would be no reason to be selfish either. We would recognize our ultimate insignificance, which would bring about humility. Likewise there would be no reason we have to not be nice to each other. Therefore, we have options.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some entities are superior to others. I.e., have higher intrinsic value.

It is open to the argument that no maximally great being or chess player or chocolate cake exists IF you were to claim that all beings are indistinguishable and all chess games end in a draw and no single chocolate cake looks or tastes 'better' than another.

No, i do not need to claim that no two things are distinguishable in order to say that your argument is untenable to establish ALL things in a hierarchy. I merely have to wait for you to demonstrate the validity of the concept

If this hierarchy reaching up to a maximally great being is a valid concept, it should be possible to actually demonstrate it with beings we already know to exist.

If you cannot establish where two beetles fall in this hierarchy, why would anyone accept the hierarchy as a valid concept?

No, not two beetles, which are too similar. A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior? You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you're assuming it's good for life to "flourish better." What's good about that? What good are any life forms? What harm would it be to just eliminate ALL life and ALL objects and leave nothing at all?

Lumpy, it was your point that humans were the least expendable life form.
You were wrong.
Pulling a 180 to make it a question about nihilism doesn't make your ill-thought-out, unsupportable idea any less wrong

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, not two beetles, which are too similar.

If it's an objective standard, then they should not be too similar to determine which is the higher life form.

A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior?

I don't know. Superior by what objective criteria?

You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

The question was whether or not it is meaningful to suggest an objective standard can determine higher and lower life forms. You're asking my subjective opinion on cute&furry vs. scaly&ugly.

I have to conclude that you do not have any idea for an objective scale to determine higher life forms. You have the conclusion you want (Jesus!) and approve of the argument you think supports that conclusion, but you're hopelessly helpless to support the argument.

 

[bigfield]

No, not two beetles, which are too similar. A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior? You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

The dog has value to humans as a work animal and a companion, and a lizard has value to humans by filling a niche in an ecosystem that would collapse without it, destroying a human habitat in the process.

For someone who prefers keeping lizards as pets instead of dogs, then the lizard has greater value.
For someone living in an ecosystem that requires the lizard, the lizard is more valuable.
For someone who is allergic to dogs, the lizard is more valuable simply by not causing any problems

 

[Keith&Co.]

You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

And what does 'saving' have to do with a higher life form?

If we were to list all life forms by, say, size, we can establish the way to measure their dimensions, we can determine if we're talking about average, aggregates, min/max examples, or whatever.

If we're pretending to a scientific, objective standard to determine 'higher' life forms, and connecting that to size, there may be some animals that turn out to be very close or even equal, but we can still list the standards used.

Oh.

I just realized why you're using 'saving' and 'expendable.' It's all about you and your fear of oblivion.

Your whole purpose in attempting to prove Jesus exists is a desire that your belief will grant you eternal life in Heaven. Jesus will save you. Gosh it would be embarrassing if Jesus saved bacteria because they're more important to the ecology than a miserable human like you, huh?

So that's it. YOU want to prove that YOU deserve this eternal life, just as much as you want to prove that there IS an eternal life, because Jesus cured lepers.

This desperation is nothing like an objective standard, either for evaluating historical accuracy or establishing higher life forms. Just admit that you believe because you're scared not to and be done with it.

 

[Brian63]

No, not two beetles, which are too similar. A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior? You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

When you say the dog is superior to a lizard and a centipede, are you saying that just *IN GENERAL* dogs are superior but there may be some exceptions with specific individuals, or are you making an all-encompassing and universal statement that ALL dogs are superior to ALL lizards and centipedes? How can you tell which of those statements, which of those interpretations, is true whenever you just say dogs are superior to lizards and centipedes?

We can come up with objective characteristics that different organisms have and others do not, but ultimately if we are going to say that we humans VALUE one organism over another and then give an objective criterion to account for their difference, we need to realize that it is eventually a subjective preference why we will place any value on the difference. If we say we value animals with whole body fur over animals without such, then ultimately it will be apparent that it is just our own preference to do so for our own benefit, neither animal would objectively be more valuable to the universe itself than the other. If we value humans with red hair more than humans with blonde hair, or vice versa, it is not because either one is inherently more valuable to the universe. It is just our own preference, and whatever gives us more satisfaction.

Brian

 

[Lion IRC]

Is an unborn baby a 'greater' being than a 12 month old baby or are they equivalent to the extent that detractors here claim theres no such thing as one being greater than another?

Surely the abortion-on-demand lobby would have you believe that the mother is a greater being than the life inside her womb.

The point about the ontological existence of an MGB is not about what criteria you use to decide upon 'greatness' but that superlative 'greatness' must exist in any case.

If you accept that a person (mother) has the right to end the life of her unborn baby you are assigning her that right on the basis that she (her wishes) take precedence over any LESSER rights of the child. She has dominion over her unborn baby. And in that sense a heirarchy is established; Good. Better. Best.

- 6 week old human life (fetus)
- 8 month old human life (3rd trimester)
- 12 month old human life (born already.)