Why do I have to believe in....

@sonship said
Your excuse is a dud.

No. You are mistaken. It wasn't an "excuse". It was an answer. And it's not a dud.

@FMF

This is not analagous to someone making claims about supernatural matters. Science is about empirical data, not "personality characteristics".

Two different scientists present to you "empirical evidence".
You don't redo the work yourself. You did not the experiments yourself. You consider their claims of the "empirical evidence."

One was known to have cheated in his college exams and stolen library books or cut out pages from books other students could have benefitted from.
The other was elected by his classmates to receive honors for his integrity.

If you take into account each of their publications will there be no difference in your attitude of trust?

Agreement or disagreement of their papers with each other doesn't matter.
Which one of their findings are you going to lean towards trusting more?

@FMF

Some of the people trying to create a cult of personality ~ rooted in their claims about Jesus's life and identity ~ which happened decades after he was executed. And then innumerable ecclesiastical technocrats down through the centuries.

Weeks after the execution of Jesus thousands of Jerusalem Jews suddenly broke from tradition and embarked on radical new ones.

Their change centered around the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.
Instead of the seventh day sabbath being the centuries old custom to regard as paramount they began to regard the first day of the week "the Lord's day" as more important.

This is not decades of the elapse of time. This was weeks.
Your alternative explanation for this dramatic shift of thousands of Jerusalem Jews is ________________________________ ?

" . . . to the apostles whom He chose; To whom also He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, appearing to them through a period of forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Act 1:2c-3)

@fmf said
So you believe that humans cannot worship their creator, if they believe there is one, unless they are members of your religion?

People can worship God through other means, yes, but when they are consciously rejecting Christ, they are not actually worshiping God anymore. This is really only possible in circumstances of ignorance.

But, certainly, some people are having relationships with God through other means because God does love everyone. But these are far less than ideal, and have a greater distance.

@fmf said
No, you're mistaken. I have no difficulty understanding the nature of Christianity and theism generally. Posting as an agnostic atheist, I find it interesting that Christians like you and sonship seem not to have anything of spiritual value to say to people who aren't members of your religion and who have internalized your dogma. Your religion seems to have reduced you to asserting things that amount to little more than preaching to the choir.

The personal insults here are rich.

But let me reiterate:

You grossly misunderstand Christianity and likely many other theisms if you think that it is possible to dismiss the deity of a central figure and still fulfill aspects of that religion.

Presumably, that is what is meant by the question - the thrust being that one can dismiss the deity and still reap any potential rewards if one is ethical.

@philokalia said
You grossly misunderstand Christianity and likely many other theisms if you think that it is possible to dismiss the deity of a central figure and still fulfill aspects of that religion.

The question isn't expressing a lack of understanding. It's pointing to the parochial nature of a "revealed teligion" that supposedly "rewards" belief in something that countless honest, morally sound people do not, and in many cases cannot, believe, and instead even threatens to punish them for not believing it. It could hardly sound like a more manmade bit of group think.

@philokalia said
This is because the resurrection is not merely some mundane religious question, but strikes about whether or not Christ is God, and one's relationship with God is an important factor in salvation.

Could you demonstrate how the resurrection of Jesus “strikes out” (presume you mean supports or proves) that Christ is God?

@philokalia said
Presumably, that is what is meant by the question - the thrust being that one can dismiss the deity and still reap any potential rewards if one is ethical.

What "potential rewards" do you imagine an atheist is hoping to "reap"?

@philokalia said
The personal insults here are rich.

I think you'll find it was simply a perspective you disagree with and not "personal insults".

@sonship said
Weeks after the execution of Jesus thousands of Jerusalem Jews suddenly broke from tradition and embarked on radical new ones. Their change centered around the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Instead of the seventh day sabbath being the centuries old custom to regard as paramount they began to regard the first day of the week "the Lord's day" as more important. This is not decades of the elapse of time. This was weeks.

I don't find what "thousands of Jerusalem Jews" may have believed or may have done at some point after the death of Jesus to be credible proof that anything supernatural had happened.

@sonship said
@FMF

This is not analagous to someone making claims about supernatural matters. Science is about empirical data, not "personality characteristics".

Two different scientists present to you "empirical evidence".
You don't redo the work yourself. You did not the experiments yourself. You consider their claims of the "empirical evidence."

One was kno ...[text shortened]... other doesn't matter.
Which one of their findings are you going to lean towards trusting more?

Take it to the Science Forum, spanky. That's where a question about ethics in scientific research belongs.

There is no valid analogy between assertions made based on "empirical evidence" and assertions made based on speculations about the supernatural and on the articles of one's personal faith.

You asked me: "If someone were to proclaim that for him or her resurrection was accomplished somehow, what would you list as indispensable personality characteristics you would look for in such a person, to even consider taking them seriously?"

My answer is that I don't believe anyone has risen from the dead. and the "personality characteristics" of those who claimed he did have nothing to do with it.

@fmf said
The question isn't expressing a lack of understanding. It's pointing to the parochial nature of a "revealed teligion" that supposedly "rewards" belief in something that countless honest, morally sound people do not, and in many cases cannot, believe, and instead even threatens to punish them for not believing it. It could hardly sound like a more manmade bit of group think.

The "cannot believe" aspect is always my favorite part of any contentious atheist position -- making out belief as so absurd as to be something which no rational person (like themselves) could believe in, thus damnation would be condemning an innocent to hell...

It's just a terrible position that completely hinges on narrow atheist epistemology.

@fmf said
I don't find what "thousands of Jerusalem Jews" may have believed or may have done at some point after the death of Jesus to be credible proof that anything supernatural had happened.

You can also look toward the miracles of Saints and the Church as credible institutions, and, of course, your own prayer life can potentially lead you to these conclusions.

You are not looking at this very closely or trying to account for all the possibilities.

@fmf said
What "potential rewards" do you imagine an atheist is hoping to "reap"?

I think that everyone has persistent anxiety about death, and so I believe some part of them wishes to avoid hell and attain heaven, even if it is something though they may put up a very confident facade that they completely reject the existence of both.

@philokalia said
The "cannot believe" aspect is always my favorite part of any contentious atheist position -- making out belief as so absurd as to be something which no rational person (like themselves) could believe in, thus damnation would be condemning an innocent to hell...

People can choose to expose themselves to religious literature but I don't believe they can choose to believe the claims about the supernatural that such literature makes.

I think the converse is true as well. I think once people realize that they DO believe the supernatural claims their religions make, I don't believe they can simply choose to not believe.

I am not able to choose to believe in the Christian God that I don't find credible in the same way as I am not able to choose to believe in the Muslim and Jewish versions of that God which I find similarly not credible.

Obviously, rational people can find your religion to be not credible. So, once again, the thing that sounds like nothing more than manmade group think is the notion that a religion - like yours - supposedly "rewards" belief in something that countless honest, morally sound, rational people do not find credible, and instead threatens to punish them for not believing it.