Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Rational Atheist
Student
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #1

Post by Rational Atheist »

When evaluating whether the claims of Christianity are true or fictional, it's important to take a step back and think about what is typically seen with regard to true beliefs and false beliefs. And, one of the most important characteristics of true beliefs is the fact that they are often independently discovered by multiple people. For instance, pulmonary circulation was discovered/theorized independently in Egypt by Ibn al Nafis and later in Europe by Michael Servetus and later still William Harvey. Calculus was independently discovered by both Isacc Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, evolution was discovered independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. There are countless other examples of "multiple discoveries" of facts that can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... iscoveries

The point is that rational people, who objectively search for truth, will often independently discover facts about the universe. So if Christianity and the existence of the Christian god is a fact about the universe (and we could apply this argument to any other religion/god as well), then we would expect that sincere theologians around the world dedicated to the search for God would independently discover Jesus Christ/Yahweh/Holy Spirit, and thus become Christians. As a result, we would not expect it to take 1500 years for Christianity to reach North America, for instance. If Christianity is true, then it is an objective fact and should thus be discoverable by anyone searching hard enough for the truth about the universe. So, why don't we see Christianity emerge in North or South America, Africa, or China, prior to the arrival of Christians into these parts of the world? One would expect that if Christianity were an objectively true fact, it would be independently discovered in multiple regions of the world. But, it wasn't. Quite the opposite. Prior to the invention of technologies that allowed world travel and communication, every culture had its own version of God, and its own religion. While some of these gods and religions had slight similarities, none of the matched exactly. This is strong evidence that all of these gods and religions are manmade constructs that only exist in the imaginations of humans.

So, my question for Christians is, if your religion is a fact, why was it never independently discovered by anyone? Bear in mind that not only is Christianity supposed to be an objective fact, the god is supposed to want people to know and worship him, meaning that it should be even MORE LIKELY for Christianity to be independently discovered if it is a fact than scientific and mathematical facts are to be independently discovered.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #91

Post by 1213 »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:07 am ...
Would I be justified in making my own moral rules, whatever I wanted them to be, and imposing them on others? Do I get to tell people what to do? Do I get to do things others may not and have it still be moral? How about if I'm omnipotent? How about if I'm omniscient?

No, no I don't have special moral privilege, no matter how powerful I am, because I'm not a deity.

Why am I not a deity? Because no one has deified me. No one worships me.
Interesting idea. So, if person is declared a “guitar god”, he has moral privilege? :D

Prince Philip who died few days ago was kept as a god in some remote Island, did he have the moral privilege?

But, I think the idea that worshiping means that person keeps something as his God is not bad. Only problem for me with that is that it doesn’t seem to have any support for example from the Bible. And if we would still be talking about worshiping in Bible context, I think the definition should come from the Bible.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #92

Post by EarthScienceguy »

But, it wasn't. Quite the opposite. Prior to the invention of technologies that allowed world travel and communication, every culture had its own version of God
If God were not evidenced in nature, why would every culture have its own version of God? God is still evidenced in nature. The reason why men resist the idea of God because of the moral obligation men have to God that has always been where the "rub" has been for men.

Can you tell me what existed before this universe existed? Can you tell me how can reality and free will exist? Can you tell me how the law of biogenesis can be violated? Can you tell me how DNA began to differentiate proteins according to profitable function for the cell?

It is not just that we do not have answers to these questions. The fact is that any answer to these questions violates the known law of physics that we have. You can say that one day science will come up with a solution to these questions, but that is a belief that is not based on any sort of fact.

All of nature demands the existence of a Creator God.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #93

Post by William »

Clownboat wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:01 pm
William wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:45 pm I think....
This is where you lose us if you care.
(If you can show that what you think is real, you would do so and we would care).

I could ask my 9 year old what she thinks, but that is not a way to arrive at truth.
Sure. I Understand. So what is is about what I said I think, that you think I should be able to show you is real?
To answer your question. If you are doing nothing other than thinking something into existence, I wouldn't imagine you would have anything to show.
Then why would one ask to be shown something one knows cannot be shown?
I don't think you have anything to show, but what we think is irrelevant as far as arriving at truth is concerned.

Like I said and am curious for you to address:
I could ask my 9 year old what she thinks, but that is not a way to arrive at truth.

Do you not agree with the part in bold?


Yes.
Does what anyone thinks about the Tooth Fairy or Allah etc. matter in reality?
Yes. As you are no doubt aware, [but apparently need reminding] what people think does have consequence in relation to this physical universe. Like a stone thrown into a calm lake, causes ripples...
Now let's examine what you said: "I think it is reasonable to understand that these imagined things do exist in some other universe".
:confused2:
Correct. I see no reason to find it unreasonable to think that pink unicorns exist somewhere in the physical universe. Or that when an an anti-theist departs this universe, they will experience The Flying Spaghetti Monster as real. I acknowledge that it might not be as I think, but I find the thought humorous nonetheless.
You sir, at least for me will need to do better if you want to be taken seriously about your thoughts.


Why do you think that I care to be taken seriously by you? :confused2: Why should it matter to me what you think about me or what I think is reasonable?
Why would anyone want to think thoughts about imagined things that may exist in some other universe in the first place?
Well for me I have always done this thing. From the go-get. Why I have done this is probably complex and hard to answer. But I do not ask myself "Why" as I think it reasonable to simply accept it as "Why Not?". Why should I care what others think of me? Isn't that really what you are putting forward here? That I should care what you think of me and my imagination?
How would knowledge ever be acquired about such being/things?


The only way to answer that is to experience such things. Some things I have experienced have not even been imagined by me, prior to experiencing them. But those things are subjective and thus of the mind and imagination is part of the process of the mind. Some people conflate the two as being the same thing, 'tis all. And maybe they are.
That in turn explains why I think we are existing in the imagination of The Creator - and that this physical universe you think is real, and the only thing which is real, is a product ofThe Creators incredible imagination.

That is also why I think that what an individual believes, as well as what the personality of the individual is and other contributing factors [such as subconscious activity which motivates individual actions] will manifest as real experience due to the nature of the next phase [afterlife] and I think this because of a combination of things, including studying of other peoples experiences which they share.
This leads to reasonable conclusion based upon that type of evidence, and since it is the only type of evidence available, it will suffice, which I think is altogether reasonable.
If you had a reason for introducing these imagined things that you think exist in some other universe, that would be much more then just thinking it to be the case.
Of course. See my replies above regarding that.
Again my point, thinking something to be the case is not a way to arrive at truth.
How would you apply that rule to the subject of afterlife, which might turn out to be truth. You might in truth experience another universe once your body ceases to function and gives up the ghost...
I would say your rule would mean that you would have to cross that bridge when it presented itself - but then you might not have the luxury of time to examine your new circumstance in a scientific manner.
It will simply come at you out of the blue [because you were not expecting it] and all you can do is react to it as best you can.
I could think a specific god concept is real or I could think there are numerous human races and some are more evolved then others. I argue that more needs to be done then to just allow people to think something and then be expected to take them seriously.
Given what you say you think, when it comes to these things you think are imaginary, you see there is no reason to think such imaginings are real, until the moment you experience them for yourself.

In the case of a supposed afterlife - for you to experience it as real for yourself, you will cross that bridge when you get to it, if indeed it presents itself.

Only - what do you imagine it will be?

And that is the thing about experience. If one is told there is a "New World" to discover, one does what one can in the physical universe to imagine what it might be like and through that, finds the way in which to see for oneself.

It is no different in relation to the next phase [afterlife] and the evidence will present itself to you if indeed there is such a thing.

Point being in that, it is not necessarily an imagined thing but simply something which is eventually unavoidable. Some [like myself] are curious while others [like yourself] are so skeptical that they simply claim that it will never happen.

That is what you think yes? But that is not a way to arrive at truth....so I wouldn't take your word for it [if that is your claim].

I think that is a reasonable thing for me not to do.

Do you agree?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #94

Post by Purple Knight »

1213 wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:49 pmInteresting idea. So, if person is declared a “guitar god”, he has moral privilege? :D
Obviously not.
1213 wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:49 pmPrince Philip who died few days ago was kept as a god in some remote Island, did he have the moral privilege?
On that island, yes. Elsewhere probably not. This leads naturally to why gods want more worshipers: They want more moral privilege.

Perhaps actual powers come with this too. As a sci-fi nerd, here is my hypothetical about how these entities gain power if they actually exist. I often imagine that each human being has a tiny amount of supernatural power, but not enough to do anything, and anything it did do would be more in line with the subconscious than the conscious. But if the powers of, say, millions of humans were combined, it could do things like flood the world, crush the walls of Jericho, or eliminate the Amalekites. Now, we know it can do the last because this is an action God told people to do, and they did it. All it required of God was the Word; the impetus. There's an interesting phenomenon where if people are required to work together to complete a goal, none of them tries very hard unless they think it's achievable, in which case they will flock to participate. All that requires is belief. So in that sense, God might not even exist except as the Word and still be very physically powerful, moreso the more people believe in him.

So here's something interesting... even if God only exists as a sort of mass hysteria... it still has some sort of existence that has reality, bounds, and physical effects. The belief in X running like a tendril through person A to person B all the way to person Z.

Now, consider God like a collection of tapeworms. Person A has a tapeworm. Person B has a tapeworm. All the way down through person Z who has a tapeworm. Tapeworms absolutely do exist, just as the belief in God exists.

Now tapeworms are not conscious, but here's the real doozy question: Is it possible that this collection of tapeworms is conscious? As a biologist, absolutely. Absolutely possible. There are numerous natural phenomena that support this as a viable possibility, even if it isn't actually the case for tapeworms.

Now, the tendrils of beliefs in the same entity running through person A all the way to person Z? Can that be conscious? It's already made of consciousness so I consider that likely.

Not the God you think of as an entity separate from Man, but as a parasite made out of pure consciousness which is itself conscious and has a will, also acting through those it infects to carry it out. None of this is actually that farfetched.
1213 wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:49 pmBut, I think the idea that worshiping means that person keeps something as his God is not bad. Only problem for me with that is that it doesn’t seem to have any support for example from the Bible. And if we would still be talking about worshiping in Bible context, I think the definition should come from the Bible.
Perhaps you'd point out the verse. I think the First Commandment about not keeping any other gods is very much tied into worship even in a Biblical context.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #95

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #95]
Perhaps actual powers come with this too. As a sci-fi nerd, here is my hypothetical about how these entities gain power if they actually exist. I often imagine that each human being has a tiny amount of supernatural power, but not enough to do anything, and anything it did do would be more in line with the subconscious than the conscious. But if the powers of, say, millions of humans were combined, it could do things like flood the world, crush the walls of Jericho, or eliminate the Amalekites. Now, we know it can do the last because this is an action God told people to do, and they did it. All it required of God was the Word; the impetus. There's an interesting phenomenon where if people are required to work together to complete a goal, none of them tries very hard unless they think it's achievable, in which case they will flock to participate. All that requires is belief. So in that sense, God might not even exist except as the Word and still be very physically powerful, moreso the more people believe in him.

So here's something interesting... even if God only exists as a sort of mass hysteria... it still has some sort of existence that has reality, bounds, and physical effects. The belief in X running like a tendril through person A to person B all the way to person Z.

Now, consider God like a collection of tapeworms. Person A has a tapeworm. Person B has a tapeworm. All the way down through person Z who has a tapeworm. Tapeworms absolutely do exist, just as the belief in God exists.

Now tapeworms are not conscious, but here's the real doozy question: Is it possible that this collection of tapeworms is conscious? As a biologist, absolutely. Absolutely possible. There are numerous natural phenomena that support this as a viable possibility, even if it isn't actually the case for tapeworms.

Now, the tendrils of beliefs in the same entity running through person A all the way to person Z? Can that be conscious? It's already made of consciousness so I consider that likely.

Not the God you think of as an entity separate from Man, but as a parasite made out of pure consciousness which is itself conscious and has a will, also acting through those it infects to carry it out. None of this is actually that farfetched.
These Entities created through human belief systems once were referred to as "Egregores" but today the are often referred to as "soul-groups" or "guides" and even "The Federation of Galactic Extraterrestrials" and have always been present through human history in one form or another. They are essentially 'gods' and are responsible for inspiring humans through as many mediums as are available for the purpose of educating humans as to the 'somewhat truthful' ideas humans are inspired to create to explain their situation to one another.

But are these entities really the product of human imagination or is it the other way around?

That, of course, is for the individual to decide....

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #96

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:13 pm ...Surely you can do better then your competing religions?
Even if I would, I don’t think it would make any difference in this case. “Better” seems to be just a subjective opinion and you apparently like something else. It is not a problem for me. But I hope you have enough information to make good choice.
Then you are calling me a liar!
Here are my words again, cut/paste:
It would make a difference to me if you could show that the Bible informs us about the thoughts a god is having or has had?
Your reply saying you don't think it would calls me a liar. Please justify me being a liar before labeling me as such. The devils is to be the deceiver is he not?
Clownboat wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:13 pm...- I think that Allah is the one true God. Convinced much?
It depends on what are your reasons for thinking so. And also about, what do you mean with Allah.
Another dodge! I asked if my statement convinced you and explained why thoughts alone don't cut it. Me 'thinking' that Allah is the one true God is not enough. Same goes for you and what you think about your favorite god concept.

Let's remember what started all this:
"I think all lives have always mattered (not just the lives of the Chosen people), but God doesn’t allow..."
Clownboat wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:13 pm...Care to address any of these points?....
It would still be my thinking, which obviously for you would be nothing. So, I don’t see any point in that. For me, it is enough if you know the reason why I said what I said earlier (about righteousness).
:lol: Another dodge!
I wouldn't want to address this either!:
I think the gods want us to attack our neighboring tribe. I think they wants us to kill everyone of them, except for the virgin girls. Those I think the gods wants us to keep for ourselves.

Could you imagine such a thing and where it could lead?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #97

Post by Clownboat »

How would knowledge ever be acquired about such being/things?

The only way to answer that is to experience such things.

This admits we will not have knowledge of said imagined beings. Leaves me wondering why bother speculating about possible imagined being in other universes.
That in turn explains why I think we are existing in the imagination of The Creator

What is this creator? Is this one of the imagined beings in another universe that could be real but we cannot experience it, therefore we will have no knowledge of it? Sounds like you are imagining it imagining us. I wonder what my 9 year old would imagine. Should I ask and would you care to discuss such an imagined 9 year old notion?

Here's my point. People have imagined all sorts of god concepts, angels, demons and what have you. None have ever been shown to be real, yet people are imagining more and more and want to be taken seriously. When will it stop? What is the perfect amount of imagined unreal concepts available for humans to believe in?
Again my point, thinking something to be the case is not a way to arrive at truth.
How would you apply that rule to the subject of afterlife, which might turn out to be truth.
What are you goind on about? What afterlife! I think you need to reign in your imagination. We might as well be discussing some imagined being in another universe as there is equal evidence for both. Why would anyone think that death is not the end (besides for fear and emotional reasons of course)?
You might in truth experience another universe once your body ceases to function and gives up the ghost...
Your imagination led you to this possibility. Nothing in reality has. This is why it is important to start with observations, not what we can imagine. Doing it your way is what led us to all the differing god concepts humans have imagined to be real to provide them with why we are here and what happens to us when we die. Some humans obviously feel this void, for them there are numerous god concepts to pick from that provide imagined answers.
Given what you say you think, when it comes to these things you think are imaginary, you see there is no reason to think such imaginings are real, until the moment you experience them for yourself.
Actually I think we should start with making observations around us, not using our imagination to come up with an answer. I could not find the available god concepts as acceptable and use my imagination to invent a creator that imagines us. But why? No observation led me to the gods or this creator I'm imagining.
In the case of a supposed afterlife - for you to experience it as real for yourself, you will cross that bridge when you get to it, if indeed it presents itself.

Only - what do you imagine it will be?
I don't see any reason to imagine an afterlife. You, I'm guessing really, really, wants there to be an afterlife. You have even imagined scenarios that could provide what you want.
Not a valid way to arrive at truth though. I would like to observe something that just might suggest an afterlife first.
And that is the thing about experience. If one is told there is a "New World" to discover, one does what one can in the physical universe to imagine what it might be like and through that, finds the way in which to see for oneself.
No, a person should go to said New World and investigate. Imagination does not take place of investigation. It can preclude it though. For example, if I have imagined that I have the answer to a question, there is no need to investigate. Imagination here would be a crutch.
It is no different in relation to the next phase [afterlife] and the evidence will present itself to you if indeed there is such a thing.
We are back to some afterlife you seem to really want to be there, and now imagine that it will be there when we die. What if my 9 year old doesn't imagine an afterlife. Such a thing wouldn't matter to you. So how are you different then my 9 year old when considering an afterlife or not? I don't see the value for making proclimations about such things myself, especially since we have observed nothing that would suggest such a thing.
Point being in that, it is not necessarily an imagined thing but simply something which is eventually unavoidable. Some [like myself] are curious while others [like yourself] are so skeptical that they simply claim that it will never happen.
False. I do not claim that an afterlife will never happen. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest such a thing will happen, outside of human imagination of course which is not good enough for me. Since I in fact do not claim that an afterlife will never happen, perhaps you are the one that is not skeptical enough and have accepted an idea based off imagination.

Be honest, can you show anything that would suggest you go somewhere when you die? Logical thinking would be that death is like what it was like before you were born, but I'm open to being shown there could be something else.

(I don't mean to sound condescending when comparing your imagination to that of my 9 year old by the way. Only trying to drive home the point that I would find both to be ineffective ways to arrive at the truth of a matter. Observation over imagination everytime for me!)

First observe, then imagine (make hypothesises that you can then test).

What is observed that would suggest something after living your life? If nothing, then just admit we are dealing with imagination/speculation and we are not using a valid method for arriving at the truth of the matter. Then you might ask yourself, why bother imagining scenarios to things that are not observed. Perhaps a persons imagination could be better applied elsewhere.

You also wouldn't be starting off arguments with "I think". Much more reasonable to begin with, "see this here".
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #98

Post by 1213 »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:35 pm ...
1213 wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:49 pmBut, I think the idea that worshiping means that person keeps something as his God is not bad. Only problem for me with that is that it doesn’t seem to have any support for example from the Bible. And if we would still be talking about worshiping in Bible context, I think the definition should come from the Bible.
Perhaps you'd point out the verse. I think the First Commandment about not keeping any other gods is very much tied into worship even in a Biblical context.
Bible tells about worshiping this:

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25

Pure religion [religious worship] and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
James 1:27

But, perhaps it is so that person does that only if he keeps Bible God as his God, or if person does so, it means basically that he keeps Bible God as his God.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #99

Post by brunumb »

1213 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:24 pm Bible tells about worshiping this:

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25

Pure religion [religious worship] and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
James 1:27
What has any of that got to do with worshiping God, your insertion of the word 'worship' notwithstanding?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

Post #100

Post by Goat »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:40 pm
Rational Atheist wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:16 pm

And if God exists, he is perfectly capable of imparting knowledge of himself onto humans who have never heard of him. So the question is, why doesn't he?
Well if God is omnipotent the only logical answer to that question would be because He doesn't want to.
And, how can that be distinguished from 'not existing in the first place'?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply