Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Oldgamer]

Good question....

I just saw this blog that kinda correlates with your post: Religion as a black market for irrationality; http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/religion_as_a_black_market_for_irrationality/

The Washington post wrote about that blog: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...s/2007/09/religion_as_a_black_market_for.html

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I wouldn't doubt Jesus's existence if I were you.

"What are you gonna do, bleed on me?" -- King Arthur to The Black Knight, but also strangely applicable here.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

LoL some of you guys take things too seriously. I think deep down you're afraid that there really is a God and that you'll go to hell for not believing in Jesus.

Just remember that God loves you and will continue loving you. All Jesus wants of you is to accept him for who he is so that he can help you.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Apparently, God "loves" us in the same manner as an abusive spouse.

 

[Ausm]

 

[Retro Rob]

The stories and evidence to support them would be the same though, in the situation I laid out about Jeffs: his followers write grandiose stories about him (apparently, that's actually a one-up on Jesus, as no one who wrote about him actually knew him), there is contemporary documentation mentioning his exiwritten about him stence, the stories purport miracles, it's 2000 years after the fact.

Same situation, yet you find it easy to dismiss Jeff's (or any other random supposed prophet you have no knowledge of outside the writings of him) miracles, but find the ones about Jesus believable.

You're comparing apples to oranges. They can easily pull Jeffs out of his cell and demand he perfom those "miracles".

If he doesn't, then I simply won't believe he ever could. I won't deny that he ever peformed them, however, I'd just wait till I see them. since he's actually alive.

I think this sums it up:

You don't believe the account about Jesus, so what? Your choice. If you do, fine, your choice as well. If you're going to deny and oppose the authenticity of the narrative and his existence and make that public, be prepared to show some evidence and without speculation - bring something hard since you would have to prove Billions of people wrong and dillusional.

Outside of that, you're just all talk, and "ifs" and "maybes". That doesn't fly in a court of law, it doesn't fly here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

there are non biblical historical accounts of Jesus at approximately that time period. And given the fact that there were many prophets and that Jeshua (Aramaic for Jesus) was a common given name at that time, sugget a probability that there was a Prophet by the name of Jeshua around the 1st century AD. However claims such as walking on water resurrection etc. Can easily be chalked up to embellishments by the Council of Nicea, and The Council of Ephesus in order to convert Rome to Christianity at the time.

Interesting. The First Council of Nicaea was 325 AD and the First Council of Ephesus was 431 AD. All books of the New Testament were written hundreds of years prior and there's a mountain of historical evidence that the writings were not "embellished" as you indicate. What is your basis for making such a statement?

 

[Juddog]

Apparently, God "loves" us in the same manner as an abusive spouse.

Exactly - smacks you up, beats you down, makes you kill your brother and says "lol was just kidding, now you're going to hell though", if you go by the tales in the Bible. Dooms entire cities to die just because they don't believe in him, etc..

An egomaniac abusive spouse that's willing to throw you down into hell for all eternity for not doing what he wants you to do - "but he loves you".

Bwahahahah that's the greatest joke in the history of humankind and it boggles me mind that anybody in their right mind would take the Bible to be anything other than a set of short stories / parables that are there to teach a lesson.

 

[randomrogue]

Historically you were either religious or a heretic and punished severely. It really hasn't been until modern time that you even had a choice. With the easy access to information people can make intelligent decisions and don't have to rely on a single biased source.

Those that are bible thumpers were surely raised that way and are surrounded by people who believe the same thing. For them to be open to anything different would require accepting that their entire life's reality is incorrect. That's going to be very difficult for the average person. They would rather continue to use circular logic and fear since that's all they know.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But if so, you can imagine, I hope, why those who don't have it might be a bit upset that they can't be convinced to by something that approached logic, or why you, might just prefer not to pay too much attention to what they would call logic, no? It would seem, in short, that believers can be said to have a motivation to believe and deniers a motivation not to. It would also explain the fascination each has for the other and why both sides argue and why also, a third alternative never sees the light of day.

Discussions like these always seem to end badly...it's seems that most everyone here has "skin in the game" and argue as if they have everything to lose if they're wrong. This really isn't about rationality in my opinion...it's about ego and it's unrelenting quest to protect us.

I'm interested in your third alternative.

 

[OCNewbie]

You're comparing apples to oranges. They can easily pull Jeffs out of his cell and demand he perfom those "miracles".

If he doesn't, then I simply won't believe he ever could. I won't deny that he ever peformed them, however, I'd just wait till I see them. since he's actually alive.

Can they easily pull Jesus out of his cell now and do that? I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario, 2000 years into the future (akin to Jesus' circumstances today). I admit it's a pretty poor analogy as it I don't think someone in your position (or probably anybody) could accurately express how they would feel in a hypothetical situation, 2000 years into the future, compared to how they actually feel today.

I think this sums it up:

You don't believe the account about Jesus, so what? Your choice. If you do, fine, your choice as well. If you're going to deny and oppose the authenticity of the narrative and his existence and make that public, be prepared to show some evidence and without speculation - bring something hard since you would have to prove Billions of people wrong and dillusional.

Outside of that, you're just all talk, and "ifs" and "maybes". That doesn't fly in a court of law, it doesn't fly here.

I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced there never was a man named Jesus that is the subject of the Bible. What I'm saying is that many people (and not just on this message board) who have done significant research into the matter claim they can't find conclusive proof of him ever existing. Your choice, believe or don't.

As far as the "authenticity of the narrative", I assume you're referring to all the stories of Jesus in the Bible? If so, there is no proof the Bible is nothing more than a fictional story, just the same as all the other fictional stories that have ever been created. The standard is not to take a story, that is possibly fiction, possibly true, and to arbitrarily declare it true, without some sort of significant evidence to support that claim, and then to reverse the burden of proof and tell others they have to disprove it for it to NOT be true.

Like others have mentioned, the same goes for Greek mythology, or the Quran (better example). Why is it true just because people purport it to be true? Who gave those people authority to declare a story as fact without needing to provide evidence to show that as being the case?

And those "billions of people being wrong and delusional". You don't have to prove them wrong when they were never proven right to begin with.

 

[zsdersw]

From my perspective I think the basic gist is that spirituality transcends the scope of rationality. It answers questions for some that would otherwise be unanswerable...it quells an emptiness that is otherwise unrelenting...it brings a semblance of peace and purpose in a mad, mad world.

That's all well and good, but one's personal spirituality far too often spills over into the things we do to each other and the rules beyond the basics we impose on one another in the name of "fixing" or "preventing" a problem... and that is never good.

 

[OCNewbie]

A couple questions for the Christians:

First, what happens to the souls of those who were alive after Christianity was founded, but lived in the middle of a rainforest in South America, or high in the Himalayas, or some other extremely remote and/or seldom visited area, and for their entire lives, never even heard the words "Jesus Christ", much less his story? Are they sent to hell, for all eternity, because of that misfortune? Or do they still get to go to heaven, without having to have endured the trials/sacrifices that someone that does know the story has to go through? I assume "God" would know whether or not you knew about Jesus or not. What if you've only been exposed to just a small portion of Jesus' story? Is there a cut-off point where you've heard enough where you should believe, but because you choose not to, you're gonna burn? I wonder what that cut-off point would be.

Second, if science developed technology, that essentially allowed humans to live indefinitely, where there was no more natural death (from heart attacks, old age, brain cancer, etc.). Unless you were blown to bits by an explosion, had your head blown off, or some other catastrophic event happened, you could live forever. How would you feel about this? Would you oppose this sort of science? Would you expose yourself to the therapy/medicine that would grant you this quasi-immortality? Doing so could potentially prevent you from passing onto to Heaven indefinitely, so I'm curious how you would feel about this. I believe this WILL happen, and possibly within the next 100 years, but I'm all but convinced it will happen eventually.

 

[randomrogue]

Discussions like these always seem to end badly...it's seems that most everyone here has "skin in the game" and argue as if they have everything to lose if they're wrong. This really isn't about rationality in my opinion...it's about ego and it's unrelenting quest to protect us.

I'm interested in your third alternative.

I disagree. Partially at least. I'm not an atheist. I'm a spiritual individual. I have a problem with organized religion though since it's completely irrational. It's one thing to have faith that there's something bigger out there but it's another to start believing in Zombies, Angels, Ghosts, etc.

I'd bet you think the story of Mormonism is a crock of shit yet it mirrors the story of Christianity quite well. Scientology? Islam? Do you discount these other religions? Do you think that what they state as fact actually happened or do you write it off as absurd? Be honest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I disagree. Partially at least. I'm not an atheist. I'm a spiritual individual. I have a problem with organized religion though since it's completely irrational. It's one thing to have faith that there's something bigger out there but it's another to start believing in Zombies, Angels, Ghosts, etc.

I don't know what I am. Please know that I share your concerns with the irrational aspects of organized religions. Personally, I think it's everything to come to a faith that there's something bigger out there...everything else is noise in my opinion.

I'd bet you think the story of Mormonism is a crock of shit yet it mirrors the story of Christianity quite well. Scientology? Islam? Do you discount these other religions? Do you think that what they state as fact actually happened or do you write it off as absurd? Be honest.

Believe it or not...I was a Mormon for a short time...and yes, I believe it is a crock of shit; however, I also believe that it's a great religion as well. I don't think my opinion regarding these religions matters in the scheme of things...I think what really matters is what you think and what you personally choose to believe. If there is a God...I can only hope that he won't fault me for being myself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I've been waiting for over 30 years for someone to tell me where Cain's wife came from.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can they easily pull Jesus out of his cell now and do that? I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario, 2000 years into the future (akin to Jesus' circumstances today). I admit it's a pretty poor analogy as it I don't think someone in your position (or probably anybody) could accurately express how they would feel in a hypothetical situation, 2000 years into the future, compared to how they actually feel today

Gotcha. Well you're right, however, I think you're saying that just becasue something is old, it's valid.

That's the issue with the apocryphal writings - since they're old, they HAVE to be part of the story of Jesus, Moses, whoever.

If you were to take a gossip magazine that stated Denzel Washington was a flaming homosexual and hide it in your safe for 3000 years, would you believe that 3000 years into the future, even considering that everyone who knows him today writes to the complete contrary?

I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced there never was a man named Jesus that is the subject of the Bible. What I'm saying is that many people (and not just on this message board) who have done significant research into the matter claim they can't find conclusive proof of him ever existing. Your choice, believe or don't.

Yeah, I know that there are people who can't find sufficient evidence. Some say the evidence they find is good enough.

Ya know, as I stated earlier, how you view the documentation has a great influence on how one views evidence. Open-minded people are more likely, IMO, to be more objective and people who already view the information as unlikey to be true will scour through contrary documentation.

I would venture to say, though not certain, that most don't view the Bible as factual anyway. That much has been demonstrated, to a large degree, by posters even here.

As far as the "authenticity of the narrative", I assume you're referring to all the stories of Jesus in the Bible? If so, there is no proof the Bible is nothing more than a fictional story, just the same as all the other fictional stories that have ever been created. The standard is not to take a story, that is possibly fiction, possibly true, and to arbitrarily declare it true, without some sort of significant evidence to support that claim, and then to reverse the burden of proof and tell others they have to disprove it for it to NOT be true.

fair enough.

Like others have mentioned, the same goes for Greek mythology, or the Quran (better example). Why is it true just because people purport it to be true? Who gave those people authority to declare a story as fact without needing to provide evidence to show that as being the case?

And those "billions of people being wrong and delusional". You don't have to prove them wrong when they were never proven right to begin with.

Some people indeed accept things without proof, I don't.

You guys are really reaching -- assuming that all religious people are irrational, and have no evidence, etc when really, you have no evidence to support THAT claim you're making about religious people.

 

[OCNewbie]

If you were to take a gossip magazine that stated Denzel Washington was a flaming homosexual and hide it in your safe for 3000 years, would you believe that 3000 years into the future, even considering that everyone who knows him today writes to the complete contrary?

Weird question... hah. I'm not sure I'd care enough about his sexuality to have an opinion, especially 3000 years after the fact.

You guys are really reaching -- assuming that all religious people are irrational, and have no evidence, etc when really, you have no evidence to support THAT claim you're making about religious people.

Well, ALL religious people are irrational to some degree, as are ALL people alive today (or that have ever lived), myself included. I find the beliefs that many/most "religious" people hold are based on irrational arguments, or just clearly improbable, if not impossible events. I find the wholehearted embrace of these events, because of the book they were documented in, to be irrational.

 

[Ausm]

Holly Rollers please checkout these stats....

 

[randomrogue]

You guys are really reaching -- assuming that all religious people are irrational, and have no evidence, etc when really, you have no evidence to support THAT claim you're making about religious people.

All? That's not fair. However if someone quotes the bible, thinks it's real, and can't keep their faith to themselves I would consider them irrational.

 

[Retro Rob]

Weird question... hah. I'm not sure I'd care enough about his sexuality to have an opinion, especially 3000 years after the fact.

Question successfully dodged.

It wasn't a question about his sexuality as much as it was about the credibility of the magazine. Of course, you knew that.

Well, ALL religious people are irrational to some degree, as are ALL people alive today (or that have ever lived), myself included. I find the beliefs that many/most "religious" people hold are based on irrational arguments, or just clearly improbable, if not impossible events. I find the wholehearted embrace of these events, because of the book they were documented in, to be irrational.

"Improbable"? Just admit you have no evidence and are holding your position based on what you think, what you want to believe... not what you know and can prove. Your position is as irrational as those whom you accusing of being irrational. You're obviously oblivious to this, or are simply ignoring it.

 

[Retro Rob]

All? That's not fair. However if someone quotes the bible, thinks it's real, and can't keep their faith to themselves I would consider them irrational.

You're not irrational for sharing what you believe to be true.

What's wrong with you people? I guess free speech means nothing to you, since you think it's irrational to exercise the right.

 

[etrigan420]

First, what happens to the souls of those who were alive after Christianity was founded, but lived in the middle of a rainforest in South America, or high in the Himalayas, or some other extremely remote and/or seldom visited area, and for their entire lives, never even heard the words "Jesus Christ", much less his story? Are they sent to hell, for all eternity, because of that misfortune? Or do they still get to go to heaven, without having to have endured the trials/sacrifices that someone that does know the story has to go through? I assume "God" would know whether or not you knew about Jesus or not. What if you've only been exposed to just a small portion of Jesus' story? Is there a cut-off point where you've heard enough where you should believe, but because you choose not to, you're gonna burn? I wonder what that cut-off point would be.

I was raised in the Baptist church and we were taught that ignorance was no excuse...yup...truly. They play this into getting money for missionaries, because if the savages don't learn about our benevolent "God", they're going to hell. We can't let that happen now, can we?

Babies were somehow exempt, 'cause, you know, we don't want people to think that our religion relegates dead babies to hell. That's just bad P.R.

Basically:

If you understand "God" and accept him = Heaven
If you understand "God" and don't accept him = Hell
If you don't understand "God" = Hell
If you're a babby = Heaven, because babby.

 

[OCNewbie]

Question successfully dodged.

It wasn't a question about his sexuality as much as it was about the credibility of the magazine. Of course, you knew that.

I'm not sure what I'd believe in that situation. Is it even possible to prove what a person's sexuality was 3000 years ago? Sexuality is not something confined by the laws of physics. If someone said Denzel was gay, then perhaps he was gay, if they said he was straight, then perhaps he was straight. There's no way to be sure one way or the other, but either is clearly possible. Can the same be said for what Jesus is said to have done? I don't think your choice of an example to make a comparison was a very effective one.

"Improbable"? Just admit you have no evidence and are holding your position based on what you think, what you want to believe... not what you know and can prove. Your position is as irrational as those whom you accusing of being irrational. You're obviously oblivious to this, or are simply ignoring it.

No, I have no evidence that Jesus didn't walk on water, or didn't feed a crapload of people with just a few (one?) fish, and some bread, or whatever it was, or that a man lived inside the stomach of a whale for 7 days (I don't know the details; someone mentioned it earlier in the thread), or that a man died, then rose 3 days later from the dead. I know there are others that can list numerous other stories that would be equally unbelievable if they were reported to have happened in current times. Yes, I find it illogical to believe those stories happened. I'm holding my position based on the fact that it's impossible to have done those things due to the laws of physics, etc. It's not what I want to believe, it's the fact that those feats defy reality.

 

[OCNewbie]

Babies were somehow exempt, 'cause, you know, we don't want people to think that our religion relegates dead babies to hell. That's just bad P.R.

Haha, good call... that's another thing I've pondered too. So what is the age cut off then, for when it's time to take responsibility and start believin' in Jesus? I imagine God has a formula custom tailored to each individual. I wonder if there's a clearly defined moment in a person's life? "Welp, he's past the point of no return... he better start believin' or he's gonna be a burnin'"