Experiment Forum Poll: What's your religion or lack of?

[K9Otaku]

Proof to back up the claim that religious figures are invented?

At the time Christianity started, Osiris and Hercules were considered "historical figures". People in Egypt believed that Osiris was the first Pharaoh and that he was pieced back together by his wife Isis after his brother dismembered him. In Greece, it was believed that, a long time ago, Hercules was roaming the country performing works assigned to him by some king. It is the same with every other "god" from the period.

The Gospels claim Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water and resurrected the dead. In John, he is depicted as a god, son of a god. All this raises the suspicion that he is an invented figure, like all the other gods that people believed in at the time. By contrast, no one ever claimed that Alexander or Caesar performed any miracles. They are therefore much more believable and less in need of extra historical proof to establish their existence.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the Bible's historicity is shattered.

You have this impression because you have never seriously considered that evidence probably. One example: The OT talks about David and Solomon as kings of a unified kingdom. There is no historical evidence that these two kings ever existed or that there ever was a unified kingdom before the Hasmoneans. However, the kings mentioned by the Bible after Solomon are historical. Several of them are attested by inscriptions. All kings of the period erected monuments with inscriptions in their names. If Solomon had been the great king the Bible portrays, it is impossible he would not have left any trace in the Archaeological record. Many archaeologists have searched for such traces, but never found any. That does not make the Bible look good.

Furthermore, and even more damning, the Bible clearly incorporates material from the surrounding pagan cultures. Many Psalms, for example, have clear parallels in Egyptians hymns of praise to their gods. The flood story itself comes from Mesopotamia and so is the story of Yahweh vanquishing "Tehom", whose name parallels Tiamat, the dragon vanquished by Marduk in Babylonian mythology. The latter has been universally acknowledged by Assyriologists for at least a century (see e.g. this link and this one). The list of such borrowings is endless. It clearly establishes that the Old Testament is a work of traditional Middle Eastern mythology and therefore not a reliable historical source.

How does it give it a bad name? Saying the Bible is true, does the opposite. That would be true for any religious book.

If you keep on affirming the "truth" of the Bible, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you appear as a bold-faced liar, i.e. as someone who violates the 9th commandment: "you shall not bear false witness". How do you think that looks?

 

[LesscoBlob]

At the time Christianity started, Osiris and Hercules were considered "historical figures". People in Egypt believed that Osiris was the first Pharaoh and that he was pieced back together by his wife Isis after his brother dismembered him. In Greece, it was believed that, a long time ago, Hercules was roaming the country performing works assigned to him by some king. It is the same with every other "god" from the period.

It makes sense that they used to believe that Osiris and Hercules existed, because they didn't have the proper resources to examine the evidence.

The Gospels claim Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water and resurrected the dead. In John, he is depicted as a god, son of a god. All this raises the suspicion that he is an invented figure, like all the other gods that people believed in at the time. By contrast, no one ever claimed that Alexander or Caesar performed any miracles. They are therefore much more believable and less in need of extra historical proof to establish their existence.

The claims of Jesus being born of a virgin and performing miracles are religious debates, not historical. Alexander the Great was worshipped as a God. His body was mummified and placed in a tomb in Alexandria, where it was still visible in the Roman Period. Also, whether or not someone performed miracles doesn't need less or more historical proof to establish their existence.
There is a near universal majority of scholars in many fields—historians, Bible scholars, New Testament scholars, philologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, literature, folklore and oral history specialists, paleographers, linguistics scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, those in the field of the Classics, a Dead Sea scroll specialist or two, and many others—from atheist to Jew to liberal to fundamentalist Christian, who all agree Jesus existed.

You have this impression because you have never seriously considered that evidence probably. One example: The OT talks about David and Solomon as kings of a unified kingdom. There is no historical evidence that these two kings ever existed or that there ever was a unified kingdom before the Hasmoneans. However, the kings mentioned by the Bible after Solomon are historical. Several of them are attested by inscriptions. All kings of the period erected monuments with inscriptions in their names. If Solomon had been the great king the Bible portrays, it is impossible he would not have left any trace in the Archaeological record. Many archaeologists have searched for such traces, but never found any. That does not make the Bible look good.

Tt only takes one single archeological artifact to revolutionize our version of history. We see this constantly in Egypt, where a scrap of papyrus or engraving on a statue completely alters our understanding of a pharaoh’s reign.

In 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel, archeologists discovered a fragment of a black basalt monument that dates to around 835 BCE. While it spoke of a defeat of Israel and Judah (which were separate kingdoms at the time) by Hazael, the king of Damascus, amidst his boasting he mentions the House of David.

The Tel Dan Stele, dating from 835 BCE, mentions defeating the House of David — making it the oldest proof of a biblical patriarch.

Furthermore, and even more damning, the Bible clearly incorporates material from the surrounding pagan cultures. Many Psalms, for example, have clear parallels in Egyptians hymns of praise to their gods. The flood story itself comes from Mesopotamia and so is the story of Yahweh vanquishing "Tehom", whose name parallels Tiamat, the dragon vanquished by Marduk in Babylonian mythology. The latter has been universally acknowledged by Assyriologists for at least a century (see e.g. this link and this one). The list of such borrowings is endless. It clearly establishes that the Old Testament is a work of traditional Middle Eastern mythology and therefore not a reliable historical source.

Coincidences are not evidence of influence.
The Japanese God of thunder bears a striking resemblance to Thor and yet nobody is saying that the Japanese ancient religion copied Norse religion.

If you keep on affirming the "truth" of the Bible, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you appear as a bold-faced liar, i.e. as someone who violates the 9th commandment: "you shall not bear false witness". How do you think that looks?

If the Bible has even one mistake, then it's false. The God of the Bible is also false. Meaning that its Commandments would also be useless.
So if the Bible is false, as you say, there's nothing wrong with me "bearing false witness".

Since the last one has basically turned into insults and I'm not interested in ignorance, I'm not responding more.
Jesus mythicists have only existed in the last 200 years.

They tend to rely on outdated biblical criticism, much of which was not highly respected even when it was new. Mythicists tend to sacrifice sound historical method in an attempt to discredit Christianity; their theories contain little to no historical support, and they often fail to respond to the historical evidence of the Jesus’ tradition with anything beyond dismissal. Because of all of this, most scholars see the mythicist theory as a conspiracy theory—a fringe theory—not a legitimate historical theory, and so it is mostly ignored.

 

[Es_ist_aus]

lmao, tfw incel forum confirms the study religion copers are low iq af

 

[Verxis]

lmao, tfw incel forum confirms the study religion copers are low iq af

It's sad that somecels feel the need to worship an imaginary friend.

 

[FuckAroundFindOut]

Probably just more agnostic or pantheistic so I put Taoism that was closest. Won't ever put atheism because too many atheists are insufferable faggots.

Lol far too many of those fucking retard atheists who suck the dick of famous scientists are nerdy neckbeard white knight faggot ass soyboys who buy pop figures and use incel as an insult

 

[incel_hitler]

Antisemetic Judaism

 

[somniferum]

buddhism because life is just struggle by itself lowkey

 

[MuddyBuddy]

I'm an atheist but I wish I was Christian

 

[8CbZA-kHFu6pFgE*]

Wanted to click on Christianity and now i clicked Islam and can't change it