Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

Here's a weird question:

Would it alter christian faith much, if it were historically illustrated(demonstrable) that jesus never literally existed?

I don't think it would change a thing. Now Christians would take even more pride in their faith (since belief without evidence is a good thing). Believing in the unbelievable has been a source of pride, strength, and a display of strong character. The claim would be that the scientific method that demonstrated Jesus's non-existence has no say on matters of faith. Some moderate Christians would lose their faith, and the "true" Christians would point at them saying they didn't have enough faith.

[quadz]

Without Jesus, there is no Christian faith; He is the foundation of the Christian faith.

[DaHanG]

Oh, but it really happened to Jesus.

 

[Robot]

DaHanG, the evidence is in your own life experience.  And also, you can address some of what I said earlier about intelligent design, specifically the fact that we're programmed to assume other people are very similar, and that we're programmed to assume we can predict what's going to happen in the universe.  It seems from what I've learned, evolutionists want everyone to believe we're all very different, but is that really the case?

[QuakeDuke]

One of the intriguing things about the video links I posted the other day, is the surprising number of mythological deities who have checklists of exactly the same items listed above.  Including virgin birth and rising from the dead on the third day and ascending into heaven, etc. etc.
Fascinating stuff, from my perspective anyway.
Regards,
quadz

I can tell you almost *every one* of those who claim dietyship (a word? )  I have studied make those same claims - shoot, many emporers, pharoahs, kings, priests,  dictators, and the like have made the same claims. The question  prevalent in theological studies  is who predates whom since all others that follow the "first" could be termed imitators. However, since the question was if Jesus was taken out of the Christian faith, would it affect the Christian faith, the answer could only be yes - assuming of course the word Christian is used in it's original koine Greek meaning.

I can't post the actual Greek - no fonts - or if there are, I don't know how to use them - which is real possible but here is what is printable of the original quote:"the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" Literally chr

[DaHanG]

DaHanG, the evidence is in your own life experience.

And through my life experience Zeus has touched me in an irrefutable way.

 

And also, you can address some of what I said earlier about intelligent design, specifically the fact that we're programmed to assume other people are very similar, and that we're programmed to assume we can predict what's going to happen in the universe.

"We're programmed to assume other people are very similar" - incredibly vague statement, I may respond if this is cleared up.

"we're programmed to assume we can predict what's going to happen in the universe" - I don't understand the point of this statement, but it's clear we're not programmed to predict what's going to happen in the universe. Since we all live in this universe, we all experience it and understand there are laws by which it is governed. Through these experiences we can make predictions. We aren't born with knowledge (programmed) of gravity, friction, etc.

[Robot]

The statement about being similar and assuming similarity is pretty obvious.  How is it that I make assumptions about other people having similar needs (water, food, shelter, etc), why would I automatically assume other people have a conscience, why would I assume what a human would look like?

On the second part, you don't realize what I'm saying.  Animals usually learn about the world by repeated coincidence, (example: moving and monitoring sensory changes).  Why would I be programmed to learn by repeated coincidence if nothing were designed to be predictable?

[DaHanG]

The statement about being similar and assuming similarity is pretty obvious.  How is it that I make assumptions about other people having similar needs (water, food, shelter, etc), why would I automatically assume other people have a conscience, why would I assume what a human would look like?

Because of living in this world.

On the second part, you don't realize what I'm saying.  Animals usually learn about the world by repeated coincidence, (example: moving and monitoring sensory changes).  Why would I be programmed to learn by repeated coincidence if nothing were designed to be predictable?

The universe is predictable, that's why.

[Robot]

"Because of living in this world."

That's partially true for at least the first two, that it really could just be both, experience just agreeing with programmed ideas.  The last one, I wouldn't bet on.  What if you've never seen your own face before?  We assume what a human face is like based on programming, and thus make other assumptions.

"The universe is predictable, that's why."

Not very enlightening to me.  That's like saying "The earth is round because it's round".

[DaHanG]

What if you've never seen your own face before?  We assume what a human face is like based on programming, and thus make other assumptions.

So lets say a baby was born blind. Does this newborn have "programmed" (inherited) knowledge about the structure of its face? Of course not, it's through experiences that the knowledge is gained.

"The universe is predictable, that's why."

Not very enlightening to me.  That's like saying "The earth is round because it's round".

The reason the earth is round is known, the reason the universe is the way it is is not known. There is a difference there.

[Robot]

No, I still disagree with the first point.  And another similar example, how do you know a girl is sexually attractive?  Is it by programmed understanding that particular features of the mature female body suggest they are capable of reproduction?  That would seem to be the case from all my experience.  You can just draw a mature girl's body, and feel sexually aroused by the drawing.

"the reason the universe is the way it is is not known", that would seem to indicate only your lack of understanding here, and not everyone else's understanding.

[DaHanG]

No, I still disagree with the first point.  And another similar example, how do you know a girl is sexually attractive?  Is it by programmed understanding that particular features of the mature female body suggest they are capable of reproduction?  That would seem to be the case from all my experience.  You can just draw a mature girl's body, and feel sexually aroused by the drawing.

I never said we weren't programmed with anything at all. How do you think we can breathe without thinking about it when we're born? Sexual lust is an evolutionary product that drives reproduction. You claimed we're "programmed" to believe in intelligent design. This is not the case at all. The human brain has a capacity for understanding quite a lot, but with no scientific knowledge about the earth and the universe, people believed there must have been a designer (still a flawed argument - who designed the designer? before Darwin, very few understood this like Hume for example). They weren't programmed to think there's a designer, they observed their surroundings and came to that conclusion on their own (or they were told they were designed by elders).

"the reason the universe is the way it is is not known", that would seem to indicate only your lack of understanding here, and not everyone else's understanding.

No, that statement applies to all of humankind. If there is someone who claims to know, I'm open to hearing the evidence presented.

[Robot]

"still a flawed argument - who designed the designer?"

Why does a designer need to be designed?

"they observed their surroundings and came to that conclusion on their own (or they were told they were designed by elders)."

It seems like you're implying we came to this conclusion out of a free will, shockingly, something you don't even believe in.  Or perhaps, we believed in anything because of elders who believed anything from their elders who believed anything from their elders... and on and on and on

"No, that statement applies to all of humankind. If there is someone who claims to know, I'm open to hearing the evidence presented."

Did you notice how those sentences conflicted with each other? 
"No, that statement applies to all of humankind"
"If there is someone who claims to know.."

[DaHanG]

"still a flawed argument - who designed the designer?"

Why does a designer need to be designed?

Why does a universe need to be designed?



I said: the reason the universe is the way it is isn't known
and more specifically: nobody does, but I'm open to hearing evidence presented in favor of a particular conclusion.

Did you notice how those sentences conflicted with each other? 

"No, that statement applies to all of humankind"
"If there is someone who claims to know.."

They do not conflict with each other. Claiming to know and knowing are not the same.

[Robot]

Because it's a better answer than any other answer so far.  Why should I assume a complex functioning universe is here because people talk about random chaotic big bangs they know so little about and still provide no answer to the complex structure of things like living organisms?

I will reiterate your previous statement: "No, that statement applies to all of humankind."

That is not an evidence based statement at all.