Was religion invented by man?

[PRmerger]

It is entirely possible to believe in God and reject particular religions.

Yes, you are correct.

JK is positing “aliens” as an alternative explanation for the new testament,

But first he has to offer some proof that aliens exist.

And we all know that none will be forthcoming.

It limns quite effectively the absurdity of what will be embraced, just to reject Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally, I think the NT is hagiography, legend, exaggeration, and outright fabrication

So who did the fabricating? And why would they do this? And what positive reinforcement did they receive for this fabrication?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So who did the fabricating? And why would they do this? And what positive reinforcement did they receive for this fabrication?

The authors of the NT did. They were moral crusaders who wanted to reform the religious institutions of the day. They thought that the best way to do that was to accomplish their reform was to claim divine inspiration, and they were willing to die for their cause.

 

[PRmerger]

The authors of the NT did. They were moral crusaders who wanted to reform the religious institutions of the day. They thought that the best way to do that was to accomplish their reform was to claim divine inspiration, and they were willing to die for their cause.

They were willing to die for what they knew to be a lie?

Do you have any evidence for anyone else, in the entirety of our human existence, dying for a lie, refusing to recant under torture?

It does seem contrary to what we all know of our human nature–to cling to a lie under threat of death and horrific torture.

But if you can offer evidence for lots of other folks doing this, then I’ll examine it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

They were willing to die for what they knew to be a lie?

Do you have any evidence for anyone else, in the entirety of our human existence, dying for a lie, refusing to recant under torture?

It does seem contrary to what we all know of our human nature–to cling to a lie under threat of death and horrific torture.

But if you can offer evidence for lots of other folks doing this, then I’ll examine it.

I am unaware of any evidence to suggest that any of the authors of the gospels were executed simply for their beliefs. This is mostly because scholars aren’t certain about the authorship in the first place, and there are no records of persecution from the time period of the gospel accounts.

It is clear, to me at least, that the birth narratives are fabrications meant to position Jesus as an expected Messiah based on misunderstandings and mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures available to the authors at the time. Even Pope Bendict admitted as much in his Jesus of Nazareth series. The Johannine comma is clearly a later interpolation meant to justify Trinitarian theology. I’m sure the people who added it to the texts were absolutely convinced of the truth of Trinitarian dogma, but by that time Christianity had become the official religion of the empire so there was no risk of persecution.

The persecution of the early Christians doesn’t seem to be as extensive as many Christians have claimed. The ancient world was very tolerant religiously speaking. The available documentation shows that Christians were executed not for their beliefs, but for 1) arson 2) public nuisance 3) treason. Jews also refused to worship the Roman/Greek gods and were not executed or persecuted for this. Jerusalem was eventually destroyed, yes, but not because Jews were unwilling to worship Jupiter. Rather, they were persistently challenging Roman power and mounting insurrections.

People are usually not willing to sacrifice themselves for what they know is a lie, but plenty of people sacrifice themselves for sincerely held erroneous beliefs.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes, you are correct.

But first he has to offer some proof that aliens exist.

And we all know that none will be forthcoming.

It limns quite effectively the absurdity of what will be embraced, just to reject Christianity.

What proof would you accept for the existence of aliens? The universe is vast: what are chances that intelligent life has appeared only once?

Explain this: why is the alien hypothesis absurd but the idea that God is one but also three and a Palestinian man living in the first century NOT similarly absurd?

And don’t concern-troll me. I am not showing contempt for Catholicism by asking this question. I am merely trying to understand why, other than bias, the alien explanation is more absurd than the various contemporary Christian explanations.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Explain this: why is the alien hypothesis absurd but the idea that God is one but also three and a Palestinian man living in the first century NOT similarly absurd?

And don’t concern-troll me. I am not showing contempt for Catholicism by asking this question. I am merely trying to understand why, other than bias, the alien explanation is more absurd than the various contemporary Christian explanations.

Evidence is offered by science for a Creation event, which is consistent with Genesis.

Evidence is offered by witnesses to the life of Jesus that he performed miracles.

Scripture tells us of his teachings, which pulled the ancient moral wheel out of the mud.

What evidence is offered for terrestrials? They just have to exist?

 

[PRmerger]

I am unaware of any evidence to suggest that any of the authors of the gospels were executed simply for their beliefs.

So what happened to them?

And please cite your sources.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So what happened to them?

And please cite your sources.

According to Eusebius (mid 3rd-4th century), Matthew was martyred. According to Clement of Alexandria (mid 2nd-3rd century) he died a natural death in either Ethiopia or Macedonia. Clement explicitly denies that he was martyred. Who is right? How do you know?

Again, according to Eusebius, Mark died a natural death as the bishop of Alexandria. According to the Coptic tradition, he was martyred in 68 AD. According to many contemporary scholars, it is impossible to determine who actually wrote the gospel attributed to him in the first place.

Luke supposedly died in 84 according to a “widespread and early tradition.” I am not aware of any claims that he was a martyr.

The “traditional” belief is that John the apostle died a natural death as an old man, dying at Ephesus sometime after 98 AD. Papias of Hierapolis claims he was murdered by “Jews.” There has been documented disagreement about the authorship of the gospel of John since the 3rd century, so we don’t even know if the John I’m referring to here is the author.

The persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs was officially illegal (according to Roman law) in the first and second centuries, to my knowledge. There is no doubt Christians were persecuted during the reigns of unfriendly and insane emperors, but I believe the claims of immediate harsh persecution are an exaggeration.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Evidence is offered by science for a Creation event, which is consistent with Genesis.

I’m not sure “science” offers evidence for a creation event, but sure. I agree the universe is being created.

Evidence is offered by witnesses to the life of Jesus that he performed miracles.

It’s all hearsay. It’s impossible to determine whether they were actual witnesses.

Scripture tells us of his teachings, which pulled the ancient moral wheel out of the mud.

How do you know the scripture you have in front of you is an accurate reflection of the teachings of Jesus. Couldn’t it be reflective of a particular community’s beliefs about Jesus?

What evidence is offered for terrestrials? They just have to exist?

I don’t think anyone would argue that the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life is necessary. It doesn’t even seem likely, according to our knowledge of the universe so far. But…it only happened once? Really? I don’t know. I’m open to the possibility, just like I’m open to the possibility that God is three and also one and also a Palestinian man living in the first century. But, I wouldn’t bet my life or my soul on the truth of either possibility.

 

[Bradski]

Except when it doesn’t come in handy. Like when you want to reproduce the species by copulating with lots of other fertile women, but that pesky “love” emotion stops you from doing so.

There’s no animalistic explanation for this.

On the contrary. Both aspects are well understood. And they are entirely separate aspects and serve two entirely different aims.

Almost all males of almost all species of animals, including man, has an inbuilt desire to inseminate as many females as possible. In passing, one wonders why God would have set it up that way - maybe you have an answer?

That desire never goes away. But females know that any progeny have a better chance of survival if the male sticks around. Protection, food etc. so she is more likely to choose (if a choice she has) a male that is more likely than not to be monogamous.

The male who appears to be a likely candidate in this respect, who appears to be able to maintain a strong emotional connection, will be preferred over one that appears not to be able to do.

It can also be beneficial for the male. Finding a suitable partner can be an expensive business in time and resources.

Bear in mind that the emotions that cause all this are entirely natural (unless you want to blame God) and genuinely felt and are no less real for them having an explanation for them. So almost all men really do want to have sex with lots of women but when they tell their partner that they love them, they often really mean it.

 

[goout]

I’m not sure “science” offers evidence for a creation event, but sure. I agree the universe is being created.

It’s all hearsay. It’s impossible to determine whether they were actual witnesses.

You’re 100% right. It’s all hearsay. Witnesses saw and talked, others heard and said and passed it down. Hearsay.
It is impossible to provide video of the events with the witnesses present. You are right.

The other poster is also right. Testimony or evidence is offered witnessing to the life of Jesus. That is also correct.

Is this really the point that you want your life to revolve around? Legal and scientific proof?
Fundamentalists do the same thing, they simply come up the opposite answer. Nonetheless, it’s the same extreme narrow view of the thing in question.

How do you know the scripture you have in front of you is an accurate reflection of the teachings of Jesus. Couldn’t it be reflective of a particular community’s beliefs about Jesus?

Scripture* is* the testimony of a particular community’s beliefs. It is. How do I know it is accurate? I don’t worry about accuracy because all human endeavors are messy. I worry about trust and faith, not courtrooms and trying to prove how many angels are really not on the head of that pin.

I don’t think anyone would argue that the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life is necessary. It doesn’t even seem likely, according to our knowledge of the universe so far. But…it only happened once? Really? I don’t know. I’m open to the possibility, just like I’m open to the possibility that God is three and also one and also a Palestinian man living in the first century. But, I wouldn’t bet my life or my soul on the truth of either possibility.

The two propositions are not the same.
One provides no testimony whatsoever. Christianity does provide testimony. You choose not to accept it. So be it.

 

[goout]

But you have raised our standards to this:None of the “evidence” you provided for the existence of god reaches that standard. I will readily admit I do not have evidence that rises to that standard. I am arguing that the evidence I do have is not worse than the evidence that you have.

You’re right, your evidence is not worse. It doesn’t exist.
On the other hand the case for God has a mountain of testimony that you choose not to accept. That’s fine, but the argument you are proposing is not even started.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You’re 100% right. It’s all hearsay. Witnesses saw and talked, others heard and said and passed it down. Hearsay.
It is impossible to provide video of the events with the witnesses present. You are right.

The other poster is also right. Testimony or evidence is offered witnessing to the life of Jesus. That is also correct.

Is this really the point that you want your life to revolve around? Legal and scientific proof?
Fundamentalists do the same thing, they simply come up the opposite answer. Nonetheless, it’s the same extreme narrow view of the thing in question.

Hearsay is not admissible in court precisely because it is unreliable. It isn’t reliable enough to serve as a ground for our decisions about whom to imprison, fine, or execute. It certainly can’t be a ground upon which to make decisions about our souls and the ultimate meaning of the universe, can it?

Fundamentalists eschew reason and evidence in favor of blind commitment, in my understanding. Is that what I’m doing here?

Scripture* is* the testimony of a particular community’s beliefs. It is. How do I know it is accurate? I don’t worry about accuracy because all human endeavors are messy. I worry about trust and faith, not courtrooms and trying to prove how many angels are really not on the head of that pin.

Right, and I don’t trust that community’s competence to tell the truth about God, the universe, morality, nature, or pretty much anything else. Ancient people were ignorant, through no fault of their own of course. Not only ignorant, but superstitious. The early Christians were not educated, but illiterate slaves and peasants. Tacitus called them “notoriously depraved.” Consider, here is a man who thought nothing of offering a sacrifice to Jupiter Optimus Maximus describing Christians as excessively religious.

If you don’t worry about accuracy why be a Catholic? Did you just pick a religion arbitrarily? Why not be a muslim?

The two propositions are not the same.
One provides no testimony whatsoever. Christianity does provide testimony. You choose not to accept it. So be it.

There is a lot of testimony for UFOs, most of which is hearsay of course.

ufoevidence.org/

But, then again, there are videos and pictures. You choose not to accept it. So be it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs was officially illegal (according to Roman law) in the first and second centuries, to my knowledge. There is no doubt Christians were persecuted during the reigns of unfriendly and insane emperors, but I believe the claims of immediate harsh persecution are an exaggeration.

Jesus was the first martyr for Christianity. St. Stephen was stoned to death. Peter and Paul were imprisoned and later executed according to tradition. The claim of “immediate harsh persecution” of the Christians is justified. As to how rampant it was, we obviously don’t have statistics. Who would have kept them? We are told that early Christians did not dare signify themselves with the image of a cross for fear of persecution, and so the fish was taken as the symbol by which Christians could clandestinely identify one another.

Nero’s persecution of the Christians is well documented, and it is believed that it was during his reign that Peter and Paul were executed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How do you know the scripture you have in front of you is an accurate reflection of the teachings of Jesus.

How do you know it isn’t?

 

[goout]

Hearsay is not admissible in court precisely because it is unreliable. It isn’t reliable enough to serve as a ground for our decisions about whom to imprison, fine, or execute. It certainly can’t be a ground upon which to make decisions about our souls and the ultimate meaning of the universe, can it?

Now you are using courtroom procedure as your standard of life and thought.
Something being hearsay does not make it false. The witness is simply not here in person to give the witness. The courtroom uses a standard of evidence that doesn’t apply to human relationship.

Fundamentalists eschew reason and evidence in favor of blind commitment, in my understanding. Is that what I’m doing here?

Fundamentalists uses rigid literalism to rob the life out of scripture and tradition, locking it into the words on the page, subject to their individual understanding.
Fundamentalism clings to certainty and closes it’s mind to nuance, trust, faith.
It tries to fit life into proofs using literalism and strict physical evidence.
It twists nature into that which can only be seen and proved.
You have to answer your own question I suppose.

If you don’t worry about accuracy why be a Catholic? Did you just pick a religion arbitrarily? Why not be a muslim?

Accuracy is not the same thing as truth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14099216:

Nope. Two people can interpret the same evidence

in different ways without invalidating the evidence itself. (Blind men, elephant, etc.)And they could both be wrong about the thing they agree with. The agreement among believers that their experiences are religious in nature (though pointing at different gods) is a conclusion I don’t share. Their experiences can be explained without reference to something supernatural or divine.

No.
You cant explain their experiences because their experiences are of divinity.
How can you explain supernatural experiences without reference to the supernatural?
You are presuming from the outset that their experience is NOT supernatural - that’s bias on your part.
Like you, I too can explain natural events "without reference to something supernatural or divine"

Lion IRC;14099216:

I didn’t grow up in Bronze Age Palestine. The Ten Commandments arent a 21st Century phenomenon. My priest washes peoples’ feet
If I took my religion from the society I grew up in I would be worshipping Mammon.

Did you grow up in a society that had no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever and did you still come to the conclusion that your religious experience was a Christian one?

Christianity is not native to most parts of the world. It didn’t originate in Australia or England or America, etc. Why do you persist with this genetic fallacy that I’m a Christian because of where I live? You are apparently an atheist. Surely you aren’t going to claim that your atheism is an inherited belief?

Lion IRC;14099216:

…I think you need to take into account the huge weight of numbers of people who aren’t

willing to die - or be tortured - because they realise that it is quite possible they are honestly mistaken. And folks certainly don’t de for something they know is a lie.
I agree that the Christian martyrs probably had no doubt about their faith and that not everyone is willing to die for their faith. I fail to see why that means their faith is true.

Nobody is claiming that martyrdom makes ones testimony necessarily true. But you seem oblivious to the huge weight of numbers of people who ARENT willing to endure torture/death because they realise they might be mistaken. This is the context in which we can apply the test of reasonableness as to whether it is likely that a person is probably reporting the evidence truthfully.

Moreover, you seem to think that you can impose your personal skepticism on an event experienced by another person and claim that they didn’t experience it. How is it that you can make counter-claims against another person’s experience when you weren’t there?

Lion IRC;14099216:

…Did you know that scientific studies into torture show that it’s a pretty ineffective means of determining truth? Why? Because most people will lie (say anything) to avoid torture!

I did not read those studies, but you’re likely right. I would behave similarly, if I were tortured.

Exactly. And the only reason you would refuse to recant is if you thought the truth of the evidence mattered more than your life.

Lion IRC;14099216:

…So I maintain that those relatively small numbers of people who cling to the truth in the face of torture/death are in fact more likely to be giving credible evidence - notwithstanding your

incredulity.

That’s begging the question. You say “people who cling to the truth”. Well, that’s the point of contention! It doesn’t matter how firmly those martyrs believed, even in the face of torture and death.

What question is being begged?
The only ‘contention’ is your out-and-out gainsaying contradiction of their claims.

I’m asking what makes you think it’s a lie and you just assert - oh well because other natural[sup]TM[/sup] explanations are possible.
I ask why would they lie and you just say - oh well other people lie too.
I assert that torture gives them a HUGE incentive to recant/lie and you just reply - so what, they still might not be telling the truth.
So it seems to me that your ‘contention’ is little more than hand waving.

How sincerely someone believes doesn’t determine whether that belief is actually true.

The only reason the honesty/sincerity of these people comes into question in the first place is because YOU disbelieve the evidence. It’s you who is calling their honesty/sanity into question. And then when I try to defend their honesty by appealing to reason (folks don’t deliberately lie for no reason and torture is a huge disincentive to lie) you blatantly reject the logic. You say - oh well maybe they are just deluded. But if you thought that why bother arguing against their evidence? How many other insane people do you waste your time trying to persuade?

…David Icke is utterly convinced that the world is run by lizard illuminati. Are his beliefs true because they’re sincerely held by him?

Really? I thought he was a polemic ‘trollish’ comedian and the lizard thing was part of his anti-religion mockery schtick. And that he makes his living off the back of his attention-seeking and media celebrity.

The Christian martyrs believed in God and the afterlife and had warrant to include such factors in their self-sacrifice. They also believed in the Ten Commandments - one of which prohibits lying. And they believed they were acting altruistically by sharing their testimony.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Jesus was the first martyr for Christianity. St. Stephen was stoned to death. Peter and Paul were imprisoned and later executed according to tradition. The claim of “immediate harsh persecution” of the Christians is justified. As to how rampant it was, we obviously don’t have statistics. Who would have kept them? We are told that early Christians did not dare signify themselves with the image of a cross for fear of persecution, and so the fish was taken as the symbol by which Christians could clandestinely identify one another.

Nero’s persecution of the Christians is well documented, and it is believed that it was during his reign that Peter and Paul were executed.

The only testimony for Stephen’s martyrdom is in Acts. There is no record of Jesus’ execution other than the gospel accounts. If Jesus were executed by the Romans for conjuring up a new religion, why did the Romans have no record of this? They had records of other executions from the same time period.

The Romans executed large numbers of slaves and groups who tried to rebel, and kept records of this. No mention of Christians at all until hundreds of years after the fact. It seems they were indistinguishable from Jews, to the Roman imagination, for quite some time. Your last contention about the cross is entirely a fable. The cross was not a symbol of Christianity until the 4th century, that’s true. Why? Scholars have different theories. If I’m correct, I believe the most popular Roman Catholic myth is that the Emperor Constantine had a vision of a cross and heard the voice of an angel saying “under this sign you shall conquer.” This same Constantine convened Nicea to settle the Arian controversy, out of which trinitarian Christianity became the official religion. Constantine later RECANTED his trinitarian beliefs and converted to Arianism on his deathbed.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How do you know it isn’t?

I don’t! Just like I don’t know if the Koran is an accurate reflection of God’s revelation to Muhammad. Just like I don’t know if the Book of Mormon is an accurate reflection of God’s revelation to Joseph Smith.

I have no way to verify these things, and no good reason to believe these outlandish claims. I don’t know if extra terrestrials exist either, and I wouldn’t bet my soul that they do!