Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
+1
+2. And we're so lucky to have been born. Think of all the eggs and all that sperm and the timing that made each one of us. And that we survived to adulthood and can read and write.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
No, you said quite clearly you don't care if what you believe is true:
But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer.
It's pretty clear right there.
Hmm saying so what does not mean I don't care. I am literally musing to myself and to you, so what?
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
Believing life has no meaning is a positive belief. It is not any more correct than believing there is meaning. Good for you if that makes you happy.
Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.
You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.
I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.
I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!
Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …
I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.
I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).
The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”
And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.
But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.
The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.
Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.
Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.
Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.
Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?
Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?
Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.
Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?
What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.
Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?
Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.
If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.
NP here and I think these are good questions. Part of how I think of it, is that Christianity is all about a personal God, not the high and somewhat theoretical, all powerful Gods of some other religions. What this means is that this God chooses to reveal himself in power but also in a lot of subtleties that require context. You know how in real life sometimes you really get to know someone through "small" acts, perhaps something only a select few are privy to because understanding of those acts require a lot of context? Somethings that may seem meaningless to the unacquainted but powerful to those who have the context?
That context is why God chose a particular people, Israel, and trained them to act a certain way, to see God a certain way, and to worship God a certain way. It is within that context that Jesus's impact becomes meaningful. When Jesus says, for example, that he and the father are one (aka that he is God), that has a very specific meaning to the Jewish people. When he says he comes as a servant, or when he tells the parable of the prodigal son, or the good shepherd, those stories carry the weight that they do precisely because they are told in the context of the Jewish people, who have had a particular view of a God ingrained in them. If a random person just appeared in China and said these things, it would mean something totally different, or maybe a feel good story, but they would not have the same meaning.
Also, I do believe the change in the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence that something very weird took place. Name one other movement where the leader failed to accomplish anything, and died in humiliation, and yet that movement thrived. It is not just that the disciples made great personal sacrifices, it is that many of them completely changed. Peter before the resurrection was cowardly and betrayed Christ (by failing to admit his association with Christ). Then he turns around and becomes Saint Peter, crucified upside down in Rome? What happened to make this man do a total 180? None of the disciples got any personal benefit. All except one, I think, died horrible deaths.
So in all the universe with the potential sextillion number of planets with potentially millions of them habitable - then with all the places on earth, Asia, south Pacific, Australia, the Americas - the god of the universe decides that only this little sliver of a population in the middle east can be let in on the super secret decoder ring and fancy handshake?
Nevermind that Jesus was meant to provide salvation for all humanity (and I guess all intelligent life in the universe?), that the "great flood" wiped out all people, yet only these people are the "chosen" people?
The disciples changing. Are you really that unaware of history? I will name Joseph Smith and Mormons, Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, and David Koresh and Branch Davidians as relatively recent examples that all had a "failed leader" and the movement continues. If that's your best evidence, keep trying.
I don't know all those people but Joseph Smith had a harem and die hard followers. Muhammad also had a harem, worshippers, conquered lands. I am willing to bet all those people enjoyed worldly success or power over people even if they ultimately failed and died some horrible death.
Jesus accomplished nothing in life, led no armies, had no people fighting for him, had no money, abandoned by his closest friends, and was just generally a weak nobody. Not comparable at all. That a religion based on this weak nobody grew to be the largest religion on earth, attracting followers from all racial and cultural backgrounds, should at least light a question mark in everyone's mind.
But again as I said, you either see enough to believe or you don't. We all have free will.
You're literally using something that gives you access to a world of information. Spend a few minutes and look them up.
Since you are unable or unwilling to learn something new, that shows how completely you have been blinded by your beliefs.
Of course I want a "loving" god instead of the brutal OT one. Of course I want the promise of eternal life existing in some beautiful place called heaven. I'd also like to live forever in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory or at the North Pole playing with all the new toys the elves make. That doesn't make Willy Wonka or Santa any more real.
But like any idea that has some merit to it, take liberty or freedom for example, it doesn't mean it comes from a divine source. Nor does it make Jesus or his supposed words and actions any more real.
I did look two of them up. They started some cult to sleep with underage women. Joseph Smith had a harem. Point still stands. Not like Jesus at all.
Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.
You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.
I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.
I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!
Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …
I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.
I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).
The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”
And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.
But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.
The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.
Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.
Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.
Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.
Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?
Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?
Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.
Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?
What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.
Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?
Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.
If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.
NP here and I think these are good questions. Part of how I think of it, is that Christianity is all about a personal God, not the high and somewhat theoretical, all powerful Gods of some other religions. What this means is that this God chooses to reveal himself in power but also in a lot of subtleties that require context. You know how in real life sometimes you really get to know someone through "small" acts, perhaps something only a select few are privy to because understanding of those acts require a lot of context? Somethings that may seem meaningless to the unacquainted but powerful to those who have the context?
That context is why God chose a particular people, Israel, and trained them to act a certain way, to see God a certain way, and to worship God a certain way. It is within that context that Jesus's impact becomes meaningful. When Jesus says, for example, that he and the father are one (aka that he is God), that has a very specific meaning to the Jewish people. When he says he comes as a servant, or when he tells the parable of the prodigal son, or the good shepherd, those stories carry the weight that they do precisely because they are told in the context of the Jewish people, who have had a particular view of a God ingrained in them. If a random person just appeared in China and said these things, it would mean something totally different, or maybe a feel good story, but they would not have the same meaning.
Also, I do believe the change in the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence that something very weird took place. Name one other movement where the leader failed to accomplish anything, and died in humiliation, and yet that movement thrived. It is not just that the disciples made great personal sacrifices, it is that many of them completely changed. Peter before the resurrection was cowardly and betrayed Christ (by failing to admit his association with Christ). Then he turns around and becomes Saint Peter, crucified upside down in Rome? What happened to make this man do a total 180? None of the disciples got any personal benefit. All except one, I think, died horrible deaths.
So in all the universe with the potential sextillion number of planets with potentially millions of them habitable - then with all the places on earth, Asia, south Pacific, Australia, the Americas - the god of the universe decides that only this little sliver of a population in the middle east can be let in on the super secret decoder ring and fancy handshake?
Nevermind that Jesus was meant to provide salvation for all humanity (and I guess all intelligent life in the universe?), that the "great flood" wiped out all people, yet only these people are the "chosen" people?
The disciples changing. Are you really that unaware of history? I will name Joseph Smith and Mormons, Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, and David Koresh and Branch Davidians as relatively recent examples that all had a "failed leader" and the movement continues. If that's your best evidence, keep trying.
I don't know all those people but Joseph Smith had a harem and die hard followers. Muhammad also had a harem, worshippers, conquered lands. I am willing to bet all those people enjoyed worldly success or power over people even if they ultimately failed and died some horrible death.
Jesus accomplished nothing in life, led no armies, had no people fighting for him, had no money, abandoned by his closest friends, and was just generally a weak nobody. Not comparable at all. That a religion based on this weak nobody grew to be the largest religion on earth, attracting followers from all racial and cultural backgrounds, should at least light a question mark in everyone's mind.
But again as I said, you either see enough to believe or you don't. We all have free will.
Or Jesus just had a really good marketing team that saw an opportunity and took it. Still doesn’t make it true
Awesome if you really believe that. Free will and all.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
No, you said quite clearly you don't care if what you believe is true:
But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer.
It's pretty clear right there.
Hmm saying so what does not mean I don't care. I am literally musing to myself and to you, so what?
Saying “so what” does not mean “I don’t care”?
Literally every definition of the phrase I just looked up equates the two.
You do not care if what you believe about your god is true or not. That’s crystal clear. I respected you more when I thought you were admitting that. It’s a discussion elder, as there is no reason to debate someone who doesn’t care about the truth.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
Believing life has no meaning is a positive belief. It is not any more correct than believing there is meaning. Good for you if that makes you happy.
DP - I think PP meant there was no divine purpose to life, no intelligent reason for us to be here. PP didn’t say they were a nihilist. Maybe though? Let’s ask.
Not believing a thing is not the same as believing the opposite. If I show you a jar of jellybeans and ask if you will make a bet they are an even number, and you say no, does that mean you think there is an odd number of jellybeans?
Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.
You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.
I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.
I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!
Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …
I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.
I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).
The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”
And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.
But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.
The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.
Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.
Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.
Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.
Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?
Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?
Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.
Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?
What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.
Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?
Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.
If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.
NP here and I think these are good questions. Part of how I think of it, is that Christianity is all about a personal God, not the high and somewhat theoretical, all powerful Gods of some other religions. What this means is that this God chooses to reveal himself in power but also in a lot of subtleties that require context. You know how in real life sometimes you really get to know someone through "small" acts, perhaps something only a select few are privy to because understanding of those acts require a lot of context? Somethings that may seem meaningless to the unacquainted but powerful to those who have the context?
That context is why God chose a particular people, Israel, and trained them to act a certain way, to see God a certain way, and to worship God a certain way. It is within that context that Jesus's impact becomes meaningful. When Jesus says, for example, that he and the father are one (aka that he is God), that has a very specific meaning to the Jewish people. When he says he comes as a servant, or when he tells the parable of the prodigal son, or the good shepherd, those stories carry the weight that they do precisely because they are told in the context of the Jewish people, who have had a particular view of a God ingrained in them. If a random person just appeared in China and said these things, it would mean something totally different, or maybe a feel good story, but they would not have the same meaning.
Also, I do believe the change in the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence that something very weird took place. Name one other movement where the leader failed to accomplish anything, and died in humiliation, and yet that movement thrived. It is not just that the disciples made great personal sacrifices, it is that many of them completely changed. Peter before the resurrection was cowardly and betrayed Christ (by failing to admit his association with Christ). Then he turns around and becomes Saint Peter, crucified upside down in Rome? What happened to make this man do a total 180? None of the disciples got any personal benefit. All except one, I think, died horrible deaths.
So in all the universe with the potential sextillion number of planets with potentially millions of them habitable - then with all the places on earth, Asia, south Pacific, Australia, the Americas - the god of the universe decides that only this little sliver of a population in the middle east can be let in on the super secret decoder ring and fancy handshake?
Nevermind that Jesus was meant to provide salvation for all humanity (and I guess all intelligent life in the universe?), that the "great flood" wiped out all people, yet only these people are the "chosen" people?
The disciples changing. Are you really that unaware of history? I will name Joseph Smith and Mormons, Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, and David Koresh and Branch Davidians as relatively recent examples that all had a "failed leader" and the movement continues. If that's your best evidence, keep trying.
I don't know all those people but Joseph Smith had a harem and die hard followers. Muhammad also had a harem, worshippers, conquered lands. I am willing to bet all those people enjoyed worldly success or power over people even if they ultimately failed and died some horrible death.
Jesus accomplished nothing in life, led no armies, had no people fighting for him, had no money, abandoned by his closest friends, and was just generally a weak nobody. Not comparable at all. That a religion based on this weak nobody grew to be the largest religion on earth, attracting followers from all racial and cultural backgrounds, should at least light a question mark in everyone's mind.
But again as I said, you either see enough to believe or you don't. We all have free will.
You're literally using something that gives you access to a world of information. Spend a few minutes and look them up.
Since you are unable or unwilling to learn something new, that shows how completely you have been blinded by your beliefs.
Of course I want a "loving" god instead of the brutal OT one. Of course I want the promise of eternal life existing in some beautiful place called heaven. I'd also like to live forever in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory or at the North Pole playing with all the new toys the elves make. That doesn't make Willy Wonka or Santa any more real.
But like any idea that has some merit to it, take liberty or freedom for example, it doesn't mean it comes from a divine source. Nor does it make Jesus or his supposed words and actions any more real.
I did look two of them up. They started some cult to sleep with underage women. Joseph Smith had a harem. Point still stands. Not like Jesus at all.
Right. Jesus was an unmarried, 33 year old Jewish guy.
Anonymous wrote:I investigated the claims of Christianity from a historic perspective. The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Is it airtight? No. But nothing is airtight.
You're someone that I would be highly intrigued to meet IRL and discuss religion over coffee. However, without that, I am curious about your evidence for the death and resurrection.
I won't debate the scant, and inconclusive information related to an actual historic Jesus, but I am curious what your evidence is for him being divine, resurrected, etc.
I was the PP — and thank you, I love having thoughtful discussions with people about this subject!
Since we can’t have that discussion in real life …
I highly recommend reading NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is a 700+ page serious examination of the resurrection. While it is very long, the writing is done at a level that most people can understand it — the length is just due to the amount of detail.
I would then follow that up with Tim Keller’s A Reason for God (or do it in reverse order, it doesn’t really matter).
The thing is though — I tell people to read the Resurrection of the Son of God. And some people say “700 pages? nah, I am not going to read that.”
And I always find that response to be curious — after all, we are frequently told that it is religious people who don’t think or read.
But consider all of the things that we read in our lives; all of the social media scrolling; all of the cat videos and other frivolous things we watch. People don’t have time to read a single serious book on the resurrection, but find time to watch their favorite football team for 4 hours EACH Sunday.
The reality is that most people actively don’t want to think about these things. Which is fine. Be honest about it and own it. But don’t say that Christians aren’t the thinking ones.
Prior to becoming a Christian, even though I would tell everyone oh yeah, I am smart, well-read, etc., most of my life was filled with vapid subjects — politics, sports, money, women, porn, travel, social media, music.
Now that I am a Christian I can’t stop thinking about the things that really matter in life — why are we here, the meaning of life, the role of God, and yes, what it means that Christ died on a cross 2,000 years ago for me. I don’t think less — I think alot more now.
Based on my understanding, his whole argument, while well argued, is still built on theological sand.
Wright claims that the resurrection is the "best historical explanation" fails to account for the nature of miracles themselves. A resurrection is, by definition, the least likely event—so unlikely that no historian working by normal historical standards could affirm it as “probable.” Wright tries to bypass this by suggesting that no natural explanation accounts for the data. But, that’s simply an argument from ignorance: we don’t have a better explanation, so it must be a miracle. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Secondly, if Jesus was God incarnate—performing miracles, speaking divine truths, and fulfilling cosmic prophecy—why did no one write anything down during his lifetime? Why did his closest followers, the ones who supposedly witnessed the most extraordinary events in human history, not record them contemporaneously?
Instead, we get oral traditions passed around for decades, eventually written down by anonymous authors—often in Greek, not Jesus’ native Aramaic. For the resurrection itself, we have no eyewitness account, only secondhand reports of visions, empty tombs, and theological reflections.
Contrast this with the idea that God once wrote commandments on stone. If the Creator of the universe could etch divine law into rock for Moses, why couldn't Jesus' teachings and deeds have been written down on an indestructible material, protected from corruption or loss, to serve as a definitive witness for all time? Is that really beyond the power of an omnipotent deity who knew that some of humanity would require stronger evidence?
Next, Jesus, we’re told, was sent as a universal savior. But his life and ministry were shockingly local—confined to a sliver of the Roman Empire, among an oppressed minority population. His teachings reached, at best, a few thousand people in his lifetime.
Why didn’t God reveal Jesus to the world in a way that could transcend time, culture, and geography? Why entrust the most important truth in human history to oral gossip passed through untrained fishermen?
What about the millions of humans who lived and died in the Americas, Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa, entirely unaware of this message for centuries—millennia, even? How do you reconcile this with the idea of a loving, omniscient God who desires all people to be saved.
Third, if Jesus was divine and knew the stakes, why start his preaching around age 30? Why not as a child prodigy to ensure his message reached more people clearly and directly? Three years of ministry, in a world with no printing press, no media, and limited literacy, seems like a strange plan for universal salvation. Would an all-wise deity really entrust eternal truths to such a fragile and uncertain human network?
Last, Wright ultimately tries to argue that the resurrection is the best explanation for why the disciples changed from despair to hope, and why Christianity emerged so rapidly. But this is a theological assumption wrapped in historical language. People have experienced visions, founded religions (including ones you would probably call fringe or wrong such as Mormons or Scientologists), and died for their beliefs throughout history—none of which proves that the beliefs are true.
Saying “they wouldn’t have believed unless something extraordinary happened” assumes what it's trying to prove. From a secular standpoint, natural explanations (hallucinations, grief, myth-making, reinterpretation of failed expectations) are far more plausible than a literal reversal of death.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, God had countless ways to make it clear to everyone—indestructible writings, direct global communication, a longer ministry, or just a resurrection that actually happened in front of hostile Roman officials with pen and parchment in hand. Instead, we're left with a few ambiguous texts, decades after the fact, written by believers to other believers, preserved through theological filter and tradition.
If this is your best case for Jesus being divine and/or the resurrection, it falls into the same trap as many apologetic works: it tries to sound like history while relying entirely on faith that God intended things to be this way.
NP here and I think these are good questions. Part of how I think of it, is that Christianity is all about a personal God, not the high and somewhat theoretical, all powerful Gods of some other religions. What this means is that this God chooses to reveal himself in power but also in a lot of subtleties that require context. You know how in real life sometimes you really get to know someone through "small" acts, perhaps something only a select few are privy to because understanding of those acts require a lot of context? Somethings that may seem meaningless to the unacquainted but powerful to those who have the context?
That context is why God chose a particular people, Israel, and trained them to act a certain way, to see God a certain way, and to worship God a certain way. It is within that context that Jesus's impact becomes meaningful. When Jesus says, for example, that he and the father are one (aka that he is God), that has a very specific meaning to the Jewish people. When he says he comes as a servant, or when he tells the parable of the prodigal son, or the good shepherd, those stories carry the weight that they do precisely because they are told in the context of the Jewish people, who have had a particular view of a God ingrained in them. If a random person just appeared in China and said these things, it would mean something totally different, or maybe a feel good story, but they would not have the same meaning.
Also, I do believe the change in the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence that something very weird took place. Name one other movement where the leader failed to accomplish anything, and died in humiliation, and yet that movement thrived. It is not just that the disciples made great personal sacrifices, it is that many of them completely changed. Peter before the resurrection was cowardly and betrayed Christ (by failing to admit his association with Christ). Then he turns around and becomes Saint Peter, crucified upside down in Rome? What happened to make this man do a total 180? None of the disciples got any personal benefit. All except one, I think, died horrible deaths.
So in all the universe with the potential sextillion number of planets with potentially millions of them habitable - then with all the places on earth, Asia, south Pacific, Australia, the Americas - the god of the universe decides that only this little sliver of a population in the middle east can be let in on the super secret decoder ring and fancy handshake?
Nevermind that Jesus was meant to provide salvation for all humanity (and I guess all intelligent life in the universe?), that the "great flood" wiped out all people, yet only these people are the "chosen" people?
The disciples changing. Are you really that unaware of history? I will name Joseph Smith and Mormons, Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, and David Koresh and Branch Davidians as relatively recent examples that all had a "failed leader" and the movement continues. If that's your best evidence, keep trying.
I don't know all those people but Joseph Smith had a harem and die hard followers. Muhammad also had a harem, worshippers, conquered lands. I am willing to bet all those people enjoyed worldly success or power over people even if they ultimately failed and died some horrible death.
Jesus accomplished nothing in life, led no armies, had no people fighting for him, had no money, abandoned by his closest friends, and was just generally a weak nobody. Not comparable at all. That a religion based on this weak nobody grew to be the largest religion on earth, attracting followers from all racial and cultural backgrounds, should at least light a question mark in everyone's mind.
But again as I said, you either see enough to believe or you don't. We all have free will.
You're literally using something that gives you access to a world of information. Spend a few minutes and look them up.
Since you are unable or unwilling to learn something new, that shows how completely you have been blinded by your beliefs.
Of course I want a "loving" god instead of the brutal OT one. Of course I want the promise of eternal life existing in some beautiful place called heaven. I'd also like to live forever in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory or at the North Pole playing with all the new toys the elves make. That doesn't make Willy Wonka or Santa any more real.
But like any idea that has some merit to it, take liberty or freedom for example, it doesn't mean it comes from a divine source. Nor does it make Jesus or his supposed words and actions any more real.
I did look two of them up. They started some cult to sleep with underage women. Joseph Smith had a harem. Point still stands. Not like Jesus at all.
Since you are failing to see parallels (you are really blinded by your beliefs), I'll stick with Joseph Smith since he has a similar trajectory.
Both claimed direct, personal communication with God - Jesus as both the son of God and God incarnate, while Joseph Smith had visions, including one in which he said God and Jesus appeared to him. Both challenged the religious dogma of their community resulting in new religious systems. Smith was at least smart enough to write down his religious revelations directly, instead of leaving it to a few fishermen and other working-class followers. Smith was contemporaneously persecuted – he was jailed multiple times and ultimately killed by a mob.
Like Jesus, after Smith’s death, his followers, most notably under Brigham Young, institutionalized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is similar to Peter.
I'm guessing you wouldn't say that you believe what Mormon's believe? Why not? Once you have your answer, apply that same criticism to Jesus.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
Believing life has no meaning is a positive belief. It is not any more correct than believing there is meaning. Good for you if that makes you happy.
DP - I think PP meant there was no divine purpose to life, no intelligent reason for us to be here. PP didn’t say they were a nihilist. Maybe though? Let’s ask.
Not believing a thing is not the same as believing the opposite. If I show you a jar of jellybeans and ask if you will make a bet they are an even number, and you say no, does that mean you think there is an odd number of jellybeans?
I'm the PP quoted. First, I don't get your point on a positive, or negative, belief. It's irrelevant to my underlying point. I don't think of myself as a nihilist, but I agree that there is no divine purpose to life.
Did all the other living organisms on this planet over the course of the last few billion years need to have a meaning and purpose to exist before people came along? If we succeed in destroying ourselves, does any life that persists and continues need to have humans around to provide them purpose?
Wanting to ascribe meaning to life comes from one's own need for validation.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
Believing life has no meaning is a positive belief. It is not any more correct than believing there is meaning. Good for you if that makes you happy.
"if that makes you happy" - Sorry for double post, but this last piece caught my attention as I think about it more. I am unconcerned about happiness. It is not a state I strive to attain or be in. If it comes, it comes. If not, then not. Happy is an emotional state. Our emotions are constantly in flux. I do not seek to sustain one emotion over another and try to accept them as they come.
Of all things, Inside Out does one of the best portrayals of letting different emotional states have their turn at the controls. It is a fool's errand to try to be the one in control.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
Believing life has no meaning is a positive belief. It is not any more correct than believing there is meaning. Good for you if that makes you happy.
DP - I think PP meant there was no divine purpose to life, no intelligent reason for us to be here. PP didn’t say they were a nihilist. Maybe though? Let’s ask.
Not believing a thing is not the same as believing the opposite. If I show you a jar of jellybeans and ask if you will make a bet they are an even number, and you say no, does that mean you think there is an odd number of jellybeans?
I'm the PP quoted. First, I don't get your point on a positive, or negative, belief. It's irrelevant to my underlying point. I don't think of myself as a nihilist, but I agree that there is no divine purpose to life.
Did all the other living organisms on this planet over the course of the last few billion years need to have a meaning and purpose to exist before people came along? If we succeed in destroying ourselves, does any life that persists and continues need to have humans around to provide them purpose?
Wanting to ascribe meaning to life comes from one's own need for validation.
My point was saying there is no purpose to life is very different than saying life is pointless.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
No, you said quite clearly you don't care if what you believe is true:
But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer.
It's pretty clear right there.
Hmm saying so what does not mean I don't care. I am literally musing to myself and to you, so what?
Saying “so what” does not mean “I don’t care”?
Literally every definition of the phrase I just looked up equates the two.
You do not care if what you believe about your god is true or not. That’s crystal clear. I respected you more when I thought you were admitting that. It’s a discussion elder, as there is no reason to debate someone who doesn’t care about the truth.
Ok, so you do not actually want to listen to what I am really saying, as I explained in multiple posts. If it makes it easier for you to believe I don't care, then fine, believe that. That, I truly don't care.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ asking sincerely how any of that would be any different if it was all made up?
Not sure what you are getting at. Of course you can believe it was all made up. That twelve people decided to make up a religion focused on a crucified pathetic man and gave their own lives for it. Honestly, anything is possible. The thing with God is that he gives us enough to believe but also enough to doubt. That is the central drama of all human existence, and it is a story that unfolds inside each of us. You can believe or you can not.
Just what I asked very simply: How would any of what you typed be different if it was all made up?
Meaning that: it is 100% possible it is all made up, and nothing you typed is even a shard of evidence it is true.
I'll address your other points also, if you wish. But please answer this one first.
I mean, as I said, I think there is evidence. But if it were all fake, then I guess I can turn it around and ask you, so what? I spent my life believing in something that is false but gave me meaning and made my life richer. I am not afraid of being wrong because if I am wrong, then there is no God and so life is meaningless anyways (in the sense that it means whatever I decide it means), and I would still want to believe in Christianity. People think atheism is not a belief system but it totally is. No one is devoid if any thoughts on spirituality. So if I had to choose between Christianity and atheism just based on this lifetime and knowing nothing about what comes after, I would still choose Christianity.
Admitting you don’t care if what you believe is true or not is very honest and sincerely appreciated.
It is not that I don't care. It is that I have not encountered anything in the secular world that offers any meaning to life that comes close to what Christianity offers that I am willing to take that risk. Again, if I am wrong, then there is no "truth" anyways, so you are not in any better of a position by any measure.
Here's your problem. You want life to have meaning. A purpose. This is due to being fed this non-sense by religion, especially Christianity, all your life. There is no meaning or purpose to life. It simply is.
Believing life has no meaning is a positive belief. It is not any more correct than believing there is meaning. Good for you if that makes you happy.
DP - I think PP meant there was no divine purpose to life, no intelligent reason for us to be here. PP didn’t say they were a nihilist. Maybe though? Let’s ask.
Not believing a thing is not the same as believing the opposite. If I show you a jar of jellybeans and ask if you will make a bet they are an even number, and you say no, does that mean you think there is an odd number of jellybeans?
I'm the PP quoted. First, I don't get your point on a positive, or negative, belief. It's irrelevant to my underlying point. I don't think of myself as a nihilist, but I agree that there is no divine purpose to life.
Did all the other living organisms on this planet over the course of the last few billion years need to have a meaning and purpose to exist before people came along? If we succeed in destroying ourselves, does any life that persists and continues need to have humans around to provide them purpose?
Wanting to ascribe meaning to life comes from one's own need for validation.
So you are the jellybean/gumball poster from a while ago. I say this kindly, but you really should stop spending time debating Christians. Just focus on yourself.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
