Atheist and the nativity

onlyroz

fawd1 wrote: »

no, but removing the belief when it's needed makes it cruel, whatever you beliefs

I think it is immeasurably cruel to tell a dying person that they are going to a "better place" in the afterlife. I would rather that they put all their efforts into making the most of their last days, rather than praying for entry into heaven after death.

dirtysexymonkey

fawd1 wrote: »

Fair enough, but the reality is that if someone was written about as a historical figure no more than 100 years after their death and continuously referred to as Christ (christus etc..) then surely we could accept that he existed. Whether he was the son of god or not, feel free to argue. The historical records we have of Christ are as good as any we have of historical figures in that era. Did none of them exist?

you could, and then youd have to accept that all of the greek heroes existed - they were written about extensively by tacitus and other better-informed writers at the time and before it. they are considered myths but you find it offensive when christ is?

my point was that you using tacitus as some form of proof is ridiculous. he got all of his knowledge second/third/fourth hand and the rest he made up!

he would hear of something from someone and then write about them, and add flavour.

the historical records of christ are not as good as any other - they are far far worse. other than the bible (which let us not forget was written many centuries after christ was alleged to have existed) there is very little written about christ, whereas for others there is a wealth of information.

i dont doubt that someone called christ existed - thousands of them! at that time it wasnt an uncommon name. he may well have been a man of influence, more likely he was a bit mad. but oral traditions meant that his 'legend' was passed down, until a few men got together and decided to turn his legend into a method of control. thus the cult was born, which at first was persecuted, and why wouldnt it be? who would believe in an entire pantheon of gods (from greece, rome, britian and across the then conquered world) when they could just believe in the one and have an afterlife of eternal carnal pleasure in return for worshipping the one god and following his leaders?

and thats what was originally promised - an afterlife of carnal pleasure.

and before you mention satan being all horny - he only became horny after the fall of the roman empire and the resurgence of paganism and the horned god. if the christians murdering pagans didnt work, convincing everyone else that they were evil did.

b_girl

onlyroz wrote: »

Why is it, then, that most political campaigns turn into mud-slinging contests?

So you think that, for example a tory campaign completely bad mouthing labour would turn labours life-long supporters onto their side?

onlyroz

b_girl wrote: »

So you think that, for example a tory campaign completely bad mouthing labour would turn labours life-long supporters onto their side?

I was actually thinking more of American presidential campaigns - where the candidates put far more effort into slagging off their opponent than in coming up with decent policy statements of their own.

erichamster

fawd1 wrote: »

Are you sure? you argue there is no proof for religion, there is also no proof against it. It's like love, you can't prove it exists, some people claim they don't believe in it, but plenty live their lives enriched by believing in it.
I answered your second point earlier, and on you third point, I disagree. Your desire to take away a source of happiness and hope to others, however well intentioned your reasons might be, aren't the sign of a hugely kind person. Do you tell children that Santa doesn't exist, because you know him not to be real? I bet they love you for it.

There is evidence of love, there is no evidence of religion. I don't think religious beliefs are comforting, especially at the times when people say they are "most needed". Who needs the added worry of the possibility of an eternity in hell when they are dying?

I find it much more comforting to think that when I die I will go back to the same state of being as before I was born, one which I remember suffering absolutely no inconvenience from.

How can people look around at all the beauty and wonder in the universe and petulantly cry "There must be more than this" ? What would it take to impress you people! Earth really is a paradise perfectly evolved to complement our needs.

fawd1

erichamster wrote: »

Ok then discounting all the horrible and morally repugnant parts of the Old Testament because as we all know, that was just the first draft right? God didn't really mean it when he sanctioned the killing of innocent men, women and children, didn't you know? It was all a big joke! Of course, and on what basis have you decided that you can just discount all of that by the way? Oh don't tell me god told you in a dream!

Anyway assuming you just can, while obviously a huge improvement on his 'father' Jesus is not quite the lamb he is represented as:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)

Also there is the whole sado-masochistic idea of atonement for original sin The sick idea that all babies are born with original sin which must be cleansed (and which jesus had to die for for some reason) is very much tied up with the new testament.

actually the idea that the Old Testament being the first draft is not my idea. It's the basis of Christianity (and I loved your comment about God telling me, especially as I'm a non believer). As for the idea of children being with sin, even the pope dismissed that idea.

The fact is, that the bible (like all holy books) was written by men, men are fallible, which means they will GET THINGS WRONG. None of what is written in the bible, or Quran or any other holy book is perfect. Faith is just that. Faith. A belief in something you can't prove. Why you feel the need to disprove something only to hurt others is beyond me. Glad you enjoy feeling superior though, I bet it makes the others you hurt by taking away their hope feel better

fawd1

erichamster wrote: »

There is evidence of love, there is no evidence of religion

Ha! there is no evidence of love other than people saying they feel it and acting on its behalf. No different than those that say they feel faith.

Person_one

fawd1 wrote: »

no, but removing the belief when it's needed makes it cruel, whatever you beliefs

Sometimes life removes the belief, when it kills your spouse or your child, or leaves you homeless, or kills 250,000 south east Asians in a single day.

Maybe its crueller to let our children grow up believing in a benevolent comforting god knowing that life may well treat them cruelly or reveal to them that suffering and pain are rife.

dirtysexymonkey

looby75 wrote: »

Not all religious people believe that you know.

Oh and while you are back online would you care to elaborate further on your comment I'm genuinely interested in exactly what I've said that makes you consider me so arrogant?

i didnt say they did. not all religious people are here.;)

and no. id be here all night!:rotfl:

dirtysexymonkey

fawd1 wrote: »

Ha! there is no evidence of love other than people saying they feel it and acting on its behalf. No different than those that say they feel faith.

your confusing faith and religion. the two are quite separate but only one preys on the other.