Atheists, can Christianity be debunked fully?

[cloudyday2]

I don't know. Would it all depend upon whether Arjuna actually existed and whether or not he actually killed his cousins at the behest of Krishna?

The only essential belief in Hinduism is that the Vedas are inspired (based on some lectures I watched on a Great Courses DVD at least). The Bhagavad Gita is treasured by lots of Hindus, but it isn't part of the Vedas. It's probably analogous to the book of Job. Christians like Job because it tries to resolve some theological problems, but they don't all consider it historical necessarily.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think it's best to simply ask the person what would suffice as a debunking. If they say, "Prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead" then you can reply with, "What can I show that would demonstrate that?" Eventually they will shift from trying to force you to prove a negative into trying to prove a positive, and that's when they will be in trouble.

Potentially we can prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. There is the hypothesis that Jesus never existed, and although most historians dismiss this hypothesis we might find new evidence that confirms that Jesus never existed. Another possibility would be to find the bones of Jesus or historical references to the bones of Jesus. Then the Christians must change their story and say it was a "spiritual" resurrection instead of a physical resurrection.

I was reading about "The Great Disappointment" yesterday where Millerite Christians eagerly expected the Second Coming on a particular date in the 1800s. Surprisingly the failure of this prediction was NOT the end of the religious group. That is what I suspect happened with the Jesus Movement. First Jesus was crucified, so they had to modify their theology. Then the Kingdom of Heaven never arrived, so they had to change it up again. Also the defeat and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple must have necessitated some rethinking of Christianity.

 

[Silmarien]

Can it be debunked fully? No. No more than any other religion can, however, that alone should serve to discredit individual faiths as being 'objectively true' because ultimately they all rely on faith in the absence of proofs.

Most 'evidence' brought forward is from holy texts which, ironically, require faith to take as any authority in the first place.

So no, it can't be debunked fully but no faith can be objectively proven either. That leaves us with the outlook that we can't be sure it's wrong, but there's nothing to suggest x, y or z are true any more than other faith systems.

People then typically argue that "it's better to have faith just in case" but really, if a god exists and they would punish us for choosing wrong in what is equivalent to "pick a hand" when they have thousands of hands, well, begs the question on whether that's a character worthy of respect, let alone love or worship.

Who says that Pascalian reasoning is a matter of escaping punishment?

I think it makes a lot more sense when looked at existentially--you'll approach life differently if you believe morality actually matters than if you view it as a social fiction. If you have faith that other people can be trusted, your interpersonal relationships will be different than if you did not. If the linchpin of your existence is a theistic understanding of reality, everything about it is different. Psychologically speaking, we become what we worship.

Could that have consequences? I don't see why not. If you can't believe in something like the immortality of the soul, you could be shutting down possibilities for yourself as surely as if you don't trust other people. We can't know, so unless we can debunk the idea that our beliefs in some sense shape ourselves and our realities, it may in fact be better to have some faith, just in case, without it being about somehow picking the right hand. Not every belief system is exclusivist. Not even every brand of Christian theology.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nothing is 100%. If I said "100%" then I'm sorry to have confused the issue.

There are plenty of religions that can be debunked. Scientology can potentially be debunked by showing the L. Ron Hubbard invented the facts. The same is true for Mormonism. Potentially we could discover that Muhammad didn't exist or that the Quran and Islam were invented after the Muslim Conquests (as a few believe).

I haven't looked into the existence of Muhammad (feces be upon him), but I would think that his existence has been independently verified given his involvement in conquests. Also, his supernatural claims were mostly irrelevant to major historical events. I don't think he did anything important on his magic carpet ride.

But then again, I know little to nothing about that despicable belief system.

Christianity is just as vulnerable to debunking, because it makes historical claims.

But how do we debunk Matthew's zombie parade aside from showing that there is absolutely no historical record of it? And even if we did so to the satisfaction of every Christian on earth, it would accomplish very little. It all stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ. No Christian I know of has firmly established what one must show in order to debunk the resurrection, indicating either that they don't know of any such thing or that they know it is not in their best interests to set up unmoving goal posts.

There are religions that are less vulnerable to debunking (such as Hinduism mentioned by @Steve Petersen a few posts up). If a religion doesn't claim anything historical or physical then it isn't as vulnerable IMO.

I know very little about Hinduism, aside from the fact that it is useless and cruel (like nearly every single religion on earth).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only essential belief in Hinduism is that the Vedas are inspired (based on some lectures I watched on a Great Courses DVD at least). The Bhagavad Gita is treasured by lots of Hindus, but it isn't part of the Vedas. It's probably analogous to the book of Job. Christians like Job because it tries to resolve some theological problems, but they don't all consider it historical necessarily.

Hmmmmm......for my part, when I studied Hinduism in two separate classes in college, what became quickly evident to me was that for all of the many pages, and the many years of religious belief and practice, supposedly represented by the writings of Hindi people through the Vedic Period, the Epic Period, the Sutra Period and the Scholastic Period, there was barely the hint of anything resembling----to me, anyway---any kind of historical material. It seems to me to only be composed of various made up stories, religious musings, and various pieces of wisdom literature, buried in a smorgasbord of ontological turtles and whatnot. Wouldn't you say that's about accurate, Cloudy? Or am I being too reductionistic and uncharitable to the [various] Hindi faith(s) [and yogas]?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But how do we debunk Matthew's zombie parade aside from showing that there is absolutely no historical record of it? And even if we did so to the satisfaction of every Christian on earth, it would accomplish very little. It all stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ. No Christian I know of has firmly established what one must show in order to debunk the resurrection, indicating either that they don't know of any such thing or that they know it is not in their best interests to set up unmoving goal posts.

What "zombie parade"? And exactly what "must" be shown to debunk Christianity? Does someone have a time machine stashed away somewhere by which we can go back and verify or unverify anything about Jesus?

I know very little about Hinduism, aside from the fact that it is useless and cruel (like nearly every single religion on earth).

One important aspect of Hinduism to consider is the possibility that the Caste System was a later addition to the overall and ongoing collection of these ancient sets of belief. And if my memory serves me right, it theoretically came later with the onset of what are called the Aryan invasion. However, even if it wasn't a later addition, and the Aryan Invasion isn't a correct theory, it does seem to be a bit unhumanitarian either way, doesn't it? Now, let's jump on over to the Old Testament and tear it a new one, too, shall we?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Potentially we can prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. There is the hypothesis that Jesus never existed, and although most historians dismiss this hypothesis we might find new evidence that confirms that Jesus never existed. Another possibility would be to find the bones of Jesus or historical references to the bones of Jesus. Then the Christians must change their story and say it was a "spiritual" resurrection instead of a physical resurrection.

Incidentally, I am fairly convinced of the Christ Myth hypothesis. However, Christians are not objective enough to give it serious consideration. I think the most promising method for addressing Christians is to look closer at psychology, rather than facts.

I was reading about "The Great Disappointment" yesterday where Millerite Christians eagerly expected the Second Coming on a particular date in the 1800s. Surprisingly the failure of this prediction was NOT the end of the religious group. That is what I suspect happened with the Jesus Movement. First Jesus was crucified, so they had to modify their theology. Then the Kingdom of Heaven never arrived, so they had to change it up again. Also the defeat and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple must have necessitated some rethinking of Christianity.

I can only emphasize my point that we should be looking at the psychology of religion to see what is happening because clearly the facts don't matter.

 

[cloudyday2]

there was barely the hint of anything resembling----to me, anyway---any kind of historical material.

I've never actually read any Hindu texts except the Bhagavad Gita, but I think your impression is correct. This is why Hinduism is more resistant to debunking.

Dickson in the introduction to "The Christ Files" DVD mentions this issue. Christianity makes historical claims and dares people to disprove them (unlike other religions such as Wicca or Hinduism). Of course Christianity isn't the only religion that is potentially vulnerable to history. Islam and Mormonism are vulnerable too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never actually read any Hindu texts except the Bhagavad Gita, but I think your impression is correct. This is why Hinduism is more resistant to debunking.

Dickson in the introduction to "The Christ Files" DVD mentions this issue. Christianity makes historical claims and dares people to disprove them (unlike other religions such as Wicca or Hinduism). Of course Christianity isn't the only religion that is potentially vulnerable to history. Islam and Mormonism are vulnerable too.

I've read and studied the entire Qu'ran, and I don't see any history there either, other than prophetic rhetoric and frequent allusions (and reinterpretations) to the Old Testament and to bits and pieces of New Testament ideas. Mormonism is much like Islam in presenting a "new," additional revelation to the world (supposedly), yet again, with basically no historical reality reflected in the stories in the Book of Mormon. At least Christianity has some historical clout to it, even if it seems its all a bit under what we'd like it to be by today's historical standards.

 

[cloudyday2]

I haven't looked into the existence of Muhammad (feces be upon him), but I would think that his existence has been independently verified given his involvement in conquests.

"FBUH" instead of "PBUH" - yeah, I like that LOL. Another possibility is "Muhammad (SYFP)" ("see you in the funny pages" )

There are a few scholars who believe that Islam was invented AFTER the conquest as a way to legitimize the new empire. There is surprisingly little evidence that Islam or the Quran existed during the time of the conquests. Those scholars are a minority though.

But how do we debunk Matthew's zombie parade aside from showing that there is absolutely no historical record of it? And even if we did so to the satisfaction of every Christian on earth, it would accomplish very little. It all stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ. No Christian I know of has firmly established what one must show in order to debunk the resurrection, indicating either that they don't know of any such thing or that they know it is not in their best interests to set up unmoving goal posts.

I think one fundamental claim of Christianity is "Christ". Christians claim Jesus was God's promised Jewish Messiah. The Resurrection is mainly important because it seems to demonstrate God's approval of Jesus. (I'm trying to imagine the barest-minimum form of Christianity.)

A second fundamental claim is that Christianity somehow represents the teachings of Jesus (however imperfectly).

A third fundamental claim is that Judaism was God's chosen and revealed religion.

So my personal approach has been to learn the origins of Judaism and its many fundamental changes over time, and to persuade myself that Jesus was an Essene who believed that God was going to overthrow the existing order and install Jesus on the throne in Jerusalem as the Messiah. (In a nutshell that's been my strategy.) If I can persuade myself of these things, then Christianity isn't viable for me.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What "zombie parade"?

Matthew 27:52-53

And exactly what "must" be shown to debunk Christianity?

You tell me. I assume there's some place in your reasoning where you have a "___ , therefore Christianity." I imagine there would be several such pillars.

If you have no pillars, then what does your faith rest on?

Does someone have a time machine stashed away somewhere by which we can go back and verify or unverify anything about Jesus?

No, but I have a cookie. Here you go.

One important aspect of Hinduism to consider is the possibility that the Caste System was a later addition to the overall and ongoing collection of these ancient sets of belief. And if my memory serves me right, it theoretically came later with the onset of what are called the Aryan invasion. However, even if it wasn't a later addition, and the Aryan Invasion isn't a correct theory, it does seem to be a bit unhumanitarian either way, doesn't it?

Ok. Didn't know any of that.

Now, let's jump on over to the Old Testament and tear it a new one, too, shall we?

Sounds good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My faith in Christianity has withered to the point that I have a hard time imagining ever believing again, but I like to double-check my conclusions periodically.

So I started in the style of a proof by counter example. Assume Christianity in some basic and standard form is true. Can I find a counter example to debunk this assumption to my satisfaction? Or must I rely on the lack of positive evidence and unlikeliness of Christian claims?

Is there some core assumption of Christianity shared by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox (so that nobody can dodge the bullet) and then a counter example that would convince a reasonable person that this core assumption is extremely unlikely if not impossible?

EDIT: And exclude the assumptions from Christian scholasticism such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. I don't consider those things core assumptions. A core assumption might be "the crucifixion served a divine purpose". That's the type of thing I'm after.

Personally, Cloudy, I think this whole idea that both Christians and Atheists have, on either side, that Christianity must somehow be "shown" to be provable or disprovable in order to believe, or not, ignores a whole set of complex issues and reduces the idea of faith into simply asking one's self, in a really unqualified way, "is this true"? This is not the way to approach the acceptance of any religion, on either side. We are not building ocean-liners here that have to "prove" to remain safely buoyant for us to transport thousands of people. We are trying our best to reach out and somehow touch, or become in tune with a Divine Being who transcends the ordinary confines of flesh and blood, earth and water, sunshine and moonshine. Unlike building a spacecraft for the purpose of reaching the moon, a destination that if and when we land WE KNOW we've arrived, we are instead trying spiritually to reach beyond ourselves and see if we can "understand" and/or "perceive" God (indirectly) or the things of God (directly).

But all of this demand for satisfaction of proof is a misplacement of expectation and not fitting for the project we are involved in. If we want to do something scientific, then we may want a system of thought that relies more on epistemological Correspondense between and ideas and reality as far as we can tell. But if we want to do something of a religious nature, then its going to likely remain within the confines of epistemological Coherence of ideas as we attempt to understand our religious choices, which involves a bit looser set of epistemological expectations and fittings than those which attend those belonging to Correspondence.

The problem, in sum, is that many Christians and Non-Christians want to believe a belief that comes before religious belief; and that prior belief is that somehow, it "should" all be simple. The problem is that reality isn't simple--it's complex, highly complex. Our brains are complex. Our biology is complex. The biomes which provide for our earth's organic life are complex. The Sun is complex. Our human history is complex. And much more of life and existence is complex. It always has been and always will be, and the expectation that it can be somehow distilled and simplified, or that it should be simple, is ... simply ... beyond false, and beyond wishful thinking. Rather, it seems to be just existential angst coming to roost in our disappointed minds and lives when our misdirected prayers fail ...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"FBUH" instead of "PBUH" - yeah, I like that LOL. Another possibility is "Muhammad (SYFP)" ("see you in the funny pages" )

Yeah, I generally shorten it to "FBUH" after a while.

There are a few scholars who believe that Islam was invented AFTER the conquest as a way to legitimize the new empire. There is surprisingly little evidence that Islam or the Quran existed during the time of the conquests. Those scholars are a minority though.

Interesting. Why are those scholars in the minority if the evidence for Muhammad (FBUH) is sparse?

I think one fundamental claim of Christianity is "Christ". Christians claim Jesus was God's promised Jewish Messiah. The Resurrection is mainly important because it seems to demonstrate God's approval of Jesus. (I'm trying to imagine the barest-minimum form of Christianity.)

A second fundamental claim is that Christianity somehow represents the teachings of Jesus (however imperfectly).

A third fundamental claim is that Judaism was God's chosen and revealed religion.

So my personal approach has been to learn the origins of Judaism and its many fundamental changes over time, and to persuade myself that Jesus was an Essene who believed that God was going to overthrow the existing order and install Jesus on the throne in Jerusalem as the Messiah. (In a nutshell that's been my strategy.) If I can persuade myself of these things, then Christianity isn't viable for me.

I'm not sure why you would set out to persuade yourself of anything... other than that you should accept the truth, whether it's bitter or sweet.

Whether Lord, liar, lunatic, legend, or lore, if you set out to persuade yourself that Jesus was one of these predetermined conclusions then you will warp your reasoning to accommodate your bias.

Simply set your bias aside, value the truth for its own sake, and make your observations.

 

[cloudyday2]

I've read and studied the entire Qu'ran, and I don't see any history there either, other than prophetic rhetoric and frequent allusions (and reinterpretations) to the Old Testament and to bits and pieces of New Testament ideas. Mormonism is much like Islam in presenting a "new," additional revelation to the world (supposedly), yet again, with basically no historical reality reflected in the stories in the Book of Mormon. At least Christianity has some historical clout to it, even if it seems its all a bit under what we'd like it to be by today's historical standards.

The key historical claim of Islam is that a God revealed the Quran to Muhammad, and that Muhammad's life was an example of righteousness. The fact that the Quran apparently includes the infancy stories about Jesus and Mary as historical fact makes it uninspired IMO. Also the belief that Jesus escaped death at His crucifixion apparently comes from the discredited gospel of Peter. Islam is easy to scratch off my list of possible beliefs IMO.

 

[cloudyday2]

Interesting. Why are those scholars in the minority if the evidence for Muhammad (FBUH) is

I think it might be several factors:
(1) No scholar wants to be labeled an Islamaphobe.
(2) A lot of the source material scholars need to study is controlled by Muslim clerics who could potentially cut them off.
(3) Sometimes the research grants for studying Islam come from Muslims and that could be cut off too.
(4) The ideas are new and haven't had time to propagate.
(5) Also there is the potential of some young Muslim fanatic trying to kill you. I believe one of the books is published under a false name for this reason. I haven't really read much on this, because Islam isn't a serious contender in my religious horse race.

Here is a Wikipedia article giving an overview:
Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Matthew 27:52-53

Yes, I figured those were the verses you were referring to. However, I'm not seeing any zombies there, and I think that to impugn those verses with such cheap language is to dismiss them without trying to apply any hermeneutical acumen to them, even if they turn out not to be true. [But I'm not saying that I think they're indeed false, but more likely misunderstood or assumed to mean something which they don't.]

You tell me. I assume there's some place in your reasoning where you have a "___ , therefore Christianity." I imagine there would be several such pillars.

If you have no pillars, then what does your faith rest on?

Oh my Gosh, NV!! How many times do I have to reiterate that when it comes to religious belief, religious literature, and/or religious truth, particularly as it pertains to Christian faith, I'm not a Foundationalist, nor an Evidentialist in the Cliffordian vain. I'm more of an Existentialist with Coherentist leanings in this regard. But in the area of science and cosmology, I'll do what mainstream scientists do: use the Scientific Method with Methodological Naturalism and see where that leads me. Gee ....... wiz, NV! (Moreover, see what I wrote to Cloudy above in post #192.)

No, but I have a cookie. Here you go.

Is it chocolate chip? I love me a chocolate chip cookie!

Sounds good.

Yeah...........I'm not going there today.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure why you would set out to persuade yourself of anything... other than that you should accept the truth, whether it's bitter or sweet.

Whether Lord, liar, lunatic, legend, or lore, if you set out to persuade yourself that Jesus was one of these predetermined conclusions then you will warp your reasoning to accommodate your bias.

Simply set your bias aside, value the truth for its own sake, and make your observations.

That is good advice. In 2009 I had that mental breakdown I mentioned earlier. Shortly after joining CF (2012?) I learned about psychosis from a therapist and that seemed to explain my experiences from 2009. But I had a hard time fully accepting this explanation, and as long as any significant doubt remained I continued to have problems with magical thinking and so on. I thought that atheism would be solution for my mental health, so I started learning as much as I could about the history of Christianity in hopes that I could fully kill my faith and heal my mind.

So that is why my approach has been goal-oriented and maybe a little biased. Interestingly what helped me the most in healing was being forced to confront one of my delusional fears and realizing that it was only a delusion. However, by that time, I had already read too many skeptical books about Christianity to change my course back to faith, so I was already basically an atheist.

That is partly why I like to revisit my conclusions on Christianity sometimes. My thinking isn't always very organized, and sometimes I make mistakes - especially under the circumstances of the past few years. I'm not sure I was fair to Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is good advice. In 2009 I had that mental breakdown I mentioned earlier. Shortly after joining CF (2012?) I learned about psychosis from a therapist and that seemed to explain my experiences from 2009. But I had a hard time fully accepting this explanation, and as long as any significant doubt remained I continued to have problems with magical thinking and so on. I thought that atheism would be solution for my mental health, so I started learning as much as I could about the history of Christianity in hopes that I could fully kill my faith and heal my mind.

So that is why my approach has been goal-oriented and maybe a little biased. Interestingly what helped me the most in healing was being forced to confront one of my delusional fears and realizing that it was only a delusion. However, by that time, I had already read too many skeptical books about Christianity to change my course back to faith, so I was already basically an atheist.

That is partly why I like to revisit my conclusions on Christianity sometimes. My thinking isn't always very organized, and sometimes I make mistakes - especially under the circumstances of the past few years. I'm not sure I was fair to Christianity.

I have to say that despite whatever you're feeling and thinking from time to time... you sure do write well, Cloudy! Really, I think you do! I always enjoy reading it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think it might be several factors:
(1) No scholar wants to be labeled an Islamaphobe.
(2) A lot of the source material scholars need to study is controlled by Muslim clerics who could potentially cut them off.
(3) Sometimes the research grants for studying Islam come from Muslims and that could be cut off too.
(4) The ideas are new and haven't had time to propagate.
(5) Also there is the potential of some young Muslim fanatic trying to kill you. I believe one of the books is published under a false name for this reason. I haven't really read much on this, because Islam isn't a serious contender in my religious horse race.

Here is a Wikipedia article giving an overview:
Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

What a sorry state of affairs.

That is good advice. In 2009 I had that mental breakdown I mentioned earlier. Shortly after joining CF (2012?) I learned about psychosis from a therapist and that seemed to explain my experiences from 2009. But I had a hard time fully accepting this explanation, and as long as any significant doubt remained I continued to have problems with magical thinking and so on. I thought that atheism would be solution for my mental health, so I started learning as much as I could about the history of Christianity in hopes that I could fully kill my faith and heal my mind.

So that is why my approach has been goal-oriented and maybe a little biased. Interestingly what helped me the most in healing was being forced to confront one of my delusional fears and realizing that it was only a delusion. However, by that time, I had already read too many skeptical books about Christianity to change my course back to faith, so I was already basically an atheist.

That is partly why I like to revisit my conclusions on Christianity sometimes. My thinking isn't always very organized, and sometimes I make mistakes - especially under the circumstances of the past few years. I'm not sure I was fair to Christianity.

When it comes to mental health, I can't pretend to have any ideas. I guess you may have the one legitimate reason for plowing ahead of the ox.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, I figured those were the verses you were referring to. However, I'm not seeing any zombies there, and I think that to impugn those verses with such cheap language is to dismiss them without trying to apply any hermeneutical acumen to them, even if they turn out not to be true. [But I'm not saying that I think they're indeed false, but more likely misunderstood or assumed to mean something which they don't.]

Step away from the Rube Goldberg machine and just read what the words say. I'll be here waiting.

Oh my Gosh, NV!! How many times do I have to reiterate that when it comes to religious belief, religious literature, and/or religious truth, particularly as it pertains to Christian faith, I'm not a Foundationalist, nor an Evidentialist in the Cliffordian vain. I'm more of an Existentialist with Coherentist leanings in this regard. But in the area of science and cosmology, I'll do what mainstream scientists do: use the Scientific Method with Methodological Naturalism and see where that leads me. Gee ....... wiz, NV! (Moreover, see what I wrote to Cloudy above in post #192.)

You are like a James Bond villain with overly complicated plans that accomplish nothing, while Bond's ten-cent bullet is straight and to the point.

Is it chocolate chip? I love me a chocolate chip cookie!

Yeah...........I'm not going there today.

Lol, ok.