All of them. !s a scientist, I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book.
Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don’t see a problem with that and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don’t just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms - because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties.
Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren’t, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.
These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin’ moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna. It’s not just fact-free, it’s all nonsense.
There is a lot of evidence other than “it says so in a big book”, when we point to Bible verses to say Christ is God, we are typically trying to refute Arianism, a heresy which claims that Christ is not God but Arianists still try to believe in the Bible, so that’s how we refute Arianism.
To prove God’s existence, we can typically just point out the principle of sufficient reason or the miracles, etc
Given the time gap between the events recorded in the gospels and the and the estimated time they were written, the fallibility of human memory, and the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the Gospels are not historically reliable with regard to the resurrection of Jesus.
The gospels were written decades after the events they describe. They are reliant on the memory of unknown persons, oral traditions, and possibly other written sources that are no longer available. What’s wrong with memory? Human memory is fallible, particularly over long periods of time. It’s feasible that the authors unintentionally introduced errors while describing the resurrection event. What’s the problem with oral tradition? It was a means of transmitting information in societies that were largely illiterate. Unfortunately, as stories are passed down, the retelling of the story can include slightly different details due to memory distortion and reconstruction, and the differences can become amplified as the story is retold many times. We have watched this happen in a manner of minutes of a story being told. If you’ve ever heard of the telephone game this is a great example of this phenomenon happening. Perhaps the gospels were based on prior sources. If they are, we know nothing about these prior sources.
We also have the problem of eye-witness testimony. We perceive events through the lens of our beliefs and biases. Confirmation bias can cause someone to remember details that they perceive as affirming their beliefs while disregarding information that contradict their beliefs. This can influence how we interpret and make sense of it when we’re giving an account of it at a later time. This issue can be further compounded when witnesses to an event discuss what they saw. This can lead to a sense of conformity where people alter their memories of an event to align with what is widely agreed upon. Along with an absence of external corroboration that a resurrection occurred, I find the gospels to be unreliable with regard to the resurrection.
All of them. !s a scientist, I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book.
Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don’t see a problem with that and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don’t just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms - because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties.
Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren’t, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.
These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin’ moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna. It’s not just fact-free, it’s all nonsense.
There is a lot of evidence other than “it says so in a big book”, when we point to Bible verses to say Christ is God, we are typically trying to refute Arianism, a heresy which claims that Christ is not God but Arianists still try to believe in the Bible, so that’s how we refute Arianism.
To prove God’s existence, we can typically just point out the principle of sufficient reason or the miracles, etc
Given the time gap between the events recorded in the gospels and the and the estimated time they were written, the fallibility of human memory, and the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the Gospels are not historically reliable with regard to the resurrection of Jesus. The gospels were written decades after the events they describe. They are reliant on the memory of unknown persons, oral traditions, and possibly other written sources that are no longer available. What’s wrong with memory? Human memory is fallible, particularly over long periods of time. It’s feasible that the authors unintentionally introduced errors while describing the resurrection event. What’s the problem with oral tradition? It was a means of transmitting information in societies that were largely illiterate. Unfortunately, as stories are passed down, the retelling of the story can include slightly different details due to memory distortion and reconstruction, and the differences can become amplified as the story is retold many times. We have watched this happen in a manner of minutes of a story being told. If you’ve ever heard of the telephone game this is a great example of this phenomenon happening. Perhaps the gospels were based on prior sources. If they are, we know nothing about these prior sources. We also have the problem of eye-witness testimony. We perceive events through the lens of our beliefs and biases. Confirmation bias can cause someone to remember details that they perceive as affirming their beliefs while disregarding information that contradict their beliefs. This can influence how we interpret and make sense of it when we’re giving an account of it at a later time. This issue can be further compounded when witnesses to an event discuss what they saw. This can lead to a sense of conformity where people alter their memories of an event to align with what is widely agreed upon. Along with an absence of external corroboration that a resurrection occurred, I find the gospels to be unreliable with regard to the resurrection.
Yes but Demons reside in the dick tho
Demon is stored in the balls
This reminds me of Elliot’s rant from the show Mr. Robot.
this fella needs some sucking