Butch (my nearly perfect husband) and I have been having discussions lately about what the default is for people. Are we naturally atheistic or if we were raised without indoctrination would we still create a god?
Butch feels strongly that humans are atheists by default. We must be indoctrinated by authority figures to turn us into creatures bowing to invisible gods we created to have dominion over us.I’m kind of up in the air. Here are some recent studies and ideas I’ve talked about recently that show how the religious and the non-believer use their brains differently:
- Church: No brain activity required- study showed how experiencing transcendence basically shut down the right parietal lobe.
- More differences in the brains of believers and non-believers: A recent study that found religious people were less anxious about mistakes they made than non-believers.
- Knowledge and Beliefs are stored differently in the brain: this wasn’t a specific study. Dr. Steven Novella mentioned it in passing on his podcast.
- Religion is the path of least resistance: This was about an article in New Scientist where people are born believers. I strongly suspect the way they conducted the studies mentioned.
- Superstitious? It could be your lack of control: This was a neat study about people who were basically put into a situation where they felt a lack of control found patterns more readily in random information.
The more I talk to Butch about this topic, and the more I think about it, the more I agree with him. Although of course it would be nice if we could do some studies that would show some evidence. I don’t think that kind of research could ever really be done though.
I have several ideas:
- If you could somehow raise a child in this world without indoctrination but with full exposure to the wonders and structures of science, teach her critical thinking, and give her access to a healthy community of people who are supportive… (ha.. this is getting so funny…. I’ve created Utopia!).. you get my point… I think you’d end up with a critically thinking, healthy person who would never consider creating a mysterious god to rule over her (or him).
- The very fact that we have atheists today, in growing numbers all over the planet, shows that if you take away the dogma and expose the lies and myths, some people will shrug off the mantle of religion even though in most societies, it means putting oneself outside the supposed comforts of society. It turns them into an outsider, to some degree.
- If you have a primitive society with very little control over their lives in terms of survival, exposure to the elements (weather, storms, drought, etc), food supply, etc, I think that society will create gods in almost all cases. History demonstrates this time and again, as I’m sure primitive and/or isolated societies today will also show.
- Forced atheism is not very successful, from my limited historical survey. I’m thinking of Pol Pot and Stalin. I think it drives people to search even harder for a heavenly father to save them from their suffering and persecution. It takes control of a person so fully, so that they are not even allowed to have their own thoughts, that the person would then cry out for salvation from such ill treatment and seek spiritual salvation, since they can’t have control over their physical and mental lives.
- Along that line of thinking, if a people is generally repressed, it seems that they turn to religion with zeal. Again, this is from my perspective of history. Here’s an example. Tribal wars in Africa resulted in the winning tribe selling the losers as slaves which were brought to America. These slaves embraced christianity with fervor. This makes sense because they had no control over any aspect of their lives and christianity offered them salvation for their soul, and a future (albeit after death) that was perfect and wonderful. If they couldn’t be free in this life, they still had something to look forward to after death. From what I recall of American history, slave owners encouraged christian worship by their slaves because it kept them happy and under control.
- If you raise a child in fear of an invisible god in the sky who watches him 24/7 and keeps a book of his actions, add a few other mythical beings that are even more friendly, but also require good behavior (Santa, etc), indoctrinate that child through repetitive singing of hymns, simplistic stories told over and over, repeated enforcement of those concepts, then whenever something good happens you praise the invisible god, and whenever something bad happens you blame the child and punish him for making the invisible god angry, you slowly weaken his self esteem. Not a bit of critical thinking is taught. Prayers (some morbid) are enforced and encouraged. This creates a weak-minded individual who is completely subject to mythical thinking, superstition and fanciful ideas. He has no self esteem to speak of and must continue to rely on his god delusion to sustain him and help him navigate society and life, and make decisions.
So, I think after all that, if we could raise a child without dogma or brainwashing, I think the default would be atheism. But I value your opinion. So feel free to comment and add to the discussion.
That is a very funny picture! Well, I guess it’s the comment that’s funny – nevertheless, I think that we’re all born in rebellion to the idea that we are accountable to our Creator. Atheism is just one of the many forms of that rebellion.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 12:36 am
We’re all born in rebellion? What? Being skeptical, thinking logically and rejecting fairy tales as total rubbish is not rebellious, except to the church, which is run by power hungry men who like to diddle little boys and scam money off of poor little old people.
Reply to This Comment
Well, I agree, and I don’t agree.
I agree that atheism is the default, but given the indoctrinating, religion screws it over. However, this is only true in an advanced modern society with actual scientific evidence and methods of discovery through science.
Otherwise, in the stone-age days when people do not have access to scientific inquiry, religion then is the default. Humans are predisposed to create answers to things they do not understand in an effort to understand it better (circular reasoning, anyone?). If I’m not mistaken, there are a few studies done to back this up.
So yeah, in modern times, with actual evidence, we all should otherwise be atheists without religious indoctrinating. But in the good (bad?) old days, making up stuff was all people had.
On an unrelated matter, do you twitter yet?!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hi Ann, actually I totally agree with you. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Well said!
The only point I’d add to what you said is to mention the common modern situation that exists today. Today we have societies and cultures where science is eschewed in favor of religion, but that happens after brainwashing has scrubbed away any sense of critical thinking or reason.
Otherwise, you just stated clearly what I was trying to say. Thanks!
I used to have a Twitter account but I got rid of it, as my life is exceedingly quiet. My Twitters were sparse and amazingly dull.
Reply to This Comment
Atheism is obviously the default. If god were the default why are there so many gods, (more than 2,850) and why is it that a child brought up in Iraq will likely believe in Allah while one brought up in Alabama will likely believe in God?
Plainly people are taught to believe in gods, and which god(s) they’re taught to believe in/worship is dependent on their environment and family. That people change their god allegiance and that religions recruit only further supports this reality.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 12:39 am
That’s a great point, Buffy. I wonder, though, how can it be tested and proven?
Reply to This Comment
[...] to go, Neece. I really liked your recent post. One of the more frustrating aspects of being a non-believer is being a minority: The very fact [...]
“We’re all born in rebellion? What?”
Well, if you don’t like the word rebellion, then pick a different word. Bottom line, we are repulsed by the idea that anyone but ourselves is our Master. Notice I said, “rebellion to the “idea” the concept, the thought that you might be held accountable some day to your Creator. The Church has nothing to do with this. The Church is a total screw-up.
Trying to understand where the universe came from and why it’s this universe and not another is not devolving into fairytales. Some of the brightest minds the world has ever seen have considered the Creator as a viable option. Examples?
Arthur Eddington – “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”
Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias – “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”
Physicist Freeman Dyson – ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
Stephen Hawking – “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Anthony Flew – The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.
These aren’t some religious nuts saying these things. These are hard core naturalists. Well, Anthony Flew was a hard core atheist, until he followed the evidence. Yet, yet, our “rebellion” to the idea of Creator God is such that many atheist scientists still say things like,
Astronomer Arthur Eddington – “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”
Physicist Philip Morrison – “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”
That’s all that I was trying to point out.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I am repulsed only by your cherry picking insinuations to moral superiority, which are totally unfounded, by the way.
Sure, there are scientists out there who may have personal opinions about a god of some sort. That is their personal opinion. It doesn’t make it true. I could spend the next 2 weeks culling the internet for atheism quotes from great minds and totally trump your lame handful of misquotes. Go to Positive Atheism’s list for a fairly exhaustive start: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm
There is no creator to rebel against. That’s not rebellion. You’re just delusional.
Reply to This Comment
AhTrini Reply:
March 25th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Please Richard Dawkins in “The GOD Delusional” discusses Anthony Flew, St. Aquinas et al and nothing you wrote proves that human being are born believing in a god much less religion.
“The late-in-life “conversion” of philosopher Antony Flew from atheism to belief in God has been widely reported in the media. In a recent interview with Gary Habermas, misleadingly titled “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism,” Flew explains his new position, which he identifies as deism rather than theism. Richard Carrier has also conducted a correspondence with Flew, which clarifies some of the issues.
Flew has not changed his mind on the inadequacy of the various philosophical arguments for God, which he very ably covered in his classic work, God and Philosophy. For example, he still does not buy into the moral argument, and remains unimpressed by the kalâm cosmological argument. However, he says he is impressed by recent claims that science has discovered evidence for God, although he admits to Carrier that he has not kept up with the scientific critiques of those arguments.
Flew does not completely reject the theistic revelation of scientific facts. As he tells Habermas, “ I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.”
Flew has also warmed to contemporary design arguments: “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=stenger_25_2
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Thanks, AhTrini. Yes, there is a big difference between Deism and theism.
Reply to This Comment
Eddington was a Quaker. No hard core naturalist there.
Arno Penzias was Jewish, and I can only find that quote in religiously biased pieces (including yours), so it seems unlikely he would say that.
Freeman Dyson is non-denominationally Christian. Nope. not a naturalist.
Stephen Hawking – Dude- quote mining. You took his comment out of context!
Anthony Flew’s conversion is controversial.
Even so, this point you make doesn’t even address the initial question, which is do we come into this world naked and atheist?
I say of course. God and Santa Claus do not come naturally to us.
Even if all these quotes you provide here and all over the web are correct, that means nothing more than that is the perspective they bring to the table and doesn’t give any weight for or against a creator.
And for what it’s worth, I’m not repulsed by the idea that anyone but me is my Master at all. I simply disregard the idea of a creator of any kind because there’s no evidence for it.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Exactly, Steve. Having a few quotes from a few people is not evidence that something exists. There’s no evidence of any kind of creator. That’s not rebellion.
Reply to This Comment
“because there’s no evidence for it.”
So, your belief that matter is eternal or that matter brought itself into existence is based on what?
Reply to This Comment
Butch Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Cherry-picked (mis)quotes from a few individuals with credibility among the (real) scientific community hardly qualifies as evidence for anything other than the fact that they have personal opinions.
If you want to do some real research, look into the mythology from the areas surrounding the so-called holy land, especially those from the Sumerian and Egyptian mythos. I think you’ll find a staggering lack of originality in most of the Abrahamic religions stories, namely the creation, flood & resurrection stories that seem to mean so much.
So by your application of fuzzy logic and imaginary evidence, does this make the Sumerian & Egyptian writings the true word of gods?
Sorry, but I’d rather accept the empirical evidence that has been tested ad nauseum than the musings of people 2 generations removed from squatting in a puddle of their own piss for fear of the unknown.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Excellent point, Butch. The christian myths are all stolen from Egypt and Sumeria.
Yes, you said it so perfectly. Give me science and empirical evidence over the ravings of a bunch of amoral assholes who hated women, and goats. Why did they hate goats so much?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
See, this is where your flaws begin, makarios. Science is not a belief system. You simply accept the preponderance of evidence, which is peer reviewed and researched using something called the Scientific Method.
We don’t exactly know how the Big Bang happened. Hence we have the Large Hadron Collider and we are investigating this wonderful mystery. That’s SCIENCE.
We don’t just cling to the ravings of desert wanderers from 2,000 years ago and stop searching for answers. That’s preposterous.
Reply to This Comment
Steve Reply:
March 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Ummm. Why did you pick the last part of my comment to respond to, while ignoring the other stuff?
I actually don’t know about eternal matter, so have no opinion on it and I certainly don’t support spontaneous generation, which was thoroughly discredited by Pasteur and Darwin almost a hundred and fifty years ago.
On top of that, I made no comment about my own beliefs so please, in the future, refrain from projecting.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
Well caught and well said, Steve.
Reply to This Comment
For someone to even insinuate a rebellion against a god is preposterous. How does one rebel against a god? What tools does one need? Especially an invisible god???
To even say such nonsense shows total 2000 year old ignorance?
You’re just repeating a bunch of nonsense you’ve heard an ignorant preacher spew out his ass hole.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Exactly Steven, how can you rebel against something imaginary? What is ironic is people like makarios rebel against science, logic and reason.
Well said, Steven, thanks.
Reply to This Comment
Butch, I’m not sure what topic you’re trying to address.
My question was, “Your belief that matter is eternal or that matter brought itself into existence is based on what?”
Did I hear you say “Faith”? Good boy! Nice honesty.
Because not only is there no evidence for matter being eternal or self-created, the belief, no, the faith that matter is eternal or self-created flys in the face of scientific evidence. Yet, my little atheist buddy believes it anyway. Isn’t that cute?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Ahh, here’s where you show your true christian colors, you sniveling hypocrite.
You’re the reason atheists and freethinkers find christians so repulsive. You’re the exact kind of christian I find loathsome.
If you would read Butch’s comment instead of just lashing out with simpering hate like a typical hypocrite, you would see that he was actually replying to your previous comment. He never mentioned faith.
Reply to This Comment
Butch Reply:
March 20th, 2009 at 4:30 am
No one ever said that matter brought itself into existence, or that it’s permanently in whatever state it’s found in, you’re trying to do what any religion does and basing your points on the tired old “god of the gaps” argument.
Anyone who hasn’t had their head buried in the sand since your precious Bronze Age (which you so desperately cling to) knows that matter can be transformed into energy. The fact that science doesn’t have all the answers to the origin of the Universe gives absolutely no credence to the existence of a “creator.” Just because the right formulae or tools haven’t come along yet is no reason to over-simplify exceedingly complex tasks. Faith is nothing more than intellectual laziness.
And stop trying to bait me with your weak attempts at condescension, it’s terribly unbecoming unless you’re 11.
And the word is “flies” when used in that context, because your argument carries a lot more weight if you don’t come across as an illiterate adolescent, just so you know.
Reply to This Comment
makarios- you sound like a troll. By now, you are so off topic it’s not even funny. Please stop. The stupid, it hurts.
You haven’t even answered the initial question Neece posed.
Reply to This Comment
Steve, not only did I answer, I was the first one to answer. I’ll paraphrase, I don’t think that atheism is our default. I think that we are in rebellion to the Idea, the IDEA, Steve, the IDEA or the concept or the thought of being accountable to our Creator and atheism is just one of the many forms that rebellion takes. Most religions make up the other forms.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Wow, you were first, doesn’t that make you special. Well, sure, you’re helmet at the dinner table special.
What you don’t get is that we are not in rebellion to the IDEA of being accountable to a creator because there is no such thing. But you can’t grasp that, can you? No. You’re too lost in the comfort of fairy tales.
Reply to This Comment
Steve Reply:
March 20th, 2009 at 1:41 am
How can a baby be born in rebellion to the idea that it is accountable to it’s Creator? That doesn’t even make sense. A baby, for the first couple of years of its existence, doesn’t even have a tangible structure to hang memories on, let alone the concept of rebellion, accountability or a creator. It’s only many years down the line when those concepts are taught to the child by the surrounding community.
Fail.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Very well said, Steve. You really made that clear in a very succinct way.
Reply to This Comment
Butch Reply:
March 20th, 2009 at 4:46 am
How exactly does one rebel against an idea? I’m an Atheist because when I exposed religion to the harsh light of Reality in my life, it was found sorely lacking. Contradictions in the bible aside, there are questions that religion can’t answer:
Why did Noah save vermin? Surely that was his one big chance to rid the world of rats, flies, ticks, mosquitoes and other disease-carriers. He coulda been somebody, he coulda been a contender…
Why is there no record of the birth of Jesus? Three kings traveling from exotic points East would have caused quite a stir, yet there aren’t any records of their travels anywhere. I’ll bet you could find records of grain production or how many sheep were born that year…..
Do I really need to go on?
In short, I found more questions than answers regarding religion, and therefore I disposed of its impact on my life, simple as that. I didn’t rebel, I just tried to weigh the evidence and found none. In the spirit of the article, I wouldn’t have wasted any time on religion at all if my parents hadn’t indoctrinated me into their church as a child.
It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, it still doesn’t make it true. Sorry.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
I wholeheartedly agree, Butch.
People who defend christianity never seem to be able to grasp that they are using one single cherry picked collection of books bound into their precious bible which is somehow holy. But you’re right, there’s no other mention of jesus and his birth, his life or his death in any contemporary texts outside of the bible. It sure does make the bible start to look holey instead.
Reply to This Comment
Neece
“What you don’t get is . . .”
Ok, so maybe “idea,” “concept,” “thought” are the wrong words. How about this?
. We’re in rebellion to the AWARENESS of,
. We are hyper sensitive to the PERCEPTION of,
. We hate the FEELING that ANYTHING but us is in control of us or has ownership of us.
. We do not want to belong to or be beholding to anything or anyone.
I’ll fill in the blanks as I answer the others.
===========
Steve
“How can a baby . . .”
Hmm, you must not have children. When babies don’t have their needs met, they don’t just cry to get someone’s attention. They can and will display a full blown rage when what they want isn’t given to them. It’s no different for children or even adults. Heaven (pardon the use of the term) help the person who gets between us and what we want or believe that we need.
Beyond that, you don’t have to teach a child to lie. You don’t have to teach a child to take what doesn’t belong to him. You don’t have to teach a child to hit with the intent of hurting WITHOUT prior provocation.
Nor do you have to teach a child that these things are wrong for them to know that they are wrong. Walk into the room and the toddler will try to hide what s/he has just stolen. Now, a naturalist might say that these are survival instincts, but a child who is sitting in a heap of toys and goes to take a toy away from another child who only has one, goes way beyond the requirements of survival.
=========
Butch
“How exactly does one rebel against an idea?”
See above. I mean look at the reaction of you folks over the “idea” that I’m presenting here. I think rebelling is a pretty good word. Never mind the “Idea” thing.
We rebel against the awareness of, or the feeling of, or the perception of being controlled and God says to us point blank, When you come to see what a wretch you are, give me control of your life and I’ll transform, reform and renew you into something you never dreamed possible. Before you puke, see my response to your next point.
=======
“Contradictions in the bible aside, there are questions that religion can’t answer:”
Well, yes, but religion is a pretty soft target. As are Christians. I thought it was someone at this site but it must have been somewhere else who called me a hypocrite because I got all snarky in some comments. To find fault in my actions doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Nowhere have I ever pretended that I’m anything but a total screw-up. I’m a mean tempered, cold-hearted asshole who has brought destruction to the lives of numerous people. That is why I turned my life over to Jesus. On my own I was making a complete mess of things. Am I still a jerk? Ya, but I’m a thousand times better than before I became a Christian and I believe that in ten years I’ll be able to look back and say, “Wow, am I ever a lot better than I was in 09.” The reason that this isn’t bragging is because none of this “improvement” is of my own doing. Jesus really does change people. It’s almost like an out-of-body experience. I can step back and watch it happen. Some have said that I must be morally weak or whatever to need outside help. Yes, and?
========
“Why did Noah save vermin?”
Just joking. I have no idea.
Butch baby, are you saying the flood was real
=========
“Why is there no record of the birth of Jesus?”
You mean other than the genealogical record? Why would anyone else write about it? They didn’t have tabloids that I’m aware of, “Teenage pregnant girl spins fantastic tale to cover her tracks” Details on page three.
Nor did they have Mormons who keep track of other people’s heritage. Joseph and Mary were just regular people from a regular town. They were nobody. Other than their own family’s genealogies, which we do have records of, there isn’t any reason why someone else would have written about it.
A better question is, Why is there such a preponderance of extra Biblical recorded detail covering the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus?
========
It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, it still doesn’t make it true. Sorry.
That’s true – very true.
Reply to This Comment
Butch Reply:
March 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“I’m a mean tempered, cold-hearted asshole who has brought destruction to the lives of numerous people. That is why I turned my life over to Jesus.” What a cop-out. What your saying is you were not a nice person, but instead of becoming a nice person on your own, because it’s the right thing to do, you took refuge in religion so you didn’t have to face the responsibility of your actions. That doesn’t automatically make you a good person, it just makes you a witless tool of someone else’s will, and I’m sorry but that someone else is whoever your cult leader is, not some messianic figure who may or may not have even walked the Earth.
“Why is there such a preponderance of extra Biblical recorded detail covering the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus?”
Biblical records are just another part of your ancient campfire story. I was talking about the meticulous records that were kept by the Romans who occupied the area. There is no reliable evidence.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Exactly! The first thing I thought was makarios uses jesus as a cop-out. LAME!
I couldn’t agree with you more, Butch. Thanks for the awesome comment.
<3
Reply to This Comment
Actually, I do have a child.
First paragraph- A baby has nothing but need for the first nine months. As soon as it gets a sense of self and enters the toddler age… And the fact that you say “It’s no different for children or even adults,” is laughable. There’s a vast gulf of understanding and maturity there. I know that I can’t have everything I want.
Second paragraph- Huh? Of course you don’t have to teach your child to lie, steal or hit, but these aren’t concepts, these are behaviors. You do have to teach the child about consequences, responsibility and empathy.
Third paragraph- The child knows they are wrong because of your reaction to its behavior. This is basic nurture stuff. Dogs “know” they’ve done something wrong too, because when they did it the first time, your reaction was negative. And that last sentence? Come on. A toddler doesn’t know better and at that age, the world revolves around them.
And your argument to Butch? It’s not that we’re rebelling against anything, rather it’s that your “idea” needs a lot of presupposition and lacks substance.
What is the “preponderance of extra biblical recorded detail covering the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus?” There isn’t any.
Part of the problem is that you don’t back up any of your arguments with data. A simple internet check revealed that your quotes from “hard core naturalists” weren’t. Then you make an argument about awareness, perception and feeling that doesn’t sound like you’ve thought it through very much, because you can’t really articulate it, and now you’ve made your statements about extra biblical recorded detail and that’s a wash too.
Besides. There’s only two questions that need asking.
1. What do you mean by that?
2. How do you know?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Well said, Steve.
I agree!
Reply to This Comment
It’s going to take me a bit to put it together. Maybe tomorrow. And when I get it for you, the question that I’m going to be asking you is, Why would we have this historical evidence if Jesus’ resurrection didn’t happen?
Reply to This Comment
So your definition of hard core naturalist is what? Someone whose atheist lineage goes back three generations?
Astronomer Arthur Eddington – “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.” How’s that for a good Quaker? And why don’t you explain to us how Hawking’s quote is taken out of context.
As to your statement that there isn’t any evidence,
Absolutely none of what you’re about to read has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars.
The reason that I’m not using the documents that were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament is of course, atheists have a double standard when it comes to judging acient documents. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. These guys weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in history.
While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. I asked you yesterday, Why would the following have occurred if the facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection weren’t as described? There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
Steve, I say this especially to you. You seem pretty worked up about all this and that makes for poor learning. See if you can approach this information like someone with an open mind. I’m not asking you to stay that way forever, just for the next hour or so as you think about historical facts that you’ve been unaware of till now.
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
Why would Josephus, Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud and John Dominic Crossan, the Founder of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians?
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus? (There are several more to follow)
. Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.
. Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
. Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”
. Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?
. Why would they say that they spoke with Him?
. Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?
. If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive? There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.
REMEMBER these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie. Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen? Remember, Paul:
. Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
. Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.
This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead?
. Why would they claim that they had seen Him alive after His death?
. Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?
Think about it! This was their half-brother, someone that they’d previously mocked and ridiculed. James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.
What would it take for you to make this kind of change? What would it take for you to die for that change? For me, it would take nothing LESS than a resurrection.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.
Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn’t historical fact?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why was His tomb empty?
. Jesus’ ENEMIES were the ones to CONFIRM that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.
. The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.
. Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.
. The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than dogs and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ brother James, his leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. I think they would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have an early oral tradition or creed that dates from the first year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn’t have this.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus? This was an “outsider” eager to kill the leaders of the early Jesus movement, now coming to them with a knowledge of Jesus’ teaching equal to those who had been insiders.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that “lie” with their lives.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story.
Peter watched his own wife being crucified just prior to his own crucifixion. Surely, if the risen Jesus was a lie concocted by Peter himself, he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen to either his wife or himself.
Without the resurrection, this type of behaviour doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
. Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
. Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred?
. Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the historicity of Jesus and the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
. Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and
. Why did Tacitus, an ENEMY of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked, for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
. Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
These questions, stemming from this evidence demands more than just a flippant, “People rising from the dead is impossible.” Something totally “other” happened back then and ignoring it is not a rational nor a logical thing to do.
If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict. With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, one can do three things:
. Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour – (That idea that you’re not in rebellion to) Or
. Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything – Or
. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”
Reply to This Comment
Steve Reply:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:40 am
*sigh*
A naturalist is someone who looks for a natural explanation for things, not a supernatural one. A Quaker is a religious person, so that quote is in character. Stephen Hawking is discussing a number of origin models, and their implications about God without actually acknowledging that any of them are true. I’ve noticed this quote is a favorite of apologists.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the real names of the authors of the gospels. Surely you know this? Jesus’ disciples weren’t literate. The gospels were written by educated men, and were all based on one another, even copied in some places and embellished in others.
If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, than everything that follows from it is false. If you actually read any small part of what you’ve written about above you would know that nothing is certain about those times.
People have martyred themselves for wrong things over the last several thousand years- that’s not a good argument at all. Heck, look at the martyrs on 9/11. Your options are flawed as well. Why not submit to Allah? His followers make the same claims as you about their religion. Hmmm. Maybe you’re lying to yourself about your beliefs because Judaism makes such a strong case for theirs.
I don’t know much, but I do know that your arguments are seriously flawed, and google and wikipedia are my friends.
Reply to This Comment
Further to my response to Steve.
For those who haven’t been following, you may find this hard to believe but there are atheists who actually believe that there is nothing in ancient documents confirming the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. It also seems to be news to these people that the ancient documents that were later collected and gathered into what we now know as the New Testament weren’t actually written for inclusion into the New Testament. I’m serious! Ignorance abounds. So for anyone open-minded enough to actually enjoy correcting their misunderstandings, here are some of the extra Biblical documents that confirm the historical Jesus. You might be interested to note that the majority of these people were not followers of Jesus and that many of them were in fact enemies of Christianity. That of course includes the atheists and critics noted at the bottom of this post.
From the time of Jesus:
. Lucian of Samosata – (The Death of Peregrine), 11 – 13
. Mara Bar Serapion – Fragment currently at the British Museum, Syriac Manuscript
. The Babylonia Talmud – Sanhedrin 43a – I. Epstein Editor and translator, London
. Clement of Rome – (1 Clement ) 47
. Polycarp – (To the Philippians)
. Papia (Fragments: Traditions of the Elders) 2,5 (Fragment 5)
. Eusebius – (Chronicles)
. Ignatius of Antioch – (In Eusebius, Histories) 3.36.3 – 4; (To Polycarp) 5; (To the Romans) 4.
. Irenaeus – (To Florinus) 5.20
. Tertulian – (The Prescription Against Heretics) 32.
. Josephus – (Fides et Historia) 13
. Origen – (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 10) (Antiquities of the Jews) (Contra Celsum) 1.47
. Agapius – (Historia) 1.7.13
. Hippolytus – (Quoted by Eusebius)
. Dionysius of Corinth – (Quoted by Eusebius)
. Celsus
. Pliny the Younger,
. Tacitus
. Suetonius
Shepherd of Hermas (Parable 9, section 28); (Vision 3, section 1)
. Melito of Sardis
. Hegesipius
. Polycrates – (To Victor of Rome)
Modern:
. John Dominic Crossan – Founder of the Jesus Seminar – In (“Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography”) San Francisco, Harper Collins, 1991 – 145,154, 196, 201
. Rudolf Bultmann – (“What Really Happened to Jesus – A Historical Approach to the Resurrection.”) John Bowden Trans. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995 – 80
. Paula Frederickson – Historian – In an interview with Peter Jennings for “The Search for Jesus,” American Broadcasting Company, 2000.
Reply to This Comment
Steve Reply:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:16 am
Dude. A simple check of your first two sources shows that Lucian of Samosata wasn’t born until 125 CE and by that time Christianity was on the rise. He’s simply poking fun at their gullibility. The Mara Bar-Serapion has been dated by some scholars to have been written around 73 CE but there are some discrepancies that place it as late as the third century.
Did you even read these sources before claiming they were from Jesus’ time?
The Babylonia Talmud – 200 CE
Clement of Rome – first century
Polycarp – born 69 CE
Papia is either a town or a marriage law that doesn’t mention Jesus.
Shall I go on?
I’m just saying.
Reply to This Comment
makarios, just stop. Seriously. You are wrapped up in circular logic and thinking, all based on a collection of stolen myths and stories from much older religions that have died out, and a bunch of political BS as well. That’s all the bible is. Nothing more. It has minor historical value because it’s been edited and cherry-picked so much. Besides that it’s total BS nonsense.
Did you write that drivel yourself? I doubt it. It sounds canned and copy-pasted. Think for yourself!
I totally agree with Butch. You latched on to jesus just to avoid any personal responsibility in the fact that you are a total asshole, which you freely admit. How freaking lame. LAME! You’re still an asshole, but now you are even worse because you think you’re so superior with an invisible man in the sky on your side.
There is no evidence outside the bible and other biblical texts like the apocrypha for the life of jesus. There is no scientific evidence of any sort for the existence of anything supernatural, and no evidence whatsoever for any kind of god.
Of course, science, unlike your stale and tired religion from 2,000 years ago, never stops asking questions and looking for answers. So scientists and skeptics do something that you can’t conceive of, we keep an OPEN MIND.
Reply to This Comment
“There is no evidence outside the bible and other biblical texts like the apocrypha for the life of jesus.”
Did you read what I gave you? Even a little bit? Do you not know ANYTHING regarding the history of the time? NONE of what I gave you is from the Bible or from the Apocrypha. None – zero – Can’t you get that? I gave you atheist historians, Roman historian, Greek and Syrian historians, from the time of Jesus, attesting to His reality. How is what you said any evidence whatsoever of an open mind?
You don’t have to answer. This is a waste of time.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I agree with you that this is a total waste of time. You are delusional.
Yes, I read your copy/pasted lists until my eyes bled.
Out of context half truths. Not worth anyone’s time to even comment on, never mind read. Go preach to the sheeple choir because we just don’t have time to wade through your BS.
Reply to This Comment
We are all born atheist – period. Believing in a god in an indoctrination into one religion over another, socialization or and/or a need for people to find meaning in this life, but no one was born believing in any particular god or deity. They form their beliefs from the culture and beliefs around them.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 1:17 am
I would tend to agree. We are all born without beliefs of any kind. Excellent point, thanks.
Reply to This Comment