Atheists / agnostics - how would you explain this logic for the truth of Christianity? (believe, Creator)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
This one pastor told me that he can find more inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible than even the most militant atheist. Maybe that's true. However, his logic for being Christian is as follows:
It makes no sense that people would have created a religion that would put them at odds with the most powerful government of the time (Rome) had they not truly seen what they claimed to have seen. They would not have died for these beliefs, as almost all of the original Christians did, had they not truly seen the risen Christ and witnessed His miracles.
Now, I say that there have been examples of religious fanatics going against the government - heck, the Branch Davidians went against the most powerful government of the time in 1992 and most (if not all) of them died for their beliefs... so it's not like Christianity is the only religion that ever experienced that phenomenon... but I still think that this is weak reasoning and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it. Let's rock.
I will say that willingness to die for your beliefs is not confined to any one religion, or indeed even to religion. If willingness to die for a belief is in itself the proof that the belief is factually true - well, you must think that many contradictory things are equally true - in other words, that the premises of nazism, for instance, are equally as valid and true as the premises of the american constitution.
Talk about muddy thinking...
Edited to add - a universe where every human contention is true would be a universe without physics. Frankly, I can't even imagine it.
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
This one pastor told me that he can find more inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible than even the most militant atheist. Maybe that's true. However, his logic for being Christian is as follows:
It makes no sense that people would have created a religion that would put them at odds with the most powerful government of the time (Rome) had they not truly seen what they claimed to have seen. They would not have died for these beliefs, as almost all of the original Christians did, had they not truly seen the risen Christ and witnessed His miracles.
Now, I say that there have been examples of religious fanatics going against the government - heck, the Branch Davidians went against the most powerful government of the time in 1992 and most (if not all) of them died for their beliefs... so it's not like Christianity is the only religion that ever experienced that phenomenon... but I still think that this is weak reasoning and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it. Let's rock.
I wouldn't.
That sort of sophomoric logic would get nothing from me but a shake of the head in disgust and a modicum of unspoken pity.
I know immunity from the basic tenets of logic when I see it.
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
This one pastor told me that he can find more inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible than even the most militant atheist. Maybe that's true. However, his logic for being Christian is as follows:
It makes no sense that people would have created a religion that would put them at odds with the most powerful government of the time (Rome) had they not truly seen what they claimed to have seen. They would not have died for these beliefs, as almost all of the original Christians did, had they not truly seen the risen Christ and witnessed His miracles.
Now, I say that there have been examples of religious fanatics going against the government - heck, the Branch Davidians went against the most powerful government of the time in 1992 and most (if not all) of them died for their beliefs... so it's not like Christianity is the only religion that ever experienced that phenomenon... but I still think that this is weak reasoning and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it. Let's rock.
No one at all saw the resurrection itself. All of the Gospels agree that the tomb was already empty and that a stranger(s) told the women that Jesus rose from the dead and went someplace. All of the post-resurrection sighting stories disagree with each other in very significant ways that strongly hint of invention to serve individual agendas. The various disciples would want to believe the story told by the stranger(s) and would be willing to put effort into spreading the message preached by their leader, with the resurrection tale as reinforcement.
Stephen, the first person to be killed for being a Jesus follower, did not even get the empty tomb story first hand from the women. He believed what he was told. Tradition has Peter and Paul killed in Rome in the time frame of the persecutions of Nero. Christians were the scapegoat for the burning of Rome. No one asked them to 'renounce their faith'. They were just killed.
Nobody who even allegedly saw a risen Jesus ever willingly died for their beliefs.
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
This one pastor told me that he can find more inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible than even the most militant atheist. Maybe that's true. However, his logic for being Christian is as follows:
It makes no sense that people would have created a religion that would put them at odds with the most powerful government of the time (Rome) had they not truly seen what they claimed to have seen. They would not have died for these beliefs, as almost all of the original Christians did, had they not truly seen the risen Christ and witnessed His miracles.
Now, I say that there have been examples of religious fanatics going against the government - heck, the Branch Davidians went against the most powerful government of the time in 1992 and most (if not all) of them died for their beliefs... so it's not like Christianity is the only religion that ever experienced that phenomenon... but I still think that this is weak reasoning and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it. Let's rock.
you are right it is weak.
once we take it literally then it is over for me. I dont recommend any literal religion. Would I die for what the rcc stands for? yes I would. It doesn't matter what flag it's under or name of the religion that carry the words. We die for truth, justice and liberty for all men. Jesus stood for those idea's and I would die for them.
The word "militant". I stand against them. I don't care what god or no god they believe in. They are the same ones that hate law and order. Period.
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
What a silly quest. Trying to use logic to determine your religious beliefs. Logic has nothing to do with it.
Go outside and look at the beautiful world around you. Do you see any evidence that makes you think there are gods?
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
This one pastor told me that he can find more inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible than even the most militant atheist. Maybe that's true. However, his logic for being Christian is as follows:
It makes no sense that people would have created a religion that would put them at odds with the most powerful government of the time (Rome) had they not truly seen what they claimed to have seen. They would not have died for these beliefs, as almost all of the original Christians did, had they not truly seen the risen Christ and witnessed His miracles.
Now, I say that there have been examples of religious fanatics going against the government - heck, the Branch Davidians went against the most powerful government of the time in 1992 and most (if not all) of them died for their beliefs... so it's not like Christianity is the only religion that ever experienced that phenomenon... but I still think that this is weak reasoning and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it. Let's rock.
I think I get the argument. It is the 'millions would not die for a lie'. It is hard to give a definite answer but there seem to be some indications.
One is that Christianity had a lot going for it.
Other religions had gods of mythological stories. Christianity had a man who lived in their lifetimes.
Other religions had no afterlife or at best a dismal otherworld. Rome had a heaven for demigods such as emperors and (as I recall from Juvenal) anyone loaded with money could have flatterers fake up a divine descent (usually some randy god slipping in through a window and having off with a grandmother) but most of the ROM Roman middle, lower and slave classes had nothing to gain from the imperial cult. Even the cults of Mithras, Isis and Cybele were a bit elitist. But Christianity with its egalitarian offer of heavenly life to all through just believing in it was brilliant - and cheap.
It has a story, rooted in antiquity and also recent history. It had a complex theology, but one simple to understand. I can see how it took off like wildfire and the afterlife guaranteed to the martyrs meant that they were not only willing to die for what is (I am sure) a lie, but preferred to do so, as a peaceful death in bed was still not sure, but dying in an arena for Christ - well, you were In no matter what you'd done, or hadn't done.
Exactly. Truth is not one of the things in its favor, as its basic tenets are unfalsifiable anyway. In the pre-technological age of the gospel narratives, there were no media recordings or even extensive (and in that day, accessible) writings to research in an effort to verify any claims, so I would discount the value of the alleged proximity to an historical Jesus and the events surrounding him. If you weren't an eyewitness yourself, it was all hearsay.
But "truthiness" (thank you, Steven Colbert!) is not how I would explain Christianity's success. It is a confluence of powerful memes that resonate deep within most of humanity throughout most of history, and the only open question is how much of it was concocted brilliance or happy accident. Doubtless a combination of both. These memes include purported remedies for universal aspects of the human condition (insecurity / shame / sense of failure / regrets, angst about one's awareness of past / future and eventual death, and over grief and loss). The one-two punch of freely offered absolution plus freely offered immortality in an attractive, idealized afterlife, was to my knowledge, a new thing under the sun at the time. They've had a monopoly on that stuff ever since.
That's all I need to explain the success and endurance of Christianity -- that, and the general concept of memetics.
That sort of sophomoric logic would get nothing from me but a shake of the head in disgust and a modicum of unspoken pity.
I know immunity from the basic tenets of logic when I see it.
Explain. You haven't stated why you would shake your head in disgust. What would you say in response to such a person, assuming you did dignify him with a response that was as intelligent and thorough as possible instead of a blow-off like, for example, "you don't have a clue"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
What a silly quest. Trying to use logic to determine your religious beliefs. Logic has nothing to do with it.
Go outside and look at the beautiful world around you. Do you see any evidence that makes you think there are gods?
Scientifically I can prove that there was a Creator. (Bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics here.) There is no way that a "Big Bang" could have happened, sans someone to "push the button", and still satisfy the laws of physics. Even Stephen Hawking's explanation is dubious - "given a law such as gravity, the universe would have to create itself"... maybe, but how did the law of gravity come into being? There had to have been a "first cause". Does that tell me anything about "God"'s nature, or even whether or not "God" is still alive? No. But it does attest to, for lack of a better term, intelligent design.
Scientifically I can prove that there was a Creator.
Please do proceed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
