Why are people afraid of their beliefs being questioned ?

[nazz]

Of course. Scholars do it all the time... (argue with scholars)!

There are disputed positions on this, and I'm pretty sure I've missed the context, but does the historical reality (or otherwise) of a man called Jesus tell us much? He could be anything from the Son of God, and a part of the Holy Trinity down to a con-artist or person of little consequence who has since had various legends attached to him. Or perhaps he's a fictional character. Who was Heracles? Ajax? Achilles?

It was a tangent to the thread. I just mentioned I considered it a silly belief to think he did not exist at all. More so because usually the people saying it have no problem believing in the existence of other historic figures that have little to no evidence for their existence.

 

[psychoslice]

It was a tangent to the thread. I just mentioned I considered it a silly belief to think he did not exist at all. More so because usually the people saying it have no problem believing in the existence of other historic figures that have little to no evidence for their existence.

Yes and we should question historic figures also, not just Jesus, there is a lot of crap written in history, we just have to siphon out the lies and find what is true within all that rubbish.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The story of Jesus is as old as time itself, he's life is built from many god-men throughout history such as Krishna, Buddha, Isis and on and on it goes

Actually, that's a bunch of crap from buffoons like Acharya S. If you actually look at the myths of those gods and figures, you'll find that there's not much they have in common.

Here's a wealth of articles that debunk all of that nonsense: http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It was a tangent to the thread. I just mentioned I considered it a silly belief to think he did not exist at all. More so because usually the people saying it have no problem believing in the existence of other historic figures that have little to no evidence for their existence.

Ah, cool...
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. I've read some on it, mostly by Christian authors, but I have a very loose working assumption that Jesus existed in some form. Seems more likely to me than not.

 

[psychoslice]

Actually, that's a bunch of crap from buffoons like Acharya S. If you actually look at the myths of those gods and figures, you'll find that there's not much they have in common.

Here's a wealth of articles that debunk all of that nonsense: http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

It really doesn't matter, there only needs to be one reason that he never existed, and there are many of those no matter what you think.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It really doesn't matter, there only needs to be one reason that he never existed, and there are many of those no matter what you think.

I have looked at the arguments about Jesus' alleged non-existence. I used to be a firm believer in them for quite awhile. Do names like Acharya S, David Icke and Kenneth Humphries mean anything to you? I was a devoted follower of the latter two for a time. I don't see any reason to believe in them anymore. They're just pseudo-historians and conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind. There's a reason why they're ignored in scholarly circles.

 

[psychoslice]

I have looked at the arguments about Jesus' alleged non-existence. I used to be a firm believer in them for quite awhile. Do names like Acharya S, David Icke and Kenneth Humphries mean anything to you? I was a devoted follower of the latter two for a time. I don't see any reason to believe in them anymore. They're just pseudo-historians and conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind. There's a reason why they're ignored in scholarly circles.

Yes i do know those that you have named, and yes their not that reliable, even though they do have some truth in what they share. But historians never said anything about Jesus, and what they have found to at least sound like Jesus has been proved to be fake. Lets face it, if there was a man like Jesus and he supposedly did all those things that he supposedly did, then there would have been a whole lot of historical evidence but there isn't. like all those dead people who's graves were open when Jesus died, they all walked through the city preaching. Then there's the earthquake that opened up the earth also when Jesus died, but again no historical evidence, it just didn't happen.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes i do know those that you have named, and yes their not that reliable, even though they do have some truth in what they share. But historians never said anything about Jesus, and what they have found to at least sound like Jesus has been proved to be fake. Lets face it, if there was a man like Jesus and he supposedly did all those things that he supposedly did, then there would have been a whole lot of historical evidence but there isn't. like all those dead people who's graves were open when Jesus died, they all walked through the city preaching. Then there's the earthquake that opened up the earth also when Jesus died, but again no historical evidence, it just didn't happen.

Doubting the miracles of Jesus is one thing, but denying His existence all together is quite another. The arguments for non-existence are based on shabby research. The issue of miracles is a religious/theological one.

 

[psychoslice]

Doubting the miracles of Jesus is one thing, but denying His existence all together is quite another. The arguments for non-existence are based on shabby research. The issue of miracles is a religious/theological one.

But there is no real evidence of Jesus, and of course the miracles never happened. I myself don't care if he lived or not, i take the stories and see the spiritual meaning within them, and that is how they should be treated, forget about Jesus and see where the stories points you to.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But there is no real evidence of Jesus, and of course the miracles never happened. I myself don't care if he lived or not, i take the stories and see the spiritual meaning within them, and that is how they should be treated, forget about Jesus and see where the stories points you to.

What "evidence" of Jesus are you looking for? I don't understand why it's so extraordinary to accept that a Jewish rabbi in 1st century Judea founded a sect. The arguments to the contrary aren't based on scholarly research so people only accept them out of bias and ignorance. Let's be clear: you do have an axe to grind about Christianity, just as I did when I accepted the Christ myth theory. You're not exactly reaching your conclusion based on fair research into the matter.

 

[Erebus]

I can see your point, but those who cannot understand peoples beliefs, or wonder how om earth they could believe in such things, have the right to question those beliefs, if those beliefs seem ridicules then also they have the right to say so. Like I think believing in faeries is completely silly, and I have the right to say so, as someone else has the right to say they believe in such things.

Just wanted to chime in here, because this is quite a good illustration of why I tend to avoid most discussions on the forum. Without meaning to be rude, this is quite basic ground to me. I've been through the whole theism vs atheism, empiricism vs faith vs pragmatism etc over and over to the point where it's just not that important or interesting to me anymore.
When I see somebody post the fairy analogy for example, I feel that if they start questioning my theism (which they have every right to do, I agree) all that's going to happen is I'll rehash the same old stuff for the umpteenth time and not learn anything new or valuable. All that just to get them "up to speed" so to speak just isn't worth it. This is also assuming that their questioning is genuine, proselytization and trolling thinly concealed in curiosity is hardly new here.

This may come across as arrogant, but it's at least honest. When I first joined the forum I was only too happy to engage in debates over the merits of theism. Nowadays I just feel that I've "been there, done that" and not seen anything new brought to the table in a long time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just wanted to chime in here, because this is quite a good illustration of why I tend to avoid most discussions on the forum. Without meaning to be rude, this is quite basic ground to me. I've been through the whole theism vs atheism, empiricism vs faith vs pragmatism etc over and over to the point where it's just not that important or interesting to me anymore.
When I see somebody post the fairy analogy for example, I feel that if they start questioning my theism (which they have every right to do, I agree) all that's going to happen is I'll rehash the same old stuff for the umpteenth time and not learn anything new or valuable. All that just to get them "up to speed" so to speak just isn't worth it. This is also assuming that their questioning is genuine, proselytization and trolling thinly concealed in curiosity is hardly new here.

This may come across as arrogant, but it's at least honest. When I first joined the forum I was only too happy to engage in debates over the merits of theism. Nowadays I just feel that I've "been there, done that" and not seen anything new brought to the table in a long time.

That's how I feel, too. It's just not interesting to me at all anymore. I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over.

 

[psychoslice]

What "evidence" of Jesus are you looking for? I don't understand why it's so extraordinary to accept that a Jewish rabbi in 1st century Judea founded a sect. The arguments to the contrary aren't based on scholarly research so people only accept them out of bias and ignorance. Let's be clear: you do have an axe to grind about Christianity, just as I did when I accepted the Christ myth theory. You're not exactly reaching your conclusion based on fair research into the matter.

My friend i have been a christian for years, that is until I started to think for myself, you need to do the same, find out the truth for yourself as i have.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My friend i have been a christian for years, that is until I started to think for myself, you need to do the same, find out the truth for yourself as i have.

And you wonder why Christians tend to bristle at your posts. You just insulted me right there. Tsk tsk.

 

[psychoslice]

Just wanted to chime in here, because this is quite a good illustration of why I tend to avoid most discussions on the forum. Without meaning to be rude, this is quite basic ground to me. I've been through the whole theism vs atheism, empiricism vs faith vs pragmatism etc over and over to the point where it's just not that important or interesting to me anymore.
When I see somebody post the fairy analogy for example, I feel that if they start questioning my theism (which they have every right to do, I agree) all that's going to happen is I'll rehash the same old stuff for the umpteenth time and not learn anything new or valuable. All that just to get them "up to speed" so to speak just isn't worth it. This is also assuming that their questioning is genuine, proselytization and trolling thinly concealed in curiosity is hardly new here.

This may come across as arrogant, but it's at least honest. When I first joined the forum I was only too happy to engage in debates over the merits of theism. Nowadays I just feel that I've "been there, done that" and not seen anything new brought to the table in a long time.

And yes I feel much the same, i have nothing prove to anyone, I found out what i know today through many years of investigation, my conclusion is there is no god , and I must say it wasn't that hard to work that out.
When I found this out i just simply stop believing, no problem. If one wants to believe in their god well believe it, whats the big deal, but if you cannot prove it, then keep it to yourself.

 

[psychoslice]

And you wonder why Christians tend to bristle at your posts. You just insulted me right there. Tsk tsk.

No no, i wasn't insulting you at all, my point was if you seriously investigate, and whatever conclusion you come to, then that's your conclusion, it really doesn't bother me if you want to believe or not. All I am really saying is don't get upset when your beliefs are questioned, and that goes for me also if i had a belief.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No no, i wasn't insulting you at all, my point was if you seriously investigate, and whatever conclusion you come to, then that's your conclusion, it really doesn't bother me if you want to believe or not. All I am really saying is don't get upset when your beliefs are questioned, and that goes for me also if i had a belief.

Ah. It seemed that you were implying that I don't think for myself. I do that all the time.

 

[psychoslice]

Ah. It seemed that you were implying that I don't think for myself. I do that all the time.

I wouldn't insult you, remember you were nice to me on that other thread. I think if we all think for ourselves, then whatever we come to to believe in or not, should be our own decision, and we should be happy with that decision, if were not then we will show the worse of ourselves to those who question our decision, or belief if you want to use that word. Let face it, god or even Jesus cannot really ever be proved 100% either way. For me personally i don't want to get too involved because it cannot be proven, I would be lying to myself if i did say it could be.

 

[Erebus]

And yes I feel much the same, i have nothing prove to anyone, I found out what i know today through many years of investigation, my conclusion is there is no god , and I must say it wasn't that hard to work that out.
When I found this out i just simply stop believing, no problem. If one wants to believe in their god well believe it, whats the big deal, but if you cannot prove it, then keep it to yourself.

I was on board with you right up until the bolded part. So far the thread has been about how theists should not be put off by (or perhaps even embrace) questioning, but then you end by saying they should just keep it to themselves? That's both a catch 22 and kind of a double standard. Non-theists can question and critique but theists should keep it to themselves?

If you agree with me that such lines of questioning are simply going over old ground and that nothing new is learned or achieved, then why ask in the first place? I can understand it for somebody new to the forums who may be encountering these arguments for the first time, but if it's all old news and you don't see yourself changing your mind then there's no point asking... Unless it's to try and change somebody else's mind:

My friend i have been a christian for years, that is until I started to think for myself, you need to do the same, find out the truth for yourself as i have.

You expanded on this in your follow up to Saint_Frankenstein and for the purpose of this discussion I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't in fact trying to proselytise. Nonetheless this is the kind of rhetoric that comes up regularly in the forum from those who feel that they have it all figured out and others simply must learn the truth (theists and atheists alike do this). If this wasn't your intent, I'd strongly recommend being more careful how you phrase things in future.

 

[psychoslice]

I was on board with you right up until the bolded part. So far the thread has been about how theists should not be put off by (or perhaps even embrace) questioning, but then you end by saying they should just keep it to themselves? That's both a catch 22 and kind of a double standard. Non-theists can question and critique but theists should keep it to themselves?

If you agree with me that such lines of questioning are simply going over old ground and that nothing new is learned or achieved, then why ask in the first place? I can understand it for somebody new to the forums who may be encountering these arguments for the first time, but if it's all old news and you don't see yourself changing your mind then there's no point asking... Unless it's to try and change somebody else's mind:


You expanded on this in your follow up to Saint_Frankenstein and for the purpose of this discussion I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't in fact trying to proselytise. Nonetheless this is the kind of rhetoric that comes up regularly in the forum from those who feel that they have it all figured out and others simply must learn the truth (theists and atheists alike do this). If this wasn't your intent, I'd strongly recommend being more careful how you phrase things in future.

Na, you got it all wrong, I myself cannot prove what I experienced, this experience is known as Enlightenment, I have written a book about that experience, but I will never argue that my experience is true or not, I cannot prove it to you, I will talk about it to those who are interested but not try to convert others, for what could i convert them to. You could argue that its all in my mind and I will agree, that where the experience was experienced in my mind.

I try to pick my words as carefully as i can, but at the same time i will be honest in what i do say, why should i have to tiptoe on glass just for others, we all say the wrong thing at times, i have never meet anyone who hasn't, that's life.

You have recommended what you think i should do, but why should i take you advise, do you represent everyone here, I know i don't.