Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-29-2008, 08:59 PM

If astrology is a load of hogwash, why do so many people believe it?

BriAnna · 02-29-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuffa Nuff

If astrology is a load of hogwash, why do so many people believe it?

because it kind of might sound true. They want to believe in something.
superstition.

with the church, guilt and shame of the christian church will be enough to believe just about anything in the right setting. vulnerability. zealots. brain washing. fear.

braces_for_impact · 02-29-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am sorry, but you are making less and less sense.

First of all, Jesus left no writings. You are think of things that were written down by others, who claimed that he said them, and current scholars dispute the meaning in part because the words were transmitted and translated with less that perfect accuracy, and have been removed from their social context.

But even then, who said that Jesus was dumb? But even if he were, what does that have to do with collecting a following? (And we've tried to explain that religions are not based on the intellectual content of the message.) And even then, Jesus didn't collect the following, his later apostles took care of that, and some of them were very well educated.

Even worse for you to explain. he left no writings and yet has the largest religion in the world based on nothing but lies?

Look at this page showing the dates of the books:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8331/dates.htm

All of these people were in on the conspiracy in the 1st century? Maybe if we had one book or 2 books, but over 20 NT books!?!?!

Seriously, all these writers just "happened" to want to believe in a Messiah in the 1st century?

Half-Life,

Do you really think the Christians at the time were all walking around with full fledged bibles? Different fledgling Christian groups all had their own scriptures, and many of them considered their particular scriptures to be the proper cannon, and believed the others mistaken. In fact, over antiquity, many of these splinter groups killed each other and died over which books were the "properly" inspired ones. Many of the books which did not make it into the official cannon have only recently been rediscovered.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a 1st century conspiracy. Many gods existed during this time period, and many of them had quite a few "holy" books which comprised their scriptures. Christianity may be big (for now) but many other religions exist and have more than a substantial amount of followers - all with their own holy scriptures. Obviously there was no conspiracy there either.

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did you notice that, in fact, the Sanhedrin did not write anything down about Jesus? There are no records, no Jewish side of the story.

I thought I explained this. They never wrote anything down about it because they DESPISED Christianity.

Why would they want to write down what a "false messiah" did?

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braces_for_impact

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Even worse for you to explain. he left no writings and yet has the largest religion in the world based on nothing but lies?

Look at this page showing the dates of the books:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8331/dates.htm

All of these people were in on the conspiracy in the 1st century? Maybe if we had one book or 2 books, but over 20 NT books!?!?!

Seriously, all these writers just "happened" to want to believe in a Messiah in the 1st century?

Half-Life,

Do you really think the Christians at the time were all walking around with full fledged bibles? Different fledgling Christian groups all had their own scriptures, and many of them considered their particular scriptures to be the proper cannon, and believed the others mistaken. In fact, over antiquity, many of these splinter groups killed each other and died over which books were the "properly" inspired ones. Many of the books which did not make it into the official cannon have only recently been rediscovered.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a 1st century conspiracy. Many gods existed during this time period, and many of them had quite a few "holy" books which comprised their scriptures. Christianity may be big (for now) but many other religions exist and have more than a substantial amount of followers - all with their own holy scriptures. Obviously there was no conspiracy there either.

OK so SOMEONE had to write the "story" of Jesus, right?

Who? Why make it up? Why did the church just "believe" it with no evidence supporting it?

spin · 02-29-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Belief is not predicated on reality. Why did so many people believe in Zeus? Despite Zarathustra's revision of Mazdaism, why did so many people continue to believe in Mithras?

You'll have difficulty with this idea, but when was Acts really written? You will unthinkingly say that it was written by the Luke that Paul knew so it must have been written in the middle of the 1st century CE, but there are vast problems with dating Acts, as it is a complex work which evinces various layers of writing from several sources including the book of the apostles, the book of Paul, the "we" passages and the "believing" interpolations. It wasn't written by a single person, it may have been put into the basic current form by one person. When was it first clearly cited?

When this sanhedrin is in your text you can make the sanhedrin say whatever you like. This is not independent witness.

And do you honestly think that this was said by the sanhedrin rather than surmised to be what the sanhedrin should have said, if they had your perspective?

The sanhedrin was a religious organization and its members had their Jewish faith. Do you really think that these people were going to put aside their beliefs to make such comments as you would like them to have done? You wouldn't do such a thing, would you? So why expect that they would?

The age of miracles is conveniently long ago, so you can happily look back to the golden age and ascribe the lack of modern miracles to this godless age.

If we are to believe the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, then it would be nearly impossible to suppress such real acts.

The first proselytes that we know about are those made by Paul amongst the goyim. Those recounted in Acts never escaped Acts into the real world.

The books were written after there were followers, by communities that supported the writing. Paul set up communities through Anatolia and Greece.

The ancient world didn't have the education that we have today. In fact it had almost no education. One believed what they learnt from their elders. Logic wasn't a high priority, as very few people understood it. Aristotle was first to set down the notion of the syllogism and it took centuries for logicians to develop the sorts of tools that we partially apply today and take for granted. Even today people can abnegate all responsibility to be logical and turn to scientology, new age mumbo jumbo, and a hoard of other lunacies.

The quality of the content doesn't seem to be important.

The education is a very good point in my favor. People were very dumb back in Jesus' day.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

You assume your conclusions, so your outcomes are obvious. Did Jesus exist? Neither you nor I know, because there is no primary evidence. Yet you pretend he did, then build up a card house of conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

How then, was Jesus' writing so legendary that not even the most brilliant scholars of today know exactly what Jesus meant by his exact words?

Religionists give favor to the works of their religion. As long as there are religionists they will give special heed without quality control to their religious literature.

Brilliant scholars are too busy dealing with Wittgenstein, Foucault, Husserl, and a host of others, to worry about early christian literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

His words are still debated to this very day!!! Would a "random dumb 1st century Jew" be able to attract this much of a following based on nothing?

Which random 1st c. Jew? Oh, do you mean Jesus, don't you? How much of what the gospels attribute to Jesus was actually said by him if any? Did this Jesus talk about "the son of man", which is ultimately an erroneous understanding of Dan 7:13's "one like a son of man"? Or was it words through his mouth? Did this Jesus justify torture when his parabolic king absolved a servant and then later decided to torture him? The vast majority of christian analysis of what the gospels attribute to Jesus is self-serving rubbish from people trying to make (crypto-)devotional statements of their faith.

spin

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 10:01 PM

Look, even Buddha predicted jesus would come in the future!

...'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'

spin · 02-29-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

OK so SOMEONE had to write the "story" of Jesus, right?

Think more about how when information gets retold it usually gets embellished and augmented. Not someone. Many hands were probably involved in the development and amplification of the traditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Who?

Many possibilities. The communities in retelling their traditions will find better ways of telling, which got augmented when itinerant preachers visited them, telling their own versions of stories and cross-fertilizing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Why make it up?

Not making things up. It's accretion. It's a consequence of telling and retelling, clarifying, re-elaborating, hearing the traditions of other groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Why did the church just "believe" it with no evidence supporting it?

Evidence was not a big commodity in those days: one tended to believe or disbelieve the messenger. Paul may have taught a lot of rot, but it seems people believed him. People believed Marcion and you must think he taught a lot of rot. People have believed all sorts of things and done all sorts of things in the name of what they believed.

spin

spin · 02-29-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Look, even Buddha predicted jesus would come in the future!

...'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'

How egocentric of you. Where did this actually come from and where does it talk about Jesus?

spin

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Look, even Buddha predicted jesus would come in the future!

...'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'

How egocentric of you. Where did this actually come from and where does it talk about Jesus?

spin

http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/buddha.htm

LOL if you can't see that means jesus, you're blind.

Who's "disciples" number many thousands?

Doesn't Buddha have less disciples?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-29-2008, 08:59 PM	#21
Tuffa Nuff Guest Posts: n/a	If astrology is a load of hogwash, why do so many people believe it?

02-29-2008, 10:01 PM	#27
Half-Life Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A place in the Northern Hemisphere of Planet Earth Posts: 1,250	Look, even Buddha predicted jesus would come in the future! ...'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.