Modern examples of gullibility as evidence against Christian claims

[DeistPaladin]

Special pleading defense deployed in 3... 2... 1...

Hinduism and Buddhism are about people even though they have many gods,

That's actually a plus for them. Believing people existed is much easier than believing a godman walked the earth.

they are mostly sustained in poor and illiterate places,

Good point. Dark Ages Europe, the environment in which Christianity tightened its hold, was a time of great opulence and higher learning.

the native American religions are sustained only by a few and within their own culture,

Some religions are more intertwined with a culture than others. Christianity and Islam are examples of faiths that seek to win converts globally and transcend local culture. This makes them more marketable but not more likely to be true.

Islam is relatively new,

By 600 years. And that's if you count Catholics as "Christians". If you limit "True Christianity" to Protestantism, that didn't come along until 500 years ago.

Judaism is the prophecy of Christianity,

No it's not. Hence, why so few Jews convert.

[Thor]

Yes, there's no evidence. That's why my faith is based on reason and not 2000-year old miracles.

If there is no evidence for what you believe, your beliefs are not based on "reason". They are based on.... nothing.

Once I believe in the divinity Jesus, the miracles teach me about Him.

And once I believe Pecos Bill is real, the stories of him lassoing a tornado teach me about him.

'Evidence' has no place in history unless the person did something lasting, like constructing a building.

What?

God intended the miracles for people in the moment, and to teach us now.

Uh.... yeah, sure.

[DeistPaladin]

Mark, Matthew and John were eyewitness followers of Jesus.

Nope. Even taking Christian claims of authorship at face value.

Mark: Companion of Paul, not a witness, told the story he heard from Peter's preachings, and Peter wasn't an eye-witness to all the events, according to Mark, so we've got hearsay on top of anonymous hearsay.

Matthew: Elaborated on Mark, corrected some of his theological mistakes regarding Jewish tradition but still lied and lied and lied about what the OT said. Seriously, cross-reference some of the OT that Matt references and you see that ol Matt is lying his ass off.

Matthew was responsible for evangelizing to the Jews. No wonder he failed so miserably.

John: His "advanced" theology, such as "The Jews" being a hostile religious group and his introduction of Trinitarian type concepts (John's Jesus was one with Yahweh while the Synoptic Jesus was clearly separate from and subordinate to Yahweh) rule out that his testimony was contemporary with the others.

as well as internal agreement

Three words: Mark chapter 16.

That resurrection account just got better and better with the telling, even with later editions of Mark.
[/quote]

---

It means the quoter believed they happened. You don't use fiction to support the point you're making in an essay.

***Bzzzzz*** Wrong.

The lines between fiction, urban legend and "true story" are all a lot more fuzzy than we might think, even in the modern age.

Even today in the Information Age, where debunking an urban legend is just a Google search away, fanciful stories make their way from fiction (labeled as such) to a "they say" type urban legend to "no, this really is a true story". Do a search on "glurge" stories sometime.

Even as a skeptic, I've learned to be very careful about what sources I cite. There are urban legends on our side too, like the one about the preacher who went to evangelize to an atheist native tribe in the south Pacific and wound up becoming an atheist. Turns out that was just a story too. The difference between "our side" and yours is we seek to distance ourselves from and expose this kind of crap, even if it supposedly supports "our position". (I put "our side" in quotes because really we lack belief in something but let that go).

Now take us back to ancient times when people didn't have access to such information. Further, let's remember we're talking about religion, a force that seems to multiply this urban legend effect.

The earliest histories of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death. Two writers. Four hundred years later. This is typical. Other examples, first date is time written and second is earliest copy:

Apples and oranges. Military and political leaders are set to a different standard than miracle working godmen. This is so because mundane claims require mundane evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The existence of some guy who was a military leader is a mundane claim. The existence of a miracle working godman is an extraordinary claim.

---

Just to add to my point about fiction -> urban legend -> "true story" above...

Remember how Christians freaked out about Dan Brown and his work of fiction about a Jesus bloodline?

This was a work of fiction and labeled as such. And yet Christians flipped out because they were so afraid people would take it seriously and such beliefs might worm their way toward "true story".

This only underscores how Christians are well aware of how fuzzy the lines really are between fiction and false history.

[Undeceived]

If there is no evidence for what you believe, your beliefs are not based on "reason". They are based on.... nothing.

There are grounds. Your definition of 'evidence' was scientific method evidence, which requires being able to replicate a situation and get the same results over and over. That is not sort of evidence Christianity operates by--no one expected it to. Historical evidence is God coming down in human form and having several people attest to it. That, with the conviction of the Holy Spirit in my heart, convinces me. With the Holy Spirit, everything begins to make sense. You could call me insane, but 2 billion other Christians have experienced this same exact breach of human logic. It's God's logic.

---

we've got hearsay on top of anonymous hearsay.

“Just so” claims aren’t strong arguments. Imagine you are in a court of law investigating a murder. You have four witnesses for the murder and none against. The prosecution—never present at the murder—claims that all four witnesses are liars. What will the verdict be?

cross-reference some of the OT that Matt references and you see that ol Matt is lying his ass off.

Example?

Three words: Mark chapter 16.

Please explain. What are the discrepancies?

The lines between fiction, urban legend and "true story" are all a lot more fuzzy than we might think, even in the modern age.

Example? And has anyone staked their life on the authenticity of that example? A cross-check would easily show Dan Brown wrong. People could cross-check in the 1st century too. Literature was all over the place, even though most of it hasn't survived. This is the Roman Empire we’re talking about, and one of the best educational systems in the Roman Empire. All males were sent to school and could read and write. Those who couldn’t listened to the Rabbi in the synagogue. With a Jewish Rabbi in their ears, they’d be less likely to believe in a messianic Jesus. The Gentiles (Greeks) were the same way. Empirical science was birthed in Athens with Aristotle. The Greeks had multiple gods they had worshiped their whole lives and quizzed Paul until dusk--some even trying to kill him in Ephesus because he threatened their idol-making business.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Several billion Christians believe the evidence is extraordinary enough. God did not set out to prove to everyone an event. He set out to divide those who love Him from those who do not.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Historical evidence is God coming down in human form and having several people attest to it. That, with the conviction of the Holy Spirit in my heart, convinces me. With the Holy Spirit, everything begins to make sense.

Sooooooooo.....David Koresh's and Jim Jones' batshit claims were just as valid as evidence as yours, and yours aren't any less batshit than theirs. Glad you clarified that.

You could call me insane, but 2 billion other Christians have experienced this same exact breach of human logic. It's God's logic.

And thank you for admitting your breach of logic, and that you and 2 billion other xtards are all insane. I concede you that point. Well reasoned, indeed.

[DeistPaladin]

“Just so” claims aren’t strong arguments. Imagine you are in a court of law investigating a murder. You have four witnesses for the murder and none against. The prosecution—never present at the murder—claims that all four witnesses are liars. What will the verdict be?

Oh, so we've gone from "Gee whiz, so much information has been lost in ancient history and if we apply your rigorous standards we couldn't prove Alexander the Great. C'mon, whadya want from us?" to doubling down and entering your "evidence" into a court of law, as if it would stand up to cross examination and the burden of reasonable doubt?

Excellent! I get to do a "My Cousin Vinny" remake for Christian apologetics.

*Ahem*

Me: So, Mr. Mark, I understand you're some kinda witness to this Jesus guy?

Mark: You could say that.

Me: I'm not sayin that. Would YOU say that?

Mark: Well, uh, yes.

Me: So, that means you were there with Jesus when he performed all these miracles and did all that preaching?

Mark: Um, well, no, not exactly.

Me: Well, where did you hear about him then?

Mark: I jotted down all of Peter's Preachings and he said...

Me: You know that's called "hearsay" right?

Mark: Well, uh, you see Peter an upstanding...

Me: Yeah, yeah, I'm sure he is but did HE witness all the things in your story?

Mark: Well, uh, mostly.

Me: In fact, you testified in chapter 14 of your testimony... can we run the tape?

Mark 14:54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Me: So, in fact, here's one good example of how Peter didn't witness the important event of Jesus' trial at the hands of the priests. So, if Peter wasn't there, how did he know what Jesus and the priests said to each other?

Mark: Well, uh, he must have heard it from someone else.

Me: I'm sorry, I was all the way over here. It sounded like you actually said Peter, the hearsay account, heard some things from another hearsay account. You didn't just say that, right?

Mark: Um

Me: Well perhaps Jesus told Peter personally?

Judge: Mr. Gambini...

Me: Well, perhaps Jesus told Peter all about it while he was hanging on the cross!

Judge: Mr. Gambini!

Me: "Hey, Peter, I'm up here asphyxiating to death after having been beaten within an inch of my life, slowly bleeding on a cross but ya gotta hear about how I told that priest off."

Judge: *Banging his gavel*

Me: Sorry, your honor!

Me: So, Mr. Mark, what you've offered to the court is a hearsay account which includes at least a few incidents of 2nd hand and anonymous hearsay on top of hearsay in events written down 40 years after the events took place, am I right?

Mark: Well...

Me: Please tell me that your testimony wasn't changed at some point. Please tell me that at least all this hearsay on hearsay has remained consistent over the years.

Mark: Um...

Me: Like say, there weren't any alterations to the FREAKING RESURRECTION ACCOUNT IN CHAPTER 16! Please tell me that if this miraculous event on which Christianity hangs is true, that you all got it right the first time and didn't have to add every single frickin verse that follows 16:8!

Mark: But...

Me: Your honor, I'd like to submit evidence that it's not disputed among even Christian Bible scholars that Mark 16:8 was the original ending and that the 12 verses that followed were a later addition. So we've got hearsay on anonymous hearsay written 4 decades after the alleged events and that version was later changed in at least one significant way that we know of.

Mark: Well...

Me: I got no more use for dis witness!

***Tune in Next Time when I nail Matt's ass to the courtroom floor and have it dragged off to jail on perjury charges***

[Undeceived]

Excellent! I get to do a "My Cousin Vinny" remake for Christian apologetics.

I believe Mark was an eyewitness, since he was one of the "Seventy Disciples." Even so, the witnesses I referred to were Matthew, John and Peter. You called the wrong man up to the stand. Peter, though he was absent during the night of the investigation, witnessed Jesus' death and saw Him alive again. One insignificant moment of "hearsay" (which is just reporting the words of another, like a journalist) is not going to kill the verdict. At the time, the inquisition of Jesus would have been public and recorded by official scribes. Also, you didn't call up the other witnesses, who are vital for fact-checking in a court case. If three of the four witnesses saw the murder’s buildup, you don’t need the fourth who happened to be somewhere else.

[DeistPaladin]

Me: Now, Mr. Matthew, you provided this court with a lot of claims of "fulfilled prophecies".

Matt: That's right.

Me: One of these prophecies you cited in the first chapter of your testimony. Can we review the tape?

Matt 1:21-23 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matt: You're not going to nitpick over the whole Almah/Bethula thing are you? Haw, haw haw.

Me: No, I'll take your word for it that when you read "young maiden", you thought it meant "virgin" and just put that aside. No, what I wanted to ask you about is a thing called "context".

Matt: Hey, that's our line.

Me: Very funny. Anyway, you cited Is 7:14 as the prophecy that the virgin birth of Jesus was supposed to fulfill. Yet, funny thing, when I read the whole chapter, it's almost like Isaiah was talking about a young woman living at that time, and the events were in regard to the war with Syria.

Matt: Well, um, you see it was a double prophecy.

Me: A double prophecy?

Matt: Yeah, you know, he was talking about Ahaz and his war and also the future Messiah.

Me: So he mentioned future events in chapter 7 as well?

Matt: Um, not exactly.

Me: And by that you mean not a damn thing, you just lied your butt off and hoped nobody would notice.

Matt: Hey!

Me: Next you mention in chapter two that Jesus' flight to Egypt and recall was also a fulfillment of prophecy. Let's go to the tape, shall we?

Matt 2:14-15 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Me: Hosea, right?

Matt: Yeah, pretty slick, how it all fits together, huh?

Me: Slick indeed since Hosea 11:1 was actually talking about "son" as a metaphor for Israel and the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Roll the tape:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Matt: Well, would you believe...

Me: That you were lying your ass off again? Yes. Next Prophecy:

Matt 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Matt: Well, yes, Herod just slew all the male infants around Jerusalem.

Me: An event lifted out of the story of Moses.

Matt: Coincidence!

Me: Equating Jesus to one of the greatest of Jewish prophets was a coincidence?

Matt: Look, they had a similar childhood event. That doesn't mean I...

Me: An event that has no historical evidence that it ever happened?

Matt: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Me: Herod slaughters a whole town full of babies and not a peep from historical records?

Matt: Um, well, it coulda happened. It's still a prophecy.

Me: Problem, Jeremiah was talking about the Babylonian captivity.

Jer 31:15-16 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.

Me: Oops.

Judge: Baliff, take the witness into custody.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

'Evidence' has no place in history unless the person did something lasting, like constructing a building.

The discipline of history has high standards of evidence, none of which Christianity satisfy..

You sir come across as a stunningly ignorant fool. I have never been impressed by your corkscrew thinking or your fatuous personal superstitions..

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

'Evidence' has no place in history unless the person did something lasting, like constructing a building.

The discipline of history has high standards of evidence, none of which Christianity satisfy..

You sir come across as a stunningly ignorant fool. I have never been impressed by your corkscrew thinking or your fatuous personal superstitions..

Holy Shit, padriac! Did really say that?? How did I completely miss it? That's Hall of Shame Quotefail!