Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

And just what was this that the early Christians wanted to get and use "deceitful intents" to do so? If you read the New Testament starting at Acts and through the Epistles, there is no mention of using belief in Christ for material gain, or to lord anything over anyone. Indeed, 10 of the original apostles, and Paul, too, all were martyred for preaching Christ as the Son of God. And what was the message? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, love your enemies, esteem others more worthy than yourself, share what you have, take care of the less fortunate, watch after widows and orphans. And for preaching this, they were persecuted and killed. Wow, that's some scam they had going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: We already did the Horus/Mithra thing to death in the other thread you started--So What is the Right Answer?

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/425783.page

I don't know why you keep starting these threads.

Is it for you to have a forum to bait believers? Is it because you in fact are searching, but are frustrated that posters aren't giving you what you view as satisfactory answers to your often out of left field comments? The titles you give to these threads indicate that you are perhaps searching.

Did you have a horrible childhood? Your comment about religion being malign because it instills fear into the younger generation makes me think perhaps you had a very sad and abusive childhood in the clutches of some religious extremist, for which I am very sorry if true.

But as grown up, you really have to get over religion as being the source of any still sensitive traumatic injuries you may have suffered as a child.

Please? Just one jpeg or gif?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I'm an atheist, so I can't directly respond to OP's original question, but things have, as usual, spread out.

The universe is vast, and the existence of life is a total puzzle. I don't have any answer to how or why it all came to be, so if someone wants to say "God" instead of "I haven't the foggiest idea", that's fine with me.

I believe in the golden rule. I think I have value and wish to be treated as though I have value, so I try to do the same to others. For those who think such belief can only come from believing in God, I'm thrilled that you believe in God. I hope you can take my word that such belief is possible apart from belief in God.

I don't expect any believer is going to change my mind, nor vice-versa. That does not mean we can't learn from each other, but it does mean that it makes no sense to keep battering each other with insults and accusations of stupidity.

So if you are a believer, then in your eyes we atheists should also be seen as children of God and deserving of your love. And if you're an atheist, then accept as a clearly observable fact that belief is a reality, one which hard-headed scientists actually study.

That the brain is wired to believe at some level is a reality -- but the beliefs are not necessarily true and science is is hard at work figuring that out too. As the number of believers is going down and with less childhood indoctrination, it will decrease further and faster.

What, exactly, has science figured out that disproves God?

Science is figuring out how the brain conjures god. Science can't disprove a negative - like god, unicorns, anything that people make up but that are not seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

And just what was this that the early Christians wanted to get and use "deceitful intents" to do so? If you read the New Testament starting at Acts and through the Epistles, there is no mention of using belief in Christ for material gain, or to lord anything over anyone. Indeed, 10 of the original apostles, and Paul, too, all were martyred for preaching Christ as the Son of God. And what was the message? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, love your enemies, esteem others more worthy than yourself, share what you have, take care of the less fortunate, watch after widows and orphans. And for preaching this, they were persecuted and killed. Wow, that's some scam they had going on.

Those values were also taught in other religions and cultures no Jesus involved -- they are basic human values that don't require a god.

As for the apostles martyrdom -- those are stories without basis in fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I'm an atheist, so I can't directly respond to OP's original question, but things have, as usual, spread out.

The universe is vast, and the existence of life is a total puzzle. I don't have any answer to how or why it all came to be, so if someone wants to say "God" instead of "I haven't the foggiest idea", that's fine with me.

I believe in the golden rule. I think I have value and wish to be treated as though I have value, so I try to do the same to others. For those who think such belief can only come from believing in God, I'm thrilled that you believe in God. I hope you can take my word that such belief is possible apart from belief in God.

I don't expect any believer is going to change my mind, nor vice-versa. That does not mean we can't learn from each other, but it does mean that it makes no sense to keep battering each other with insults and accusations of stupidity.

So if you are a believer, then in your eyes we atheists should also be seen as children of God and deserving of your love. And if you're an atheist, then accept as a clearly observable fact that belief is a reality, one which hard-headed scientists actually study.

That the brain is wired to believe at some level is a reality -- but the beliefs are not necessarily true and science is is hard at work figuring that out too. As the number of believers is going down and with less childhood indoctrination, it will decrease further and faster.

What, exactly, has science figured out that disproves God?

Science is figuring out how the brain conjures god. Science can't disprove a negative - like god, unicorns, anything that people make up but that are not seen.

And yet no one here is trying to definitively prove God. That is the essence of belief.

What exactly is your problem with live and let live, and why do you think it is okay to attack people with different beliefs as stupid? What you are doing here is nothing short of proselytizing for atheism, yet I'm quite sure you are horrified and offended if believers proselytize to you. Which is the very definiton of hypocrisy. I would rather believe in a God of love and creation, and be proven wrong, then live my life as a bitter hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

And just what was this that the early Christians wanted to get and use "deceitful intents" to do so? If you read the New Testament starting at Acts and through the Epistles, there is no mention of using belief in Christ for material gain, or to lord anything over anyone. Indeed, 10 of the original apostles, and Paul, too, all were martyred for preaching Christ as the Son of God. And what was the message? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, love your enemies, esteem others more worthy than yourself, share what you have, take care of the less fortunate, watch after widows and orphans. And for preaching this, they were persecuted and killed. Wow, that's some scam they had going on.

Those values were also taught in other religions and cultures no Jesus involved -- they are basic human values that don't require a god.

As for the apostles martyrdom -- those are stories without basis in fact.

I beg to differ. They are basic human values precisely because there IS a God. Do animals act altruistically? No, they do not. Humans were created in the image of God and given a conscience and moral responsibility. And the sad fact is that most people do not treat their fellow humans in this way. Go to Wal-Mart on the day after Thanksgiving if you doubt this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

And just what was this that the early Christians wanted to get and use "deceitful intents" to do so? If you read the New Testament starting at Acts and through the Epistles, there is no mention of using belief in Christ for material gain, or to lord anything over anyone. Indeed, 10 of the original apostles, and Paul, too, all were martyred for preaching Christ as the Son of God. And what was the message? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, love your enemies, esteem others more worthy than yourself, share what you have, take care of the less fortunate, watch after widows and orphans. And for preaching this, they were persecuted and killed. Wow, that's some scam they had going on.

Those values were also taught in other religions and cultures no Jesus involved -- they are basic human values that don't require a god.

As for the apostles martyrdom -- those are stories without basis in fact.

You're changing the argument. First you said it's "deceitful" because they "fudged details to get what they wanted." No wait, they didn't want much. So now you're saying it's just a "basic human value and the apostles' martyrdom is just stories."

So can we at least pause for a moment, and agree that deceit doesn't make much sense in the absence of material gain?

Because tomorrow you'll be right back writing about Horus and the "deceitful" choice of December 25 again.

[Anonymous]

I think the atheist PP doesn't have anyone to spend Christmas with and is just angry at Christmas. Damn Christmas, making him/her feel bad!! If only the entire world was full of atheist nihilists who never celebrated anything and spent their days arguing about the total lack of meaning in this life, the world would be a better place.

[Anonymous]

Do Atheists believe they have souls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Those values were also taught in other religions and cultures no Jesus involved -- they are basic human values that don't require a god.

As for the apostles martyrdom -- those are stories without basis in fact.

I beg to differ. They are basic human values precisely because there IS a God. Do animals act altruistically? No, they do not. Humans were created in the image of God and given a conscience and moral responsibility. And the sad fact is that most people do not treat their fellow humans in this way. Go to Wal-Mart on the day after Thanksgiving if you doubt this.

God talks to different people at different times in different ways. But the message - the golden rule - is the same every time.

You need to understand what scientists and others mean by "basic human value." Since you keep bringing up science, you should know that scientists are trying to locate an altruism gene, aka the golden rule. Lots of people apparently don't have this altruism gene. Therefore, altruism is not necessarily a "basic human value" in the sense that it has a biological root. Instead, it's a social construct. A construct many of us believe was given by God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

And just what was this that the early Christians wanted to get and use "deceitful intents" to do so? If you read the New Testament starting at Acts and through the Epistles, there is no mention of using belief in Christ for material gain, or to lord anything over anyone. Indeed, 10 of the original apostles, and Paul, too, all were martyred for preaching Christ as the Son of God. And what was the message? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins, love your enemies, esteem others more worthy than yourself, share what you have, take care of the less fortunate, watch after widows and orphans. And for preaching this, they were persecuted and killed. Wow, that's some scam they had going on.

Those values were also taught in other religions and cultures no Jesus involved -- they are basic human values that don't require a god.

As for the apostles martyrdom -- those are stories without basis in fact.

You're changing the argument. First you said it's "deceitful" because they "fudged details to get what they wanted." No wait, they didn't want much. So now you're saying it's just a "basic human value and the apostles' martyrdom is just stories."

So can we at least pause for a moment, and agree that deceit doesn't make much sense in the absence of material gain?

Because tomorrow you'll be right back writing about Horus and the "deceitful" choice of December 25 again.

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

"it's beyond me so God must have done it" would really make Rhetoric teachers weep