Why would one worship a man who has been dead for centuries, a man who died not for sin, but for treason, and for the sake of the roman empire? A healer? a teacher? Sure, but the son of gOD? Religion is the escape of the feeble mind to a place where no one can hurt them. The average person cannot grasp that they live simply to reproduce and die. They need meaning. The man who's face and name adorns the walls of homes, and even the skin of of those who believe, gives them their meaning. Why though? Why did this one man become the symbol of life and hope for over a billion people? Fear, and he knew how to ease that fear. He was an intelligent man, he knew to a point what he was talking about, but he was simply a man. When he died, he died. That was it. He was never resurrected, he never came back as that is not possible. Then why to this day do people look to the sky and tell him their deepest desires, their worst problems, their pointless wants and needs? They talk to themselves to comfort themselves, believing that Jesus will provide for them. Always depending on someone is not a way to live, and it is made worse when depending on someone who is not even alive. The human race has evolved and become more intelligent over the past few thousand years, yet they still cannot go through life without needing a higher power, without the need for a reason.
Go back in time, read history. Research mythology, and look, and learn. The similarities between Christianity and other religions are numerous and amazing. As I have yet to thoroughly research it myself, I would embarrass myself by explaining at this point and time, but be sure I will explain.
Another big problem I have with religion is faith, belief. "Just have a little faith." Just have some faith." "You just have to believe." Well I say NO! I don't want to have faith, I don't want to believe, I want to KNOW, but we cannot know, can we? We can only believe, we can only have faith, right? Right? Wrong. Here is where I will piss off the people who I haven't already, and those with the patience to read this all.
Tell me, what do you know? You know that water is wet, you know the sky is blue, the grass is green, and sex is great. You can see all this. You can feel all this.
What do you believe? There is a man in the sky. That there is a kingdom of peace and happiness far above the clouds, and one of hatred and pain far beneath us. You can not see any of this. You can not feel any of this(you say you can, but what you feel is emotion, I'm talking physical truths).
Which of these is more feasible? Even die-hard Christians would be stumped by this. The truth is, all that is around us, all we see, these are elements, atoms, chemical bonds and reactions. It is true that far above us it is peaceful, and far below us it is extremely hot, but it's is space, and Earth's core, respectively. You say Heaven and Hell are not on the physical, but the spiritual plane? Well think some more, if it is not energy, it cannot exist. What manner if energy is spirit? Is it a gas? Is your soul made up of hydrogen, of oxygen? It's not solid, all religion agrees on this. If it is a gas, where is it kept while we are alive, how can they not find the chemical makeup of the soul within the human body? Easy, what we perceive as the soul is merely consciousness. We as humans stand alone in that we posses the ability for conscious thought. We have a sense of individuality. We think, therefore we are. That is the soul. Complex chemical reactions occurring in the brain, being transformed into what we perceive as thought. Backtracking a bit, I've heard say that the soul is the leftover energy of our body, released after we die. Well, no. When we die, all energy is released as heat. If you know anything about what happens when you die, on of the main things is loss of heat. The body cools off. Is this cooling off the soul leaving? It is the energy, no longer being used to sustain life, being released as heat to go find work somewhere else.
Where does this leave us? Why then do we live if there is no reward or punishment? It's the way of nature. We are just lucky chemical reactions on a lucky ball of rock. In the perfect place, with the perfect circumstances, the perfect reactions took place. Water formed and expanded, and from that all else has risen.
A wolf is born, it feeds, it grows, it kills, it eats, it reproduces, it dies. From it's actions, more wolves will be born to repeat the cycle. It is the same with humans. That is why we live, to create life. That is the answer. That is the big mystery, that is the meaning of life.
Thank you, and goodnight.
I welcome feedback and debate.
_________________
Confucius say - Man who stand on toilet high on pot.
http://www.facebook.com/jamesp420
Because of a belief that he did in fact die for our sins and that he is the Messiah.
Atheists are quite amusing in their delusions of intellectual superiority.
No we haven't. We're about as intelligent as we were at the dawn of settled agriculture, we just have the advantage of millennia of accumulated knowledge and broader availability of information.
No, right. You have to believe, you can't know.
Your senses can deceive you, and in fact they quite frequently do. That our senses are an unreliable guide to the world around us is well documented.
Only if you're a materialist, and materialists run into some difficult philosophical problems, so I don't think you can just outright say that materialism must be correct.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I'm an Atheist too, and I find it more feeble-minded that you had to drawl out a long post telling religious people how stupid they are.
Look, I don't see how a religious person could possibly believe either, but it's not my place to tell them they can't or shouldn't. That's their business, as it is mine if I don't believe.
A truly intelligent Atheist would be content to hold their views on the matter, for their reasons, while allowing others to hold their own views for whatever reasons.
I'm non religious (I'm not calling myself Athiest to avoid the stigma of being a smart ass know-it-all), and I think this post is stupid. Life is subjective, as is everything in encompanies, so you can't say "life is meaningless" as if it's fact when most of the world don't agree with that
Because of a belief that he did in fact die for our sins and that he is the Messiah.
That Jesus was just another false messiah among many seems like an infinitely more probable explanation.
Atheists are quite amusing in their delusions of intellectual superiority.
What exactly is delusional about that? It seems like quite a sober position, considering our knowledge about the universe. Of course, we don't know anything about the multiverse, but that's another story.
Anyway, the OP didn't say anything theism, but religion, so your assumptions strike me not as amusing, but sad.
No we haven't. We're about as intelligent as we were at the dawn of settled agriculture, we just have the advantage of millennia of accumulated knowledge and broader availability of information.
It can also be noted that observation of miracles and supernatural phenomenons have become more and more scarce as the tools of being able to record history have become more advanced.
No, right. You have to believe, you can't know.
Well, you don't automatically believe in everything you hear about, so there must be a system of what things make more sense than others.
Your senses can deceive you, and in fact they quite frequently do. That our senses are an unreliable guide to the world around us is well documented.
We could live in the Matrix, but that is no excuse to assume that we live in the Matrix.
Our senses are quite unreliable, but they are the best thing we got.
'Well documented' becomes quite an oxymoron if our senses are an unreliable guide to the world, BTW.
Only if you're a materialist, and materialists run into some difficult philosophical problems, so I don't think you can just outright say that materialism must be correct.
It seems like quite a good assumption, since there is nothing to indicate there being anything else but the 'material'.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
We don't. Worshipping a man is precisely what we don't do.
Then why do we say, "Let us bow our heads and pray", and then look down and close our eyes? What does looking at the sky have to do with it?
And if all our wants and needs are pointless, why do you care what we do about them?
Evolved over a couple of thousand years? You need to review your science.
Sure. Was this supposed to be part of your argument?
In other words, you have faith in materialism, but despise faith in general.
No.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
the core things of christianalty.
1. jesus is the savior
2 he died for our sins
3 he is the son of god
4 god want us to have a loving relationship with him.
we human dont know how many forms of energy there are.
also no one can tell me miricles do not happen... I have seen them take place..... I have had prophecy... have athist here ever been to a pentacostal church or any church for that matter....
_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.
Look, I don't see how a religious person could possibly believe either, but it's not my place to tell them they can't or shouldn't. That's their business, as it is mine if I don't believe.
A truly intelligent Atheist would be content to hold their views on the matter, for their reasons, while allowing others to hold their own views for whatever reasons.
I a general sense I agree with what you said. But Believers are getting tax breaks which I am paying for along with other non-believers or doubters. So we have a right to object strenuously. The Believers are getting a free ride.
ruveyn
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,576
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
jamesp420; apparently around 2000 years ago the guy made a hell of a historical impact. Whether that was sheer coincidence or luck a guy reformed Judaism so much and apparently impressed enough people that today, in 2009, there are over a billion people adhering to his train of thought. Like Orwell mentioned, while we didn't have the stored and accrued knowledge that we have today its hard to figure that they weren't cynical of people with claims like these and especially in a heavily urbanized area, full of frauds, and full of - as Henriksson mentioned - people who were trying to call themselves the 'Messiah'.
ruveyn
There is no tax break for being religious, at least not here in the US. If you're talking about churches being tax-exempt, that is for specific kinds of organization, not belief. I remember hearing about a court case where it was affirmed that a non-religious churchlike organization got that same tax-exempt status.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,576
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Miracles and healings are something we usually haven't brought up in here, mainly over their controversy but then again I have noticed that the mass of the problem is that the documentation typically hasn't been good. The funny thing about it though, gut impulse is to call it all fraud but I then have to remind myself that there are some people out there, that I have seen, who really make the fraud bit seem implausible. Some researchers have talked about a temporary placebo effect where someone thinks they've been healed of who knows what (probably an emotional trauma) and that when followed up on they weren't healed but just in a better mood, which may work for depression or emotional traumas but if someone's lets say healed of some severe lung problem, crippling arthritis or back pain, or had something that was taking them to the brink of death, you get a little skeptical of the placebo explanation and particularly the vast sums of money needed to keep almost an army of such frauds quiet.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... index.html
A common argument for the truth of the Christian religion is that its origins were too improbable for it to be false. This argument has appeared in many forms over the years, but most of the usual ideas are combined into a single popular effort by James Holding.[1] The following article critiques that effort, by comparing Holding's arguments and claims there with the actual facts of ancient history, and identifying fallacies in his reasoning. Holding offers seventeen factors "where Christianity 'did the wrong thing' in order to be a successful religion" and concludes from this that "the only way Christianity" could "succeed" under those seventeen hostile conditions is "because it was a truly revealed faith," in particular "because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection." Besides those seventeen factors, Holding offers one additional critical assumption about "luck," making eighteen points altogether. Each of those points will be addressed in a separate chapter, in order, with his eighteenth underlying assumption counted last, followed by an evolving chapter responding to critics of the present work. In addition, I have added some preliminary remarks about method below (after the table of contents).
The Problem of Uncertainty
One thing that is missing from Holding's paper is any sort of formal logical or statistical argument. Despite his rather hyperbolic language, even Holding must admit that the odds of Christianity becoming successful without being true could not be zero even on all of his own assumptions. Human behavior is not that predictable, nor are there any demonstrated historical "laws" that make any conclusion about historical cause-and-effect beyond all probability of error. Rather, Holding can only mean that the probability of Christianity becoming successful, on all of his own assumptions and premises, is so low that we have no rational ground to believe it did--except by some divine aid. In Holding's version of the argument, this fact can only become reasonably probable if we accept as true the premise that the "witness of the resurrection" was (and therefore is) "irrefutable."
I will not quibble about what exactly "irrefutable" means, since I will assume he means the "witness of the resurrection" was (and therefore is) as irrefutable as the historical fact that Christianity was successful. All observers agree with the latter statement, and we certainly should believe any statement that meets the same standard, which is Holding's aim. However, how improbable would the success of Christianity have to be before we have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus to explain that success? Holding never says. Nor does he say how improbable Christianity's success really was. Yet without comparing those two estimates, it is not really possible to confirm the success of Holding's argument objectively. Many fantastically improbable things happen all the time, simply because so many things happen. For example, "that's about as likely as getting struck by lightning" is often used as a cliché of an event so improbable it never happens, yet over four hundred people are struck by lightning every year in the United States alone. Some people have been struck multiple times.[2] Hence our intuition often fails us when estimating the improbable.
Normally, this is not a barrier to historical inquiry, since we need only ascertain the most probable cause of an event, given all we know. And usually we can say that, given what we know, the most probable cause is the one that is most probably true, and therefore worthy of belief (though maybe only a tentative belief, depending on how much more probable it is than alternatives). However, in Holding's case this requires trying to sort out three crucial questions: (i) whether the "prior probability" of a miracle from God is greater than the prior probability of any alternative natural cause that is proposed to explain the same evidence (e.g. the prior probability of my being struck by lightning is a lot lower than my prior probability of catching a cold); (ii) the probability that a genuinely risen (and hence living) Christ would actually produce all the evidence we have (including a Church preaching immoral doctrines such as the subjugation of women and the persecution of doubters); and (iii) the probability that a qualified set of natural causes would still make Christianity as successful as it was.[3] We must also rule out the influence of a deceiving supernatural power, i.e. some force, such as Satan, who could bring about the same results through supernatural influence, as some Jews might allege for the success of Christianity.
Holding does not make any effort to answer these questions even vaguely. Thus, his conclusion can only be vaguely certain at best. We will nevertheless set this aside and assume Holding's argument succeeds unless we can show that some set of natural causes that we know for a fact happen more often than miracles do (i.e. natural causes that were not unusual or rare) were reasonably likely to have produced the same result (the actual success of the Christian Church). We will also assume for the sake of argument that all non-Christian supernatural causes that could logically be to blame are less probable than the most probable natural causes, whatever they may be. In other words, we will assume that if Jesus was not raised by God, then probably Christianity's success was due to natural causes, and not (for example) Satan.[4]
There's about eighteen chapters, but it thoroughly disproves the idea that Christianity was too improbable to reach the status it had today.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,576
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Aww heck - you came up with an article, I'm doomed. Guess I have to take the snake oil cabana somewhere else now .
Never heard of either of these guys, Holding or your author, but if they're still alive it sounds like they could use a romantic getaway together. I typically don't fall into the trap though of trying to explain away someone else's blunders, or someone else's ability to exploit those blunders. I'll admit that they both sound like expert cherry-pickers and Holding gave your guy an advantage by coming before him thus giving him an absolutist argument to peel apart which is all too easy.
I wasn't trying to change anyone's views you know. I was just putting thoughts into words. Stream of consciousness, though on a keyboard.
_________________
Confucius say - Man who stand on toilet high on pot.
http://www.facebook.com/jamesp420
I say once again that Christianity might not be just a mistaken myth but also a form of bullying.
In other words, we might have more to do than just prove them wrong. They might be choking us into Christianity to follow their laws and serve them for a lying promise of reward. Theologians might even know that their arguments are fallacious. After these idiotic dreams I've had about God calling me a loser, we'll have to consider that Christianity just wasn't as nice as we wanted it to be.
The big problem is going to be to convince Christmas-lovers that Christ believed in a furnace, that he'd have us cut off our limbs for sinning, and that we are cursed for laughing, or being full, or having all others speak well of us. Can you imagine Jesus Christ (or Santa Clause) on Christmas day telling you, "Don't eat too much! Cursed are the full! You, are you full? How dare you eat enough to be full on Christmas day!"
Or who could imagine, after hearing the carol Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, Christ's teaching that "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple"?
Does the image of a traumatized and helpless fish being thrown into a fiery furnace remind you of Christmas? Read Matthew 13:47.
Like I said, this looks like widespread bullying of the lower classes, sugarcoated with good deeds to make it look like they aren't in it for themselves. What we need is a real solution for the less fortunate, one that doesn't involve lying to them.
This 'God' stuff is just silly. We need to see it disappear along with deceptive marketing, fine print, asterisks, .99 price values, and everything else that makes us a culture of egoistic leeches compared to a perfect society.
_________________
Sixteen essays so far.
Like a drop of blood in a tank of flesh-eating piranhas, a new idea never fails to arouse the wrath of herd prejudice.