Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

[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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What's the big deal with faith? Faith is no more than the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If you have evidence then you don't need faith.

First off, lets make an important distinction here....pertaining to faith. What is faith..

1. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

2. Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

The context of which you and unbelievers use faith (as it relates to believers) is always based on the first definition....but when believers use the word "faith", it is always in the context of the second definition. That being said, I want to avoid equivocations here.

Now, I agree that there are some believers out there (probably most of them) who believe in God based on #1, followed by #2...and I understand that this doesn't fly with unbelievers.

However, folks like me reject #1, because we believe that there is proof/evidence that God exist..and therefore, we have reasonable faith that we can place our trust/confidence in the God of whom we have sound/valid reasons to believe in.

But more importently, there's nothing one can't accept on faith, be it true or not. One can have faith that flying unicorns exist, and what credibility does this bring to bear on the actual existence of flying unicorns? Absolutely none. All of which leaves faith, other than a comforting illusion, a worthless concept.

Again (based on my point above), you do understand the difference between blind faith, and reasonable faith, correct?

[Miles]

What's the big deal with faith? Faith is no more than the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If you have evidence then you don't need faith.

First off, lets make an important distinction here....pertaining to faith. What is faith..

1. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

2. Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Re 2..... If its simply complete "complete trust or confidence" The why not say

The context of which you and unbelievers use faith (as it relates to believers) is always based on the first definition....but when believers use the word "faith", it is always in the context of the second definition.

Nah, I bet if you asked a roomful of "believers" 99% would say it is always in the context of the first definition, and that the second definition wouldn't even enter their minds.

However, folks like me reject #1, because we believe that there is proof/evidence that God exist..and therefore, we have reasonable faith that we can place our trust/confidence in the God of whom we have sound/valid reasons to believe in.

So if you believe---not "know," obviously---there's this "proof/evidence" for god's existence how about presenting the basis for your belief?

But more importently, there's nothing one can't accept on faith, be it true or not. One can have faith that flying unicorns exist, and what credibility does this bring to bear on the actual existence of flying unicorns? Absolutely none. All of which leaves faith, other than a comforting illusion, a worthless concept.

Again (based on my point above), you do understand the difference between blind faith, and reasonable faith, correct?

Unless you have good reason, which would include impartial, verifiable information, it would fall into the blind faith category. In short, faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason. Got a good reason? If so, please share. Show us your impartial, verifiable information.



.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Nah, I bet if you asked a roomful of "believers" 99% would say it is always in the context of the first definition, and that the second definition wouldn't even enter their minds.

I agree, which is why I said...

"Now, I agree that there are some believers out there (probably most of them) who believe in God based on #1, followed by #2".

But of course, context is important here, because when believers talk amongst ourselves, it is based upon the second definition because obviously we (believers) are already in agreement that God exist, and at that point the only question is how much trust/faith do you place in him.

However, when most believers talk amongst unbelievers, then faith is always used in the context of the first definition, because the unbeliever doesn't agree that God exist and as far as they can tell, this "belief system" is based on spiritual affirmation instead of proof.

So if you believe---not "know," obviously---there's this "proof/evidence" for god's existence how about presenting the basis for your belief?

Because I know, I believe. And in due time, I plan on making threads pertaining to certain arguments for God's existence.

Unless you have good reason, which would include impartial, verifiable information, it would fall into the blind faith category. In short, faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason. Got a good reason? If so, please share. Show us your impartial, verifiable information.

I accept the challenge. In due time. In fact, after I celebrate Passover tonight, I may get a thread going.

[Miles]

Nah, I bet if you asked a roomful of "believers" 99% would say it is always in the context of the first definition, and that the second definition wouldn't even enter their minds.

I agree, which is why I said...

"Now, I agree that there are some believers out there (probably most of them) who believe in God based on #1, followed by #2".".

I know you said so, which gave me the choice of believing you meant either:

1. "There are some believers out there (probably most of them) who believe in God based on #1, followed by #2"

OR

2. "When believers use the word "faith", it is always in the context of the second definition."

And I simply chose to address door #2 because it's far more decisive.


.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #50]

I agree, and that is evident by so many faithless people on this very forum.

No sentence has ever been more true

Can you see gravity?

Gravity doesn't have anything to do with my eternal soul - at least that I've read from the bible. So while I see your POV, I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison

Sure there are, but there are also hundreds of people who still wouldn't believe...thus, why God was so angry at the Israelites, who "saw" all they needed to see, but still wind up losing faith.

Absolutely, but if it would save ONE soul from Hell, I think it would be worth it. But alas, when God gets PO'd he stomps and pouts like a spoiled child seems to return to the 'one bad app0le spoils the whole bunch' concept. Which doesn't seem very loving at all, really.

So seeing isn't necessarily believing, now is it?

See previous response.

And the Bible is clear that the mere existence of the world (nature) is evident enough that God exists, so that man is without excuse

Then the bible is very wrong. Nature is nature. The need for God to resort to pareidolia is very unbecoming IMO.

[Clownboat]

Without faith, it is impossible to believe in any god concept, or big foot, nessy and alien abductions. Faith is a mechanism required to believe in something false.

Hmm. That is interesting. So, do you know it is false, or do you accept by faith that it is false.

Please point to where I made a claim of something being false. When you cannot, realize your error.
At this time in my life, I have not found any of the available god claims to be credible, but I'm open to evidence if you have any.

If you know it is false,

Full stop. I don't. This is a strawman of your own creation.

Either way, I wouldn't want to be you right now in this case.

That is only because you didn't think your thought process through and began with a strawman.

Does knowledge inform us as to how/why the universe began to exist?

No it does not. No one knows how the universe began. Many religious people seem uncomfortable with not knowing it would seem, thus they pick an available god concept to supply them with answers. You picked the Hebrew god did you not?

They were maybe wrong about the sun being a god...but they weren't wrong if they thought the sun was created by God. So they were in the ballpark, and certainly a lot closer to the game than those who thought like....you.

Please show that you speak the truth and that there was a god that created our sun. If you cannot, please be honorable and retract your statement for being nothing more than a religious claim.

Don't you find it odd that all god concepts (not just your preferred one by the way) require a mechanism to believe in falsehoods as part of believing in the said god concept?

I don't understand the question. Please clarify.

No worries, I trust it was not lost on those reading here.

[Diagoras]

Well first of all, I think everyone on the planet has at least "heard" of Christianity before...now, whether or not they will accept it is another thing, but the majority of the planet has heard of Christianity.

<bolding mine>

Which is it? Everyone, or the majority?

Ever heard of a hyperbole?

I understand hyperbole. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. Should I now take it that "the majority" is unsupported exaggeration on your part?

Slow down. I thought I made it clear that the OP's illogical argumentation made his whole "case" invalid....so therefore, I stick with my original stance of "Christianity is likely true"....which reflected my quoting of the scripture.

Let's take this one step at a time. The OP is asking why Christianity wasn't independently 'discovered' (or verified/proven) around the world before Christian missionaries arrived. I think (may be wrong) that your first post was #34, in which you accuse Rational Atheist of a non sequitur. You also quote a couple of biblical verses.

I'm not seeing any evidence from you that challenges the OP's implied assertion: "Christianity wasn't 'known' in other parts of the world before missionaries arrived". My reading of your post, and subsequent argument in #38 is that you're saying in effect, "lack of evidence for Christianity doesn't mean it didn't exist prior". Your "undiscovered mammal" example seems to suggest that line of thinking. Fair enough as far as it goes, but it remains as weak an argument as any other "lack of evidence for <insert favourite myth here> doesn't mean it didn't exist" type of claim.

My aim was not to prove that I am right, but that the OP is wrong. Of course, I can prove that I am right, but that isn't what I was attempting to do.

<bolding mine>

Odd that you haven't done so, then. We await this conclusive proof in the meantime.

The point is; faith is being used on both sides.

Yes, that's the argument I thought you were using. It's fallacious because it applies the same implied meaning of 'faith' to two very different things. Although not strictly a logical error of composition, it shares some of its features. In the context of addressing whether Christianity is fictional or not, it doesn't really bring anything new to the debate, so would probably be better off in a separate thread, IMHO.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Gravity doesn't have anything to do with my eternal soul - at least that I've read from the bible. So while I see your POV, I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison

Soo, "seeing is believing" is only a rule of thumb if it pertains to things that are detrimental to your eternal soul? Hmm.

Absolutely, but if it would save ONE soul from Hell, I think it would be worth it. But alas, when God gets PO'd he stomps and pouts like a spoiled child seems to return to the 'one bad app0le spoils the whole bunch' concept. Which doesn't seem very loving at all, really.

I do not follow.

Then the bible is very wrong. Nature is nature. The need for God to resort to pareidolia is very unbecoming IMO.

Nature had a beginning. And anything which begins to exist, has a cause.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I understand hyperbole. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. Should I now take it that "the majority" is unsupported exaggeration on your part?

It was an exaggeration...and I will say that out of every 100 random people that you ask in the WORLD, at least 90 of them have heard of Christianity.

And with a percentage that high, I will gladly call it "everyone", even if it isn't every single "one".

Let's take this one step at a time. The OP is asking why Christianity wasn't independently 'discovered' (or verified/proven) around the world before Christian missionaries arrived. I think (may be wrong) that your first post was #34, in which you accuse Rational Atheist of a non sequitur. You also quote a couple of biblical verses.

Yeah, lets take it one step at a time. This is actually quite hilarious...you expound one the OP's question..

"Why wasn't Christianity independently "discovered" around the world before Christian missionaries arrived".

This is hilarious for two reasons..

1. This is like asking "Why wasn't the brand Sony "discovered" by a remote Amazon tribe before Sony representatives arrived to the tribe with Sony products."

Christianity (particularly, the Resurrection) began in Jerusalem. How would anyone in China know about the good news of the Resurrection, if it happened in Jerusalem? Unless someone showed up (Christian missionaries or whoever) showed up and gave them the news?

All they had back in those days was "word of mouth" advertising....so to ask such a question of why wasn't Christianity "independently" discovered around the world before Christian missionaries is hilariously ridiculous, no offense.

2. The second reason why it is hilarious is based on the fact that during the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20), Jesus commanded the disciples to go make disciples of all nations...which would in fact be "Christian missionaries going around and spreading the good news".

Like, how else would it be done? Hilarious.

I'm not seeing any evidence from you that challenges the OP's implied assertion: "Christianity wasn't 'known' in other parts of the world before missionaries arrived". My reading of your post, and subsequent argument in #38 is that you're saying in effect, "lack of evidence for Christianity doesn't mean it didn't exist prior". Your "undiscovered mammal" example seems to suggest that line of thinking. Fair enough as far as it goes, but it remains as weak an argument as any other "lack of evidence for <insert favourite myth here> doesn't mean it didn't exist" type of claim.

The question of the thread is "Why Christianity is likely Ficticious", and the OP did in fact use "because X wasn't discovered independently of Christians, therefore, X isn't true."

That's what I got out of it, and if I am wrong, my bad.

But if I am correct, then all I had to do is give a counter-example of an obvious non sequitur, which is where the whole undiscovered mammal came from....as it is literally the same illogical reasoning applied in both scenarios, as both are fallacious.

Odd that you haven't done so, then. We await this conclusive proof in the meantime.

Different thread for a different day.

Yes, that's the argument I thought you were using. It's fallacious because it applies the same implied meaning of 'faith' to two very different things. Although not strictly a logical error of composition, it shares some of its features. In the context of addressing whether Christianity is fictional or not, it doesn't really bring anything new to the debate, so would probably be better off in a separate thread, IMHO.

The fact that the OP failed to justify why Christianity is fallacious is something that cannot be overlooked or downplayed. Again, the idea wasn't to provide evidence as to why Christianity isn't ficticious, but to point out the fallacious reasoning of the OP.

[benchwarmer]

This is hilarious for two reasons..

1. This is like asking "Why wasn't the brand Sony "discovered" by a remote Amazon tribe before Sony representatives arrived to the tribe with Sony products."

Christianity (particularly, the Resurrection) began in Jerusalem. How would anyone in China know about the good news of the Resurrection, if it happened in Jerusalem? Unless someone showed up (Christian missionaries or whoever) showed up and gave them the news?

What's really hilarious is that your example is EXACTLY like Christianity. Someone made something, packaged it, and started spreading it to whoever would buy it.

You have completely missed the entire point. Christianity is based on a particular god concept. The Jewish one to be precise. The Christian Jesus was one of these Jews and in the stories also based everything on this god.

The whole point of the original argument is that this god was not independently discovered. One would expect that if this god was truly interacting with all its creation, not just one small tribe in one part of the world, other people would have come to very similar conclusions about this god that seems to be in charge.

While it's true that Jesus' interactions with this god would not be known until the stories spread, the god itself who spawned all this was supposedly around from the beginning. In fact, if other people had independently discovered the same god, then the story of Jesus would likely have instantly made sense to them and would have further solidified the entire thing.

Yet what we have today is many (thousands) of Christian denominations. That is a massive red flag, or certainly should be. Not only do we NOT have people independently discovering the same god concept, we have adherents to one of them disagreeing on just about every aspect of the one they supposedly share.