Was religion invented by man?

[JapaneseKappa]

It seems to me that your argument so far has included (or is likely to include) the following points:

1. The NT is historically accurate.
2. The NT claims that Jesus is divine.
3. The religious claims in the NT were not invented by men.

Sure. We’re talking historical narratives.

Correct. But what I am doing is that assuming in part 1 of this argument we’re building, you have successfully demonstrated the historical accuracy of various parts of the NT. I suppose we can extend this to whatever other legends you feel like incorporating into your argument. However, keep in mind that a credit card is not free money; I will expect you to actually complete part 1 eventually. That is to say, you will have to offer evidence for the historicity of any specific events used in this step, i.e. step 2.

Also keep in mind that the conclusions of this second step cannot be used as a justification of step 1. In other words, you cannot say “since the people in the NT were trustworthy, the events are historically accurate” because we have established their trustworthiness by assuming historical accuracy.

Evidence for this, please.

Also, who did the deceiving? And why? To what end?

And how was this deception undertaken?

So you’ll have to establish a reason why this deception occurred, and how it began and came to fruition.

And, of course, provide evidence for this deception.

It needs to include an explanation for the empty tomb, too, ok?

Nobody’s really sure of the alien’s motives, and for the sake of this argument they are irrelevant. Some people think it was just for fun, while others think they were simply attempting to nudge the human society of that time in the right direction.

The evidence is right there in the NT:

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

Of course this was the aliens piloting their ship in such a way as to draw attention to the experimental child they had designed and implanted.

Naturally, any time the bible says “angels appeared…” they actually meant “aliens,” but that was an honest mistake on the part of the writers.

The tomb was empty because the aliens retrieved the body. We’re not really sure if they stayed behind and told people about it though, because the NT accounts contradict each other.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And I’ll add:
-folks who consider the idea that aliens are responsible for a hoax on Christendom.

Aliens. sigh.

I will add that it’s curious that this is what it takes to refute the very, very air-tight case for Christianity–“Hey! Maybe aliens did it!”

One has to wonder why it is someone would defend this, rather than accept the Christian explanation?

If I were to answer your ridicule with some of my own, I would simply say:

All I am doing is arguing for a sky-man, instead of a magical sky-man.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I were to answer your ridicule with some of my own, I would simply say:

All I am doing is arguing for a sky-man, instead of a magical sky-man.

Who designed and created the sky-man?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Who designed and created the sky-man?

We could start a “first mover” debate here, but I feel like that would deserve its own thread and only serve to de-rail this one.

I suspect any reluctance you may feel to address the “aliens” version of events on an evidenciary basis is not because the"aliens" version is too bizarre, but because it is too similar to your own argument. In other words, the evidence you have prepared to argue for a “divine being” version of events could also be to support the “alien being” version of events.

I, on the other hand, am confident that the “humans invented it” version of events can defeat the “aliens” version of events on the strength of the evidence.

Finally, you are clearly very skeptical of the “aliens” version of events. You would obviously work very hard to cast doubt on any evidence I come up with (e.g. the moving star in the wise men story.) Now, if you were to take that same motivated skepticism and apply it to the religious case, I think you will find that like the “aliens” case, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I suspect any reluctance you may feel to address the “aliens” version of events on an evidenciary basis is not because the"aliens" version is too bizarre, but because it is too similar to your own argument. In other words, the evidence you have prepared to argue for a “divine being” version of events could also be to support the “alien being” version of events.

Not really. The “divine being” version is appeal to a supreme cause, which means that “alien beings” have to be explained because they are not supreme. That is, they are caused, whereas by definition God is not caused because he is supreme.

Even Einstein recognized a Supreme Intelligence at work in the universe that accounted for the existence of laws and the organized universe they govern.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Not really. The “divine being” version is appeal to a supreme cause, which means that “alien beings” have to be explained because they are not supreme. That is, they are caused, whereas by definition God is not caused because he is supreme.

Even Einstein recognized a Supreme Intelligence at work in the universe that accounted for the existence of laws and the organized universe they govern.

Now this is a jumble of ideas.

1. Defending God’s existence is not part of the issue we’re discussing. God could exist AND aliens could have been the instigators of the events in the NT.
2. The existence of aliens is comparatively a normal claim. Indeed, some people think the claim that aliens don’t exist is the more extreme.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Now this is a jumble of ideas.

God could exist AND aliens could have been the instigators of the events in the NT.

Well, angels ARE aliens, so I guess you could be right there as the New Testament has a number of references to angels.

But how do we account for angels without their Creator?

Theism attempts to make sense out of all creation.

Atheism does not, assuming from the get-go that creation is sort of pointless.

Would you agree?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, angels ARE aliens, so I guess you could be right there as the New Testament has a number of references to angels.

But how do we account for angels without their Creator?

Theism attempts to make sense out of all creation.

Atheism does not, assuming from the get-go that creation is sort of pointless.

Would you agree?

Maybe you’re missing the point. I am willing to grant that a god exists for this argument. You may freely assume that a god exists, and you do not need to prove his existence. However, be very careful to not assume any religious features of that god. For example, you cannot make this argument:

1. God exists.
2. We know because of religion that God has a son named Jesus.
3. The religious interpretation of the NT is that Jesus was God’s son.
4. Therefore, the religious interpretation of the NT is valid.
5. Therefore, religion was not invented by man.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe you’re missing the point. I am willing to grant that a god exists for this argument. You may freely assume that a god exists, and you do not need to prove his existence. However, be very careful to not assume any religious features of that god. For example, you cannot make this argument:

1. God exists.
2. We know because of religion that God has a son named Jesus.

No. We know from history that a man named Jesus lived, died.

We know from history that there was an empty tomb, there were folks who were able to explain this empty tomb.

This explanation proves that Jesus was divine.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No. We know from history that a man named Jesus lived, died.

We know from history that there was an empty tomb, there were folks who were able to explain this empty tomb.

This explanation proves that Jesus was divine.

I’m failing to see an explanation of why your version of events is superior to the version of events I described earlier:

The tomb was empty because the aliens retrieved the body. We’re not really sure if they stayed behind and told people about it though, because the NT accounts contradict each other.

Remember that we had two paths forward:

One way you might do this would be to establish the capability of the authors of the NT to accurately assess “divinity,” as well as their honesty.
A second way you might do this is independently argue that the religious explanation of the historical events in the NT is the best of all possible explanations.

You have so far failed to establish that the authors of the NT would be capable of assessing divinity. However, here you are blithely arguing that because the authors offered “divinity” as an explanation, the religious version of events is superior, even though we have no reason to think their explanation is correct.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m failing to see an explanation of why your version of events is superior to the version of events I described earlier:
Remember that we had two paths forward:
You have so far failed to establish that the authors of the NT would be capable of assessing divinity.

I have?

Do you have a better explanation for how a man could die and rise again?

However, here you are blithely arguing that because the authors offered “divinity” as an explanation, the religious version of events is superior, even though we have no reason to think their explanation is correct.

What is the most plausible explanation, then?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I have?

Do you have a better explanation for how a man could die and rise again?

What is the most plausible explanation, then?

I already described some alternative ideas:

No. Even if we grant that the events occurred as you described them, they are inadequate to establish divinity. Possible other scenarios include:

Jesus was actually supernatural, but was not God. For example, he could have been an angel, lich, or a yōkai like me.
Jesus was resurrected via natural means (e.g. via advanced technology.)
Deliberate deception by a third party is a possibility.

So lets offer even more ideas:

1. Jesus was not resurrected, but replaced by a replica.
2. Jesus did not die, merely made to appear dead.
3. Jesus was “reanimated” but not resurrected (e.g. through robotic implants.)

Now, you will no doubt laugh at these, but before you demand even more detail about how these things could be done, I will ask that you explain something to me. Tell me specifically how God achieved the resurrection. I will respond with as much detail as you do, so if your answer is something like “he used his power” then my answer will be “the aliens used their technology.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No. We know from history that a man named Jesus lived, died.

We know from history that there was an empty tomb, there were folks who were able to explain this empty tomb.

This explanation proves that Jesus was divine.

1. Most historians would agree that there was a historical Jesus, yes. But, that is merely majority opinion. There is a strong tradition of those who assert the mythological hypothesis. I don’t personally buy it, but many people do.
2. There are many competing explanations for why the tomb was empty. Islam says the real Jesus didn’t actually die so he wasn’t ever in the tomb. Several forms of early Christianity say Jesus’ brother or avatar died and the body disappeared or was assumed into heaven, or was a phantom. There is the swoon theory, and the theory that he was never buried in a tomb in the first place since criminals were required to be buried in a common grave by Jewish law. The “empty tomb” story is one among many which just so happened to be “canonized” centuries after the fact by Greeks who weren’t there and didn’t know anyone who was.
3. An empty tomb, by itself, does not prove Jesus was divine any more than it proves Amelia Earhart, any/every missing soldier, and any/everyone else whose bodies have been lost were divine.

The following people’s bodies have never been found. Does that prove they’re divine?

1. Henry Hudson
2. Jimmy Hoffa
3. The entire Roanoke colony

 

[PRmerger]

I already described some alternative ideas:

I see.

So you are willing to entertain the idea that the explanation for this is aliens.

And reject the Christian explanation.

FOLKS, especially ATHEIST FOLKS: *do you see what absurdities must be embraced in order to hold to one’s atheism?
*
One must supplant common sense.

The degree of cognitive dissonance this engenders is astonishing.

Aliens or Christianity is true.

Seriously.

Clearly, the rejection of Christianity is not an intellectual aspiration but rather an emotional one.

“I don’t* want *to be a Christian, therefore I will believe all sorts of laughable options, including aliens, rather than Christianity.”

 

[PRmerger]

1. Most historians would agree that there was a historical Jesus, yes. But, that is merely majority opinion. There is a strong tradition of those who assert the mythological hypothesis. I don’t personally buy it, but many people do.

The Historical Jesus deniers are a fringe group in the same camp as Holocaust deniers, “The MMR causes autism” folks, and conspiracy theorists.

There is hardly* an academic, atheist or Christian, who believes that Jesus never walked this earth.

1. There are many competing explanations for why the tomb was empty. Islam says the real Jesus didn’t actually die so he wasn’t ever in the tomb.

Then that still means Jesus was God, no?

To survive such horrific beating and crucifixion by the very, very skilled Romans would require a divine entity.

Several forms of early Christianity say Jesus’ brother or avatar died and the body disappeared or was assumed into heaven, or was a phantom.

Supernatural explanation. Atheists need to explain this then, too.

There is the swoon theory, and the theory that he was never buried in a tomb in the first place since criminals were required to be buried in a common grave by Jewish law

So Jesus was a trickster?

He lied?

And then all of his followers lied?

The “empty tomb” story is one among many which just so happened to be “canonized” centuries after the fact by Greeks who weren’t there and didn’t know anyone who was

All someone has to do is produce the bones of Jesus, and we can agree that this story was fabricated.

2000 years and still waiting…

1. An empty tomb, by itself, does not prove Jesus was divine any more than it proves Amelia Earhart, any/every missing soldier, and any/everyone else whose bodies have been lost were divine.

Of course.

Surely you know all of the reasons we argue for his divinity, yes?

The empty tomb PLUS all of the other things.

So the examples below are otiose.

The following people’s bodies have never been found. Does that prove they’re divine?

1. Henry Hudson
2. Jimmy Hoffa
3. The entire Roanoke colony

*Please desist from offering a handful of examples of academic Jesus Mythers.
I agree that they exist, but they are, as already stated, a fringe minority. Like folks who believe aliens are responsible for the empty tomb. Sure, they exist, but they can be readily dismissed.

 

[goout]

Even an amateur liar would know better than to propose inconsistent and differing accounts of a person’s life and call it truth.
Even amateur liars do not die for stories so preposterous to the world’s sensibilities. When the jig is up they slink off and change their story. They don’t stick to it and die for it.

 

[PRmerger]

Even an amateur liar would know better than to propose inconsistent and differing accounts of a person’s life and call it truth.
Even amateur liars do not die for stories so preposterous to the world’s sensibilities. When the jig is up they slink off and change their story. They don’t stick to it and die for it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Even an amateur liar would know better than to propose inconsistent and differing accounts of a person’s life and call it truth.
Even amateur liars do not die for stories so preposterous to the world’s sensibilities. When the jig is up they slink off and change their story. They don’t stick to it and die for it.

https://imgur.com/jFi4HM3

Has anyone ever accused Christians of intentional misrepresentation? Is there a serious scholar who has proposed this? Dan Brown, crackpots, and cranks: sure. Conspiracy theories abound. But, honestly, I don’t think I’ve seen that theory proposed here by a serious interlocutor.

I don’t suppose the various early Christians were intentionally lying.

They were just mistaken. That’s all! What was the cause of their mistake? Hypnosis? Hysteria? Psychological breakdown? Hallucination? Aliens? Time-travelers? I’m not sure. But, any of these possibilities seems more reasonable to me than the various religious accounts. I mean, to be fair, aliens and time-travelers seem to be equally reasonable explanations, not actually more reasonable since there isn’t a shred of evidence for either.

Personally, the hallucination theory makes the most sense to me. The inner circle of believers had a psychological breakdown when Jesus was killed and thrown in an unmarked grave along with others executed by the Romans. Overwhelmed with grief, they hallucinated his presence and triumphant return. With great enthusiasm and an assurance of an imminent apocalypse, they spread their message. Over time, the stories they told became legends, and the legends were embellished until the accounts were hopelessly garbled and contradictory. As the imminent apocalypse failed to appear, the cult began to record their beliefs and the political jockeying for power and “orthodoxy” began. The rest is history!

Things like this have happened with other cults. It’s just that none of them became the official and exclusive religion of the Roman Empire.

 

[PRmerger]

Has anyone ever accused Christians of intentional misrepresentation? Is there a serious scholar who has proposed this? Dan Brown, crackpots, and cranks: sure. Conspiracy theories abound. But, honestly, I don’t think I’ve seen that theory proposed here by a serious interlocutor.

No one has said, outright, “Christians lied”.

But it’s the logical conclusion of their theories that are being promoted.

I don’t suppose the various early Christians were intentionally lying.

They were just mistaken

Fair enough.

That’s your theory.

Many are implying that they lied.

That’s all! What was the cause of their mistake? Hypnosis? Hysteria? Psychological breakdown? Hallucination? Aliens? Time-travelers? I’m not sure

Uh huh. I see.

FOLKS! Do you see what must be embraced/endorsed/considered in order for Christianity to be proven false?

Aliens. Mass hallucinations. Time travelers.

It’s like the anti-vaxxers being shown all the evidence for the efficacy of vaccines responding with, “Yeah, well perhaps aliens have taken over the CDC and infected all of the studies with false data.”

Yeah.

That’s what needs to be embraced in order to deny logic and reason.

Aliens.

You, PC, have already acknowledged a very emotional reason for your rejection of Christianity/Catholicism.

I think a purely intellectual approach to Christianity does not allow for rejection of its truth.

One must succumb to emotional, recusant reasons for this rejection.

Or aliens.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

FOLKS, especially ATHEIST FOLKS: *do you see what absurdities must be embraced in order to hold to one’s atheism?
*
One must supplant common sense.

So your argument is that “The religious hypothesis is superior because common sense says that it is.” Now that is an outline of an argument, but to actually complete the argument, you have some extra work to do.

For example, suppose I said “No, the alien account is the common sense explanation.” How would we resolve this disagreement? From what I’ve seen so far, you would probably just call the alien case unfriendly names. But that sort of bluster is not an argument.

If we wanted to properly make your “common sense” argument, you will need to explain exactly which sense you are appealing to, and how it invalidates one or more of the alien argument’s claims.

Aliens or Christianity is true.

This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I am saying that you cannot offer any evidence to suggest the religious account is superior to my alien account. I actually believe the “aliens” argument is rather weak, but that it is not weaker than the religious argument.

In other words, what is going on in this discussion is that you are failing to give evidence to show that your religious explanation is superior to one of the weakest alternatives that I could think of.