So I thought about this in the shower amd it makes sense to me, like praying and stuff never worked for most people I know, so a direkt link to god gotta be unlikely. That made me conclude that religion is probably fake, no matter if there’s a god or not. Also people speaking to the same god being given a different set of rules sounds stupid, so at least most religions must be fake.
I find the argument for an afterlife humorous. Spend any time with a pet sleeping beside you and watch them dream. We are no different at the core. There is an abstract ‘conscious’ involved with dreaming. Do they have a god in their dreams. Is ours better than theirs, who is to say. I attribute such a thought to absurd human hubris.
Modern humans have existed in some form for only 100k years, while 99.9% of all life that has ever existed is extinct. What kind of omnipotent god is that shitty at dust, ribs, and apples that they failed at everything.
The real clincher for me was simply realizing the fundamental nature of stars and the processes that fuel them. That lead me to ask, if god really exists, why didn’t they note a single scientific anomaly that is undisputable. Absolutely everything found in any religious writing is fundamentally human. There are clever observations, but every single thing mentioned could be observed or fabricated. There is no higher evidence whatsoever, no ontological knowledge of the universe.
The only people that speak in riddles are con artists. Religion is the highest level of achievement in the skills of con artistry. The best criminals are those you’ve never heard of, but the pinnacle of achievement is those that do it in plain sight.
I think all religions were either started, or greatly fuelled, by psychedelics. For example: the description of the apocalypse in the Bible sounds like a bad trip, animals morphing into each other and all. Ah yes, a “vision of the end”- did it happen right after eating some funny mushrooms or perhaps some nice cactus eh?
also i think jesus had early onset shizoaffective disorder like his mum before himbut that’s by far my edgiest takeI don’t think Jesus ever existed. Show me 12 guys that experience something absolutely world changing, and none of them write anything about it for decades and then tell me they were factually motivated. This is the premise we’re dealing with.
We were all stupid gullible little kids learning this stuff. Most people are only doing it for the social network, but don’t understand it as such. The bias of disregarding all the opposing evidence causes cognitive dissonance and most of the bad behaviors of present society.
Pragmatically, a group of nobodies managed to survive Rome destroying their civilization because of stupidity and rebellious nationalism. This diaspora was a refugee crisis everywhere else. No one wanted them and their religion was a joke. They had no where to go, owned nothing, and were not even citizens of the lands they inhabited. Most were likely slaves. After a few decades, some started rebuilding a life. It was the perfect opportunity to fabricate some new religious thing if you were a displaced nobody. That diaspora wanted meaningful purpose to make them feel nostalgic over their religious past. The gospels are the tales of some nobodies that didn’t have to work because they sold themselves as the product that filled the niche needs of the more successful among that diaspora. They got put up in people’s houses and fed well. They likely did so until they got caught by some Romans while trying to grow their religious support base, or because they were overstaying their welcome everywhere they went. Like Paul was probably put on a boat knowing that he wouldn’t be able to return, probably a boat likely to sink, and one sent into a storm on purpose.
It is easy to say all the things that “thousands witnessed” when all those thousands are dead or displaced and unable to dispute anything you’ve said. None of them wrote down any part of their accounts for several decades. What kinds of reliable stories can you tell after several decades. To top that off, there are elementary school level copying errors that are blatant in nature. They are exactly what I expect from a con. You don’t have a case where there are 12 unique accounts or 11 if you want to be pedantic. I can easily picture myself in this circumstance, and I can easily see myself performing this exact con if my alternative was starving to death. There is nothing remarkable about the story. At the time, there were very few people that supported or believed it. A couple hundred years later it picked up steam. That too is obvious. Polytheism is like an anarchic political party. Any fool can conjure a political movement that has potential to overthrow governments using an obscure god of convince and a plausible story that feeds what others want to hear… Look at Julius Caesar. He largely used his religious role as pontifex maximus to gain power as a populist. Monotheism is far easier to control. The true purpose of religion is quite simple. It is a self sustaining way to suppress the peasantry. This is the common thread throughout all of history. Religion functions as a morality police system with a corpus that is just long enough to occupy the minds of the average person. It is a source of tribal isolation. It is not a meritocracy, so it will not evolve much with time. Conservative sadism and ignorance are an effective way to oppresses or suppress progressive societal elements that might question the corruption and ineptitude of the upper class. Religion creates little gullible pockets of people that are easily manipulated by the upper class and authority.
So no, there is no evidence for anything more than opportunistic cons and pragmatic government if you really strip away all the layers and look at it objectively. It is a system of feelings over logic because feelings disregard facts and make up their own like imaginary friends no one has ever talked to, or a magical future if you just go about your insignificant life while telling you it will be better next time. Or shit, how about we really rub it in: in the next life “the meek will inherit the earth.” That’s right, act as low as you can little peasants, and be happy about it. It will be better next time. Your imaginary friend said so about this place no one has ever seen or been to. The majority of humans believe shit like this. If you know this stuff well, you know I did too.
You can’t fix stupid in anyone else; only within yourself. Fighting or arguing with anyone that places emotionally derived belief over fundamental logic is a pointless and destructive waste of time. Sharing reasonable logic with those on the edge can be helpful, but like, I came up with all of this on my own completely independent of external sources.
wonderfully written! yes I absolutely agree with that perspective. Additionally having a mascot in the form of a guy who wholeheartedly believes he’s the son of the God (and is also god in a way because we can’t get polytheists about it of course) is a great marketing move. People always have a hard time trusting and identifying with some ethereal entity up in the sky, there’s a reason why all gods have human (or animal) faces, if Jesus was fully made up or inspired by a mentally ill guy who was completely delusional but still kind that’s another thing lol
Show me 12 guys that experience something absolutely world changing, and none of them write anything about it for decades and then tell me they were factually motivated
Literacy and writing were uncommon then, though.
If jesus could do that stuff he could just give people knowledge of writing instantaneously i mean their really is no excuse when someone is literally omnipotent
Or more likely, Jesus was an eminent rabbi of the era, that oral stories expanded for hundreds of years, until he became a literal avatar of a god.
Or maybe he was a fraudster like another magician of the time - Simon Magus, who is mentioned in the Bible. Simon was an escape artist, and had a levitation illusion. That’s not far from water to wine or walking on water.
I don’t think Jesus ever existed. Show me 12 guys that experience something absolutely world changing, and none of them write anything about it for decades and then tell me they were factually motivated. This is the premise we’re dealing with.
I’d agree with the statement “the twelve apostles didn’t exist,” especially seeing how in Luke they go from the ten to the twelve and the various gospels can’t even agree on the list of them.
But show me the invented religious figure where the earliest surviving records are disputes over who they were and what they were talking about. Pretty much every cult around a real person ends up that way after the person dies or is imprisoned. But not the made up figures so much.
You were born into a planet where the moon perfectly eclipses the sun and where the next brightest object in the sky goes on a katabasis that inspired entirely separate intelligent cultures from the Aztecs to the Sumerians to develop the idea that the dead could come back to life.
The fact that solar eclipses were visible meant that we started to track them, discovering the Saros cycle and eventually building the first analog computer to track them.
The fact that the odd orbit of Venus as viewed from the Earth dipping down below the ground before emerging again leading to cultures imagining the dead being raised has resulted in widespread hyperstition of resurrection.
You were born into a generation of humans when a three trillion dollar company has already been granted a patent on resurrecting dead people using computers and the social media they leave behind.
Absolutely none of the above features of your world can be attributed to selection bias by something like the anthropic principal, but absolutely can be explained by selection bias if you are in an ancestor simulation - for life to exist unusual celestial features contributing to life recreating itself is unnecessary, but any accurate ancestor simulation should exhibit features of a world that lead to it eventually recreating itself.
The physics of your universe behaves as if continuous at both macro and micro scales, up until interacted with, which is very convenient given state changes by free agents to a continuous manifold would require an infinite amount of memory to simulate.
But yeah, sure, the idea of an afterlife is humorous. Humorous like the Roman satirist Lucian in the 2nd century making fun of the impossibility of a ship of men ever flying up to the moon.
That made me conclude that religion is probably fake, no matter if there’s a god or not.
That’s not it. All religions are real - regardless of whether the things any given religion worships is real or not.
Religion is as real as money, borders and race.
Your just kinda messing around with words when people think religion and talk about it like this they are referring to the beliefs like a god making the world. While yes thats also religion thats not when people mean in this context since everyone knows things like churches exist
It’s a lot easier to control and oppress people when they have the fear of god in them.
I agree, now how do I get my mom to quit telling me I’m going to hell?
You can point out the fact her depiction of a divine parent fails the Solomon test.
In the classic Solomon story, he tests two different claimants both saying they are the parent of a child.
The false parent was the one that only cared about being recognized as the parent and was willing to see the child harmed and killed to fulfill that desire.
The true parent was the one that wanted the child to continue to live as their complete unadulterated self, even if that meant the child never even knew they existed, let alone get they were the parent.
While it should be easy to understand why a church collecting your money promotes a divine parent who demands recognition and is willing to see its supposed children harmed without collecting its dues, it doesn’t seem all that wise to believe such a parent represents a true parent and not a false one if we use Solomon’s wisdom as a guiding principle.
She’s almost 70 now… I don’t think there’s anything I can say that will change her mind lol
Well that’s where all the sinners go right? And gambling and hooking are a sin… Hell has blackjack and hookers. Sounds like it could be a fun place.
I think if god exists it would design a system that would lead you to it if you wanted to find it. In which case religion wouldn’t have to be the only way to find god.
But I suppose I should ask what do you mean by the “way to god”?
I mean the way to find god, to know if he really exists and if so benefit from his existance
Ah.
That leads into my thinking of why it frankly doesn’t matter whether god exists or not. Either way, we would be unable to know one way or the other, and hence concerning ourselves with the question is inherently wasted effort.
It’s like asking what is behind the edge of the universe. It does not matter. By definition we cannot perceive or interact with it, as the very concepts that make up our space of perception and interaction terminate at the edge. Likewise if there did exist a higher metaphysical entity, by definition it would exist outside of our sphere of perception and interaction, and hence it is exactly the same for us whether it does exist or not.
Or, to quote Futurama:
Ah… Yeah. Idk. If I was god I’d make it so anyone who wanted to find me could find me through any path regardless of where they started at. Assuming “god” exists and is at least that benevolent then there’s nothing to worry about regardless of your religion.
Religion can’t do even that.
“Give me your entire life and I’ll give you rewards beyond your wildest dreams… that you can only see after you die.”
One of the greatest grifts in all of history.
I can’t think of a better one overall
Preface: I’m a Christian, so this will be about the Christian view on things. I can’t really speak for other religions, since I don’t really know enough about them.
On prayer: asking for miracles is not actually the main point of prayer, the main parts are listening to God, and God listening to you. Imagine a perfect parent/child relationship. Sure, there will be the occasional “hey dad, I need some money to make this month’s rent. Can you help please?” or similar conversation, but most of the time it will be the child learning from the wisdom of the parent, or the parent helping the child vent. If you want to see an example of what Christianity says is the sort of things to pray, look at the book of Psalms in the bible.
On other religions: yes, of course at least most religions are fake. A false religion could be started by someone who believes they heard from God but got it wrong, or someone who wants to be the head of a religion for their own gain. Many religions warn about false prophets, so this is hardly a surprising thing.
In most parent / child relationships, the child outlives the parent.
Why would that change anything? Regardless of who dies when, a good parent wants to bless their child, and a child wants to learn from a good parent.
deleted by creator
Can an atheist pray to god to ask for the enlightenment of his/her/its believers?
deleted by creator
That’s right.
deleted by creator
So god never answers the prayers of atheists… sounds pointless.
Predestination - sounds like you’re talking about god’s plan… why pray then? If it’s already in a plan, it’ll happen. If it’s not in the plan, it won’t.
If god doesn’t allow his children to slip away, how do you explain the actual verifiable existence of atheists and people that formerly had religion?
deleted by creator
Well you can, but that doesn’t mean God will do it. You’re asking a father, who loves his children, to remove their choice in the matter and force them away, despite him knowing it’s better for them to stay.
If God never answers the prayers of non-followers; he’s really not convincing anyone new that he exists.
When did I say that? I just said that specific prayer will never be answered
Maybe it would; I don’t think you get to decide.
It’s not that intercessory prayer needs to work 100% to be convincing, it just needs to beat random chance and it doesn’t do that.
Natural processes can describe how those things came to exist without needing to appeal to supernatural claims or gods.
You’ve seen things you attribute to a god, but people in other religions attribute the same things to their god and so far I don’t think anyone has shown empirical evidence for any gods, and I don’t know about you but I use empirical evidence when changing my confidence on whether something or someone exists or doesn’t.
Many people have a negative opinion on organized religion because we can see the negative effects believing things without sufficient evidence can have on individuals and communities.
I wish I could bury my head into the sand enough to believe this clap-trap bullshit. Why does God never answer the prayers of amputees?
Other religions are fake, but my religion…
As it turns out, religion is faith based
Have you never disagreed with someone? At that point, at least one of you is wrong. You believe what must be true based on what you’ve seen, so of course you think you’re right.
It’s the same with religion. Because there’s disagreement between each different belief (including atheism and such), there can be at most one correct option. I believe Christianity, because based on what I’ve seen that is by far the most sound option.
You think there can only be one god? That sounds limiting. I don’t believe in any, but say does Buddhism really contradict most of Christianity real values? Like be good to people (help the less fortunate) try to let things go to not burden your well being (praying for forgiveness), respect others (do unto others). Besides having to actually believe in a god what’s the difference between the two? Though the Buddhist view I’m thinking of doesn’t require a god either but both seem to have teachings of compassion and love for your fellow person (some restrictions apply when dealing with intolerant types). I’m not saying you shouldn’t have faith but don’t say one has to be wrong.
Christianity and Buddhism (as well as many other religions) agree on a lot of the things you should do, but not why you should do them. Christianity says everyone is made in the image of God, so should be treated with love, while Buddhism (as far as I know) says showing compassion improves your karma and brings you closer to enlightenment. It might not seem like that difference matters, and according to some religions it doesn’t, but some religions (especially Christianity) that difference in reason means everything. With Christianity, the only way to heaven is through Jesus, so a Buddhist living a life of love and compassion would be no closer to heaven.
I have a lot of opinions and beliefs that I can realize probably aren’t correct
Just tell me: If there is a god, is he a war god and keeps mankind just for entertainment?
Well I never thought that prayer ever made sense in the first place at least with the God I was raised to believe in. I was told God had a perfect plan which included all of us and he wasn’t willing to deviate from that plan even to spare his own son from suffering. Given that, I stopped praying because it made no sense to me, there is already a plan, the plan won’t be changed so there’s no sense asking for anything.
That was my logic as a kid at least but now I don’t pray because I no longer believe.
A similar thought I had ages ago is that if God exists, they would either want us to know about them, or not. It doesn’t seem reasonable for there to be this weird in-between where it’s possible to believe they don’t exist if they want to be known… Or for it to be possible to believe they exist if they don’t want to be known!
If I were a god that wanted privacy, I’d simply wipe the concept of god from all mortal minds and prevent it from reappearing.
If god did want worship it would be even easier to get it than just making everyone know about them (certainly an option!) - just manifest physically much more often and perform true miracles, none of this silly water into wine (or walkway) business, I mean like Actually moving mountains or something.
I believe the only case that is consistent with some people believing in a god and some not (or different gods) is there just aren’t any, or at least they don’t care what we think at all, which is similar to not existing and it’s unreasonable that we’d ‘guess right’ about them without their help.
I know this is just a showerthought, but what do you define as religion? The term religion doesn’t necessarily need a God.
Or do you mean the 3 mainstream monotheistic religions? (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)
God with a capital G usually refers to “the” monotheistic God that we understand in those three Abrahamic religions you mentioned. usually you would say “god” otherwise, as it’s just a descriptive feature of other religions rather than the name used to call a specific name of “God”.
On the internet? In general I take someone that spells “God” with a capital to be a theist (usually only 2 of 3 monotheistic believes, because Muslims usually use “Allah” probably). Or perhaps raised as a theist, lost their faith, but not bitter against their old faith. while if someone uses “god” they are probably not a theist.
Makes sense to me too: I as a theist would refer to “Thor” as a “god” because to me it is not an entity that exists. It would only make sense for someone that is an atheist to not use a capital to refer to my “God”: They don’t believe it to be a real entity after all.
E: although, I guess fictional characters do use capitals, so maybe I’m wrong.
It has nothing to do with belief(although I’m sure some militant atheists chose to use lowercase universally, they’re likely just grammatically ignorant) . It’s noun vs descriptor. Abrahamic God (and Muslim doesn’t matter either… it’s the same entity in all three) is literally it’s name. A proper noun. In your example of Thor, god is just a description, not his proper name. But Thor is not a good example as he’s actually a demigod, but demigod is never capitalized as there is no god called “Demigod”. Odin is the god of war and the dead… and ruler of valhalla as a more accurate entity to discuss.
God is a god. My god is God. Both of these previous sentences are grammatically correct. The Bible itself even makes these distinctions. Example:
John 10:33-36 (KJV):
33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?Other sources agree.
https://www.learnreligions.com/god-or-god-to-capitalize-or-not-to-capitalize-249823
Other examples of the phenomenon… “The other day, Mom cooked with the other moms.” You call your mom “Mom” as a proper noun. Where mom is a general descriptor for the other women your mom was cooking with. “Is she your mom” vs “Mom is calling for you”.
-like praying and stuff never worked for most people I know,-
Like they wished for a car or a pony and didn’t get it?
You don’t understand, it is God’s will if you get it, if you don’t it’s his plan for you…
It’s a win win for him. And of course all those telling you what to do in his name :p
Lol 💯
no, I mean like they tried to talk to god
How did they know it didn’t work? I don’t really know how those things work, but I’m pretty sure that one is mostly internal.
What about praying to not die of cancer or for jobs and/or places to live? Or praying for a child to live, or for no Genocide etc. Lots of nonselfish prayers out there.
Not dying of cancer is selfish. It mainly benefits yourself
If you think dying only affects yourself, then that’s already selfish, or sad. You have no family or friends who would mourn you? What if you’re the breadwinner, or you have young children? A person dying doesn’t affect only themselves.
mainly. Yes the biggest impact is to myself. Sure my kids will be impacted but not as much
Sure, for you. If a young single parent who is the only one who can support their child dies, at best they’re hoping for nontraumatic foster care, but in many places, including first world countries, it can mean far worse for them. Still, I’ll cede personal cancer for the sake of the overall point. That was hardly the worst issue in my comment.
Then planes would never crash, there would be no crime, and all guns would shoot jello. Who wants to live like that?
How can anything judge your behavior if there is interference or proof? You can only be responsible for your morality if there is true free will. If you could pray away anything bad, then it would be unfair to be judged for reward in an afterlife
Lots of people. You enjoy people dying for no fault of their own? I don’t need planes crashing. I don’t have a personal need of guns, and if there were no unjust threats, why is a gun necessary? As for crime, crime is really a construct based on a created morality, so that’s up in the air.
My examples were about innocent people suffering, and it feels like your response is “Who would want to live in a world where innocent people don’t suffer?” I almost think you’re joking, because that’s a seriously messed up thing to admit about yourself, much less assume everyone else agrees.
My point was that this wouldn’t be a real life. It would be like a controlled fantasy Barbie dream house life and even she gets chewed up by the dog sometimes. There is no positive without negative. There is no advancement without adversity. If everyone wins the lottery, the lottery means nothing. Life is the struggle.
That’s just your myopic opinion. Plenty of people live fulfilling lives without random chance of an early death being their meaning of living. Perhaps you’re misunderstanding my original comment. I didn’t say immortality (though several religions do promise that as an afterlife), nor did I say unlimited wishes. I mostly said stuff like fatal diseases, daily needs, and unfair deaths like genocides, etc. You added in plane crashes, which also isn’t necessary for a fulfilling life.
It sounds a bit like you’re a zero sum person, like not everyone in the world can have basic needs. As a reminder, we’re discussing this under the assumption there is a loving omnipotent we can pray to. If the world is so messed up that people can’t even expect to not die horribly of stuff that just happens to them outside their own choices, or where not everyone had an equal opportunity to just live a simple life and have their needs met, then that suggests that an omnipotent God decided to make life that way, and such a being is not deserving of my worship, and hasn’t proved their existence.
What other concepts does anyone believe so much they will kill and die for, that has not one single shred of observational evidence to support?
Any fucking thing at all?
Race
That is basic in-group /out-group tribal psychology. Religion is a deeper and more stupid kind of mental poison.
Humans are just dumb animals after all, nothing more.
IMO, if God exists it’s nothing at all like what any religion says. If a god exists at all, there are only two possibilities I think it could be:
-
Non-intelligent happenstance. The universe itself. The laws of physics. Whatever; it’s a concept and not a literal entity.
-
An intelligence that created humans and/or other life here or there, but is not really “God” in anyway described by man. They’re just highly intelligent beings that bioengineered us long, long ago.
The existence of an afterlife though is more complicated. There’s two possibilities, at least IMO:
-
There is nothing after death. No soul that lives on or moves on. There is just the meat in our skull hallucinating things based on external stimuli from reality to make sense of it all until the electrical signals stop and we cease to exist.
-
There is something beyond current understanding where consciousness comes from and it can exist in some form after death. Whatever it experiences after death would be something of an afterlife; though it is probably nothing at all like what any religion describes. It may not even be possible to describe it at all because it’s just super weird.
I like to muse on the idea of an afterlife, being that I’m not religious. I’d like to think maybe every life is just an expression of the universe and that we are all the same; and that same either experiences things outside of our existence or understanding, or we simply resume experience but elsewhere, kinda like reincarnation. I’d also like to think we’re all from a higher dimension experiencing reality as if it’s an episode on Netflix, or like the game Roy from Rick and Morty, that would be fun.
Die and come back to reality where you’re a 10 year old kid in a sci-fi arcade on a family vacation during summer break.
As long as I’ve got the high score I’m thrilled
-
People universally agree that Jesus Himself is a great dude - despite (because!) He told the over-religious Karens to fuck off, and just plainly do such things as take care of widows & orphans. So wherever you may end up, maybe start with that and see where it takes you?
Using the term “universally agree,” on the fast and loose I see.
Obviously… sort of. Fascists hate him for bucking authority, neoliberals too bc how dare He prioritize anything at all over profit - like why take care of the poor when you can (literally) fuck them over, even use them as slaves?
Though I would think the word that they would take issue with would be the “great” part rather than the “universally agree” - they can all see who He is, bc His actions made that plain leaving no room for doubt (like He could be a loon but… whatever the reasoning, at least He lived authentically according to whatever principles He expoused) - they just don’t agree that those properties are themselves what they want to see put into the world.
There’s no evidence that Jesus ever existed at all; so for a lot of people, they’re indifferent.
First sentence in wiki: Jesus
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.
Obviously you know better that there is no evidence, which I find amusing, given that you could not be further from reality.
article whether Jesus actually existed as a person
Seems like people downvoting me also do not like that fact that the person existed.
Of course, because a prophet named Jesus may have existed. Jesus was a popular name and being a “prophet” was a popular career at that time. There were probably thousands of them running around.
Now the biblical Jesus? No, there is absolutely zero evidence he existed.
That is literally what the article is about and you still try to twist things to make sure this one specific person never existed. But why?
Wikipedia is a much better source then this Ayn Rand simp site.
That’s a new creative way to “tell me you didn’t read the link; without telling me you didn’t read the link.”
EDIT: Check the sources on these wikipedia articles… Every citation is from an author that has already made up their mind, and is writing for a similar audience. There’s an obvious pro-religion bias within every citation.
Notice how it says people agree but doesn’t say there is any evidence.
The best we have is letters from a whole generation after his death, and it’s only people saying “these guys say there was a dude a while back” , second hand comments, no living first hand account.
That’s literally what first-hand evidence is: an account from someone who met someone irl - e.g. John, Peter, Luke, Mark, etc.
Also in that historical context, the fact that there are letters at all is somewhat astounding, if Jesus were just some rando. At the very least they seemed to think that He was important.
The letters were not written until later though - b/c why would they be, if you had John + Peter + Luke + Mark all in one room, why would they be writing texts / emails / chats at one another? They still wrote it within their lifetime though, so “a whole generation after his death” is disingenuous - time passed, but those people who met Jesus were still alive, and wrote the letters, thus making them first-hand recordings of fact.
Not that I’m advocating that you become a Christian over all of this, just wanting to get that part of the story straight:-).
None of those are first hand. The gospels were written by other people more than a generation (60 years) after, not by people who were alive in that period of 30 years.
Scholars agree on stuff there is no evidence for…? What? Did you even read the article?
The best we have is letters from a whole generation after his death
Not really even “letters”. But literally 2 accounts. One we’re attributing doesn’t even mention the correct name at the time. Jesus was often referenced as Yoshua at the time… So why the fuck did the account call him James? And the second account doesn’t mention a name at all.
Edit: I need to clarify something since my phrasing is self-defeating (on purpose)… “often referenced as Yoshua at the time” as believed by biblical scholars who are almost universally religious. But the point remains. If the information we have now doesn’t line up with what the accounts state (or the bible)… then how much of this shit is just made up bullshit?
And the 2 accounts are Tacitus (116 AD)
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius
Testimonium Flavianum
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.And by the way… Josephus’ account is under heavy scrutiny and is general considered unreliable at best… and downright forgery at worst. The wiki articles linked are a good read and well sourced.
A really damning case in my opinion is:
that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in AD 324, none mentions the Testimonium.
So other early authors that were Christian referenced Josephus works, but ignore the one that actually mentions Jesus directly? That seems odd no? Almost like the work was fabricated AFTER 324AD.
And nowadays, over-religious Karens (and political despots and greedy evangelicals) use Jesus to oppress and exploit others. If this Jesus had the power the fables claim, he would put an end to all of that shit, stat. Looks around and gestures
First part:
Second part:
But I am not prepared to take the latter on faith alone - b/c free will is a bitch. Allowing a Lord of the Flies type of situation means… well… this.
Do you ever wonder how life must have been in The Matrix? Like, I’ve heard that the Bay of Pigs scenario brought us within like a hairsbreadth of WWIII, and it was only narrowly averted by what amounts to a probabilistic confluence of factors, but if you modeled it multiple times you could end up with VERY different outcomes - like after the fighting settled USA on top, or Russia on top, but the vastly most likely ofc would be nobody on top but everyone (1st-world participants anyway) obliterated, etc. So would The Architect there allow those permutations, or did he guide them towards a desired end? And if so, why bother, if he got what he wanted regardless? Or perhaps he didn’t really care one way or the other, so long as sufficient people were alive to steal their energy from, but b/c of the latter he would work to prevent such a worst-case (to the machines’ purposes) outcome. But if the Russians were capable of threading that needle, and taking over the USA without obliterating too many human lives, then was there an incarnation of The Matrix where Neo (or you know, The One by whatever name) was born to a Russian province, a conquered USA? Fun thoughts…
But anyway, regardless of all the religiosity add-ons (people that try to use Him for their own selfish agendas), Jesus was just a most excellent dude!
As for whether He is (a) “God” or not, people ofc disagree. I think yes, but I also join with others of many faiths who regardless or even outright because of their religion - including atheism - try to be the change that we want to see in the world, without getting hung up on our philosophical differences. Ironically the main camp in opposition to that are fascists, which at this point heavily features evangelical so-called “Christians” in the USA (who are also so-called “Patriots”, so-called Pro-“Life”, so-called “defenders” rather than destroyers of democracy - they really aren’t big on telling the Truth, even/especially to themselves!).
This is the part where shit gets tough, b/c words no longer have meaning, if we (the tolerant) allow (tolerate) people (esp. the intolerant) to call themselves whatever they wish. Ofc nobody for one second would confuse Trump himself as an authentic “Christian” - they just use him for their own ends - but what then is a “Christian”? Is it someone who, like Jesus, is most excellent to one another by showing LOVE (kindness, patience, gentleness, compassion, etc.), or is it rather someone who Karens people, literally killing them… or worse (diddling kids, slavery, wage theft that is… is that even any different?!?)
Ironically, Jesus is only ever recorded to HATE one group of people: the intolerant religious butthurt crowd who say one thing, do the precise opposite, but expect you to go along b/c if you don’t they will literally, flat-out, straight-up kill you. As they did Him.
So yeah, I would hope that even atheists could join in on hating the “Christian”/“Patriot”/Pro-“Life” crowd, as Jesus Himself demonstrated that He did. To them I would say the message: don’t let the fascists confuse you with “words” - just b/c they call themselves something doesn’t make it true. What then is a “Christian”? Who da fuq even cares at this point, it may be a lost cause, but The (OG) Dude I thought was pretty cool:-), again imho.
I wish all (or even most) Christians were like you. We’d all get along better in the world. I can’t reconcile the state of the world with an all-powerful deity, but we are each free to see the world as we choose.
And I wish most non-Christians were more like you. Regardless of our “beliefs”, there is work to be done, to make life better for people - not “kill them all and let God sort them out later”, but right here, right now. I have found it exceedingly easy to get along with most people irl - it’s called “not being a dick”.
Tbf, “religion” itself is an extremely debilitating mental illness (inducing cognitive dissonance) when wielded by authoritarians for ulterior motives, obviously including diddling kids but even more so (at a higher scale I mean), allowing those in power to parasitize off of the backs of those who actually work in society. Ironically that can be cured by reading more of (rather than less) the texts lifted up as “holy scripture”… which is why access to that is curated and heavily obscured as people rush forward to tell you “what it really means is…” (e.g. give me money, and more importantly OBEY).
In short, greedy people have made society the way that it is now, for their own purposes, and therefore there is heavy resistance to trying to do things any other way - people are literally killed who try to buck the system (e.g. Jesus to name just one:-D). Also, religious authoritarianism is only one (particularly effective) way to implement that greed, but it is not the only way e.g. dictatorships.
As far as an all-powerful diety, I have no problem envisioning that (once you get past the fact that most religous “authorities” lie - for their own agenda - e.g. is God “good” like Santa Claus, peeping on little children to make sure they eat their veggies and get in all of their nappies; or is He rather good like Azathoth/Cthulhu, in allowing us to do our own thing even if that literally ends our planet and all life on it, whoopsie daisy!:-P), but ofc it makes just as much sense to envision the opposite too:-). We don’t need to be dicks about whether chocolate or vanilla is better - so long as we agree that murder is bad etc.
“Even” atheists? Especially atheists. As an atheist, I disagree with all Christians, but the only ones I hate are the ones who’ve discarded Jesus’s teachings. I respect real Christians.
Some atheists seem to not want to full-on “hate” fascism, I guess thinking it demeans them or some such. As such their more neutral stance makes them “collaborators” (or worse), whether they realize that or not. And thereby allows such to spread, by virtue of not being opposed hard enough.
Evil needs to be fought against - and I’m not talking some alien lifeform with red skin, a forked tail, and carrying a pitchfork, but inside of our very selves.
But I guess I didn’t express my last point very well:-D.
People agreed with this so much that at the time, they murdered him for it.
Meh, for them it was a Tuesday - it’s just how authoritarians are - and rightly so even, if you believe that way (it is internally consistent I’m saying). Overzealous mods banning people and murder are differences in degree, not of kind.
But, if you believe the lore, Jesus being “God” meant that He actually had the upper hand and while he could have stopped it, chose not to, instead allowing them their freedoms even at that cost and significance, to both Himself personally and others in the community and even around the world. It’s a fascinating tale! One that I believe but regardless even, there’s depth there.
Or you could go the other route and presume that Jesus was not any kind of “god”… in which case he lacked the upper hand - or did he? He could have altered his behavior to fit in with the authorities of his day, but chose not to. Like Robin Hood, he dared to defy those conventions that he considered wrong, and died as a result, knowing that would happen.
So either way, he was genuine. How could you look at the likes of Mr. Rogers or Jesus and think “he’s a bad dude”? Except ofc if you want to keep people in slavery and ignorance, i.e. the religious leaders. Jesus was a revolutionary, a bad dude as far as they were concerned, but a good one for anyone who enjoys the idea of someone being authentically whoever they want/need to be, or for an authoritian who believes in God, there’s really a quite narrow range in-between occupied afaict solely by piss-baby fascists who believe neither, and in my comment I was not caring about those who preach intolerance.:-P But obviously you are right, they do exist.
Whatever someone’s “religion”, I say:
Pretty sure the story isn’t that he let them kill him just to respect their freedom and significance…
Of course not. The point would be to offer people the choice - the consequences of any action are never up to us, only the decisions.
You argued both sides of “jesus is god” and came to the same conclusion. You realize that’s an argument against God, right? If the story works without him being “divine”, there’s no reason to assume he was.
Also, like I mentioned in the other comment, Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the situation and only ordered the crucifixion because the crowd demanded it. You can question “how could they think that”, and argue that it’s “really quite a narrow range of people”, but the story is still that there were enough of them to demand the crucifixion of Jesus, and succeeded soo… What’s your argument here?
I think you are presuming the consequent here. It may help to strip the story of all emotional connotations and just treat it as a logical game - hard to do tbf but it would help. So like, if you start with a story where it is a given that a real God exists, then a lot of freaky stuff can happen downstream from that… bc the Truth is just stranger than fiction, I mean regardless of this stuff even it just is.
e.g. in The Matrix movie, you can go your whole entire lifetime and never once see The Architect, nor anyone you’ve ever met or even heard of either… and yet he exists all the same. Saying like “well then why have *I* never seen him” represents an assumption that may not be valid - in that case, that you would or even could ever do so (by what, walking to work, eating noodles, drinking at a pub, reading a book, intoning a chant in an old language?).
Anyway I cannot prove the existence of God so I’m not even trying to do that here, just to show you a peek into the idea that presuming that He does not exist in the first place relies on some heavy assumptions, that cannot be proven. Or maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill here, and misunderstanding you, especially if English isn’t your first language. But those are some thoughts that I can offer to help get you started on your pathway to better understanding it from the outside, just in case they may help.
Oh no, I believe in a deity, I just believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that created the universe. Have you heard the goodness of his noodliness? Forever and ever, r-amen.
Because if you can see how ridiculous that argument is, you can see how ridiculous I think yours is too. English is my first language and I grew up in the church. That’s why I don’t care about your ‘arguments’. I’ve heard them before. I’ve used them before. Then I grew up and learned better.
You’re correct that you cannot prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof is on someone making a claim. You claim there is a god, but cannot prove the existence of him, so I have no burden to believe you just like you have no burden to believe me when I claim there’s an all-powerful coalescent ball of spaghetti that controls the universe. “Just assume it’s true and then marvel at how cool and strange things would be” isn’t actually a persuasive argument.
Jesus was a cool guy, but lots of people are killed for standing up for what they believe in. We don’t make religions out of them, though.–
“People” didn’t disagree with him; the Roman governor did. And it wasn’t even a matter of disagreeing with Jesus’s message; Pilate just saw him as a troublemaker.
No, Pilate literally washed his hands of the matter and was only talked into it by the crowd. He said he could find no wrongdoing and only ordered the crucifixion to be done with the matter.
