6 ms·

History isn't impervious to investigation, there are opportunities to verify it that are worth considering if anyone is intellectually curious about such things

by chubs 10y ago

History isn't impervious to investigation, there are opportunities to verify it that are worth considering if anyone is intellectually curious about such things: * Biblical accounts are largely corroborated by archaeology. * The bible isn't 2000 years old - early copies have been discovered that date from the 2nd century. So there's only an initial 200 year gap to consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri * Thousands of copies of the books that make up the bible have been found, and they generally only vary in insignificant ways - it's not like the legend grew and changed as it was copied over the centuries. * Non-biblical atheist ancient writings corroborate many of the claims surrounding jesus' life. * Even atheist historians generally concede what is known as the 'minimal facts' surrounding christianity's founding, and if you're curious, these facts make you at least consider your philosophy more seriously: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/the-minimal-facts-of-the-resurrection http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/the-minimal-facts-of-the-re... Not all christian's hold blind faith - many of us are hard-nosed skeptics who examined the facts and still believe in it. I mean we're normal people right, we don't want to waste our lives believing a lie! So we really probe what we believe.

vacri 10y ago
> So there's only an initial 200 year gap to consider This is like saying "It's only been 200 years since Waterloo, so a modern writer could make a worthy account based on hearsay". 200 years is ten generations. > Not all christian's hold blind faith - many of us are hard-nosed skeptics who examined the facts and still believe in it. "A nice bloke called Jesus" isn't much of a fact to examine. "Transubstantiation" is, as is any of the extranormal stuff. As an atheist, I don't understand why people have to look to something two-thousand years old to use as their moral guide. Major religions are so complex that you can pick and choose pretty much whatever you want to support your arguments - before the US civil war, both pro- and anti-slavery arguments were able to reference the bible, for example. Ultimately, most people pick and choose what they want from a religion to use it as their moral guide... which is putting the cart before the horse. They already have a moral compass, and choose the bits that suit them from a religion. You hear similar when you talk to a christian moving town and they talk about going church-shopping to find one that suits them. A clear example from my own recent experience is that a very close friend of the family was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer only two weeks ago, and is in enough pain that two hours sleep a night is considered 'good'. When her father found out, he was abusing her about satan's influences and read her the riot act. Most people (including most christians) would be revolted by his behaviour, but his selected parts of christianity suited his chosen morality. > I mean we're normal people right, we don't want to waste our lives believing a lie! We do it all the time. I do it frequently when I purchase an electronic gizmo and avoid thinking about the sweatshop labour and conflict minerals involved. "Being okay with a lie" is a normal state of being, particularly if it masks an uncomfortable truth.
- nvahalik 10y ago
  > "A nice bloke called Jesus" isn't much of a fact to examine. Except that people and ideas have ramifications. Consider for example... 1. Persecution during the first 300 years of Christianity's infancy was very rampant. People died for their beliefs. If those people didn't think that what they believed was true, then why would they have died for what they believed? 2. Christianity (at least in name) is the world's dominate religion. Are you going to tell me that the vast majority of people in the world (and in history) didn't at some point figure out that what they believed was a lie? > A clear example from my own recent experience is that a very close friend of the family was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer only two weeks ago, and is in enough pain that two hours sleep a night is considered 'good'. When her father found out, he was abusing her about satan's influences and read her the riot act. Most people (including most christians) would be revolted by his behaviour, but his selected parts of christianity suited his chosen morality. Don't confuse the actions of a hurting, confused person with real Christianity. > We do it all the time. I do it frequently when I purchase an electronic gizmo and avoid thinking about the sweatshop labour and conflict minerals involved. "Being okay with a lie" is a normal state of being, particularly if it masks an uncomfortable truth. What's the lie? You know the truth. You also probably reckon that if those people didn't build it, someone else would. Don't conflate lies with uncomfortable truths.
  - vacri 10y ago
    > People died for their beliefs. If those people didn't think that what they believed was true, then why would they have died for what they believed? Since when did belief make something about the world outside the psyche true? There are muslims violently dying today for their religious beliefs. Kamikaze pilots killed themselves in the belief of the divinity of the emperor. Russian peasants died for the October Revolution in the mistaken belief things would get better. Chinese peasants died for Mao in the same way, cue Great Leap Forward. French peasants died for the Revolution believing it would get better, and it resulted in the Reign of Terror. And back in christian-land, so many wars of religion. Protestants and Catholics burning and hanging each other. Pogroms murdering folks like the Cathars in droves because they believed differently. All based on belief - but which one is correct? They all have some vague bits in common (well, not all - some christian sects didn't believe that Christ was divine but did follow his teachings...), so somehow that makes all christianity 'correct'? Because people have had wildly different and murderously incompatible beliefs in it over the ages? Or perhaps another way: since the Enlightenment, all religions have seen their authority dwindle, and have retreated into just those areas where questions cannot be answered. "But we know the Truth!" they say, knowing that nothing can be proved one way or another. In short, belief != real-world truth, no matter how many people believe. > Are you going to tell me that the vast majority of people in the world (and in history) didn't at some point figure out that what they believed was a lie? Which version of Christianity? There are heaps. What about the other religions that have loads of adherents? Are they 'not true' because they didn't win with these FPTP electoral rules? Is a popularity contest really the best way to determine spiritual truth? There's a lot of hindus out there - how come they haven't figured out they're wrong yet, given that christianity is more popular overall and therefore 'true'? And seriously, it's not like most of the faithful are particularly knowledgable about the underpinning logic in their religion. Hell, for the first three-quarters of the Catholic Church's life, you basically weren't allowed to read the bible unless you'd been inducted into 'the company'. The very idea that the proles should be allowed to read the holy book was part of what caused one of the greatest schisms in Christianity - indeed, not just reading was frowned upon, but pre-reformation Catholic church services were held in Latin, a language the commonfolk rarely understood. Do you really want to claim that people uneducated about the nuts and bolts holding their religion together as evidence of some sort of real-world truth? To most people, their religion is the day-to-day stuff of life. Light a votive candle to remember someone in prayer. Sing hymns to get a feeling of community. Splash your baby with water so that it doesn't displease god. Pray to god to win the big game this weekend (because it works that way...). Most aren't aware of the shenanigans at the Council of Nicaea or the content of the 95 Theses (or even that these things exist!); it's not like they have a good idea of the logical underpinnings of the religion. I remember talking to a woman who, in her words, had 'escaped' from the mountains of North Carolina, where she grew up in a fiercely protestant area (can't recall the actual denomination). They hated Catholics to the point where they got new pews for their church, which on arrival were found to have simple shallow crosses carved into each end - and the pews were sent back for being "too Catholic". As an 11-year-old, she tried to find out why you were supposed to hate Catholics, and no-one could answer her. She eventually found out about the puritans leaving Europe and told her mother, who didn't care: if you were a Protestant, you hated Catholics. No explanation necessary. Hating Catholics was just part of your faith. Don't forget either that people believed that Catholic priests couldn't possibly be paedophiles. And yet we're finding out that not only were a significant number of them just that (7% in the recent Australian government inquiry), but that the Catholic edifice covered it up. Some people still believe it's all a lie to discredit the priesthood. Are you going to tell me that belief = truth there as well? > Don't confuse the actions of a hurting, confused person with real Christianity. a) good ol' No True Scotsman. As we know, only non-christians crap on about Satan's involvement in things. b) I'm not. This isn't the only time he's done this sort of thing. I don't think he is a typical example of a christian (or any demographic), but I mentioned him to provide an example of picking-and-choosing the bits you like out of a religion. c) Interesting that you're willing to claim everyone who ever called themselves a christian as backing your argument, but the minute one of them acts like an arse: "Oh, they're not a REAL christian". Do you claim Spanish inquisitors as part of your christians-throughout-the-ages, or are they not 'real christians' as well? What about the Pope who had the Templars tortured - having their feet held to the fires long enough for the bones to fall out - all for a cash grab? I mean, on the one hand, torture and lying for personal gain, but on the other hand, what christian could possibly be more vetted than the pope? Was he not a 'real' christian? Or are we just going to define 'christianity' according to modern progressive sensibilities and then retroactively cast that definition across every christian that ever lived?

by chubs 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

> So there's only an initial 200 year gap to consider This is like saying "It's only been 200 years since Waterloo, so a modern writer could make a worthy account based on hearsay". 200 years is ten generations. > Not all christian's hold blind faith - many of us are hard-nosed skeptics who examined the facts and still believe in it. "A nice bloke called Jesus" isn't much of a fact to examine. "Transubstantiation" is, as is any of the extranormal stuff. As an atheist, I don't understand why people have to look to something two-thousand years old to use as their moral guide. Major religions are so complex that you can pick and choose pretty much whatever you want to support your arguments - before the US civil war, both pro- and anti-slavery arguments were able to reference the bible, for example. Ultimately, most people pick and choose what they want from a religion to use it as their moral guide... which is putting the cart before the horse. They already have a moral compass, and choose the bits that suit them from a religion. You hear similar when you talk to a christian moving town and they talk about going church-shopping to find one that suits them. A clear example from my own recent experience is that a very close friend of the family was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer only two weeks ago, and is in enough pain that two hours sleep a night is considered 'good'. When her father found out, he was abusing her about satan's influences and read her the riot act. Most people (including most christians) would be revolted by his behaviour, but his selected parts of christianity suited his chosen morality. > I mean we're normal people right, we don't want to waste our lives believing a lie! We do it all the time. I do it frequently when I purchase an electronic gizmo and avoid thinking about the sweatshop labour and conflict minerals involved. "Being okay with a lie" is a normal state of being, particularly if it masks an uncomfortable truth.

nvahalik 10y ago
> "A nice bloke called Jesus" isn't much of a fact to examine. Except that people and ideas have ramifications. Consider for example... 1. Persecution during the first 300 years of Christianity's infancy was very rampant. People died for their beliefs. If those people didn't think that what they believed was true, then why would they have died for what they believed? 2. Christianity (at least in name) is the world's dominate religion. Are you going to tell me that the vast majority of people in the world (and in history) didn't at some point figure out that what they believed was a lie? > A clear example from my own recent experience is that a very close friend of the family was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer only two weeks ago, and is in enough pain that two hours sleep a night is considered 'good'. When her father found out, he was abusing her about satan's influences and read her the riot act. Most people (including most christians) would be revolted by his behaviour, but his selected parts of christianity suited his chosen morality. Don't confuse the actions of a hurting, confused person with real Christianity. > We do it all the time. I do it frequently when I purchase an electronic gizmo and avoid thinking about the sweatshop labour and conflict minerals involved. "Being okay with a lie" is a normal state of being, particularly if it masks an uncomfortable truth. What's the lie? You know the truth. You also probably reckon that if those people didn't build it, someone else would. Don't conflate lies with uncomfortable truths.
- vacri 10y ago
  > People died for their beliefs. If those people didn't think that what they believed was true, then why would they have died for what they believed? Since when did belief make something about the world outside the psyche true? There are muslims violently dying today for their religious beliefs. Kamikaze pilots killed themselves in the belief of the divinity of the emperor. Russian peasants died for the October Revolution in the mistaken belief things would get better. Chinese peasants died for Mao in the same way, cue Great Leap Forward. French peasants died for the Revolution believing it would get better, and it resulted in the Reign of Terror. And back in christian-land, so many wars of religion. Protestants and Catholics burning and hanging each other. Pogroms murdering folks like the Cathars in droves because they believed differently. All based on belief - but which one is correct? They all have some vague bits in common (well, not all - some christian sects didn't believe that Christ was divine but did follow his teachings...), so somehow that makes all christianity 'correct'? Because people have had wildly different and murderously incompatible beliefs in it over the ages? Or perhaps another way: since the Enlightenment, all religions have seen their authority dwindle, and have retreated into just those areas where questions cannot be answered. "But we know the Truth!" they say, knowing that nothing can be proved one way or another. In short, belief != real-world truth, no matter how many people believe. > Are you going to tell me that the vast majority of people in the world (and in history) didn't at some point figure out that what they believed was a lie? Which version of Christianity? There are heaps. What about the other religions that have loads of adherents? Are they 'not true' because they didn't win with these FPTP electoral rules? Is a popularity contest really the best way to determine spiritual truth? There's a lot of hindus out there - how come they haven't figured out they're wrong yet, given that christianity is more popular overall and therefore 'true'? And seriously, it's not like most of the faithful are particularly knowledgable about the underpinning logic in their religion. Hell, for the first three-quarters of the Catholic Church's life, you basically weren't allowed to read the bible unless you'd been inducted into 'the company'. The very idea that the proles should be allowed to read the holy book was part of what caused one of the greatest schisms in Christianity - indeed, not just reading was frowned upon, but pre-reformation Catholic church services were held in Latin, a language the commonfolk rarely understood. Do you really want to claim that people uneducated about the nuts and bolts holding their religion together as evidence of some sort of real-world truth? To most people, their religion is the day-to-day stuff of life. Light a votive candle to remember someone in prayer. Sing hymns to get a feeling of community. Splash your baby with water so that it doesn't displease god. Pray to god to win the big game this weekend (because it works that way...). Most aren't aware of the shenanigans at the Council of Nicaea or the content of the 95 Theses (or even that these things exist!); it's not like they have a good idea of the logical underpinnings of the religion. I remember talking to a woman who, in her words, had 'escaped' from the mountains of North Carolina, where she grew up in a fiercely protestant area (can't recall the actual denomination). They hated Catholics to the point where they got new pews for their church, which on arrival were found to have simple shallow crosses carved into each end - and the pews were sent back for being "too Catholic". As an 11-year-old, she tried to find out why you were supposed to hate Catholics, and no-one could answer her. She eventually found out about the puritans leaving Europe and told her mother, who didn't care: if you were a Protestant, you hated Catholics. No explanation necessary. Hating Catholics was just part of your faith. Don't forget either that people believed that Catholic priests couldn't possibly be paedophiles. And yet we're finding out that not only were a significant number of them just that (7% in the recent Australian government inquiry), but that the Catholic edifice covered it up. Some people still believe it's all a lie to discredit the priesthood. Are you going to tell me that belief = truth there as well? > Don't confuse the actions of a hurting, confused person with real Christianity. a) good ol' No True Scotsman. As we know, only non-christians crap on about Satan's involvement in things. b) I'm not. This isn't the only time he's done this sort of thing. I don't think he is a typical example of a christian (or any demographic), but I mentioned him to provide an example of picking-and-choosing the bits you like out of a religion. c) Interesting that you're willing to claim everyone who ever called themselves a christian as backing your argument, but the minute one of them acts like an arse: "Oh, they're not a REAL christian". Do you claim Spanish inquisitors as part of your christians-throughout-the-ages, or are they not 'real christians' as well? What about the Pope who had the Templars tortured - having their feet held to the fires long enough for the bones to fall out - all for a cash grab? I mean, on the one hand, torture and lying for personal gain, but on the other hand, what christian could possibly be more vetted than the pope? Was he not a 'real' christian? Or are we just going to define 'christianity' according to modern progressive sensibilities and then retroactively cast that definition across every christian that ever lived?