What would you do if it were proven...?

[Candide_West]

My apologies. Perhaps you *didn’t *mean Christianity is a limitation in this post below?

Correct, not quite sure how you would have taken that suggestion from the piece of text quoted. But we seem to have resolved it now.

At any rate, we are agreed that limitations are, indeed, good. (Provided we are free not to respect the limitations.)

This is, of course, very Catholic!

Hmmm, not sure who this is directed at. My own opinion is still very much open on whether limitations are good. As I said a few posts ago it’s something I’ll be having a think about.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m an atheist. If it was proven that God existed (example, if he manifested on Earth today a thousand feet high and performed a few miracles, like turning all the worlds weapons into bananas or raising a new continent out of the Pacific in ten minutes flat) then easy- I would believe in Him. I don’t know that it would automatically follow that I would join any major religion in particular, but I’d be interested to hear more about what “sort” of being He is, where He came from, whether there are others like Him, can He reproduce, that kind of thing.

Would you believe in Him if this incident occurred 2000 years ago, kaid? Or would you only acknowledge His existence if you saw it yourself, with your very own eyes?

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm, not sure who this is directed at. My own opinion is still very much open on whether limitations are good. As I said a few posts ago it’s something I’ll be having a think about.

Well, I think the judicious thing is to say some limitations are good–for our own good–and, of course, some limitations are bad.

Religion as a whole, and Christianity, in specific, do have limitations. But, we are agree that limitations are not objectively bad. So, really,discussion of limitations as it pertains to religion is inutile.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

You don’t happen to have a source for this by any chance do you? I’ve heard plenty of people making reference to suicide rates amongst various groups (to make various claims both like yours and contrary to it) but never yet seen a source for it. Would be very interested.

Personally I’d be quite surprised if atheists come up more suicidal (to a statistically significant extent). But would make for interesting reading either way.

Oh dear - there were 2-4 different sources I used for this a couple of years ago - a reference (or 2) to general findings in research, a couple of bits of academic research … one of the latter I particularly remember appearing to be written by atheists, since after what appeared to be a reluctant conclusion that suicide was “significantly higher in atheists” there was an immediate and spirited defense of “this does not mean that atheism automatically causes suicide”, and other such statements - maybe it was in the exact wording. But it was all a few years ago, so I can’t remember exactly where it was from…

Googling a bit, I get things such as these:

pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

Actually, I’d be interested in seeing research to oppose the assessment! I think I saw some dismissal and intention to disprove such findings on one of the more pro-atheist organizational websites around the time I was doing research, but I don’t think they’d come up with anything effective at the time

 

[PRmerger]

Oh dear - there were 2-4 different sources I used for this a couple of years ago - a reference (or 2) to general findings in research, a couple of bits of academic research … one of the latter I particularly remember appearing to be written by atheists, since after what appeared to be a reluctant conclusion that suicide was “significantly higher in atheists” there was an immediate and spirited defense of “this does not mean that atheism automatically causes suicide”, and other such statements - maybe it was in the exact wording. But it was all a few years ago, so I can’t remember exactly where it was from…

Googling a bit, I get things such as these:

pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

Actually, I’d be interested in seeing research to oppose the assessment! I think I saw some dismissal and intention to disprove such findings on one of the more pro-atheist organizational websites around the time I was doing research, but I don’t think they’d come up with anything effective at the time

Very interesting links! Am saving them for future discourse!

 

[kaid100]

Would you believe in Him if this incident occurred 2000 years ago, kaid? Or would you only acknowledge His existence if you saw it yourself, with your very own eyes?

Well, I wouldn’t believe it happened 2000 years ago based on a piece of scripture written fifty years later with the express intention of gaining adherents if that’s what you mean. There are many such religious documents from different faiths, why is the Christian one the only one that’s true?

 

[Candide_West]

Well, I think the judicious thing is to say some limitations are good–for our own good–and, of course, some limitations are bad.

Fair enough, thanks for giving your view.

Religion as a whole, and Christianity, in specific, do have limitations. But, we are agree that limitations are not objectively bad. So, really,discussion of limitations as it pertains to religion is inutile.

Again, I’m not sure who you are agreeing with here. Personally I don’t think the term “objectively bad” is meaningful since bad implies a perspective, while objective requires the absence of a perspective.

As for limitations applying to all religions… You are as well to say that limitations apply to humanity as a while and every human organisation in specific. It’s true but so what. I’ve said that only be able to have a given opinion (on any topic, including religion) or die would be a negative limit to individual freedom. I stand by that comment. Do you have a view on this? Most of your comments seem to be directed at things I haven’t said.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Very interesting links! Am saving them for future discourse!

Cheers PR - might try and dig up the original research I found as well…

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I wouldn’t believe it happened 2000 years ago based on a piece of scripture written fifty years later with the express intention of gaining adherents if that’s what you mean.

That is fair enough.

Do you doubt, then, that Ghengis Khan existed?
Or that Hannibal was a Carthaginian general?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve said that only be able to have a given opinion (on any topic, including religion) or die would be a negative limit to individual freedom. I stand by that comment.

This is a curious position, as it has no basis in reality.

Again, as I’ve stated in a pridian post, the Church does not impose its opinions; rather it proposes. You are certainly free to ponder and accept it, or ponder and reject it. But, as you so rightly profess, you must deal with the consequences of your decision.

 

[Scaun]

Then obviously I would not believe in God. If there were proof against God that would stand firmly against every counterargument, the only rational and logical thing to do would be to abandon such a silly belief in God (proven to be “silly” by this supposed “proof”).

Of course, there is no such proof, or at least none that I know of.

 

[kaid100]

Well, I wouldn’t believe it happened 2000 years ago based on a piece of scripture written fifty years later with the express intention of gaining adherents if that’s what you mean. There are many such religious documents from different faiths, why is the Christian one the only one that’s true?

That is fair enough.

Do you doubt, then, that Ghengis Khan existed?
Or that Hannibal was a Carthaginian general?

That depends, were the documents about those figures contemporary with their era? Were they written with the express intention of gaining adherents to a movement?

 

[Pieman333272]

That depends, were the documents about those figures contemporary with their era? Were they written with the express intention of gaining adherents to a movement?

There are multiple secular, nonbaised accounts which state Jesus existed as a real, historical figure from the time:

tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

 

[kaid100]

There are multiple secular, nonbaised accounts which state Jesus existed as a real, historical figure from the time:

tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

But are they contemporary? The figures listed there weren’t born until sometime after (circa) 33AD. Plenty of time for a story to grow in the telling. Remember, this thread is about “if it were proven…?” not “if someone wrote about it…?”

 

[PRmerger]

That depends, were the documents about those figures contemporary with their era?

Absolutely they were not.

So based on this, do you doubt the existence of Hannibal and Cleopatra, kaid?

 

[kaid100]

Absolutely they were not.

So based on this, do you doubt the existence of Hannibal and Cleopatra, kaid?

Cleopatra was mentioned on the contemporary Rosetta Stone. However, even that fact is not enough to make me believe she was a god.

 

[Pieman333272]

But are they contemporary? The figures listed there weren’t born until sometime after (circa) 33AD. Plenty of time for a story to grow in the telling. Remember, this thread is about “if it were proven…?” not “if someone wrote about it…?”

It doesn’t matter. Not only are they reliable due to their worldview, but almost all ancient history is not by contemporaries. If you are willing to reject Jospehus, Pliny, Tacticus, or any of the others, as reliable sources on Jesus because of their not being contemporaries you should be willing to reject about 80% of what else they say, as they are not contemporaries of that either.

Also, St. Paul is a contemporary and writes on him but after 33/29 AD. There is a very high probability that Paul met Jesus as being among the crowd of Pharisees who saw him preach in Jerusalem, so he is an eyewitness on the issue of Jesus’ existence.

In addition, this is pretending that even if the Gospels and Epistles are merely propaganda (which is a matter of huge debate), we can’t derive the original data from them. There are mountains of textual and form evidence to believe that even if the Gospels are unreliable or fabricated that they are based on true stories.

 

[kaid100]

It doesn’t matter. Not only are they reliable due to their worldview, but almost all ancient history is not by contemporaries. If you are willing to reject Jospehus, Pliny, Tacticus, or any of the others, as reliable sources on Jesus because of their not being contemporaries you should be willing to reject about 80% of what else they say, as they are not contemporaries of that either.

Also, St. Paul is a contemporary and writes on him but after 33/29 AD. There is a very high probability that Paul met Jesus as being among the crowd of Pharisees who saw him preach in Jerusalem, so he is an eyewitness on the issue of Jesus’ existence.

In addition, this is pretending that even if the Gospels and Epistles are merely propaganda (which is a matter of huge debate), we can’t derive the original data from them. There are mountains of textual and form evidence to believe that even if the Gospels are unreliable or fabricated that they are based on true stories.

Well, I’d love to see the mountains of evidence you describe. I thought Paul only saw a vision on the way to Damascus, not the real guy. Josephus, Pliny etc wrote long after the fact, why should I believe that Jesus is God on the basis they mention him from time to time as a historical figure. Should I believe Achilles was a Demigod on comparable evidence?

 

[Pieman333272]

Well, I’d love to see the mountains of evidence you describe. I thought Paul only saw a vision on the way to Damascus, not the real guy. Josephus, Pliny etc wrote long after the fact, why should I believe that Jesus is God on the basis they mention him from time to time as a historical figure. Should I believe Achilles was a Demigod on comparable evidence?

I’m proving Jesus was a real person. Proving his divinity can come after that. Those people are reliable for proving the simple fact that he is a real person. As for Paul, that is when he saw him as the Christ. There is an extremely high probability that when Jesus was preaching, he saw him, being a Pharisee.

Just one of the stronger points for Jesus being a real person based on the Gospels alone is the criterion of embarrassment. If they were written just to convert people to a myth, certainly they wouldn’t have done such a terrible job of making Jesus a hero! Jesus bows to John the Baptist in his Baptism. He dies the worst possible death, and on one occasion it takes him two tries to heal somebody, and these are just the common examples. Why would they fabricate it like that?

 

[kaid100]

I’m proving Jesus was a real person. Proving his divinity can come after that. Those people are reliable for proving the simple fact that he is a real person. As for Paul, that is when he saw him as the Christ. There is an extremely high probability that when Jesus was preaching, he saw him, being a Pharisee.

Just one of the stronger points for Jesus being a real person based on the Gospels alone is the criterion of embarrassment. If they were written just to convert people to a myth, certainly they wouldn’t have done such a terrible job of making Jesus a hero! Jesus bows to John the Baptist in his Baptism. He dies the worst possible death, and on one occasion it takes him two tries to heal somebody, and these are just the common examples. Why would they fabricate it like that?

Why are we now talking about whether Jesus is a real person? This thread is on the subjects "“What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist” and “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”.

John the Baptist says to Jesus “It’s you who should be baptising me”, and his death is the central part of the doctrine.