Why believe in religion?

NO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

You claimed Jesus' resurrection was historical fact. I said put up or shut up.

You couldn't.

God has no power here.

Your evidence is not valid. It is based upon biased presuppositions and assertions. You are listening to people who are making claims no human is likely to know anything about. You merely accept the validity of a proposition like those made in the bible, which is insane to me, considering I spent class after class in college, and hours upon hours on my own, actually reading the bible through, and seeing how it is clearly not true.

You are 1000% percent wrong on your second paragraph. Science makes no metaphysical claims, that is the realm of philosophers. Religion is bad philosophy. Science attempts to explain the natural world. Christian and jewish beliefs are not making honest claims, that is why they rely upon faith. Christian beliefs can utilize reason, but the assumptions that form this rationale must be ones that are based in reality. Saying "Jesus talks to me and says I cant eat meat on fridays" Is using reason, given a certain set of assumptions. That does not entitle these beliefs to respect of validity because they are made on bad evidence, and follow no rigor of what humans generally go through to judge the truth value or a given proposition. Merely thinking that your beliefs are justified because you believe in them is not a proof.

Was the Earth formed over billions of years in a vacuum, constantly changing, or was it created in 6 days, then somewhat ruined when a talking snake gave people knowledge? It's pretty obvious which of these propositions has undergone the rigor of a scientific approach.

And lets go to your rebuttal of Foxhound's post. You are basing your opinions on grace vs. law based upon the writings of Paul, who directly contradicts many many of the things Jesus said when he was "In the flesh" as Paul calls him. What does Jesus himself say about Grace vs. The Law? These all come from the gospels christians suppose were written by the people that actually knew christ. Here we go:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Your argument does not hold water.

I think religion just works for some people, and that's all there is to it. I'm not religious, I really can't explain why it works for some people, but it does.

I seem to have a thing for religious ladies. If someone I can appreciate like that came from something as difficult for me to grasp as religion, it must be doing something right to inspire a lot of people into being so unique and different in this messy world.

All you did is provide citations to validate what I said. Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT. He fulfills the law. People in the OT abstained from pork because it was unclean. Jesus came along and said it's cool to put any food in your mouth, but be careful of what comes out of your mouth. We don't do sacrifices anymore because Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. His sacrifice is for eternity so we don't have to offer anything else up. He did it for us. I could go on and on but we are saying the same thing her. You just don't seem to know it.

Why is religion even a topic. Some people wear flares, some people think they're out dated. In this day and age Techno Vs Metal is just as stupidly arguable.

He tells you outright to follow the old laws. How can Jesus' beliefs be taken seriously if he tells you to follow the law one one hand, then tells you to abandon it in the next?

but his evil twin certainly has ...

I used to be antireligion until someone said to me, if it makes us happy?

People who own pets live longer than those who dont

Everything humanity has discovered in biology, chemistry and physics says to me that religion is wrong and has no basis in reality.

There is no scientific evidence that any religion is actually true and given what humanity has discovered about evolution and how the human body works I can definitely say that there is no basis for religion.

Science has proven that there is no life after death and that no one can actually come back to life after they have died because death is probably really final.

yeah ... wait, what ?

I provided evidence and a source about the state of the debate you half-heartedly denounced said state of the debate while offering no support for your opinion other than your own. That behavior is what should be called self-righteousness.

Do you truly believe that Jesus Christ, who surrendered himself to die for others based on the concept of a sacrifice for sin, would encourage murder, a sin?

That contention holds no merit.

The evidence that I provided has been utilized for nearly two millennia by scholars. For some reason, the only people who I have ever spoken with who say it is not are two people on GameSpot with the "rational position." No professional theological researchers that I have read about are or did denounce Josephus, Tacitus, or any of my other sources and they successfully retain credibility except for the existentialist theory mentioned multiple times in this thread that supports those sources, but forgoes supporting the resurrection. It is funny that your adamant position is claimed as both morally and intellectually superior to shepherds from ancient times, yet their legacy has survived to contemporary time. I find that a stronger position than an assertion of someone being "1000 percent wrong" about something.

It is my contention that without purpose, presence is not justified. I learned that from my uncle. He is an educated person. If a scientist is not aware of the assumptions that he makes when performing the scientific method then he is probably following someone else's views on the metaphysical aspects of science, anyway.

Your first question takes into account none of the tenets of the Jewish faith. Killing is ok for the God of the old testament, under certain contexts. Look at the Ten Commandments. The oldest translations say thou shalt do no murder, nor thou shalt not kill. When Moses comes down from the mountain, what does God tell him to do? Kill a whole bunch of people. Jesus was not some ethereal, detached person christians make him out to be. His views on violence, although contradictory at times, were far more complex than christians care to learn. He knew that revolt against Rome would require violence.

For like the 800th time, Josephus' Antiquities of The Jews, He simply says Jesus, The Messiah, was crucified by Pilate. That is all he says in the Testimonium Flavianum. This is not a proof, and most scholars do not consider this to be authentic in it's entirety, like say, his writings on James or John. Once again, this is not a proof, but an assertion, submitted by someone who was admitted to have not been there, or even anyone who had claimed to even have met anyone who claimed to be there.

Now, Tacitus. Tacitus, in the Annals, merely wrote of Jesus Crucifixion by Pilate, along with the torture of early christians. Tacitus was not a christian, was not at the crucifixion, never claimed Jesus was a God, the Messiah, or anything about him, except for the fact that some called him Messiah. This is not a proof of anything except the fact that Jesus was crucified. This is not a proof of Jesus being the Messiah in any way, nor of his teachings and beliefs being true

Pliny The Younger. Pliny flat out says the Christians are superstitious. Was he claiming Jesus was the True Messiah? NOPE. His letter to Trajan was 110 BCE! He never claimed Jesus the Messiah, never met anybody who claimed to be there. He asks Trajan how to deal with christians, because they wont denounce this Christo guy they keep talking about. This is not a proof, yet christians still trot Pliny as proof.

Lets grant your claim though. All three of these men 100% wrote their writings on Jesus with complete conviction of Jesus being the Messiah, and all of his beliefs being true. All of your work lies ahead of you, still. Even if they all claimed Jesus was lord, their assertions can be thrown away, considering they put forth no arguments, and no evidence in any fashion that is even falsifiable. You seem to think that because scholars do in fact take this writings, for the most part, as being authentic to the men who they are attributed to, this does not mean anything towards proving anything about christ was true.

And I find it hilariously naive on your part to essentially tell me "If those illiterate barbarian peasants were wrong, how did their beliefs survive?" Completely overlooking the entirety of Christian history and it's spread on the tip of a sword.

There was nothing half-hearted about my denunciation of your sources. You listed non-contemporaries of the man, who neither witnessed his death/resurrection nor his life or birth. They are not reliable primary sources. This is how secular history works.

There is no primary source for the life and times of Jesus Christ, making him more a figure of myth than historical fact. These are the facts, and you being so adamant in denying this is becoming hilarious. The whole point of Christianity is that the power of faith overcomes the lack of evidence in favour of his resurrection. Which brings me back to my original point I made to you... someone who tries so hard to cement a figure of faith in reality with historical evidence is never truly strong in their faith and is trying very hard to put on a mask of commitment to their faith.

but thats not a secret like the 'universe.age.thing' ... the moon being the 'ancestor' of the earth, is a less knowen but common relegious/esoteric/spritistic believe ... the moons meaning is obviously less well documented and explored then the suns meaning for life ...

Not sure that was the intention. Probably more like making the ultimate sacrifice for mankind.

@hillelslovak: @foxhound_fox: When you two are willing to recognize the importance of two thousand years of scholarly support for the New Testament with the fact that the state of the debate remains with one of two leading contenders for the truth being the orthodox perspective about the resurrection of the Christ, which is supported by many scholars today, then we can talk. There are several faults with both of your approaches that are inhibiting you from understanding this.

Also, keep the ad hominems out of this thread, thanks.

That is what I was saying. I am not sure where the disagreement is.

Religion is a riddle that has been, in one form or another, with humanity for a long time. It is the center of life, if not life itself, to some, while some see it as the culprit for much of mankind’s suffering. Interestingly enough, although everyone seems to know what religion is, in actuality there is a huge divergence of views regarding the specifics of religion.

Perhaps it is useful to attempt to de-mystify this riddle called religion and examine it as objectively and rationally as we can. I fully realize that the subject of religion is extremely emotional, complicated, and it does not lend itself easily to unbiased and calm discourse. Yet being of the view that the difficulty of a challenge does not constitute the necessary and sufficient grounds for not attempting to solve it, I am calling on the collective wisdom of everyone to take a whack at it. We may not be able to solve this riddle of religion, but we all may end up with a greater insight. Below are some questions that should serve as starters for this discussion. They are neither exhaustive nor are they listed in the order of importance.

* What constitutes religion?

* What are the criteria that qualify one as divine religion as opposed to man-made religion or cult?

* What are the costs and benefits of religion and which is greater?

* Should humanity choose a religion from among the myriads in the marketplace? How and which one?

* Should humanity consensually create the Universal Declaration of Religion that would establish a uniform set of standards on moral and spiritual matters?

* Should religion and the state be one and the same? This arrangement would give religion the power to enforce its prescriptions and proscriptions.

* Would humanity be better served by completely ridding itself of any and all religions?

Come again? Is it customary for everyone to read a reply and take it as an arguement on these forums?

@oi_oi_spanky: @BranKetra wasn't arguing. He was asking for clarification. Clarification does happen all the time in these forums.

You must be his mum.

It took you days to post this? If there was so much scholarly acceptance of the Bible for the last 2000 years, you Christians would not rely upon faith at all. Your religion's chief strength is that it does not rely upon evidence or logic, faith is it's chief strength. Your continued assertion that these folk myths are supported by scholarship becomes more and more absurd the further the assertion goes............

For the 800th time, scholars do not take the gospels seriously. How could they? The gospels themselves dont even agree on the majority of events!

Only one fact is agreed upon by most scholars today: A man named Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Rome's Governor Pontius Pilate, for sedition.

let me shorten your suffering ...

in reality there is only one being, it sits inside a relfective sphere and stares at the endless reflections of itself while imagining there is an actual world around it ... you, me, everyone you know, is an individual reflection of one and the same thing ...

you can not believe in something you can not see, every day ... I only know that my mind exists, I dont know about the rest.

the mind knows no physical boundaries ...

can you spot the difference ^^

everything in nature follows the pattern of the Fibonacci Spiral, while the Fibonacci Spiral trys to stay as close as possible to the matehematical perfect Golden Spiral ...

so the Golden Spiral is the 'potential' and the Fibonacci Spiral is the manifestes 'potential' ... devine world and actual world,

the second is a less perfect recreation of the former ...

forget about peoples in the sky, angry father gods and healing angels and fire spitting deamons ... its just this relationship of potential and actuality

our solarsystem represents the manifested trinity through sun the mother, moon the father and earth the child of both

all monothestic, patriarchistic relegious systems wich put the 'father-son' relationship in the middle of their believe are only dealing with the moon as their highest devine force and shut their eyes before the complete meaning ...

@hillelslovak: I was preoccupied. As a moderator, student, and working professional, there is a limited amount of time that I have to respond to every post directed towards me.

I am not sure which scholars you are referring to, but I am certain that you are excluding a substantial amount of academic learners up to the doctoral level. Your intolerance for any Christian perspective on the Biblical Scriptures is essentially bigotry, and I do not care for it.

you really dont even need to believe in this, its just like it is

Bigot?! Haha. You still haven't answered a single question of mine.

Here is one you still have not answered: Since there are no extra biblical sources that claim any sort of knowledge regarding Jesus of Nazareth, and the writers of The Gospels, which were not written by their namesakes until decades after the events described, cannot agree on the vast majority of the works and actions of this man, how do reputable scholars even make an attempt at taking any of the writings seriously, considering christians take all of the gospels as the literal word of God?

You are not being honest, and your claim of calling me a bigot shows your arguments have nothing to stand on. Saying I am intolerant because I dont take your claims seriously is absurd. You trot forward terrible arguments made by Christians, and attempt to pass it off as utilizing the scientific method. When Christians attempt to use science to prove their beliefs, they disqualify themselves from honest scholarship. Scientists try to prove their assertions wrong in order to closer approximate the truth. Religious "Scientists" try to prove their assertions true, then when they find no support for their claims, dismiss the entire process completely and appeal to faith, as was the case with The Great Prayer Experiment.

I dont need faith, I have logic and reason on my side.

"Two thousand years of scholarly support".

Yeah, all from within the tradition. That in and of itself makes it spurious as actual history. It's an incredibly biased set of scholarly endeavours that go about trying to prove an already arrived-at conclusion.

The very fact you keep trying to fallaciously throw the burden of proof on us by distracting from the fact your "evidence" was never contemporary to the man you claimed ROSE FROM THE DEAD, (I'm not sure how much more emphatic I have to be about the magnificent level of evidence required to make a truly scholarly conclusion as this) just goes to show how infantile your line of argument has become. It literally has come down to "NO U" and I think I've already mentioned this before.

Prove, with something more credible than "this guy who never knew the person he was talking about, or even lived at the same time said" that Jesus' resurrection was a historical fact, OR, by the powers of Occam's Razor, we can conclude that the likeliest explanation for the resurrection myth in the Bible was that it was added well after the death of the man and the man who wrote about him by a chosen few who were placed in power by an emperor keen on winning as many POLITICAL converts to his side.

In early copies of the Bible (and I'm sure I've mentioned this already, but you've conveniently ignored) the Gospel of Matthew concludes at the tomb door closing and Jesus being DEAD. A corpse. Not a zombie that comes back, surprises a bunch of people, and somehow indirectly "saves" them from all future sin... but a human being who came along with some decently revolutionary ideas for an Iron Age civilization and was moulded by a bunch of creative writers into the divine being we know today.

There is as much historical evidence in favour of the resurrection as there is in the concept that Jesus faked his death and escaped Rome to travel to India (where there is a shrine and people who worship him BTW) to become a Buddhist monk.

Dude. Either put up, or shut up. You aren't even making compelling responses anymore. You are a record player that's hit the end of a very short LP.

HAHAHA

What next, his/our disagreement with your assertions makes us akin to Hitler? You are literally one step away from Godwin's Law here man. Come up with something compelling or just give up on the argument. You can't win. We have actual scholars who don't try to prove a pre-determined conclusion on our side.

You'd think a Christian of all people would have the humility to admit defeat when they know they've lost.

@hillelslovak: I would suggest studying model theory to understand how seemingly contradictory information can be in harmony. Also, talk to a judge about the historicity of witness testimony as I said near the beginning of my comments in this thread. Further, discrediting all Christians for our faith is intolerance of our views. What next, Christians cannot talk about science or art because we believe differently than you do? It is bigotry.

Finally, as those who have studied quantum mechanics or the Biblical Scriptures will probably tell you, human reason and logic can be incorrect, and empirical evidence can be all that we have to rely on for scientific analysis.

@foxhound_fox: People do not need to identify as Christians to see that you are attempting to juxtapose your illegitimate views on the state of the resurrection debate with the facts. You are the one who is incorrect about the facts. If you cannot find support for any of your positions considering the countless works of literature on Christianity, even one that you could show, then I think it is safe to say that your view is limited to yourself. At this stage of the debate, not showing any sources is intellectually lazy.

Good luck to both of you and God bless.

I sincerely hope that even one of you rethinks their approach to debate because this was not a good one as a direct result of it.

SUPPORT? Dude. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS SUPPORT. A man purportedly ROSE FROM THE FUCKING DEAD and all the evidence you have is a guy who never knew him and only wrote about him decades after the event happened... almost in passing.

Our approach to debate is spot on. It's you who don't seem to understand the ridiculously simple concept of the burden of proof.

More babble! You accuse me of being a bigot again! Absurd! Your faith discredits itself without any help from me. Acknowledging the fact that faith requires no evidence, and is not faith if provided with evidence does not make me a bigot. You are the one trying to square a circle. Christians can talk about science all you want, but when you provide no evidence, and come to the scientific table with mythology and your mind already made up, it is the job of people who respect the actual scientific method to point out what is wrong with your misuse of the method. It's not bigotry to point out that you assert faith in one breath, then attempt to provide evidence in the next.

Common sense can be wrong, but that is a false logical line to suggest that because that is the truth, then it's logical or reasonable to believe people can fly into and out of our dimension, that people can have children without undergoing the known preconditions for pregnancy, or survive their own deaths in another dimension. You are working with claims made by illiterate bronze age peasants who would have their minds blown by a wheelbarrow. You keep asserting that these people, unique among all humans, were the ones who had a secret knowledge so transcendental, to defy explanation in the natural world.

You keep asserting that "No, dude, scholars totally support these folk myths, it's true, I know it" Overlooking hundreds of years of modernity delivering hammer blow after hammer blow to the supposed facts of your book, and providing nothing but "studies" done by christians to prove their biased presuppositions. You ignore the role of faith within your religion completely as well. If your claims could be proven, or even rendered plausible, you would have no need for faith. In past epochs, christians could merely imprison, burn or silence it's critics, and play the faith card on questions the Bible was not proven to be wrong about yet. But piece by piece, your book has been shown by rational inquiry and the scientific method, with intellectual honesty at it's core, to be wrong and immoral, and your response is "No, the burden of proof is one you, the people who doubt these fantastical claims."

The level of dishonesty on your part is just as absurd as your name calling us bigots because you can't support your claims. Incredibly dishonest, and it shows the poverty of your position.

@hillelslovak: You said "babble," but actually, I had faith in the possibility of Christianity being the truth as well as a number of other stances including atheism then the evidence as well as my personal witness supported one hypothesis in the form of Christianity. My stance is built on historicity that I was originally aware of, personal interpretation, and application to contemporary time. Then, the evidence has begun to further be understood. The original disciples were different. They saw Jesus in a reborn flesh. Con men do not die for their designs.

You are quick to speak about truth without recognizing experience.

For someone done with the discussion, you seem quick to return to it Bran.

@foxhound_fox: I have not said that I was done with this discussion. You continually imply that I am a hypocrite to attack my character. Be careful.

Full disclaimer: My previous comment is not an attack on character, but rather a fault in thinking about reason rather than empirical evidence as stated numerous times in this thread unlike an equally similar comment about my conduct based on what are thought of as my personal values.

Yet......again.....you neglect the most reasonable proposition about Jesus: That he believed himself to be the Messiah, and he failed at that task, thus he, and his disciples were mistaken. You are not talking to someone who has a blind, prejudiced hatred for religion. I grew up listening to this kind of nonsense you are proposing, then I turned 14, and I read the book through, without study guides, or people assuaging my questions away with sophistry, or appealing to faith. When I started thinking for myself, I saw the book as it is, a collection of stories, written by biased people who believed they knew the exact nature of the Universe, to further an agenda. How are you not taken aback daily by the incredible level of arrogance this view fosters?

You're the one making bs claims. I'm the one who actually applies the knowledge I have about the Romans, The Jews, the customs and societies of both, and apply it. Jesus thought he was the Messiah, here to rule over the Twelve Tribes of Israel, on God's behalf, here on Earth. You follow the people who, when this belief was proven to be completely false, by Jesus' being captured and crucified, rationalized this all away, and contradicted the sayings of the man they suppose to follow.

If faith is what's important, which seems to be your stance, why don't you convert to Islam? They also say that they use faith, and they assert that unlike Jesus, Muhammad is actually a person within the bounds of history, to cover up the fallacies their book provides. Why is it you think you just happened to pick the right god, and all the other thousands of other Gods are false, and dont even exist. Do you need science to tell you that the Quran is an absurd collection of fables, folk tales and thefts from other religions? No.

You simply assert ancient books and faith, and pretend as if all the work that honest people must undergo to prove things right or wrong, is already done by your assertion. Dishonest.

Be careful of what? Are you going to abuse your mod powers and involve yourself professionally in a discussion you are a part of? Isn't that against your guidelines? You should be wary, because if you DO in fact moderate me for a bullshit reason, I WILL go over your head to the administration here with a formal complaint.

Dude. We are not attacking you. The fact you think we are is laughable. We are trying to get you to prove your assertion. Neither I nor hillelslovak have resorted to any sort of attack. YOU called us (or just him, I'm not exactly sure) a bigot for being "intolerant" of your views (that is a fallacious assertion in and of itself, since you think it somehow would discredit our argument, which, even if it WAS bigoted, wouldn't).

There is no intolerance here. I just want you to back up a claim you made with some hard evidence that would be acceptable to a secular scholar. Not inter-tradition hand-waving that already has a conclusion and finds threads of evidence to back it up.

Okay, I see that this thread is not going anywhere. It has not been for some time.

As usual, if anyone has any complaints about this decision, contact DigitalDame, our community manager.