You can pick and chose which evidence is credible and which not. Paul mentions Jesus in his writings and his texts are the oldest in the NT. So that's the oldest evidence. Paul has never seen Jesus personally but he was in contact with some people from the group, most notably Peter and Jesus' brother Yakov (the founder of the Jerusalem church). Those guys, and quite a large number of others, have testified to Paul what they have witnessed, and they all speak about a resurrected Jesus. The NT makes it clear that not even Jesus' brother believed who he was/ who he claimed to be during his life time but changed upon witnessing that he's alive again. After Paul's writings a few of those from the Jesus' group started writing down some material, focusing on different perspectives of Jesus' activities and addressing different audiences. That material was written a few decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Apart from Josephus there are no other significant, contemporary Roman sources mentioning Jesus- and why would they? Palestine at that time was full of religious teachers, religious groups, various sects. Considering Jesus spent most of his time in Galilee, he would have hardly made an impact on a Roman historian. It is only after the resurrection that this Jewish movement starts developing and growing into a bigger religious group and is then getting picked by the Roman radar.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
You can pick and chose which evidence is credible and which not. Paul mentions Jesus in his writings and his texts are the oldest in the NT. So that's the oldest evidence. Paul has never seen Jesus personally but he was in contact with some people from the group, most notably Peter and Jesus' brother Yakov (the founder of the Jerusalem church). Those guys, and quite a large number of others, have testified to Paul what they have witnessed, and they all speak about a resurrected Jesus. The NT makes it clear that not even Jesus' brother believed who he was/ who he claimed to be during his life time but changed upon witnessing that he's alive again. After Paul's writings a few of those from the Jesus' group started writing down some material, focusing on different perspectives of Jesus' activities and addressing different audiences. That material was written a few decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Apart from Josephus there are no other significant, contemporary Roman sources mentioning Jesus- and why would they? Palestine at that time was full of religious teachers, religious groups, various sects. Considering Jesus spent most of his time in Galilee, he would have hardly made an impact on a Roman historian. It is only after the resurrection that this Jewish movement starts developing and growing into a bigger religious group and is then getting picked by the Roman radar.
Jesus being a real, historical human being is generally accepted by scholars of antiquity.
I know, it's just wiki, but wiki restates conventional wisdom on this point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Bart Ehrman, a brilliant secular scholar out of University of North Carolina, does not dispute the authenticity of the historical Jesus -- as a human being, of course, not the Son of God. That's good enough for me. What's interesting is that there appears to be general consensus that Jesus, the historical man, was indeed crucified.
Loads of people were crucified back then though, Romans were fond of it.
Yeah I agree, which is why the levels of agreement on the historicity dwindle as the sources change. My point was basically that that's the stuff that's more or less agree upon, the rest is contested.
When we talk about religion as fairy tales and get people taking issue with us this is why as an atheist I do so. If the part in bold is true then during his life Jesus didn't even convince his own brother. Now if you believe that people can rise from the dead then which parts of the books are to be believed and which taken with a pinch of salt. Next water into wine and miracle fish ETC none of which are that extraordinary once you are willing to accept dead people walking around. To me they are fairy tales and deserve no further analysis than the Nordic myths. Interesting perhaps but ultimately untrue.
It doesn't really matter whether Jesus was a historical figure if the mix of history v historicised myth/invention is 2%/98%. Josephus suggests that 'wonder-workers' were two-a-penny in Galilee, there were plenty of Yeshaus and plenty of crucifixions so even the 2% is probably a concoction of a number of different individuals.
That basically means being created after, the way they created it was by writing. The bible is not an historical text to take literally, its not even written in the way the likes of Tacitus or Cassius Dio would write a history.
It was an oral tradition, then the oral tradition was written down. 'Created' implies (to my ears) that the story was imagined up afterwards.
The evidence behind that point is too complex to describe right now. Mostly because Im not skilled enough to relay it, since its in the most part a fairly technical look at both the syntax and the content of the various gospels & how they stem from one another. But the evidence is readily available & very well debated within academia, if you care to check it.
Absolutely. I dont think most christians even believe that. I think we can rule out the miraculous for a start.
But that's not to say that there's nothing interesting left from a historical perspective, particularly in terms of the history of the religion and the nature of the beliefs people had.
Had it been totally fabricated from scratch in, say, 100AD then that does diminish it. On the other hand if it can be traced back to the earliest points of christianity then not only can you find interesting things from the scraps of truth, but you can also find interesting stuff from the bits that were falsely added as time went by, since that tells us about how people were trying to change the story of jesus to their own ends.
This thread is awful. Absolute car crash. Good day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who wrote Genesis 1:1-25 contemporaneously since there was no Adam or Eve until the 6th day (or or around 14Bn years if you take it figuratively)?
I think you just mis-read him.
I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness. - Hitchens.
What does this have to do with the price of fish?
Religion, what's the point...
discussing it? It's based purely on belief, so there's nothing to discuss.
discussing it? It's based purely on belief, so there's nothing to discuss.
I think you're undermining the value of the entire collection by saying you can find 'interesting things in scraps of truth'. Almost a third of the tanakh is poetry and oracles, in itself a category which doesn't need to pass any sort of test of historical/ archaeological scrutiny. The Pentateuch largely deals with laws and regulations and aspects of religious practice. Don't know what you make of the entire section after the conquest on Canaan up to the divided monarchy and exile, but there's lots of very solid data confirmed in archaeology/ extra-biblical sources. There's always been a debate on Genesis, Job, Jonah, etc. and to what extent those stories serve as metaphors a have a kinda similar function as the NT parables. Saying the Bible equals fairy tales can only come from someone who never read it. (I know this is not your position but there was another poster claiming something along those lines)
Last edited:
Yeah, bollocks to the enlightenment.
Great contribution.
It's almost funny, a good part of the reason why I became an atheist is because I read many parts of the bible that weren't preached at church.
Last edited:
Well not every single part of the bible makes for a good sermon.
Isn't the problem with religion not the sources of wisdom and inspiration, such as the Bible, but the misuses to which religious put these sources of wisdom and inspiration?
How many people in the history of the world have suffered due to abuses in the name of a deity? 500m seems like a reasonable number.
How many people in the history of the world have suffered due to abuses in the name of a deity? 500m seems like a reasonable number.
Nah I would say the books are pretty fecking awful.
The Old Testament has alarmingly few things that are considered to be good in today's world, and is riddled with boring genealogies and endless nonsense.
New Testament isn't as bad but still, for every verse like "God is love" there are pages of pointlessness like "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
If we omit all the pointless and bad stuff in the bible and leave it only with the good teachings, it would be about a size of a 15-20 page pamphlet/mini-book at best. (which out of over 1000 pages, I'd say is pretty bad)
The Bible, while it can have value as a study text for anthropology and whatnot, is a profoundly mediocre and boring book by today's standards. Not to mention that it's most likely to be a fiction, not inspired by God.
Last edited:
That looks like a review on Goodreads. 2 stars out of 5
Just like Marx said, religion is nothing more than an ideology imo. (and I know the irony in that, but still) And just like every ideology it can be a very very dangerous thing, with the danger obviously lying in the ease of it beeing manipulated. Everything that can be used to form extremist ideas has to be treated with care.
Just like nationalism and other extrem ideologies religion has the habit to bring out the worst in mankind, trying to force everybody into what you believe to be right. So for me religion is nothing more than a huge problem. With the reconnaissance and thousands of years of evolution it slowly become a minor and minor problem in Europe. Sadly there lies a big danger in all that beeing destroyed by some bigoted idiots.
All those who claim religion itself is not the problem but the way it is treated or understood, are wrong imo. If sth is that powerful to continually over thousands of years being used to kill, slaughter, burn and torture ppl then I think it is part of the problem. It might not be the only one, as many other factors come in (might, money, revenge) but the ease for it to be used to manipulate ppl is so dangerous that it has to be considered as one of the problems.
Obviously for me religion plays no role at all. I'd go as far as, and I know that i'll get shit for that, claiming that ppl that hold really strong believes are somewhat peculiar and strange for me.
Just like nationalism and other extrem ideologies religion has the habit to bring out the worst in mankind, trying to force everybody into what you believe to be right. So for me religion is nothing more than a huge problem. With the reconnaissance and thousands of years of evolution it slowly become a minor and minor problem in Europe. Sadly there lies a big danger in all that beeing destroyed by some bigoted idiots.
All those who claim religion itself is not the problem but the way it is treated or understood, are wrong imo. If sth is that powerful to continually over thousands of years being used to kill, slaughter, burn and torture ppl then I think it is part of the problem. It might not be the only one, as many other factors come in (might, money, revenge) but the ease for it to be used to manipulate ppl is so dangerous that it has to be considered as one of the problems.
Obviously for me religion plays no role at all. I'd go as far as, and I know that i'll get shit for that, claiming that ppl that hold really strong believes are somewhat peculiar and strange for me.
A good pisstake.
But on a more serious note, would there even be a question about the worth of religion if religious people were uniformly nice to each other and to "nonbelievers" rather than shaming and torturing them?
Take a look at the Amish and the Mennonites. I've met quite a few of them -- including a 70 year old Mennonite nun trudging her way up Half Dome in in just her flip flops, simple long dress, no hat, no gloves and no sunglasses
-- and they're the nicest people on the planet. The Amish are fantastic folks and it would be worth the effort to check them out someday if you ever find yourself in Pennsylvania. If one of them have ever hurt a fly it would be shocking news. If all people of religious conviction could actually just live the lives that Jesus Christ (and his colleagues across the span of other western and eastern religions) recommended we live I have serious doubts we'd be pissing all over "religion" the way we have in this thread.
But the reality is that a lot of religious people are pure shitbags (murder, torture, rape...that sort of thing), so let flogging in this thread continue!
It's not really the Book, that's the problem. It's the people who acquire power in the name of the Book who misuse that power that's the problem.
Yes. Obviously. Anything that involves believing in magical sky friends is inherently silly and should be ignored.
Get this- if you talk about God in any way and are an organisation you are now a religion.
Atheism is a religion like nudity is a clothing. (many other examples like this exist, too)
Ok, an exception here and there, but these folks are generally pacifists and keep to themselves.
There are good Christians and Muslims, and bad Christians and Muslims. It seems to me that the problem isn't what Jesus taught (I have no idea what Mohammed, the great prophet, taught), but that a bunch of folks get punch drunk with power and believe they can do whatever they want in the name of their god.
Replace god with ideology, believes, dogma, political view, greed, etc and we'd all come to the same atrocities. Religion is just the tools they used
<RANT>
Humanity's progress has been built on the foundations of progressive improvements in knowledge. Allowing us to build upon the foundations of the previous generation. Constantly adapting and accumulating knowledge. Generation after generation. The moment we become static, we lose the single biggest advantage we have over other animals.
Religions are absolutist and leave no room for such improvements. They are static and have now become merely a reflection of iron age ideals and knowledge. It is outdated and it shows.
Murdering people for working on a Sunday or for eating shellfish no longer makes sense. Slavery no longer makes sense. Committing genocide on any people that disagree with your religion no longer makes sense.
Karl Marx was right when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses. It is a crutch that allows people to escape their sufferings in the real world into a fantasy world where people don't die but go to heaven. And all the pain and suffering in the world is some sort of plan to make you or your life better. An imaginary world where every evil is punished and every good deed is rewarded. As we all know about the real world, that is all bullshit. Religion leaves its users weakminded and dependent on it the same way drug addicts depend on their fix. And we all know how desperate drug addicts are willing to believe and do anything for their fix.
The cold hard truth is that people die. Full stop. There is no heaven. Just nothing.
All the pain and suffering in this world is pointless. Full stop. Shit happens because it happens. It doesn't need a reason to happen.
The world is unfair. Full stop. Evil will continue to prosper at the expense of the innocent. Bad guys get away with murder while good guys die for no reason.
This is the harsh truth of reality. People might be thinking, if the world is so evil, why bother? Au contraire. The world is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Morality only exists in the minds of humans. Good and bad things happen in equal abundance, although it might not be distributed equally.
If the world is so depressing, why bother? It is precisely because we know this is our one and only life, that we should take more effort to treasure this one life. Not to simply take away another person's life on a whim. Not to treat other people badly, because whether the world is a nice or bad place to live in rests solely on our own two hands. To spend more time with the family. Dealing with global warming. Etc.
To put it quite simply, when you realise there is no god, then you learn to take back responsibility for your own lives and your own actions. Instead of leaving it in the hands of some make believe deity while your own two hands are clasped in prayer.
When you realise this is your one and only shot at life, then you know to focus what little time you have left on the things that truly matter. Instead of wasting it away beheading other people while dreaming of the 72 imaginary virgins you get to feck in an imaginary afterlife. The sooner we realise this, the better.
</RANT>
Sorry for the rant. Just something that has been pent up for quite some time.
Humanity's progress has been built on the foundations of progressive improvements in knowledge. Allowing us to build upon the foundations of the previous generation. Constantly adapting and accumulating knowledge. Generation after generation. The moment we become static, we lose the single biggest advantage we have over other animals.
Religions are absolutist and leave no room for such improvements. They are static and have now become merely a reflection of iron age ideals and knowledge. It is outdated and it shows.
Murdering people for working on a Sunday or for eating shellfish no longer makes sense. Slavery no longer makes sense. Committing genocide on any people that disagree with your religion no longer makes sense.
Karl Marx was right when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses. It is a crutch that allows people to escape their sufferings in the real world into a fantasy world where people don't die but go to heaven. And all the pain and suffering in the world is some sort of plan to make you or your life better. An imaginary world where every evil is punished and every good deed is rewarded. As we all know about the real world, that is all bullshit. Religion leaves its users weakminded and dependent on it the same way drug addicts depend on their fix. And we all know how desperate drug addicts are willing to believe and do anything for their fix.
The cold hard truth is that people die. Full stop. There is no heaven. Just nothing.
All the pain and suffering in this world is pointless. Full stop. Shit happens because it happens. It doesn't need a reason to happen.
The world is unfair. Full stop. Evil will continue to prosper at the expense of the innocent. Bad guys get away with murder while good guys die for no reason.
This is the harsh truth of reality. People might be thinking, if the world is so evil, why bother? Au contraire. The world is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Morality only exists in the minds of humans. Good and bad things happen in equal abundance, although it might not be distributed equally.
If the world is so depressing, why bother? It is precisely because we know this is our one and only life, that we should take more effort to treasure this one life. Not to simply take away another person's life on a whim. Not to treat other people badly, because whether the world is a nice or bad place to live in rests solely on our own two hands. To spend more time with the family. Dealing with global warming. Etc.
To put it quite simply, when you realise there is no god, then you learn to take back responsibility for your own lives and your own actions. Instead of leaving it in the hands of some make believe deity while your own two hands are clasped in prayer.
When you realise this is your one and only shot at life, then you know to focus what little time you have left on the things that truly matter. Instead of wasting it away beheading other people while dreaming of the 72 imaginary virgins you get to feck in an imaginary afterlife. The sooner we realise this, the better.
</RANT>
Sorry for the rant. Just something that has been pent up for quite some time.
Last edited:
You have nothing to apologize for, tom. It's an excellent rant!
Well said. The sad thing is that it doesn't matter what you say; Religious people are blissful in their ignorance. I think most of them realise they're wrong but can't let go, which is the most pathetic thing I guess. The irony is that the most widespread religions, Islam and Christianity, are actually probably the worst. I think the world would be a much better place without the kind of people who follow the mainstream religions. They just hold society back.
It's probably as well to draw a distinction between personal religion and organised religion at this point. On a personal level people are free to believe whatever they want (much as I may disagree with their logic), when that belief becomes institutionalised and impacts the lives of others I reserve the right to call 'foul'.
That 'rant' is one of the strangest things I've read in a while in this thread, full of mega-over-generalizations and full of contradictions. Bizarre.
Yes, I agree. There's a world of difference actually. I would never begrudge anyone a personal belief in god or any other kind of spiritualism, but religious doctrine in the form of holy books should not be tolerated. I don't mean banned as such, merely mocked constantly. By all means respect them as important forms of literature though.
I don't understand how mocking is helpful, though. Normally at my workplace I'd offer anyone to suggest a better way of reading/interpreting/understanding things and a better way of doing things. Mocking is just needlessly polarizing and disengaging.
This is a terrible comment.