Why?

Post Reply New Topic

Ah...I think the term was annoyed. I believe what people view as choices are always determined by something, therefore in no way free. I would have understood if you had said, I believe God exists because of (instert reason/experience). Just as I would understand the atheist who would make a similar statement of believing God does not exist. Now I am really confused too. Please explain this statement.

He he...I just got it. Was that meant to be a joke? I think it is funny and clever like a joke.

You mean this guy?



Because he did really "a hell of an historical impact". In the opposite to "your" guy we know well his live and have some of his writings. Jesus' live is mostly unknown and without this impact, but the religion made one.

You just said what I said to begin with...at the end of all this...just that you started by saying it your way. Caesar as the head of Rome, true, could have been hidden in history as just another Roman leader which didn't happen. However a seat of power, like with many of the more famous and remembered Egyptian leaders - gives you something to hang your hat on if you play your cards right.

On the other hand you have a city boiling with shmucks and a mere peasant triggers a religion that over a billion follow today - a peasant among a sea of peasants. If someone wants to argue that he never existed (human being or otherwise) I guess the conversation would stop there and redirect to who made it up and how did it proliferate so well. As for if the man Jesus claimed to be the messiah - it chews up the possibility that he was just such a great rabbi that people carried his name on.

I won't dispute the point that just because its unlikely doesn't mean its impossible, I can grasp the concept of creative destruction of ideas and that in a world that has a proclivity to religion some had to succeed. The sociodynamics though behind this almost always seem strange. Aside from the Buddha being a prince, I don't know of that many religious figures who did come from royal origin. Abstractly though, when something has that much luck to grab hold and proliferate that wildly over time you are kind of stuck wondering if there isn't some degree of destiny at play when it comes to what ideas survive and which don't. For an average lower middle-class individual at the time to be that listened to, going on the hypothesis that he existed, it would take a lot for people to even give him a second of their time; likely it would just about require miracles. Someone can jump up and down and deny that point emphatically but - it doesn't change the notion that its an explanation that works.

My issue is that many atheists seem to automatically assume that being atheist makes you smarter. This simply is not true. It's not a matter of me saying "I'm a theist and I'm not an idiot." It's the stereotyping of an entire (extremely large) group as being composed purely (or primarily) of simpletons. The arrogance on the part of atheists is really uncalled for, especially since in most cases atheists can offer no better justification for their beliefs than can Christians. Also, the implication is such statements as the OP made is that religion (or specifically Christianity) is so ridiculous that it any reasonably intelligent person should see it as self-evidently false. This, as you can imagine, is rather insulting.

Exactly this was Caesar not - he was not "just an other Roman leader" - he transformed a (dysfunctional) city republic into an empire, which shapes the World till today. Roman law, antique philosophy, the symbols of Rome are anywhere - the Roman idea of the state as an abstract entity is anywhere in the world. You can't escape Rome.

He was by his revolution instrumental in shaping modern world. It is with good reason that only two month are named after humans: July and August.



May we could Christianity just as the one sect how won the race of supremacy in the end-phase of the Roman Empire. The name-patron is here without any further interest, especially we really don't know a lot about him.



Perhaps the reason for the raise of Christianity was the widening gap between the old elites and wider parts of the population. There was a decline in wealth at the end of the Roman Empire. Contrary to a wide spread believe the Roman Empire collapsed more into itself than from forces from outside. The self-administration of the provinces, as seen in the rule of Claudian-Julian Period transformed more-and-more to a centralized administration, closer to a military dictatorship. The currency was frequently devalued, the administration became more and more difficult.

Perhaps was the adoption and promotion of Christianity by emperor Constantine the last resort to stabilize the empire with a new ideology.

As, of course, it should be.

Would you not agree that if you averaged every Atheist to get some form of number representing intelligence, and did the same for every religious person, assuming the higher number meant more intelligent, Atheists would come out higher? As I've witnessed, the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to question your beliefs or think a little.


So Christians actually have rational arguments and impersonal justifications for their beliefs at all? News to me.


And can you explain how it isn't ridiculous to actually take Christianity serious after reviewing it?

Possibly, but this is likely tied to other factors. And you can get similar results comparing blacks to whites, are you going to go around bragging about how whites are intellectually superior to blacks and blacks are all ignorant fools? What would be your perception of someone who did that?

Incidentally, Christians compare quite favorably to atheists on a number of objective measure of outcomes in life- for instance, lower rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, better ability to consistently work towards long-term goals, lower rates of delinquency, etc. Should I then go around yammering about how all atheists are a bunch of lazy, alcoholic criminals?


And I have questioned my beliefs.

As for the rest of your post, I won't be trollbaited into entering yet another flamewar with the e-atheists.

I cannot speak for anybody else but I am very impressed with your intelligence, your grasp of general understanding and your general capability which is, it seems to me, greater than mine. That is why I find you such a fascinating puzzle and I am very curious as to why we disagree so strongly on the subject of religion. There are obvious participators in this forum who do not or can not think very deeply on the subject and you do not fall into that group. So I am concerned.

But it would most likely be mere coincidence if whites were more intelligent than blacks. The reason I state for Atheists on average being more intelligent is due to the majority questioning their beliefs among other things and actually posing some thought where as I see less intelligent people are more likely not to.


If you can supply a good reason why, I don't see a reason not to, nor would I mind disputing that with you.


I don't recall accusing you of not.


Oh yes, dismiss what I've said as trolling or flaming you instead of giving a proper reply or stating that you cannot reply.

It seems obvious to me that religion is not a settled question with a clear right answer. Humans have struggled with religious questions for millennia. There is little in the way of solid, tangible evidence that unambiguously favors one interpretation over another, and so religion has far more room for intelligent people to disagree than do other subjects.

Muslims would be similarly confused by you, for failing to grasp the "obvious" truth of Islam, with all the clear proofs the Qur'an gives to validate it. They even have a special word for people who should know better, but still reject Islam.

Why would it more likely be mere coincidence? Coincidence doesn't normally play into large intelligence divides between large groups. As far as intelligent people being more likely to challenge their beliefs... well, atheism is rather trendy, especially among those interested in math or science. There is a perceived opposition between religion and science, and so anyone interested in science is more likely to reject religion without delving into it too deeply. I know I fell into this when I was younger. It didn't mean I had given my beliefs any more thought than anyone else.

The motivation for posting my comments are not directly to challenge your convictions but rather to question my own. I have spent a rather long life trying to understand how so many people have totally accepted for reality what seems to me the very obvious invented nonsense of most religions. I do not deny that there is a good deal of compassionate understanding embedded with all the other quite wild and frequently incoherent proclamations and legends in all religions but history and current events indicates that this compassion is very frequently forcefully violated in the name of many of the inconsistent and truly ridiculous dogmas and this truly frightens and repels me. This is why I am seeking some way to reconcile what seems to me utter fantastic nonsense with a mind that reasons well and is reasonably well informed.

No you haven't. You have seen things for which you do not have a handy dandy natural explanation. Just because weird and wonderful things happen does not mean they are Miracles.

Think about it. If God knew what He was doing, he made the universe so that it ran in a certain way. If He has to intervene then it means He didn't get it right. Fiddling is a sure sign of incomplete and imperfect workmanship (or workGodship). On the other hand if everything is unfolding as God willed, then it makes no difference what He is up to now. The machine is running as planned.

ruveyn

hmmm no it does not mean that are but it also does not mean that they are not..... any way... I spy another loop.. which I shall avoid.