People all around the world are celebrating Easter today. I am not. Easter is a vile little holiday wrapped up in a façade of pretty dresses and chocolate eggs and happy children playing games on the lawn, but at its putrescent core lies 20 centuries of exploitation and dishonesty. Here is a hard-core atheist's perspective on this awful holy day.
I. The fact.
This is the season when our culture commemorates torture. A particularly callous sort of torture, too: a lazy and evil form of punishment that could be carried out en masse. Nail people up in intolerable postures and they inevitably and slowly die, no active, trained labor required—nail 'em and leave 'em, confident that they'll suffer horribly and eventually expire.
We focus all our attention on one man who suffered this torment, and regard him as somehow special. The Roman Empire did this to tens of thousands at once, in mass spectacles of hideous punishment. Throughout human history, people have died ghastly, lingering deaths, often at the hands of other people, and it was not ennobling, and it is usually forgotten.
Look at that bloody figure wracked up on a cross, and we should all be reminded not of one man long ago who suffered, but that our nation tortures to the death other brown-skinned Middle Eastern people right now. How can we look at the Passion spectacles now and not feel a deep shame?
II. The lie.
At the heart of Christian belief is a lie: that this man was tortured to death long ago, and that afterwards he came back to life. Oh, and also that he wasn't a man at all, but a god. There is no evidence for these claims that defy all reason and experience, but we're asked merely to believe. To have faith. To trust the words of priests.
I refuse.
If a sacrifice is the centerpiece of our salvation, it makes no sense to call the brief troubling of an omnipotent being with a few nails a "sacrifice." It was a man who died horribly, like many others. He didn't come back.
Grieve. For he is not risen.
III. The false promise.
Christianity has taken the lie and amplified it millions-fold. If one man came back from the dead, why not everyone? It's the wet dream of every snake-oil salesman, the ultimate con: an irresistible promise, made with no evidence whatsoever, with a payoff deferred to another world, another time…and the suckers line up in droves to pay up.
"You don't have to die," the priests wheedle, "you can live forever."
How many millions have fallen for that tempting lie? How many have died? All of them. How many have seen the promise fulfilled? None of them.
The death cult flourishes in its denial of reality. The fleecing continues.
IV. The threat.
The promise of eternal life is not enough. We must also be browbeaten with threats of unearthly, unending torment if we don't believe the lie.
It's a culture that rewards the most extravagant of extortionists.
V. The hierarchy.
Millions of good, decent people will accept the promise and fear the threat; wishful thinking is no crime. They will make weekly, sometimes daily visits to their local cult office, they will freely donate money in trust to their local priest. Those who can't visit, will write checks, even if their income is limited, and will send them off to the smiling pompadours on their television sets.
It's a perfect system in which nice people make themselves exploitable, and those who are most deluded, most venal, most vehement in their pronunciation of the Big Lie are rewarded the most. The rot rises rapidly to the top.
Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Haggard, Bakker, Roberts…how many can you name? This is a system where the worst represent all, the takers and liars and vermin reap the rewards, and the best labor and give, give, give, give.
VI. The theft.
I know how the believers will reply. They will say "Bach!" They will point to the Sistine Chapel. They will talk about human hope and beauty and art, and the patronage of the church.
And I will say that no gods had a hand in any of that. Those are human accomplishments, the work of the skilled and clever and good, with no divinity necessary. On top of the false promise and the threat, the religious add the crime of theft: they falsely appropriate our best works and shackle them in service to the lie.
And so it goes.
What to do.
Abandon the church. Take the money you were going to throw in the collection plate and donate it to a secular charity. Tell your priest to take a hike. Stay home; have a quiet day with your family. Think. Enjoy this world while you live in it.
This holiday has a longer tradition than the Christian church, and is associated with the return of Spring. So celebrate life. Go for a walk. Plant a tree. Read a good book. Have a conversation with someone. Write a poem, paint a picture.
The lesson you should learn is that torture doesn't dissipate with a deity's whim. Write your representative. March for peace. Write an angry blog entry. Yell at a Republican.
Whatever you do, wake up. Deny the lie.
- Log in to post comments
About the torture and death: I have been known to ask whether Christians would wear a guillotine, syringe, rope, electric chair, iron maiden, ... if those had been the supposed instruments of death of the Jesus guy ...
Well said, PZ.
How'd they reply, Keith?
I went to church this morning to please the relatives. This is the last time.
The minister stood up there, fat and red-faced, repeating, again and again, the claims we all know, as if he could make them true. He said god gave meaning to our lives, which wouldn't be true even if he did exist. And he seemed contemptible.
Then he talked about his father, who died last Monday. Again, the repetition, punctuated with these calls to bolster himself - "I believe!". And then I pitied him, a sad charletan, trying to draw on his parisioners belief to assuage his own despair.
Excuse the Scooter Libbyish prose; too many modern translation bible readings this morning...
Bah. I get my buzz from a dark English ale, others get theirs from religion. As PZ pointed out recently, there are assholes on both sides, and good people on both sides. Just as I don't condemn people for having a few glasses of wine so long as they don't drive, I won't comdemn people from celebrating a feel-good fairy tale so long as they don't bother or endanger me. Chances are, if the religious assholes and con-men lost their faith, they would be secular assholes and con-men.
Each and every point you made once again showed your ignorance and your hate. Don't you ever get tired of it?
Someone is certainly showing his ignorance and hate. Why don't you find somewhere else to troll?
I'm more disturbed by religious people I like and respect. Religion twists them, making them unreasoning and limited, in a direct relationship with the strength of their "faith". Religion is just as destructive to its followers as to anyone else.
Ok, I'll celebrate Easter by ripping the Answers in Genesis post for today: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/):
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them"
--Strange that God never heard of cotton, since he supposedly he created the cotton plant.
"without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness "
--So... if I said something bad about Ken Ham behind his back, he couldn't forgive me without exacting a pound of flesh from me? Or just a pinprick? Sounds "klingon" to me.
"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, who washed us from our sins in His own blood."
--What's with this "blood" fixation? Slasher movies or something? Vampires? Even drinking God's blood at communion.
"Remember Jesus Christ, who raised from the dead, descended from David, Abraham and Adam"
--God favors a certain race? Is he a racist?
"who is now seated at God's right hand in the heavenly realms"
--That's all he does there? Sit at the right hand of some powerful dude and act important? Sounds boring.
May God bless you and demonstrate his love for you, P.Z. Meyers.
HEY! HEY, YOU! WHY AREN'T YOU IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW?
GET ON YOUR KNEES, BUSTER, OR ROT IN HELL...AND QUIT READING HEATHENISH WEBLOGS ON THE DAY YOUR LORD AND MASTER JESUS CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD!
Hallelujah! He's living today!
And His song's in my heart as I pray...
He Lives!
;-)
When someone mentions Bach and the Sistine Chapel, the best response, I think, is to counter with the observation that Christians have been very intolerant of non-Christian art, writing, and science. Christians destroyed many works of art, and many libraries, just because they depicted Pagan gods. Today Christian fundamentalists bemoan secular art and secular music, ostensibly for esthetic reasons, but in reality for ideological ones. Like sex, art has to serve an ideological purpose for the fanatic to consider it anything but horribly sinful.
I don't know, I always thought of Easter as the holiday the Romans stole from the European pagans they conquered.
Stop trying to reason with religionists; instead, humour them, by pointing out the logical implications of their beliefs.
For instance, assuming God does exist, then we were created as his playthings, and must worship him so he won't torture us for an infinite period of time (see how God is love!).
If we please him, he may allow us to float around with him, doing nothing in particular, for an infinite period of time (and gloating over those less fortunate who are roasting down 'below'). How thrilling.
Now, it's not quite clear how exactly we ensure we please him, for there are many different opinions amongst the experts on the subject. You just have to hope you have 'chosen' the right sect.
Further, to make it more of a challenge, God has created us with many character flaws and forbidden appetities, which we must also negotiate successfully - there's a whole lifetime to get through, so don't let your guard down even for a moment.
Interestingly, although the Son has not returned these last 2,000 years, His rules have been continously modified over the centuries, so what was once evil is now good, and vice versa. So do not make the mistake of thinking that God's Law is eternal and unchanging; he is constantly trying to catch you out!
Again, you must hope that the experts you listen to are correct, or you're completely screwed.
Good luck!
Vanessa: Easter is the holiday Christians stole from Jews and Pagans - just like all other major Christian holidays.
I have never understood why I should be made to suffer for the poor judgment of two people, thousands of years ago, in which I had absolutely no hand. Accepting this act as the explanation for one's own present-day troubles is such a lapse of thought, such a total failure of cognition, that I am not surprised that people who swallow it whole also believe that the suffering of another man, likewise thousands of years dead, can somehow cleanse me of the stain an "all merciful" being placed on my account.
I spent the afternoon climbing over the Roman amphitheater here in Lyon, where Christians were once sacrificed for the economic welfare of the state and national security. Funny how times change, isn't it, and how when the people on the bottom get to be on top, they never remember how their old oppressors behaved?
By the way:
"Christianity is stupid! Communism is good! GIVE UP!"
It's true.
PZ just hasn't found the right shrine for his non-worship. Foe Easter, might is suggest this?
http://www.peepsshow.com/gallery/copia/copia-f.html
I like to celebrate Easter with a crate of Cadbury Creme eggs and a stack of Zombie movies.
JMch,
Although I do have some nitpicks for some of the claims made by PZ above (no, I'm not Christian in any sense of the word), I do have to agree whole-heartedly with point number II. What's the point of the "sacrifice for man's/humanity's sins" if Jesus came back to life shortly afterwards anyway? What, did he get a refund? (!! That would actually explain a lot of stuff.)
And why didn't he stick around to further spread his soul-saving teachings himself? Where did he actually go after the resurrection? What about his second this-worldly death? Or is he still walking around in the flesh some place even to this day?
Basically, why bother with resurrecting yourself if you are [A] not going to do anything further in the living world anyway, and/or [B] you are (or are a part of) God, who (from what I can tell) is the being us mortals may meet in person only once we die? No need to come back to life to be with (or merge back with) God, is there?
My folks are down for the weekend visiting me and my wife. Today, we're watching movies, taking pleasent walks and tonight, we're having a nice dinner with friends. Ostensibly, we're doing this to celebrate Spring; an excuse to eat good food with friends and family for no other reason then that it's warm again, and the flowers are blooming.
Also, I found out that my parents have stopped going to church. It's never too late to learn the truth.
I don't get why Jesus is so esteemed. He had everything going for him. Eternal bliss? Becoming the saviour of mankind, to be worshipped by all? That's hardly a sacrifice. In fact, sign me up. A few hours hanging from a cross is nothing compared to the reward.
Ah, Easter... the day when the Easter Bunny checks his list to see who's naughty or nice. The nice ones end up with Cadbury creme eggs, the naughty ones end up with nasty (albeit brightly colored) hard-boiled eggs.
BTW, crucifixion is bad and all, but it's got nothing on impalement.
Well, I have nothing against Easter Monday, when all the excess candy goes on sale.
Wamba wrote:
Yes! It's just like the day after Valentine's, all over again!
Here's an interesting little item:
Norwegians relish annual Easter crime wave
Easter = crime.
Easter is really the same holiday as Halloween - a celebration of C12H22O11. The only difference in the holidays is the color scheme. Easter relies on pastels while Halloween relies on blacks, purples, and oranges.
awww, PZ, I'm disappointed. There's nothing wrong with celebrating Easter.
In fact, I'm enjoying some chocolate pagan fertility symbols with my coffee right now. What's all this stuff about nailiing somebody to a tree have to do with Easter, anyway?
I do prefer fertility rites to warding off evil spirits. Most days.
It's a culture that rewards the most extravagant of extortionists.
As many have pointed out, it's also an excellent culture for slavery. Once you've convinced people that their various sufferings really do earn them brownie points in Heaven, they'll put up with anything.
That said, don't knock the chocolate eggs. Pious or secular, they're reliably the truest, finest, most consistantly enjoyable aspect of the holiday. Unless you're into millinery.
Imagine all the intricate musical counterpoint we might have been blessed with if Bach had been inspired by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
PZ:
Please pardon me while I recalibrate my sarcasmometer.
Reminds me of something:
After an MTV showing of "Amish Paradise"
Weird Al Yankovic: "There's something I'd like to say to any Amish people who happened to watch that... GET BACK TO WORK! You're not suppose to be watching TV!"
I always hated Easter, even when I was a good Sunday School gal. But, since I didn't head down to the atheist convention in Kansas, I'm spending today with the family. I want to send the message that, while I'm not a believer, I'm also not my aunt--the Jehovah's Witness who won't celebrate "heathen" Easter, Christmas, Halloween, birthdays, etc. (I love heathen Halloween best and always did.)
Serious question, PZ: are you a theologian?
Check out this piece in the OBserver:
Science does not challenge my faith - it strengthens it
Richard Harries criticzes atheists on four points. The piece itself is drivel, but the response comments are of very high quality.
Dr. Meyers,
I have been reading your blog admiringly for some time now. As an athetist, I whole heartly agree with comments on the Easter holiday. One small aspect of this holiday has been the subject of some scientific experimentation that I thought I should bring to your attention.
http://www.peepresearch.org/.
Enjoy,
Doug Kilgore BSME
Serious question, PZ: are you a theologian?
Naw. Sez right up there at the top of the page he's a biology teacher. Pay attention, son.
While some parts of the message of Christianity make emotional sense, I find that other parts baffle me.
Reject Jesus, and suffer eternal torment, or accept Jesus, and bask in pleasure forever: ok, I get it, a stick and a carrot.
However, the idea that Jesus "died for my sins", or died for the sinfulness that I inherit from Adam and Eve, makes no sense emotionally. God made His Son suffer considerable discomfort for awhile, so that what? So that there was a blood sacrifice, analogous to sacrificing a goat? By God, to God? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful deity care about such a thing? And if I accept Jesus as my Personal Savior, God forgives me my sins. Why? What has this acceptance got to do with the cruxifiction?
Although it's obvious why people would go along with the carrot-and-stick part, it's impressive that so many have accepted the "God's sacrifice to God" part, or the "Accepting Jesus will make God like you" part, which just make no sense that I can see.
PZ Meyers,
Was your yelling comment meant for me?
If so, I don't attend church and I don't pray on my knees.
I presume this was meant as a satirical representation of what Christians have been heard to say, but I have never had a man (or woman) of God speak this way to me.
Take care.
I realized something at church today, sitting through the Easter sermon - the thing that really gets them all is the love part. Come to church, we'll love you. Come and do this, and God will love you. Love, love, love. At least at the church I was at, that is. It's powerfully enticing to people who are lonely and marginalized, and for the others, it's a call to become a better person just by loving all those outcasts. Love makes you do stupid things, including suspending all powers of reason. I think that no matter how reasonable atheists are, no matter how logical, no matter how right, that fuzzy schmoopy love thing will make religion win out for most people. How do we combat that?
In addition to the points you make, it should also be noted that for Christians to be saved Jesus had to die as the sacrifice for their sins. Christians couldn't very well kill him themselves - how quickly would you wind up in hell for killing God/the Son of God? You couldn't blame it on the Romans - how quickly would your nascent sect be brutally suppressed by the Romans if it taught that they had killed your God? But, it was emminently convenient to blame it on the Jews - and note how quickly Jew-hatred became an entrenched part of Christianity, resulting in persecution, pograms, and ultimately - well, you know what I'm talking about.
Naw. Sez right up there at the top of the page he's a biology teacher. Pay attention, son.
Well, I was hoping for an answer from the man himself, but this will do, I guess.
So, PZ is not a theologian. Neither is PZ a physicist. Yet between theology and physics, which one does he imagine himself eminently qualified to pontificate upon at length? Here's a hint:
A creationist pest
Pay particular attention to PZ's answer to #2.
For the love of God, think of the Cadbury Eggs and Peeps! If you scrap Easter you lose chocolate filled with goo and funky marshmallows.
"but, it was emminently convenient to blame it on the Jews"
I don't blame the death of jesus on the jews. I blame the jews for creating their stupid, cruel religion in the first place, which ultimately spawned jesus, and another stupid cruel religion.
JMcH,
Are you implying that only a actual theologian, as in a professional and scholarly, is qualified to comment on religion? Seriously? 'Cause I know a whole lot of preachers who'd disagree with you on that. And as for that particular question, I read all that as the person asking Prof. Myers the question (concerning the big bang) as a professional scientist. The Big Bang is out of Prof. Myers' scholarly field - which, as we've discussed is biology - so it's perfectly logical he decline to answer it.
I don't think anyone with any real sense would mistake the professor's rantings concerning religion as serious, scholarly work. It's merely a human being excersizing his right to speak his mind on his blog (which is what these things are for). If Prof. Myers considers himself considers the above post a "serious, scholarly work", with all due respect, he needs to settle down. If it's a post about squid or DNA, well, that's a different kettle of fish. Otherwise, who are you to tell him he can't express his complete loathing for all things religious when the urge strikes him?
Tell me. Are you a theologian? A preacher? Deacon? Any sort of official religious figure? In other words, what makes your words more worthy of consideration?
Peeps at least can be found at many more holidays. In addition to Easter Peeps, there are Valentine's Peeps, Halloween Peeps, and Christmas Peeps. (Any others?)
Well, I'm hoping to celebrate the return of spring with a traditional fertility ritual, if we can ever get the kid to sleep after all the chocolate eggs. I'm not sure what all this about crosses is, but it sounds like a rather unpleasant accretion and I'm just going to pretend I never heard of it.
Are you implying that only a actual theologian, as in a professional and scholarly, is qualified to comment on religion?
No, actually, I'm not. I'm showing PZ's hypocritical inconsistancy. On the one hand, he refuses to answer a question about physics because he's not a physicist. Yet on the other, he feverishly types out these grandiose denouncements of religion despite the fact that he's not a theologian. Furthermore, he condemns Christians who comment on evolution because they are not biologists.
Why is a theologian's opinion on questions of the supernatural, for which there is no evidential or logical support, any more valuable than anyone else's opinions?
JMcH,
I'd say there was a rather large gap between:
1) somebody declining to answer a question because they don't feel qualified, and
2) demanding that somebody else shut up because you don't consider them qualified.
People often to the first because they are concerned they might make an idiot out of themselves. In the second case, of couse, all the requester has to do is point out where said unqualified person made obvious errors. So how about it? Why don't you point out where the obvious errors are?
I have no problem with anybody pointing out that somebody else is unqualified - but in that case it is also incumbent on them to describe precisely where they went wrong.
I'm showing PZ's hypocritical inconsistancy.
No, you're not. You're showing your difficulty with reading comprehension.
On the one hand, he refuses to answer a question about physics because he's not a physicist.
As pointed out previously, the questions in the email were of a scientific nature, speaking to Prof. Myers as a scientist. He could have, of course, answered the question (though doubtful to either the questioner's or your happiness, since it was a bullshit question in the first place). He addressed the email as a biologist. Physics questions should go to physicists. Simple as that.
Yet on the other, he feverishly types out these grandiose denouncements of religion despite the fact that he's not a theologian.
Yeah, so? Again, are you saying that only theologians should criticize religion? He's not speaking as a scholar, but as a private citizen. Who are you to tell him to clam up? Where do you get that right?
Furthermore, he condemns Christians who comment on evolution because they are not biologists.
Well, he's a biologist. His job is to know biology. From what I've read, most of his criticisms of Christians who comment on evolution are because the Christians in question have no friggin' clue what they're talking about - either because of ignorance or, more likely, flat-out lying about the subject at hand - yet speak from a position of authority. Prof. Myers' criticisms of religion - apart from where it intersects with his field, i.e. Christians commenting on evolution - are those of a private citizen. He is not a theologian and by his own account has absolutely no respect for any form of religion. From what I can tell, anyway, his rants are going mostly on gut. If this is you're idea of a serious theological discusion, son, you really need to read more, 'cause I'm beginning to think you have no idea what the word even means. In any event, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever you or I or anyone on the planet should pay any attention to what Prof. Myers has to say about religion.
Biology is different, as I'm lead to understand he's studied on it some. But again, I ask you? Why should your words be given any weight at all? Or, to put it another way, why should anyone think you're anything but a rather distasteful, hate-filled little man? If what the professor says about religion pisses you off, feel free to not visit the site. I don't go to LGF because the rampant racism makes my stomach turn.
You can do that, you know. He's just a guy, calm down.
by the way, did I miss this somewhere? I've seen PZ arguing with Christians/anybody else on the subject of evolution because they're wrong many times. I can't say I've seen the "you're not a biologist, therefore you can't talk about evolution" argument anywhere.
Oh, come on, PZ. It's time to eat lots of chocolate and celebrate the festival of estrus with all manner of fun fertility rituals. It's Easter. Who said anything about dead guys?
Isn't it amazing how many ways trolls can find to provoke endless argument and waste our time? Unfortunately, they overlook one little, fatal flaw in their diabolical plot: my time is worthless! Moo hoo ha ha!
It stands to reason, doesn't it, that biologists can only talk about biology, astronomers can only talk about astronomy, and theologians can only talk about theology. Conversely, it seems only reasonable that a topic like, say, theology can only be discussed by legitimate theologists credentialed by a duly constituted authority. Yes? Then we can only conclude that Internet trolls must only speak about trolling, and moreover no trolling may be done by persons other than certified trollologists.
The same logic holds for all human actions: only authorities on prayer are allowed to pray, only expert agapologists are able to offer charity, and so forth.
Fortunately, I myself have indeed been paid to write about science, so my comments here and elsewhere in the blogosphere are wholly legitimate.
Besides, PZ's not commenting on theology per se - he's commenting on the fact that it's a subject without an object.
Amen, PZ.
Lol, the comments are gold! :)
And the posting is good too of course.
JMcH
Do you ever use evidence in any of your arguments? Or is slander the only weapon you have?
...
...
(Forgive me, all of you, this will be long.)
Very well written, PZ. Well worth the read.
The best part is the call to action.
I don't expect any of us to start a war, but I do expect thoughtful, reasonable people to defend themselves, and the mode of thought which is the wellspring of all the good things about their way of life. I expect them to recognize that the thoughtful, reasonable way of life - which is not all that old, and not all that widespread - is under siege right now (as it always has been) by con-men of the Falwellian bent, and the fools who slavishly follow them.
I don't know where I heard the saying "It has the advantage of never having been tried," but I often think, for all too many people, that the saying certainly applies to reason.
Most of us don't realize that calm, rational, non-superstitious thought is damned rare in human history, and even in modern society. It's not only recent historically, it's statistically unlikely even in the world today.
Considering its demonstrated success, you'd think people would jump at the chance to learn and practice reason. Reason is as rare as diamonds, and even more valuable, yet people treat it like common dirt - they can't wait to get clean of it so they can get back to their greasy personal fantasies and two-a-penny wishful thinking.
I think what most keeps people from trying reason is just that it's difficult to do. It takes effort.
Our brains are still too primitive, still too wired for ... well, a lot of beastly other things. War and superstition come to mind, but willing submission to the demands of a dominant other is probably every bit as damaging as either of those. We might lack the desire or twisted creativity to come up with superstitious or irrational ideas on our own, but if we eagerly submit to demagogues who supply happy fantasies, controlling superstitions, complacent just-so stories, the end result is the same: stupid self-imposed limits, blind blundering, destructive beliefs, murderous impulses.
If you were to make up posters of the utmostly opposite results of the two different modes of thought, you wouldn't have to search old history books or musty museums for pictorial representations. You wouldn't have to sift through old-timey lithographs, or pyramid paintings, or distant rock art. Oh, no. From all of human history, of the best examples of the unimaginably wonderful and the inconceivably horrific, you'd find actual PHOTOGRAPHS. In the span of a single lifetime, we have footprints on the moon, computers, genetic and nano-engineering, compassion for nature and ecological concern for the one poster, and Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate for the other.
In two different senses, neither of these two very different paths are inevitable.
Reason and science (and compassion) are not-inevitable because they take huge amounts of effort to do. Supremely desirable as they are, accomplishing them is difficult and unlikely. Anyone who has attempted to be a reasonable person knows it's a day-to-day uphill battle. The enemies of calm rationality form a continuum that stretches from our own family members, most times, to distant, powerful strangers in the houses of power (the White House, for instance). Almost every social interaction is colored by unreason.
Murder and genocide and mindless superstition are likewise not-inevitable. We're not doomed forever to be shackled to them ... but ONLY if we make the daily effort to take that other path. If, as we have throughout almost all of our history and prehistory, we fail to put forth the effort to develop compassion, reason and science, we'll doom ourselves to painful lives and early deaths. (At this point in history, we'll also kill off a big part of the natural world.)
In the most profound sense, we're in a war. It's diffuse, and hard to see, but it's happening (it's always been happening), and it's deadly.
Every science teacher is at war with ignorance.
Every non-religious person is the mortal foe of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Every honest, reasonable, compassionate individual is the hated enemy of people like Adolph Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot ... but also of people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and even dimwitted George W. Bush.
And - no kidding - those people want us controlled, and silent, and confused - or dead.
THIS is the Long War. A war the brainless, angry, hateful, frightened, gullible, superstitious, intolerant, voracious ones automatically, inevitably win ...
UNLESS thoughtful, compassionate, reasonable, science-minded, non-superstitious people fight the good fight against them.
Every day.
...
...
I am not a certified Ghostbuster, and yet I do not believe in ghosts.
Forget Christianitity.
I think Eostre is quite a sweet holiday, being all about fertility, a fundamental element of biology.
The "rebirth" of plants in the spring, which appeared to have been dead, is of course the center of the holiday. Rabbits ("breed like rabbits") and eggs (embryos) are natural symbols of this fertility celebration.
(The "resurrection" of Jesus is obviously an attempt to cash in on the "resurrection" of the plants in the Spring. The religion of Osiris was more honest about it: Osiris's resurrection is explicitly a representation of the sudden increase of visible plant life to the surface of the earth, and Osiris is primarily a god of agriculture.)
Remember the real reason for the season. :-) Have sex.
JMcH writes, "No, actually, I'm not. I'm showing PZ's hypocritical inconsistancy. On the one hand, he refuses to answer a question about physics because he's not a physicist. Yet on the other, he feverishly types out these grandiose denouncements of religion despite the fact that he's not a theologian."
Physics has a real subject matter, and because of that, the data and theories and expertise that physicists develop have real-world implications that non-physicists can verify. For example, by flying an airplane to a distant city, which airplane's working and navigation is applied physics.
In contrast, all the evidence is that religion is the creation of believers, and all the theologians in the world have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Some of them demonstrate expertise in history or langauges or other topics. But on their core topic, they have never been able to demonstrate that there is a subject matter in which someone could be expert. Until they can do that, there is no reason to think them experts, rather than simply ideologues.
And besides, PZ isn't saying that Christianity (and all religion) is stupid from a theological standpoint. He's arguing from a purely logical standpoint, and that doesn't require any special training. Neither theology nor scientific training are required -- anyone can see the obvious illogic of letting people boss you around on the basis of fairy tales and superstitions thousands of years old. At least anybody can who has had the scales fall from her eyes, to coin a phrase. The Big Bang question, however, DOES require special knowledge to answer, and PZ is quite right not to pretend he has the theoretical and educational training it would take. The two issues are fundamentally different and requre different skills and knowledge to address.
JMcH,
Sigh. PZM's not a theologian. If you like, I can function as one. First of all, I'm a minister! Second of all, I was raised Fundy. Went to church 3 times a week for 17 years. Third, I'm a medievalist. One of the things I do is intellectual history. If you're doing medieval intellectual history, you have to do the history of Xian doctrine. So I know a fair amount about it. Finally, I've been an atheist since I was 16.
So I guess I can qualify as someone who's as close to an expert on Xian theology as this thread can have. And I think PZ, Houdini's Ghost, etc. are right on. All that makes Xian theology interesting is watching the wasted effort of the greatest (male) minds of 1,000 years contort themselves to make sense of faulty premises and the impossibility of explaining the co-existence of an omnipotent benignant deity and death.
"I don't know where I heard the saying "It has the advantage of never having been tried,"..."
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, when they're hanging out in Genesis Phase 2 and Kirk explains how he beat the Kobayashi Maru simulator.
Oh my! You mean my Trekkie roots have been concealed even from MYSELF??
(Sucks thumb and squeezes comforting plush Sehlat toy.)
Hank, can you post your longer story on UTI?
I work in Houston, in the "oil-n-gas-bidness," and I like it the way I heard a roughneck say it:
"I don't need to own a cattle ranch to know when something's bullshit."
I'm all for celebrating the true meaning of the season--fertility rites and the rebirth of the earth. As mentioned above (thanks Nathanial), the Egyptians had a "death and resurrection" story long before the Xians, as did other countries (the Norse, for example).
PZ--allow the chocolate and peeps for those who enjoy them....I'll keep the jelly beans, thank you.
I learned a lot about bears today, thanks Hank :-).
I like this site.. says it all :)
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god14.htm
Brutally honest, factually true. Thanks.
However, the idea that Jesus "died for my sins", or died for the sinfulness that I inherit from Adam and Eve, makes no sense emotionally. God made His Son suffer considerable discomfort for awhile, so that what? So that there was a blood sacrifice, analogous to sacrificing a goat? By God, to God? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful deity care about such a thing? And if I accept Jesus as my Personal Savior, God forgives me my sins. Why? What has this acceptance got to do with the cruxifiction?
I think the idea is supposed to be that the members of the human race were facing the electric chair but Jesus got us off on a technicality. I can vaguely see the logic of that - reminds me of Dogma.
The weird bit is the idea that Adam and Eve were capable of contaminating the rest of us - cursing people unto the umpteenth generation was not, last time I checked, considered a sensible way to behave.
Is Jesus Risen? Literal View Gains Ground
Molly:
I spent a bunch of my formative years in Switzerland, and I bloody well will knock Hershey chocolate eggs, thank you very much. Hershey is to chocolate as Foster's or Bud is to beer.
Good to see some much deserved anger directed towards the notion of faith.
Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
To this I would add:
But it does poison his mind against me, and very likely, the minds of his children against my children. Faith is not harmless, not by a long shot.
Steve, well said.
Through the actions they stimulate, beliefs have consequences in the real world.
If they didn't, corporations wouldn't bother with advertising, nations wouldn't bother with patriotism, and religious people wouldn't bother with missionary work.
Carlie:
You've got a point. You remind me of one guest on The Infidel Guy's show, who moved to lots of places with her husband, who was in the military. The thing she missed the most after losing faith was being able to walk into any Baptist church anywhere and being instantly accepted.
No, I'm not going to argue that this is a Bad Thing. There needs to be more love and acceptance in the world. But religion has nothing to do with it. It's just humans being social (and tribal) apes. So perhaps the best thing to do would be to build up some sort of social network so that people have alterntives to church if they want companionship. Perhaps the Unitarians have the right idea: I've been told that they've pretty much abandoned all of religion except for the social aspects of going to church.
Amen to that (if you'll forgive the expression).
As an expat Brit living in Oregon, I have a terrible time getting across to people just how hideous Hershey's really is. That is, right up to the point at which I hand them some genuine imported Cadbury's... luckily we have relatives to send us the genuine stuff, and we have piles of it sitting on the kitchen table right now :-).
PS in case anybody is wondering, the "Cadbury's" chocolate that you buy in the US is manufactured under license by Hershey's, and it's awful. Not even remotely close to the real thing.
There needs to be more love and acceptance in the world. But religion has nothing to do with it. It's just humans being social (and tribal) apes.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. If we're truly animals - "social" or otherwise, then why would it be wrong to act like them? Animals don't love or accept. They dominate and kill. Male felines kill their rivals' young. Mating among many species - including the so-called "social" ones - results in the loss of life. Animals use, abuse and move on. Animals certainly are not environmentalists. They take what they want without care for what happens to the environment or other animals. It is "survival of the fittest," isn't it? If you're not "fit," you die. Why should we do any different?
I spent the afternoon replying to an Xtian newspaper columnist who was upset by the city of St Paul's ban on the Easter Bunny in government buildings. He accused atheists of trying to impose their lack of belief on others, using that really angry tone taken by so many on the Right. I recommended he give up the 700 Club and start living the Golden Rule. He has a column every week in the Rochester MN paper--it will be interesting to see what he writes next week.
JMcH, you might consider taking a course in ethology. You'll learn that there is a full range of emotional behavior in the animal kingdom, including love and mourning.
And no, that doesn't conflict with evolution in the least.
Physics questions should go to physicists. Simple as that. ... Again, are you saying that only theologians should criticize religion? He's not speaking as a scholar, but as a private citizen.
So in other words, he's having it both ways. When he comments on science, he speaks as a biologist (and can't address physics), but when he comments on religion, he speaks as a private citizen.
I simply find it amazing how you people are jumping through ridiculous hoops to justify this blatant hypocrisy.
And again, no, I'm not saying he should shut up. I'm saying he should be consistant. If he claims he cannot comment on physics because he's a biologist, then logically he cannot comment on religion because he's not a theologian (a fact that is painfully obvious judging from the blatant errors - or is it lies? - about Christian beliefs in this very post).
I think we're all losing sight of the fact that long ago on this day, the Holy Bunny was nailed to a cross that he might dispense chocolate eggs for our sins. Rather like a Pez, I suppose.
Peeps, of course, are an appropriated pagan tradition over which many wars have been fought.
And the Second Commandment forbids eating chocolate images.
Steve "It's my Theology and I'll Decry if I want To" James
I respect your passion, but I am inclined to disagree with your soap box. It's not about whether I agree with you or not, which I don't, or wheather your wrong, which you are. It is fundamentally flawed because you simply have no idea what your talking about. Your understanding of religious doctrines are weak to say the least, and while I think your opinion is your own and you can take responsibility for your own choices, but before you start slamming christian beliefs, you should probably have a better idea of what they actually are. You have the basics down, but you should probably read up on the specifics a little bit. The people commenting on this blog seem to think of you as an authority on atheism, for their sake at least you should do your homework before they start quoting you in a debate with an actual theologian and come off looking like an idiot. As for all the the links to articles and posts people should read to make their arguement stronger, whether it be opposed or in agreement, I have one source that will cover all the bases. Try the Bible, actually read it and make an attempt to understand it. It will either give you the ammunition you need to really make an actual point or you might just believe it.
I'll be praying for you.
Jesus, Josh, don't do that. You're liable to give him heart complications!
JMcH wrote:
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. If we're truly animals - "social" or otherwise, then why would it be wrong to act like them? Animals don't love or accept.
You may want to take a look at TalkOrigins' list of typical creationist anti-evolution claims.
Behaving like animals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA009.html
Might makes right:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html
PZ,
JoshL is right, although he didn't say it very nicely: you don't seem to understand the theology of Christianity very well. But that isn't why I'm posting...
You seem to really dislike Christians, and I don't know why.
Do you really think that the ministers preaching about the Bible are lying? That they don't really believe what they're preaching, and just want to make money off of 'suckers'?
Because it's not true.
I am a physicist, and (it seems) most of us are athiests. Some of my best friends, however, are Christian physicists, and I assure you, they CAN think for themselves. They are rational, intelligent, and some of the most caring individuals I have met. Quite different from the mental image of them that YOU have created.
You seem to really dislike Christians, and I don't know why.
...
...
Jason McH wrote:
Forgive me, I can't help but think here of that ugly Christian canard: "If there's no god, why not just rape and kill and get my kicks before I die?" (Blog Whore Warning: http://www.hankfox.com/Gods&Morals.htm )
I've observed more than once that people who think all goodness and morality comes from their religion or deity are less capable of seeing any good in people who don't share that religion. In my opinion, this peculiar blindness makes them social cripples in the modern world: They're prone to see everybody but "their" people as hated/scary outgroups. As they're not very good at listening to or learning from outsiders, they also become virtually incapable of altering their inbred views.
Meanwhile:
Jason, we're animals -- the critter known as "human." And these days, "animal" and "human" attributes lap over in both directions from the classic concepts of each. The old walls between what defined "animal" and what defined "human" are really vastly altered from the pre-Enlightenment ideas that still inform fundamentalist religion. (*see footnote below for snarky side comment)
Just as we human critters have intelligence generally agreed to be beyond that of any other animal on the planet, so do we also have an attribute of compassion off the scale of anything else alive.
That compassion plays out as a capacity to love our close family and tribal members, certainly, but it can also be aimed at strangers, even faraway ones, at pets, and even inanimate objects like cars and houses. Hell, we can even love IDEAS strongly enough to give our lives for them -- patriotism, justice, duty, heroism and motherhood, for instance.
And certainly, some of us can and do love the planet. Doesn't matter what other "animals" do -- THIS animal does.
Displaying compassion for others, for animals, for the planet, IS acting like an animal -- an animal of the human species. To think that the human animal should not be able to display compassion, with or without religion, and wherever it happens to be aimed in any specific case, is to be incredibly blind to your own nature.
Finally, you're generalizing about what "animals" do or don't do. Yeah, there's lots of fighting and killing and eating out there, but it's not all fighting and killing and eating. Some animals cooperate, play, love, adopt orphans, form strong family bonds ... lots of other stuff that most of us have assumed only humans do.
...
...
(*FOOTNOTE: Only a few human traits are exclusively human, by the way. In my own mind, religion itself, considering all the traits of mind that make it up, is an extremely beastly endeavor. Rather than the height of humanness, the traits that form the foundations of religion -- obedience, submissiveness, rote repetitive behavior, the downplaying of reason, for instance -- they all seem very doglike to me. Once you observe that the actual practice of religion generally takes almost no advanced intelligence -- forgive me this little joke: Hell, if it was hard, fundamentalists couldn't do it -- it all starts to fit.)
...
...
nano,
You wanna know why Prof. Myers dislikes Christians? Read JMcH's posts. Nothing but hate and intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately, a lot of atheists hear something like this doofus sputtering anytime someone has anything less than total obedience to religion, and well, ya just get tired of it after awhile. Granted, he's not as obnoxious as your Falwells or Robertsons, nor as he dangerous as, say, the GOP's pandering to worst of the hate-filled Religious Right. Nor, frankly, is he even worth the time of a Behe or Debemski. He's just annoying and unpleasent. He's got no love to share, no arguments to change someone's mind, no examples of how his way of thought is superior. Just twisted logic, dodging arguments and full-on hate. That's why folks like Prof. Myers have no tolerence for Christianity: you get sick of shit like that after awhile.
Thanks for the example, JMcH. Keep pushing people away from Christianity.
I agree: JMcH's posts are not very complimentary, and his comments would make it difficult for ANY scientist to accept a Christian. Maybe the real problem is that PZ's only exposure to Christian thought is internet based, which tends to draw both the ignorant and the educated. The Christian friends that I know have never told me that I am going to hell, never became angry when I push them for answers about their faith, and always respond with respect (even when I become callous).
They also are frustrated with many of the political supporters of Christianity, since they are generally NOT representative of the way my friends think.
nano,
It's possible. The internets is quite possibly the worst place in the known cosmos to get a good feel on how an ideological opponent thinks. I sometimes wonder if it's because, arguing via the internet, one is immune from getting the shit slapped out of them when they say (or write) that demands an open-palm response. Plus, the professor's a biologist, and in this day and age, there's a whole lot of Christians who equal studying the life sciences with starting the day with a fresh cup of infant blood, squeezed just that morning from a Christian baby. Think about it, if you were a Christian, would you want the yay-hoos who howl about ID or Creationism despite the constant stream of scientists - who actually study this stuff - saying "No, that's not how it is and here's the evidence"? I wouldn't, and most of the Christians I know don't. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians on the Net seem to treat their faith like it's their favorite baseball team.
Now, I'm not one to tell anyone how to live nor how to address their personal ontology, but I do know that if I was a young person looking for answers in the world, well...the creationists bamboozlers and JMcH's of the world aren't exactly the most ringing endorsement for the Prince Of Peace. But that's just me, I don't know how the professor feels about the matter.
If you had read the blog for a longer period of time, you would know that PZ was raised Christian.
I would like to hear what is factually wrong in PZ's post. There are a few things that are his opinions, but the facts are quite correct. It's perhaps not how Christians would describe their religion/churches, but it's how it looks from the outside, and how it has been described for hundreds of years. And it's with good reasons, there are many absurbities in Christianity, for example:
The whole concept of Trinity, and the divine being of Jesus, was an reaction in the 4th Century AD to the point that someone pointed out that Christianity was really a polytheistic religion, with God, the Holy Spirit and the Son of God (i.e. Jesus) as its gods.
So in other words, Jesus is part of God, yet somehow he is a seperate being (sounds like the old mana concept to me - the part is equal to the whole), that God sacrificed and resurrected. So God sacrificed himself, or rather part of himself, and resurrected it, making it no real sacrifice. And this is supposed to cleanse us of our sins?
I visited JMcH's blog where he posts his critique. Here's an excerpt that shows the quality of JMcH's understanding of his own religion.
JMcH quotes PZ: "To trust the words of priests."
JMcH: "No. Christians are taught to trust the Word of God, not the words of priests."
Now there's a guy who hasn't taken the time to find out where his precious scriptures came from. PZ, though not a theologian, at least has read widely enough to know the history of the religion he criticizes.
A bit more ranting from my side.
I think it's important to note that Christianity has morphed over time. It has gone from a prosecuted cult to one of the major religions in the world, on the way behaving in the worst sorts of way (Crusades etc.)
Yet many American Christians keep talking about Christians being prosecuted today. What?
Seen from outside the US, that's just about the most absurd statement I've ever seen. Tara made a post recently that linked to the US state constitutions still on the books that bans non-Christians from getting elected.
There are people like ex-Judge Moore who put up a monument for the 10 commandments in a courthouse, claiming that those were the true laws, and the foundation of the US laws (which is absurd nonsense). You have had presidents that proclaims that in their eyes Atheists can't be real Americans.
Politicians tries, based entirely on their religious views, to ban homosexual marriages, abortions, sex education, and protection like the pill (in roundabout ways).
You have people who seriously speak about getting raptured, of evolution being disproven by Intelligent Design, of mentally ill people being demon processed, of the Earth being only 6000 years old and many other absurbities. More than half of the US population believes in a literate reading of the Bible.
Every God-damn US politician I've seen keeps harping about their damn religion, instead of keeping it private, like it ought to be - as a comparision, I don't know the religious persuation of more than a few Danish politicians, and one important member of the current government refused to participate in a sermon, because he didn't want to endorse the extremist views of the priest. Views that are well within mainstream of US Christians.
How the fuck can Christians be prosecuted for their faith in the US?
Hey, I'll buy that whole "religion leads to great art and wonderful stories and the milk of human kindness" jazz. What the hell, I'm in a good mood.
But could we at least get a less astoundingly stupid religion to do all that stuff?
I mean, There's no real evidence for any religions, but Christianity isn't consistant even within its own premises. Even if you accept it all as fact it doesn't make a lick of sense. This isn't really true of, for example, the Aztec religion.
And, also, Christianity contains some elements that sem to have no purpose other then pointless destruction. I mean, yes, Christianity built the sistine chapel. It also destroyed all of the American literary traditions of central America. Before the Christians arrived, a large mesoamerican city would've contained hundreds of books. Now, thanbks to Christianity, we have about 50. Not 50 from one city, 50 from the entirety of central America.
Why is that? Well, it's the whole first commandment, about having no other gods besides YHWH and not having idols.
Those commandments have caused astounding destruction and pain. And they have done precisely JACK SHIT to improve the world.
Other religions don't command their adherents to disrespect every foreign piece of religious expression on the planet.
Seriously, even if religion is inherent to human nature and we can't get rid of it and we're all inherently irrational and etc., we can still do a LOT better then this YHWH bullshit.
JMcH apparently doesn't allow dissenting comments on his blog. He's not interested in discussion. I suppose that was obvious, but I just wanted to provide some more evidence.
Yes, I was brought up Christian. I went through confirmation classes, but woke up before I was actually confirmed -- so I was baptized, but never took communion.
Those confirmation classes were actually useful, since they were instruction in the accepted doctrines of the faith (I was Lutheran.) The Nicene creed is a kind of core document of the basic beliefs of most Christian sects.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I agree that there are a lot of sensible Christians who go to church and don't worry about the details of the creed. There are also smart, reasonable people who are aware of and fully accept every word of the creed, and have worked out rational accommodations with reality (notice, for example, that it does not dictate how God created the world -- you can accept this without being a flaming loony creationist.)
I'm afraid I couldn't do that. I disagree with essentially every line of it -- it's dogma, pure and simple, and I rebel against accepting something so absurd with no evidence backing it up.
Hey Josh,
You've asserted PZ has it all wrong, but fail to produce any evidence to support that assertion. Why should we just accept your word on it?
Excellent post PZ. You said what so many of us think but have a hard time putting it in words (ok, I'll just speak for myself). Thank you.
To the guy who asked all the critical athiests to read the bible: are you shitting me? The bible is full of more contradictions and hypocrisy than everyone commenting on this post. The moderates cherry pick the love and peace parts of the bible and the zealots get the revenge and suffering. It is virtually impossible to follow the bible to the letter.
BronzeDog: Mixed. Some stare and mumble, as you might expect. Some have forthrightly told me "yes", though rarely.
GW: Notice also the triviality - within the world view, everyone is supposedly descended from Adam, so claiming that Jesus was should provoke a "duh!" ...
Blake Stacey: Except of course for passages like:
"Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." (Luke 18:22)
Matt T: Also notice how the troll repudiates the innovation of the inventor of Protestantism which he almost certainly would claim indirectly to follow (i.e. I'm willing to guess he's not Orthodox or Catholic). Luther called for a preisthood of all believers (though perhaps not terribly sincerely). So much for that.
I heard Karen Armstrong speak on Friday (she's written numerous books: The History of God, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) and she mentioned that most Xians she knew would be very disappointed if everyone ended up in heaven. They'd much prefer tsk tsking those who don't have the correct belief structure.
If you're going to rant on about being a Xian, at least study the history of religion, check our Irriennaes
The theft goes further than the weaseling of chump change from those of good intent and the woefully fearful. Christianity has made it part of its program to lift(usurp,steal,plunder)any and all good intentions then claim them for itself. Behind that Modus O. is a force compelled by the likes of the wicked, murderous, and desirous which by the way seem to be the type of behavior it looks for in those they try to save and indeed are the qualities we can find in many of there leaders.
er, that should be Irenaeus. Read the Gnostic gospels, study how the Nicene Creed was codified, etc. Or don't. But don't say "read the Bible" and expect us to be amazed or even swayed.
Thus endeth the chocolate fueled rant.
Ramen.
argy stokes - nice reference to the prayer study, I'm still laughing
Keith Douglas:
...and that whole "it's easier to shove a camel through the eye of a needle than get a rich man into heaven" bit. Is no one else here a Negativland fan?
From Thomas Pynchon's V., where Father Fairing is trying to convert the rats of Manhattan's sewers to Catholicism:
Great post. I do celebrate the holiday, though of course not in the Christian way. I figure if the xians could co-opt all of these priviously pagan holidays, why can't I co-opt them all for a little atheist fun. Christmas is about spending time with family, decorating a tree and passing around gifts- it has nothing to do with some bronze age dude being born in a barn. Likewise, easter is about chocolate, bunnies, and a four day weekend. Nothing to do with that same bronze age guy getting horribly murdered.
Regarding those few brave souls who have come forth to argue here, well, I suppose I admire their bravery for flame-seeking, I certainly don't wander out to theist blogs and comment. But one common theme they seem to embrace is this idea that you have to be a theologian in order to comment on religion- I'm not and I do. Religion relieas on all these myths to support it, some of which have been addressed by PZ here and many more which have not. He points out the flaws in these few, and the xian responds with the charge that he hasn't addressed them all. Well, so what? It's been shown that some of your myths are silly, therefore since they all have basically the same pedigree, they are all in doubt. It is not the responsibility of the critic to point out every last flaw in the christian mythology, it is the burden of the christian to show (if he can) why we should believe any aspect of his mythology given that every aspect we've bothered to examine has turned out deeply flawed. The burden of proof is where it has always been, upon the xian. Yet they insist that we learn all of their myths just to have a dialogue with them. I wonder why.
P.S. sorry for the rant.
PZ,
Here is a response from one of the "Christian physicists" that I mentioned earlier,
reply from Matt,
"I was also raised in a Lutheran church, and when I moved away from my parents to go to school, I stopped going to church. Then during my last undergrad year, I decided to find out if any of what my family believe could be true.
Contrary to what you said, there is evidence that what I believe is true. Note that I said 'evidence', and not 'scientific evidence'. I know the difference, but I also know that scientific evidence is not the only reliable type that exists.
I'm sure (during the online discussions you've had) that you have been told some of them already, so there's one reason I won't bother you with examples.
People who refuse the possibility that there a God are not being objective. Also, I think the evidence is easier to see for a person who accepts the possibility, which is the other reason I declined to provide examples, since I am sure they would be unconvincing to you (just like they are unconvincing to nano)."
-Matt
nano
So...there is evidence, but it's not at all scientific, and you're going to decline to tell me what the evidence is, and you admit it's unconvincing.
Does that about cover it?
(You know, that "scientific" qualifier shouldn't be at all scary. All it means is that the evidence is replicable or viewable by anyone. Saying that it's not scientific is simply a fancy way of saying it isn't real.)
Alright, I've about read enough of people writing in here saying PZ doesn't know what he is talking about, What exactly did he say that is wrong?
I mean it's time to stop saying he doesn't understand this or that and tell him where he is wrong. Don't come on here belly aching that he doesn't represent the religion accurately it smacks of the 'One true scotsman fallacy'.
He understand the religion as well as anyone else. He was raised in it and has likely read more about it than 99% of professing Christians out there. It's a ridiculous argument to say he doesn't know what he's talking about and then never say why.
And the 'Christian Physicists' view above is almost funny. Evidence is evidence. There isn't a thing as scientific evidence and non scientific evidence.
I think what Matt meant was saying was that you've probably already seen, or heard, the evidence, so he doesn't want to go over it again with you.
>Saying that it's not scientific is simply a fancy way of >saying it isn't real.)
No, there are other reliable types of evidence, just like he said.
For example, there is no way to prove (scientifically) that my birthday is June 14, 1976, BUT I could provide non-scientific evidence that would convince most people.
And, Matt is currently in a Master's degree program for physics, so I don't think he's "scared" of science.
Hear, hear, PZ. I asked this in one of the other threads, but I'll ask it again and rephrase it for nano's post: if it's not scientific evidence, then what kind of evidence is it? What kind of non-empirical evidence is so important and convincing that we all should consider it?
nano,
With all due respect your friend isn't making sense and now neither are you. We could prove your birthday is whatever date it is simply by going and looking at a birth certificate. Thats hard evidence. It doesn't need to be believed to be seen. Likewise we could go and ask your mother and a host of other individuals. On top of this we could narrow your age by looking at physiological factors.
last time I heard observation was part of the scientific process. What your doing is creating a strawman. A more accurate version of your 'evidence' would be if you said you where born in the year 2400 and have come back from the future.
No one can prove you didn't but you wouldn't find many people who accept this 'evidence' unless you caught them at a vulnerable time, say the years from birth to about 12.
Ok, here's what is wrong with what you said.
I'm not going to Matt for this response, I've spoken to him enough to know what he'd say.
Christians do not "commemorate torture". That isn't what Easter is about to them. It's the resurrection that they're celebrating.
It doesn't matter if you believe what they do or not, but you shouldn't say things that aren't true. In fact, doesn't your original post accuses religious leaders of doing the same thing? If it's wrong for them, it's wrong for you.
So, Uber, he doesn't "represent the religion accurately".
Please elaborate. What are they?
Talking to people who were present at my birth would be some kind of eyewitness evidence.
A birth certificate is documentary evidence. And it wouldn't be "proof", at least not the way I define it.
It's hard to prove things.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity, for example, has no proof.
nano,
With all due respect. What is it to crucify a person?
Is it a party? Christians celebrate the resurrection correct. PZ never said they didn't. But to get to that you have to have Jesus die correct? So if he ahd to die to be raised how is what PZ said incorrect.
It is an integral part to the entire process. I never got the feel he said people celebrated Jesus death, but thte fact remains you almost have to if you want any meaning to the resurrection.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/04/13/letted.htm#3
is your ally :D
As others have asked, what exactly is it that distinguishes "scientific evidence" from plain ol' believable, natural evidence?
Oh, and Christians do commemorate torture. Look at what I say up there: "this is the season that..." Ever hear of Good Friday? Stations of the Cross? Passion plays? Mel Gibson?
So, this is the best you can do to show me an inaccuracy?
People who refuse the possibility that I am God are not being objective. Also, I think the evidence is easier to see for a person who accepts the possibility, which is the other reason I declined to provide examples that I am, in fact, God, since I am sure they would be unconvincing to you
Does the above make more, less, or the same amnunt of sense as the quote a few posts back?
So documentary evidence isn't evidence?
Why call it evidence then? You seem to be using the word evidence to distance yourself from the fact thats it's evidence.
But again you could say you where born 300 years in the future and get anyone to take you seriously. You can be dated through the scientific method and observation.
Uber,
>This is the season when our culture commemorates torture. >A particularly callous sort of torture, too: a lazy and >evil form of punishment that could be carried out en >masse.
This is what PZ said. And, if this is what he really thinks, he (and I don't mean this to be derogatory) doesn't have a good understanding of the Christian faith.
Just because PZ was raised Lutheran doesn't mean he understands it. By his own admission, he stopped before confirmation, which would be before 9th grade. How much did you understand when you were that age?
And, yes, death is an integral part of the proces. But not the focus.
Somebody needs to explain to you and your sources that there is no such thing as "proof" in science.
nano,
If death is part of the process then it's part of the entire ordeal including the celebration. Your totally incorrect in thinking PZ doesn't understand this. But in my view he has broken it down to the individual parts.
Whats wrong with that?
Any idiot knows that Christians celebrate the resurrection, to argue he doesn't is simply ludicrous.
>So documentary evidence isn't evidence?
That isn't what Matt said. Go back, read his remarks again. He would consider documentary evidence to be not scientific.
>Why call it evidence then? You seem to be using the word >evidence to distance yourself from the fact thats it's >evidence.
I don't know what you mean.
PZ said: Somebody needs to explain to you and your sources that there is no such thing as "proof" in science.
If you're talking to me, PZ, read my 2:49pm post.
Uber said: If death is part of the process then it's part of the entire ordeal including the celebration. Your totally incorrect in thinking PZ doesn't understand this. But in my view he has broken it down to the individual parts.
Ok, I'll accept that.
nano,
So what type of evidence are you providing or for that matter even speaking about?
Stop all the pussyfooting around and just tell us or give real examples. This type of 'oh that isn't evidence' is just bullshit.
Either state which evidence is avaiable and explain how it differs from what is normally considered evidence by normal people or let this lame duck die. You simply haven't come close to substantiating anything.
Uber,
I'm not about to turn into an apologist.
My main point, the one I tried to make originally, is that there isn't a good reason to dislike Christians as much as PZ (and many others) do.
I'll reiterate:
They are rational, intelligent, and some of the most caring individuals I have met. Quite different from the mental image of them that YOU have created.
You seem to really dislike Christians, and I don't know why.
Uber et al:
When I was 16 I borrowed my older brother's birth certificate, went to the DMV and got a driver's license that said I was 22 years old. And my mother died when I was 12 so you can't ask her. I don't think my dad and 6 siblings would remember what day I was born. So there's your hard evidence. I'm somewhere between 39 and 45 years old now.
I like Pharyngula a lot. I visit the site almost every day. But the anti-faith/anti-religion rants are tiresome. Nano made a couple of good points and any follow-up post simply attacked him/her. In case you haven't noticed, that's what the psycho Christian right does. Nice job.
"But we have FACTS and EVIDENCE on our side! You believers are just sheep, and lemmings, and other metaphorical references to being not as informed as us! And we'll tell you so because THIS IS OUR FORUM!" Well, you all sound like petty, callow high school students.
And all your book-learning doesn't make your atheism a lock. But I do like your site otherwise, Dr. Myers.
JMcH apparently doesn't allow dissenting comments on his blog.
Unfortunately (for you), you're wrong. Gosh, imagine that...
He's not interested in discussion.
Depends on what you define as "discussion." Calling me names like "anti-science, anti-choice, racist, Nazi, closed-minded piece of shit fundy" (not a direct quote, that, but a conglomeration of quotes) is not discussion. A lot of you seem to think it is, though. Odd. Anyway, comments like that are deleted instead of approved.
I suppose that was obvious, but I just wanted to provide some more evidence.
Except that your "evidence" is false and your assertion is debunked.
nano,
This is ridiculous.
What would ever give you that impression? Just because I didn't see any value in your arguments. Please show any place where I showed any dislike in my comments?
This is the kind of invalid argument people with no real argument thrust forward.
Who said they weren't? But you refuse to accept that all accept at least some irrational premises. Why can't you accept this simple fact. It doesn't make them wholly irrational.
Lefty Lefty..............your an idiot.
then this irrational screed:
He hasn't really said anything. I haven't insulted anyone. I simply said he hadn't backed up his point. I guess some folks really do feel persecuted alot.
I didn't attack nano, I don't even know nano. But you have attacked me.
Failure of someone to read your birth certificate doesn't mean it's contrary. Also we could still date you. But this is a stupid tangent.
JCMH or whatever.
You do delete perfectly rational posts. You deleted one of mine. It had nothign insulting in it whatsoever. What I don't undertand is your hypocrisy. You post crap post after crap post and it's allowed to stand here but delete on your own blog.
Pure hypocrite.
Uber, it wasn't directed at you, it was directed at PZ.
Some of what you have responded with was respectful.
On the other hand, read your last post. You first call Lefty and idiot, then you say you haven't insulted anyone.
It appears lefty can't either read or comprehend. Rather than prove a case he acts like a moron. Don't you understand it's about the argument. If can refute it, do it. Otherwise you seem awful angry.
No I said I didn't insult you.
He missread everything I had written and then made some incoherent comment about the right wing. It semed the only response that made sense.
Now how respectful are you being to PZ by saying he is wrong and addressing him with such weak statements. Respect matters in more than just tone.
That was hilarious. So I guess you could be from the future then, no way for us to determine you age. You completely missed the point.
Actually this is a fairly good illustration of the value of science. Using the scientific method we can get pretty close to your real age.
But if you told us you where born 300 in the future we could take it on faith. Or if you told us you where born on a certain date minus corraboration.
Uber, I'll copy and paste from your post
"I haven't insulted anyone."
ok, my first post indicated that I think PZ is wrong about a couple things. Such as:
Ministers preaching about the Bible are lying
Christians can't think for themselves.
And I finished with saying that I don't know why he dislikes Christians so much.
Maybe saying he is wrong is disrespectful. But we've all done that, haven't we? In either case, it wasn't meant to be disrespectful, and what few of you seem to have realized is that we agree more than we disagree. My first post reads, "I am a physicist, and (it seems) most of us are athiests."
Believe (or don't believe) whatever you want, I just think it's wrong for PZ to show such disregard for Christians, simply because they believe in God, and we don't.
nano,
your correct. But look where it was. It was in the post I called him an idiot in. So after the fact, meaning he said I had before I did.
He doesn't show disregard for Christians, rather the belief system. There is a difference.
Christians can't think for themselves.
Of course they can, but they often don't or at least some don't carry CT skills they use in every other aspect of life over to this area.
nano, you're just not making any sense to anybody. Every single one of us in the US or Europe talks with christians every day. I don't hate them, and I don't think anyone else who's been blogging here does either. (What some of them might hate is religion itself and the people who use it to persecute other people, but that's a different topic.)
But there's only one standard for evidence. Usually when christians say this kind of thing, in my experience, they're thinking of personal revelation or premonitions or something like that. We all know the problems with this kind of evidence. I've talked to plenty of christians, and I've never been given any kind of evidence that was worthwhile - in fact, many christians will tell you that there is no such evidence, they believe it on faith, which is probably a more honest answer.
I think faith of this kind is morally wrong. Whatever you think of that statement, once a person has abandoned reason for faith in one place opens the door for them to abandon reason elsewhere. Hence intelligent design, etc. The less faith a religious person uses, the more reasonable they are. Religious scientists are pretty good at this, regulating their faith to personal matters and sunday mornings. But it still makes them a little less than they could be, and it's sad to see.
Really? Here's a sampling of PZ's non-hatred.
>The death cult flourishes in its denial of reality. The fleecing continues.
>It's a culture that rewards the most extravagant of extortionists.
>The rot rises rapidly to the top.
>This is a system where the worst represent all, the takers and liars and vermin reap the rewards...
These are things appearing in PZ's original post, which is what I've been talking about. If these statements don't indicate to you a hatred toward Christians, I would be surprised.
And (most of) the rest of you, when I suggested this, defended PZ, as if there is nothing wrong with what he was saying.
Imagine if he was saying the same things against Muslims, or Hindus.
Outrage would have been the response.
I think I insulted Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Haggard, Bakker, and Roberts. Unless you're a televangelist or other evil church leader, you're off the hook.
I don't dislike Christians (Hi, Mom! Hi, Caryn and Tomi! (my mother and sisters, by the way)). I think most Christians are good people; I also suspect that they don't think very deeply about their religion, caring more for the emotional and community aspects of church. That's OK. Of course, that means religion belongs more in the personal domain, and ought to be kept out of public policy decisions.
I absolutely detest Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever other religion you want to bring up.
Unlike far too many fervent evangelicals, I can distinguish the person from the dogma.
You can? Then you don't really think religious leaders are liars, vermin, rot?
Because it seemed like that's what you were saying.
I can only speak for myself. Some of what he said I don't agree with but he has a right to his opinion. But lets look one by one and then I'm out.
Opinion, his view. All religions are preoccupied with death. It's what empowers them. And all religions have an apparently endless need for fundage.
I agree with him here. From creationists to IDer's, faith healers, and televangelists I think he is on the money.
Speaking of the above. What else would you call thieves and in the case of IDer's and creationists either the deluded or con men.
I take this as meaning he sees most Christians as better than the supposed leaders. Again I don't see him hating Chrsitians but rather the belief system that allows the above mentioned to drag our culture and civilization towards a dark period we have left due to enlightenment.
I guess my main point is that it's very unlikely that the "religious leaders" like the pastors at my friend's church are lying to get money.
They aren't wealthy, and they never will be. It's unlikely they've gotten into the profession with that in mind, because if that was the case, I'm sure they would have quit many years ago.
The catholic church in the past has been very corrupt, and it seems like every several months some priest has molested another young boy.
However, church leaders are not as universally corrupt as you make them out to be.
Trackback:
"...the author, is so very quick to refer to Middle Easterners as "brown people" that I am stunned. I travel in diverse circles and I find that many more Liberals are willing to describe a population as "brown people" than Conservatives."
I know JMcH has been banned, but just for the record:
I left a dissenting comment on his blog, it said it was "awaiting moderation," it never appeared.
I used no personal attacks in my post; it was still deleted instead of approved.
My assertion will be debunked as soon as my comment appears on the site, and everyone can see how civil it was.
I'm not holding my breath.
So I am an "idiot" and a "moron." Hmmm. Nice people here.
To review, Uber said, in essence, that if you have a document then there is hard evidence. I demonstrated that documents can be forged and are not always evidence. JohnC thinks it "hilarious" that I thought Uber's example was bunk, but that might be because he thinks I'm a troll.
(Someone also posted that if you have an eyewitness then you have evidence. The kids who saw Our Lady of Fatima were eyewitnesses. Is that evidence?)
Then Uber says I wrote a screed. If it was 1,000 words longer it might have been a screed.
THEN he says his "only response" is to call me an idiot. Nice. And now I'm a "moron" too. (Thanks, Gh. It's all about the argument.) Since I said the anti-religion poster act callow and petty, I guess it's ok to call me and idiot and a moron. That's what you are times 10!
Now you all can write your posts about the evil and stupidity of religion and call people idiots and morons at your leisure. The fact remains that you sound dogmatic and intolerant (and petty and callow too). And that is how the Christian right sounds when their representatives say they are oppressed and that their way is the only way. Understand now?
And now, since it has been suggested that the "killfile" be used on nano (and probably me now), you continue to prove my point.
Since I started writing this, nano clarified what makes the intolerance on this site so tiresome which was then followed by Dr. Myers' response. It's an old Catholic Church dodge: "love the sinner, hate the sin." The Catholics who like to use this tool to extol the virtues of subjugating women and gays would appreciate its use here to belittle and castigate people of faith. (Faith being morally wrong. Thanks, Chuko.)
So is their any tolerance in Pharynguland for people of faith? Oops, I mean providers to the people of faith? You know, the ones who don't condone the bombing of abortion clinics, but facilitate the rebuilding of storm-ravaged houses in Mississippi and feed the poor in eastern Europe?
I prefer to call it "Zombie Day" and warn people to watch out for their brains, which one might expect to happen if the dead are to be going about rising from their graves. I also make a point to remind parents about the required lamb's blood marking their doorposts, lest their firstborn be murdered by the Angle of Death during Passover. Bizarre, scary shit really. Who needs H. P. Lovecraft when you've got a Gideon's on hand? (Which, BTW, I make a point of removing from my hotel room when I depart to use later for kindling. In Utah the hotels actually have the Book of Mor^Hmon. The very thin pages light more readily, I find, than newsprint.)
Er, the Angle of Death is surely a Right Angle. The Angel of Death, that's another matter entirely... (Sing along now: Angels watching over meeeee...)
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Why do they need to be "people of faith" or "providers for the people of faith" to do that? Why not just "providers for the people"?
I had to laugh at the Monty Python reference.
I don't really think that Lefty represents my opinions, but few people do...
As to why they can't just be providers? I probably could have helped out (more than just donating food, clothing, etc), and I suspect many of you could have as well, but the only (non-governmental) people who actually went overseas, or down south, were Christians.
I guess something in their faith encourages being "providers".
the only (non-governmental) people who actually went overseas, or down south, were Christians.
Really? And you know this how, again?
I guess something in their faith encourages being "providers".
My Cambodian teacher preferred the term "vultures" for those missionaries who went to his refugee camp and offered food aid in return for conversion to Christianity.
You say "potato", he says "po-tah-to", I guess.
Never meant to imply that I was representing nano. And windy has a good question. you could ask them, but they aren't welcome around these parts.
And I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wipers. I fart in your general direction. Your mothers were hamsters and your fathers smelt of elderberries.
JMcH has not been banned. I don't ban people for stupidity or being wrong or being conservative...but I repeat myself.
I am tolerant to a fault for people of faith. I think they should be allowed to practice their beliefs and express them as they will, with no restrictions at all.
I just have no respect at all for faith.
I misspoke in my last post.
I meant to say
MOST people who actually went overseas, or down south, were Christians.
How do I know this?
I don't know, that's why I used the word 'suspect'.
Why do I suspect that it's true?
From observation. The only people that I know who went there are Christians.
I really didn't expect anyone to take offense to that statement...
Also, none of the missionaries that I know would refuse to help the people in need, no matter what that person thought about religion.
I do know that it's possible for this to happens, and it pisses me off, but I do think it's rare. (Just like plane crashes, when it happens, we all hear about it)
PZ: I am tolerant to a fault for people of faith.
I went back and read your remarks on this page, and you know what?
I think maybe you are tolerant (maybe not 'to a fault', but tolerant). It just seemed like you weren't because of "Easter Mourning", and the other (less tolerant) people here who were speaking on your behalf.
The Falwells, Haggards, Robertsons, etc. of the world indeed paint a fairly negative picture of what Christianity is all about.
However, they are not representative, and some of your family (hopefully) are an indication.
PZ, I am offended by your implication in your 3rd sentence. In our household there is no facade about chocolate eggs. We love chocolate deeply and consume it with reverence. For us, it is the point of Easter. I mean those cocoa beans died for us! So no more aspersions on chocolate please.
As an aside - my 4 year old has a charming and fun belief in the Easter Bunny. She managed to rationalise how s/he found us at the campsite rather than at home. And will grow out of this belief as the facts don't support it. Like her siblings who love fun but for whom any religious story has no relevance whatsoever (but who love any excuse for a holiday and chocolate!). I wish some others would learn to test belief against facts and put aside the religious fantasy.
Um... Nano... Most of the people in our country are Christians. You'd expect them to make up the majority of people doing charity work, even if the average Christian was signifigantly LESS likely to volunteer then the average Atheist.
What you say demonstrates nothing.
Oops, I skimmed and misunderstood the "killfile" post. How delightful!
Anyone who doubts that Christianity is still the predominate religion in this county should try to go shopping on Easter Sunday.
Well, I know more athiests than Christians (I am a graduate student in physics, so most of my peers are athiest, or agnostic), and so if the ratio (of volunteers to non-volunteers) from each group were similar, wouldn't it be likely that I would know at least one athiest that volunteered? I don't, but I know many Christians.
All I was trying to say was that there is something that Christianity teaches that makes Christians want to help people.
I'm not saying Christians are better people, I would be cutting myself down if I did.
That's nice, although one thing that always makes me suspicious of how well they actually know any atheists is when they consistently mispell "atheist".
Also, atheists tend to be solitary -- they don't have that handy-dandy built-in social organization. When atheists do charitable things, they tend to simply do them, without any of the congratulatory fanfare that comes with doing it in the church group. I don't know that there is actually any difference between believers and unbelievers, but one thing that might account for it is the reward of the community. It is also the same thing that rewards religious conservatives for odious things, like hating gays and marching on Planned Parenthood clinics.
The way to teach people to help others is to teach them to help others. No religion required.
Those people who think their religion is the baseline requirement for being good miss the point of being good. It's not all about YOU, or your religion.
I know plenty of nice Christians. I know some truly wonderful atheists. I even have Jewish and Muslim friends and neighbors.
I've observed that there is an inverse relationship between the depth of religiosity and "niceness." Re: the guy who spoke of his Christian college prof friends: I'm betting they are at the far end of the Christian spectrum from the fundamentalists.
The people who have a light dose of religion are always the nicest ones. Those who are most deeply religious can be anywhere from arrogant and vicious to sweetly creepy.
Atheists and agnostics, on the other hand, are generally very easy people to be around.
Well, since we're relying on anecdotal data, I'm a grad student in a biomedical discipline, and I know a lot of non-religious who volunteer abroad medically. Perhaps your experience only speaks to how likely physics students are to volunteer, not the non-religious in general. But I do know a lot of people who volunteer with secular non-governmental organizations like Doctors without Borders, and because they don't blow their own horns about it, perhaps they're not on your radar. And I know some Christians who are like that too--they volunteer because they want to help people, and they don't trumpet their religious affiliation while doing it.
But because the only helpers you know about happen to be Christians, it's not possible to infer from that non-representative sample that non-Christian helpers don't exist, or even that they aren't in the majority. Overinference from selective sampling of this type, and the resultant circular reasoning is what I find irritating.
And while neither of us has any hard data about how much religious coercion actually went on in the refugee camps, I do have a proxy indicator--when I speak Cambodian (Khmer) to strangers, they tend to assume that I am a missionary, and that therefore I have an ulterior motive in learning to speak Khmer. When they figure out that I don't have an ulterior motive, but just like the language and the culture, they seem somewhat surprised. The fact that so many people have this reaction suggests that the idea of missionaries learning Cambodian for the purpose of leveraging their culture's pain was not an isolated phenomenon.
Sorry this is so long, but...
OK, here is the real story and the whole point of Easter from a christian perspective.
Jesus was crucified on Friday. Later that evening, his body was taken to the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea(sp?), where his body was to be prepared for proper jewish burial, but... they ran out of time, because the sabbath day was approaching(Saturday), so by jewish law they had to stop all labors, so they had to wait until Sunday to finish. That morning a group of three women went to finish the job of annointing the body, and found the tomb open, the guards asleep and a man standing outside the tomb telling the ladies that the body of jesus was no longer there, because he had risen from the dead.
I will take a pause in the story at this point to talk about the validity of the Bible, because as I am typing this I can actually hear the critics saying "the bible is a load of crap anyway, why should we take the mythical stories of the bible and consider them fact?" Well I am not going to go into the entire arguement of why I believe the bible to be historically accurate, but suffice it to say that, when put to the standards of any other historical documents, the bible texts are considered to be accurate by scholars worldwide, for the complete arguement, check out "The Case for Christ" which was mentioned earlier, it is terribly biased and has no real debate, pretty quick read though, and lots of good background info.
Anyway, at that point the three ladies assumed the worst, didn't believe the story and asked who stole the body, then they went into the tomb saw that the burial linens were still intact and exited the tomb realized the truth and ran to town to tell the apostles the story, they didn't believe it either, so they ran to check it out found the tomb empty and ran back to their hideout. Jesus met them their later and showed them the nail holes and the cut in his side where he had been speared. At this point they all believed.
So, what is the point?
Until that time to have your sins forgiven you had to go to the temple, pay off the high priest, sacrifice a proper animal, and ask the priest to ask God to forgive you. God came to earth in the form of man to bridge the gap between earth and heaven, so that mankind would learn that the priests were not needed in this equation. That anyone could speak directly to God at any time and any place.
So, why was his death such a big deal?
The blood sacrifice had to be made. So, God allowed his son to be sacrificed for the sake of all mankind for the rest of time. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, a pure lamb, metaphorically speaking. Jesus was a man who knew no sin, he was perfect, he never commited any wrong in any way, completely pure. Nevertheless, he was God and had no problem saying it, so he was brought to Pilate and the priests asked for his death, it was not granted, pilate said Jesus had done nothing wrong and he would not convict him, but to shut them up he had him whipped within an inch of his life and presented him to the priests and said, here you go is that good enough? It was not, they still wanted death, so Pilate came up with a plan to cover his butt and make everybody happy, it was custom to allow one convicted prisoner to be set free in celebration of Passover, so he got the worst guy he could find, Barabas. He then presented them to the crowd and said he would release one of the two, Barabas, a convicted murderer, a hated man, a condemned man. Or, Jesus the man who had done nothing wrong. They went for Jesus anyway. The priest were very influential. So he was sent to be crucified. He recieved a death sentence for doing nothing wrong.
His death gave us eternal life. All we have to do is believe and we will spend eternity in paradise. But, we are not "Gods' Playthings" we were created to glorify God, that is why we exist in the first place. Our point is to praise God, but in His mercy he gives us all the choice to do whatever we want, so, if we would choose not to accept God as Father and Jesus as Savior, then we will never know the third part of God which is the Holy Spirit, which is basically our ticket into heaven. Without the Holy Spirit, I am sorry to say you will spend eternity seperated from God, which may not seem like a big deal to you right now, but there is a reason its called hell. You may remember even satan himself doesn't want to be there. He was condemned to hell for trying to take over heaven, he is just trying to take as many with him as possible to share his misery. Now I am not saying that I believe hell to be a place where you get tortured for eternity in a fiery oven, but hell is to be seperated from God, and no one will know how bad that is until they are there.
So, if any of you can believe any of this, there is still hope for you. It is your choice to do what you want with this information. If you believe it, praise God, pray to Him right now and accept Jesus as your savior, and get your ticket to paradise. If you don't believe, feel free to rip on what I have said, I will respond to it as best as I can, I like debating, and I would be happy to do so.
In case you are wondering, I am not a theologian, I am not a priest, or a minister by trade. I work in retail. I am a christian and I believe all this crazy stuff. So... now it's your turn.
But, we are not "Gods' Playthings" we were created to glorify God, that is why we exist in the first place.
Uh... this is like saying "my Volkswagen isn't my driving machine, it was just created to get me places." A self-contradiction no matter what words you choose.
Whether this putative God has a sense of play about it is beside the point. Your belief system still requires you to accept that we are fundamentally the instrumentalities of a will that is not our own--and that if we do not bend to that will, we'll "catch hell" for it.
How is this different from the abused child who was, essentially, created to be abused unless they "play the game" and give the abusive parent everything she or he wants, under threat of severe punishment?
Do you dig that? Do you enjoy being created just for someone else's pleasure? Do you like being loved just because you're ultimately one of a number of props needed to make the whole celestial one-man show go off with all the razzle-dazzle He could muster?
Perhaps that's really the way it is--after all, I can't screw the lid off the top of the universe and look inside for the ultimate answer--but even if it is, mustering up love and devotion for someone who created me just to be a sycophantic mirror is a little tough. Has been ever since this dawned on me at about 17, but that's another story for another time.
--pr
Your story still makes no sense. He was God? Then how was he "killed"?
Really. I'm an American, raised as a Christian, and I am thoroughly familiar with the story. You didn't need to recite it again, and you added nothing to explain the nonsensical claims Christians make for this myth.
As for this "Bible" you cite as an authority, you need to take Father Dan's Easter Quiz. Get back to me with your score.
wow. 170 comments. is that some kind of record? if not, how about measured comments per day or something?
or how about another perverse example, kind of like that link to the eastern European church built in part of human skeletons which was some place on the old Pharyngula: a Bible bound in human skin. it's French, and dates from the 13th century. see
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510994
Sympathy for the devil? That sounds like Satan in the South Park movie, just lonely ;-)
Well, if most of us nasty sceptical scientists are headed for hell anyway, perhaps we can combine our powers and try to raise the standard of 'living' over there. Maybe we'll even give that revolution thingy another shot. Vive la résistance!
Scenario #1:
Christians are right, we get judged, most burn.
Scenario #2:
Christians are wrong, we all die. Game over.
Don't you think that christians hav it better off.
Don't try the "won't you be mad once you realize God didn't exist?" because i will be dead if that is the fact, and would be incapable of processing thought, let alone anger.
Scenario #3: Muslims are right.
Scenario #4: Hindus are right.
etc....
Scenario #10210: I am God, everyone should be really nice to me in this lifetime, or you will all burn afterwards.
Under all these scenarios, won't you be sorry if you thought scenario #1 was right!
wow. 170 comments. is that some kind of record? if not, how about measured comments per day or something?
One thread on the old site got more than 500 comments, somehow.
According to Judges 1:19, all you need are chariots of iron to defeat the Lord.
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
I never did understand how Christians could be so sure of themselves. I mean every day they have to avoid the many contradictions in the bible and change everything to fit their needs. I always thought it was very strange that their forgiving and merciful God would send more than half the world to Hell simply because they are not christians. And even if they stay true to their religion; who are they to condemn someone else? They have no right to determine what is right and wrong. If they could just open their minds. We should all be true to ourselves and be open to the world, we do not get to live here long. We should all live in the moment and worry about heaven when we get there.
According to Judges 1:19, all you need are chariots of iron to defeat the Lord.
Chariots of iron... Nails of iron... It's like kryptonite!
I am not attempting to pass judgement on anyone, that is not my place. I am telling you what the criteria is to avoid going to hell. I didn't make the rules, I am just here to pass along the information given to me. The biggest overall question I can get out of this crew is: How can the Bible be trusted if it constantly contridicts itself? I admit, it does give several different viewpoints of the same events. Which one is right, I don't know, and I am not sure that it really even matters. Who was the first person at the tomb on the first Easter morning? Not positive. Does it really make that much difference? No. The point is the tomb was visited, and Jesus was not there.
Look at it this way, if all 4 accounts of the story of Jesus were exactly the same in every detail, they would criticized because they were too much alike and therefore they would have had to have been changed before added to the Bible. In my opinion their differences make them more believable. When the Bible was put together in the form is in today, the "editors" felt they were all trustworthy enough to put in. In addition to that, many of the original documents found date back to within a generation of the actual events, yet there is no historical evidence that anyone had a problem with what they said. Don't you think the Jewish leaders of the time would at least make a reference somewhere about the absurdity of the claims of the scriptures?
OK, your turn.
Oh, good. Pascal's Wager rears its ugly head. (Thanks, zerf.)
Pascal (and every person who has used the argument since) forgot that believing in a fantasy has an actual day-to-day cost. Consequences in all that time BEFORE you die. So the part of the argument that goes "If I believe in my god, I will have lost nothing" is false.
Clarifying the concept:
If I believe President Bush is honest and intelligent ...
If I believe my landlord won't mind if I'm a few weeks late on the rent ...
If I believe my dog will be just fine running loose in traffic ...
If I believe my girlfriend won't get pregnant with unprotected sex ...
If I believe these new shoes will fit and be comfortable without trying them on ...
If I believe this lump in my breast is nothing important ...
If I believe the MOST IMPORTANT part of my life comes after I die ...
... I will have lost nothing.
Mistaken beliefs have real-world consequences. The impact on your life can be huge.
Joshi, I'm imagining Dear Abby handing out advice based on your reasoning:
Dear New Bride:
So what if your new husband told you five different stories about what he was doing that night he was gone til dawn and came home smelling of whiskey and perfume?
Stop being so skeptical. You're better off believing he's basically honest, and that it was a perfectly innocent night out with the guys.
So if the discrepancies make you believe it more? That's like admitting the more nonsensical the tale, the more true it is. You were the one giving us the Sunday School recitation of the resurrection as if that would be enough to persuade us.
Yeah, by some mythologized accounts, the body was not there. Which was more likely: a) that someone took the body, or b) that the body came back to life and walked out of there? Keep in mind that b) has never happened in all of human history, while a) is quite common.
This is a great discussion, and I've heard a lot of opinions on both extreme ends: either the Bible's God is the only God, or there is no God at all. I take a middle road. I have the feeling that there may very well be a god, by which I mean the sum total of the forces that created the universe, existence, consciousness, etc. It just feels like there must be more than we can see and touch. And I spend a fair amount of my time searching for this god, through reading scriptures from many different religions, through meditation, and by trying to directly experience reality and truth. I have no problem with people who believe there is a god, nor with people who believe there isn't. It's their own business to believe what they want.
However, I have to sympathize with PZ's hostility toward Christianity, as it's commonly practiced. Why does it seem so hard for American Christians to understand that with the freedom to believe what they want comes the obligation to let others do the same. Someone here mentioned that they had never had a Christian actually tell them they were going to burn in hell for their beliefs. Really? It's happened to me hundreds of times! At every step of my life there has been some evangelical Christian in my face telling me that a) I'm going to hell if I don't Believe, b) that I must have no morals at all if I don't Believe, and c) that I have no business working in education if I don't Believe. I've heard Christians say that non-Christians have no right to hold public office. I've heard Christians advocate violence against people who don't Believe (bomb abortion clinics, assassinate political leaders, exterminate gays).
I think there are many of us who have no problem with religion, but Religion sure as hell seems to have a problem with us.
And JoshL's post is so classic. First, we are asked to take on faith a supernatural explanation for something that is so easily explained otherwise. Why is this necessary? Do the stories of the Bible have less meaning if they are not literally true? Does the Sermon on the Mount suddenly become meaningless nonsense if I can't be sure it actually happened? I don't think so. It's a strange kind of faith that requires proof, and a tenuous proof at that. I have faith, among other things, that there is a difference between right and wrong, that it is better to do right than to do wrong, and that there is meaning to life. This faith doesn't rely on the literal truth of the resurrection to prove itself.
And regarding the lack of early criticisms of the scriptures: First (someone help me out here), I've read about a good number of first-century writers and philosophers who considered the stories of Jesus to be recycled myth, if not outright rubbish. Jews weren't the only people in the area at the time. And second, should it be surprising that there's a scarcity of written critcism of the Bible given the complete monopoly of information the Church had in the Middle East and Europe for centuries after the Gospels were written? How many people were burned for heresy, anyway? Good way to shut people up.
JoshL,
Thank you for the Easter story. Now I have something other than my faulty memory to rely on. I mentioned these questions in an earlier post waaaaay somewhere at the top part of this thread, and I'll ask again.
I can somewhat understand why the death of Christ is supposed to be so important, but then:
(Cut and pasted from previous post)
"What's the point of the "sacrifice for man's/humanity's sins" if Jesus came back to life shortly afterwards anyway? What, did he get a refund? (!! That would actually explain a lot of stuff.)
And why didn't he stick around to further spread his soul-saving teachings himself? Where did he actually go after the resurrection? What about his second this-worldly death? Or is he still walking around in the flesh some place even to this day?
Basically, why bother with resurrecting yourself if you are [A] not going to do anything further in the living world anyway, and/or [B] you are (or are a part of) God, who (from what I can tell) is the being us mortals may meet in person only once we die? No need to come back to life to be with (or merge back with) God, is there?"
I have to say that I am really enjoying this debate, but I must admit your questions are a bit out of my league, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a theologian, or an ordained minister of any kind, I don't pretend to know the mind of God, and I don't always understand His intentions, I have a simple faith, but a strong one. So, if I don't give you the answers you want I apologize for my ineptitude, but I will consult better sources to furthur my arguement.
In reference to PZs' most recent post, I think I mentioned earlier that I am not trying to persuade you, I am just passing on the information. I don't know you, therefore the only concern I have for your well-being is my God given commission to save the lost. But, since you feel you are not lost, and assume I am a naive Sunday School boy, I don't pretend that I could ever change your mind, but hey, maybe if I babble on long enough maybe someone else will believe it, or maybe even you. Because I, like yourself, am pretty stubborn about my stance on this matter, and I, like yourself, have no intention of ever changing my mind, because I, like yourself, know I am right.
And back to the discrepancies of the Bible, I guess a better way to phrase that would have been, in reference to historical document, the fact that all the accounts differ give them more credibility than if they were all exactly the same.
Now for the "myth" of the ressurection. You do agree then that Jesus did exist, and that he was crucified, and that his body did come up missing a few days later. So, why do I believe that he was raised and not stolen? There are a few good reasons, the most obvious is that He is the Son of God and he can do whatever He wants, but realizing that wont cut it with this crew, I will give the best reason I know of. The tomb was being guarded by roman soldiers who for some reason seemed to have fallen asleep. The roman government was trying to prevent an uprising, and knew that it was prophecied that the Messiah would raise from the dead on the third day, so they posted guards to ensure that no one would steel the body. What do you think the penalty would be for a roman soldier who fell asleep? How well would you sleep if a group of guys started moving a really, really big rock, that you were probably propped up against?
Regarding your comment that it's more logical that the body was stolen because no one has ever walked out of a grave before, that is not true either, it was in fact done just about a year earlier than Jesus, when Lazarus did the very same thing.
Your turn again... lets keep this going, I am having fun.
Oh, come on.
I do not agree that Jesus existed. There were lots of 'prophets' wandering around, he could easily have been a composite.
The detail of a Roman guard? Unsupported by any evidence. He was a dead rabble rouser. I can't quite imagine anyone feeling a need to guard a corpse.
Your logic is execrable. Why do you believe he was raised but not stolen? Because he was the Son of God! Why do you believe he was the Son of God? Because he came back from the dead.
Keep going. You're doing a great job witnessing for atheism.
How to know when your religion is a fabrication:
* When your omnipotent deity, for some reason, relies heavily on fallible human followers to perform physical actions.
* When the natural events that you attribute to your deity affect believers and unbelievers alike without discernable favour.
* When you know it must be true because of all those other intelligent people who believe it.
* When you interpret people's dismissive reaction to it as being proof that you're onto something.
* When the only way you can understand modern science is to assume all scientists are conspiring against your deity.
* When the only way you can understand other religions is to assume that a malevolent entity is blinding or influencing their followers.
* When the only place you need to look to improve your understanding is within your religion's published literature.
* When you know that scholars who share your religion are inherently more trustworthy than other scholars.
* When you think that a few provably true statements in its teachings validate the rest.
* When your unchanging deity, on record as having demanded complete slaughter of an unbelieving tribe (including babies) is your definition of love, mercy, and justice.
* When the other religions are based on stuff made up by people, but yours is based on divinely inspired teaching delivered through divinely selected prophets.
* When there are definitely no inconsistencies in it, but it does have difficult issues that are beyond mere human understanding.
* When you know that its teachings were misapplied in the past with horrible consequences, but believe that your current interpretations and their social implications are correct.
* When figures claiming to speak for your religion express foolish and intolerant views, but you won't publicly denounce them for fear of either (a) presenting a divided view, or (b) being seen as having less faith or piety.
* When it teaches you to ascribe all happy experiences to your deity, and all unhappy experiences to other sources.
* When any good you do is merely an expression of your deity's goodness, but any evil you do is of your own sinful nature.
* When speaking against it would break your relationship with your parents.
* When it tries to make you happy about a loved one's death.
If any of the above signs are evident in your religion, seek advice from a freethinker.
JoshL,
Nice Easter story, but can you answer Dan Barker's Easter Challenge?
Judas, your link has no address. I guess you meant Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.
I'm getting so sick of this! (Not on the thread, in daily life.)
I try to be calm, understanding, and reasoning, patiently giving responses to these stupid arguments from Christians, because I think it's the best way to represent pro-reality.
I've been told more times in this week, "I'm not trying to convince you of anything..." For god's sake, it's you christians who are completely closed to any kind of argument refuting your beliefs. Is what you believe so unlikely that you can't listen to reason? (The answer here is yes.)
The evidence for the easter story: four accounts, written fifty to a hundred years after the event that have contradictions and very different points of view. A paragraph in Josephus that just mentions Jesus, most likely inserted by later copyists. That's it. Is that enough to believe in someone coming back from the dead? Someone being the son of god (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anyway)?
We are, at least for now, at a bit of a stalemate. My best source for this debate is the Bible, and you don't believe it anyway, so I am doing some investigating, and hopefully I can come up with some good info in other sources that you can find credible.
The only other source I have at this point is my life experience. I can give you personal accounts of what my faith has done for me and my family. And the tremendous things that I have witnessed, that can only be attributed to God, but, you would not believe me anyway. At this point, the best response I could hope to get from you would be to call me a liar, or just to say "so what, that's nothing."
So, I will continue to post. I admit, I am losing this debate at the moment, but I am optimistic. In addition, if there happen to be any christians reading this, please post, I could use some people on my side.
JoshL,
Reading is a great way to procede. Reading and questioning. Also make sure you not only look for material that supports your point of view, but material that disputes it (and not just what a Christian bookshop is prepared to stock). If you treat this as an argument and only look for support, you'll subject yourself to the same cumulative confirmation bias that has locked intelligent Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, Raëlians [... insert any religion here] into believing that they have rock solid evidence supporting their faiths.
I believe you when you mention tremendous things that you can only attribute to God. I remember events in my own life that I could only atribute to God at the time.
I wish you courage in your investigations.
I found a couple of tidbits concerning the existence of Jesus. Before we start debating the beliefs, lets start by proving the guy existed in the first place.
This is from a Roman historian named Tacitus, writing between 115-117 A.D.
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."
I admit, he does not speak highly of christianity, he was a pagan, so why should he. The point is he does not dispute that there was a man named Jesus, who was crucified by Pilate.
Jesus is also mentioned in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. This period begins within 40 years of Jesus resurrection.
"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."
So, you tell me. Does this not prove that a man named Jesus did exist? And remember, we are not argueing religion yet, I am trying to prove the historical existance of a man named Jesus who was crucified.
No, it doesn't come anywhere near proving that a man named Jesus existed. In fact, you'll note that Tacitus doesn't even mention the name "Jesus", but refers to him as "Christus" or "Chrestus"--anointed one. Since Tacitus wasn't even born until 56CE and was researching the issue at a time when the Christian cult was well established, one has to question where Tacitus got his information, and how much of that information had been influenced by current beliefs rather than observation and accurate records. We can say that Tacitus believed there was a real person "Christus", and that Tacitus was a generally reliable historian.
However, even with the above doubts, it's my opinion that the simplest and most consistent explanation for the historical records we have today is that Jesus was a man and he was put to death by the Romans.
BTW, there is a reasonably detailed analysis of the historicity of Jesus by Jeffery Jay Lowder
Thank you Virge, for helping to continue the debate, but before I go on, I really want to get PZ back into the game, he was the one that started the whole thing anyway.
I also must agree with you on the point that Tacitus never mentions the name Jesus. I have a built in part of my brain that automatically associates Christ with Jesus. That was my shortcoming. So until PZ responds, I will continue to do my homework.
You're waiting for me? Why?
The historical evidence for this jesus character is weak. I have no problem believing a Jewish prophet named Jesus was wandering around the shores of Galilee 2000 years ago, but demonstrating that unexceptional hypothesis does not bring you one step closer to justifying your belief that a god was prancing about on the beach in those days, or that this bizarre death-rebirth claim has any legitimate relevance to what I do on my Sunday mornings.
As you've admitted, your 'evidence' is entirely unconvincing to anyone who hasn't already bought into your premises. Instead of asking why we don't believe it, you ought to be wondering why you believe this load of unjustifiable BS.
PZ,
I need clarification from you. You have just posted that you "have no problem believing a Jewish prophet named Jesus was wandering around the shores of Galilee 2000 years ago," and three days ago you posted "I do not agree that Jesus existed. There were lots of 'prophets' wandering around, he could easily have been a composite." If you keep changing your mind that fast, you'll be a Christian Missionary in Africa before the end of summer.
I am searching right now for credible sources other than the Bible for the existance of Jesus, but if you are willing to admit that He existed, I will move on. I am not trying to make anyone angry, or even to change your mind. I am trying to debate the existence of Jesus, the validity of the Bible, and the truth of Christianity and faith.
Niether one of us has any evidence to actually prove anything. I cannot prove that Jesus existed because I have no physical evidence, you cannot prove that He didn't. All either of us can do is try to give evidence that we are right.
All you have said to this point is that everyone who does not agree with you is wrong, and that all our evidence is nothing but lies. So, what is your evidence that you are right? Or are you going to stand by the "liar, liar, pants on fire" premise.
Good grief JoshL. He is not asserting anything. How is that hard to understand. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.............you.
He said he could buy into Jesus existing but doesn't find it compelling evidence.
The rest of what your offering are faith issues and for that you have no more evidence than a muslim, pagan, hindu, buddist, or whatever sect you wish to name. Accept this and move on.
I also expect that there were carpenters named Joseph living in that area two thousand years ago, and there were soldiers named Gaius, and there were priests named Levi. That's a general acceptance of a common property—I'd be silly to insist that there was no one named Jesus who was active in the Jewish religion back then.
What I don't agree with is that this specific mythological character Jesus, who clearly is a legend bearing the full freight of generations of accreted tall tales, was real as described in current religious dogma. Preacher guy, yes: god walking the earth, no.
Fair enough. Then jump back to the historical reference made earlier about the man named Jesus who was crucified.
I am interested in your opinion of THIS Jesus.
I will also bring up Josephus at this point, with whom I am sure you are familiar, who wrote:
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure....And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time"
Yes, I'm familiar with Josephus. He was writing late in the first century, well after the death of Jesus, was reporting on the beliefs of Christians, and that text is mostly a later insertion. The entire passage may be an early Christian fake.
I agree that Josephus is unreliable, that is why I didn't bring him up earlier, and why I assumed you would probably already be familiar with him, but you still have not answered the question. What is your opinion on the Jesus that was crucified?
Go back up to the top.
Where could you possibly be going with this? As far as the divinity of Jesus, it hardly matters whether the paragraph was Josephus or not.
If you want to discuss the historic Jesus, you have to want to discover the truth (or at least as much of it as you can.) Would you be making this argument if you didn't already believe in divinity of Jesus for some other reason?
JoshL: Don't you think the Jewish leaders of the time would at least make a reference somewhere about the absurdity of the claims of the scriptures?
Back when my Hebrew was better, I read several versions of an ancient text known as "toldot yeshu" or "toldot yeshu hanotsri" (History of Jesus or History of Jesus the Nazerite). It's a fun story. Jesus gets his powers by entering the holy-of-holies where he learns to pronounce the "divine name" (YHWH), cuts open his leg to hide the paper he wrote it on (so he can relearn it after the lions guarding the entrance frighten the knowledge out of him), then begins his "miracle-working." A rabbi is dispatched to stop him and does this by pissing on him. Also, he is conceived by Mary after she runs off with Joseph Pantera--he's known as "Yeshu the bastard." There are more--it's been ten years since I read it.
The point is that there are indeed other "witnesses" that tell entirely different stories about Jesus--there were even more than 30 gospels around the time that Iranaeus chose the four that are part of the NT today. The obvious conslusion is that there were many Jesuses (and even more "Christs") during those first 300 years since the alleged nativity and that our present "Jesus Christ" is simply a composite character, probably chosen by Constantine/Eusebius to maximize their control over the "sheep."
Regardless of how many Jesuses there have been or will be, I am focusing specifically on the Jesus that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This historically documented fact is what I am interested in at this point. The Jesus that was crucified between 30-40AD. The Jesus that is mentioned in the historical records that I have quoted. My big question is this: If there was nothing significant about this particular Jesus, if he were just another prophet, or even a composite of lots of prophets, why is His name mentioned in non-christian historical documents?
To quote PZ:
A particularly callous sort of torture... a lazy and evil form of punishment that could be carried out en masse... The Roman Empire did this to tens of thousands at once, in mass spectacles of hideous punishment. Throughout human history, people have died ghastly, lingering deaths, often at the hands of other people, and it was not ennobling, and it is usually forgotten.
So, why was this particular crucifixion not forgotten? Why do historians feel the need to mention it at all? What makes this particular man more important than the tens of thousands of others that were punished in exactly the same way? What makes this one special?
"So, why was this particular crucifixion not forgotten?"
Because a mythology was built up about it a few decades later.
Of the known accounts, the gospels were written by people who were members of the new faith, and Josephus was writing descriptively about the christians. The contemporaries obviously didn't care about it - the Romans and the Jews were both great record keepers, but there was no report from them. Unlike say, the second most influential crucifixion of all time: Spartacus, who is known from many sources.
As for later historians, it was important because of the rise and importance of christianity.
Is it too much to ask for you to think about the arguments you're making before you present them?
I will repost what I said a bit earlier.
Jesus is also mentioned in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. This period begins within 40 years of Jesus resurrection.
"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."
This is a non-christian source, speaking specifically of Jesus and his death. Not only does it give the way he was killed it also gives a date, both of which are supported in the Bible.
La de da. The Romans executed people in this way by the tens of thousands. Palestine was a hotbed of warring religions and rabble-rousing priests. Second hand accounts that talk about some guy getting executed mean nothing.
I can find lots of documentation to prove my father existed. That doesn't mean that my claim that he was Tarzan is true.
I have said several times now, I am not trying to debate religion yet. All I am trying to establish was that there was in fact a man named Jesus that was sentenced to be crucified by Pontius Pilate.
I have given several different non-christian sources regarding the validity of this claim.
I am not asking you to accept Him as your personal Lord and Savior, I am not asking you to accept that He was the son of God, I am not asking you to accept He was a teacher, I am not even asking you to accept that he was a nice guy. As far as this debate goes HE may be Tarzan.
This is a yes or no question. According to the evidence, was there a man named Jesus that was sentenced to be crucified by Pontius Pilate?
It's a simple question.
It would be a simple question if I weren't confident that you're prepared to load a simple answer with a lot of unwarranted baggage.
Yes, I'm sure that among the many criminals and politically inconvenient people that were murdered in the ancient world, one of them was named Jesus. I do not, however, find the sources you've cited so far at all credible.
JoshL, you're displaying the confirmation bias I mentioned earlier. Look again at the Mishnah quote. Why is it that you focus on the parts that confirm what you believe, but you ignore :
1. "led out for stoning" - which doesn't match but I guess we'll put it down to being a quote from the law since they mention "hanging" later, which still doesn't match, or are we having translation difficulties here? I thought there was a difference. Judas is supposed to have hanged himself. I guess that wasn't with hammer and nails.
2. "practiced sorcery" - which you can easily put aside as Jewish politics, but if so, you've got to be prepared to interpret Christian writings as having serious political bias.
3. "hanged on Passover Eve" - but, hang on, didn't the Jesus of the gospels share the Passover feast with his disciples, and didn't Peter deny Jesus during Jesus trial, immediately followed by the cock crowing? Surely this "reliable" historic record must have meant to say the day after the Passover. Or are we prepared to accept the more reasonable explanation that the Christian cult was a pain in the Jewish butt and the facts of any crucifixion had been "painted over" many times by the Christian PR machine? You keep mentioning that these writings could be as early as 40 years (and 40 years is a loooong time in politics) after the alleged ressurection, but I'd expect it was more likely they were documented much later as a PR response to what the booming Christian cult had been writing and circulating.
Look at he language in that Mishnah quote. Look at the references to "Forty days", "herald cried", "led Israel astray". Why would they distort what the Christians claimed and move the death to being on Passover Eve? Because they wanted the poetic resonance with the action of the angel of death in their old Egyptian escape myth. That's pure politics, not history.
When you take a piece of writing and lock onto the points that support your argument while ignoring the inconsistencies and the political bias of the source, you're misleading yourself.
you guys are reading WAY to much into my intentions here. I am not trying to make a huge point with this, there is no hidden agenda. It just becomes rather pointless to continue on any further with this debate unless you are convinced that there was a historical figure named Jesus. The same Jesus that christianity is based on. The fact that he existed does nothing for my arguement other than give it a point to exist in the first place. Trust me, if you say there was a Jesus, I am not going to jump back in and say "HA!, see you do believe in God!" It's just a basis for the debate. If you still do not believe that Jesus existed in the first place, I could eventually be making some progress in proving a point and then the whole thing gets torn down, when you say "there was no Jesus in the first place, so you have no arguement." So, I am trying to establish that there was a man named Jesus, He was alive and well at the beginning of the Common Era, and he was sentenced to death. That's all. Does he exist, or do I continue to try and prove it. Your call.
And by the way, chuko, Spartacus was not crucified. He was presumed to have died in battle in Southern Italy in 71BC, but his body was never found. The 6000 slaves that Crassus captured as a result of this battle were crucified, but no historian claims that Spartacus was among them.
But, chuko, I did look up the movie Spartacus, starring Kirk Douglas. And apparently he was crucified in the film, so maybe I am wrong.
You can see why you'll have a problem establishing that level of proof, JoshL. Any non-Christian writings you find that date to forty years or more after "Jesus" will generally only confirm that there was a growing Christian cult and that they believed their own texts--no surprises there.
That does make it hard to get past square 1.
At this stage, I'd encourage you to find a devout, intelligent follower of another religion (one that doesn't treat Jesus as God) and ask about their reasons for believing. Find out about the things in their life that have confirmed their beliefs beyond reasonable doubt. Christianity doesn't hold the copyright on "miraculously" changed lives. If you can't find a person like that, then try reading the apologetic material from another faith. It helps to put Christian apologetics into perspective.
keep in mind the sources I have listed are non-christian. One of them is actually very negatively speaking of christianity and yet it still refers to Christ, which would at least prove that there was one man that started it, even if it is not Jesus, the other 2 specifically mention the name of Jesus. All three are referencing the same man that started the "cult." All I am trying to do at this point is establish that this one man was where it all started.
JoshL: "which would at least prove that there was one man that started it"
I think you're using a different definition of the word "prove", JoshL. All we've got to work on suggests that it is a reasonable, credible claim that there was one real person called Jesus whose life and teachings were developed into the Christian religion.
To the best of my knowledge there is no conclusively reliable non-Christian account that one could call "proof". The discipline of history wasn't what it is now; historians like Tacitus didn't even take the trouble to quote sources. Unless somebody unearths some more detailed and reliable sources--ones from the 0-40 CE period--then you'll have to make do with what we have.
Socrates (470 -- 399 BCE) never wrote anything down. All we have of him came from his contemporaries (students, friends, enemies). The evidence that Socrates existed as a single real person is stronger than that of Jesus.
In your first step of the argument, what you have so far is a resonable claim that fits the available evidence. Putting the word "established" next to it is not yet justified by evidence. Putting the word "proof" anywhere near it is fantasy.
Obviously you have done this more often than myself, but I am still doing my homework so don't assume I am going to give up yet. I am just going to have to figure out another way to get this going. I will probably try to find some way to establish credibility of some christian sources.
Did PZ give up on us?
PZ reads the comments. His last remark suggests the ball is still in your court: "I do not, however, find the sources you've cited so far at all credible."
I wouldn't expect him to respond further until someone presents better evidence or a completely different line of argument.