Why Jesus is a complete fairytale

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Why Jesus is a complete fairytale

  1. robin says:

    christians need to understand that there religion is a joke.

  2. Irea says:

    All your posts Iv’e been following for a month. Such eye openers!

  3. Lamanite says:

    Just a few thoughts,

    Your post suffers from the logical fallacy– Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and the faulty methodology of Parallelomania. In order to successfully discuss this issue we would need specific ancient dated primary sources for these parallels (sources that meet the standard for peer reviewed publications.) The other element one has to deal with when making these type of unsubstantiated parallels, is whether or not Christian theology teaches a literal or figurative translation of scripture, or both. One should also consider the very probable existence of sycretism within Egyptian and/or Christian mythology.

    Not as simple of an issue as Bill Maher and the movie Zeitgeist would have you believe. It seems this type of parallelomania is just another flawed argument made by those whose methodological approaches to history/mythology does not meet most academic standards.

    • RP says:

      Dear Lamanite, nice try to try to shift the burden of proof. Unlike the religious, I’ll readily admit there’s not evidence enough to make a fully conclusive proof for the claim above. However, also unlike the religious, a fair amount of historical and archaeological evidence actually exists, indicating that Christianity is just another myth, just like older myths. It’s not just Maher and Zeitgeist. For example, check out Karen Armstrong (a faithful Christian!) revealing exactly the same evidence. I guess you were not aware of this historical evidence. Because if you were aware of it, your argument would have been dishonest.

      The 2nd video here is a summary of Karen Armstrong’s research. It’s narrated by a deconverted Christian but he tries to represent it fairly.

      • Lamanite says:

        Like I said…in order to discuss your claim(s) honestly we need to:

        1. Select a singular example to deal with. It is often the Atheist’s tactic to use a “shotgun blast” of information and assertions in an attempt to avoid dealing with specifics.

        2. Then you would need to provide references (that meet academic standards) that support your claims and be willing to subject those claims to peer review.

        3. Then you would need to form logical based on empirical data and deductive/inductive reasoning.

        4. Be willing to discuss the issue with the intent to understand opposing ideas and arguments and maybe even exchange your current beliefs for truths or paradigms of a greater caliber.

        Finally, please understand that I’m not suggesting you don’t perceive certain parallels exist between Christianity and some mythological tales, I’m merely suggesting that you re-evaluate the importance of your perceived parallels as they relate to Christianity. You should also review your assumptions about how Christians understand and interpret sacred writ. And finally you should consider how your Parallelomania is related to syncretism, and how that phenomenon may affect an individual’s personal hermeneutics.


  4. Lamanite says:

    I should really proof read my posts. Sorry for the choppy arguments and the bad grammar. Just let me know what is unclear. 🙂

    • RP says:

      Dear Lamanite,

      Funny that you mention how scripture and anecdote can be interpreted in different ways by the religious. I found it fascinating how you could interpret a rage comic as a scientific claim. Did you actually ask me to go peer review before putting a rage comic on a blog post? That’s just awesome.

      I’ll agree with you on one thing: one should critically examine one’s own beliefs. I do welcome such challenges. And I learnt a new word today: syncretism, thanks.

      On your demand for a deeper investigation: There is a certain body of historical and archaeological evidence to indicate Christianity’s similarity to other myths. I wouldn’t bet it’s a large body of evidence, nor that it’s conclusive (or ever will be), but it’s enough to suggest possible parallels and should be a thought-jogger to Christians. That’s all, really. From this simple comic, Christians could go ahead and ask themselves a number of critical questions, just like you suggest: Are these really parallels; how much evidence is there? Are the similarities just coincidental or did Christianity evolve from earlier myths? Could it be that all myths are simply reflections of the same god (the Christian god, of course)? Or could it just be that all religions are myths, created by people in all cultures for the same infantile human needs and instincts?

      I wouldn’t claim causality, just some similarity. If you’re curious about supporting evidence, I did give two references above, one from a faithful Christian, one from a deconvert who made a respectable effort to read up on Christianity’s mythology. There’s an entire research field on comparative religion.

      PS. I must reject your accusation that atheists “attempt to avoid dealing with specifics”. First, the whole idea of this blog, and 80% of the contents (feel free to click around) consist of actual reports of horrific acts done in the name of religion. I’d say that’s specific. But more importantly, you’re still trying to shift the burden of proof. It is the religious that have made outrageous and far-flung claims about how the world works. The onus is therefore on them to get specific and support any one of their extraordinary claims. For Christianity, 3 000 years and counting: still no rational basis for a single one of the most basic claims. It would seem God enjoys watching humans spend millennia to speculate over his existence.

      With your logic, I am the one who is expected to spend my life digging up new archaeological evidence and get it peer-reviewed, in order to convince delusional people that their invisible magic space-daddy is a myth? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard today.

      • Lamanite says:

        “but it’s enough to suggest possible parallels and should be a thought-jogger to Christians.”

        Absolutely in agreement. In fact, I think it is negligent for Christians who are exposed to these ideas to not give them serious attention and the appropriate due diligence; especially in an age where there is a proliferation of information. Considering Christianity’s horrible history of dealing with challenges to its truth claims, I would say that skepticism is a safe attitude to adopt as a non-believer. Ironically, Jesus proclaimed himself the “truth” (John 14:6), so it would be safe to assume that the passionate search for truth would be a basic tenet of Christianity. Unfortunately amongst Christians this is often taught and seldom practiced.

        As a means of coming to any truth, people should feel obligated to think and find out for themselves through a rigorous and honest search. We should all feel encouraged to ponder, search, evaluate, and thereby come to the closest thing to the truth as we are willing and able to achieve, and then be willing to change and accept paradigm shifts as they are presented to us throughout life’s constant learning opportunities.

        As an aside, I didn’t realize the nature of your blog until you pointed it out. I found your blog through a link on Facebook and didn’t bother to “look around” before posting. This probably wasn’t the best forum for my remarks.

        I’ll check for a response later to see if you have anything additional to say. 🙂

        (I’m surprised to didn’t mention Gilgamesh and Noah…LOL!)

      • RP says:

        Dear Lamanite,

        Not sure which point you’re driving here.

        Sure, Christians care passionately about “truth”. But Jesus didn’t teach them anything useful about epistemology. Jesus taught them to 1) Rely on dogma as truth, and 2) if you want to check the veracity of rule 1 you will be tortured for eternity.

        You say skepticism is a safe attitude for non-believers. I say skepticism is a safe attitude for EVERYONE. That’s the danger right there: Giving believers a waiver from skepticism… because they are believers.

        A person who relies on wishful thinking and revelation instead of skepticism, logic, reason and facts will make bad decisions for himself and for others. A person who commits to living his life as a conforming sheep in fear of an invisible authority is nothing more than a slave, working for a totalitarian system. A person who commits to divine commandment ethics (i.e. morals from a holy book or a voice in his head) instead of getting his morals through open discussion on moral consequences, rarely hesitates to follow group pressure and deny the human rights of any other group or individual.

        This is the proven track record of organized religion. And yes, the above paragraph applies to moderate believers and cultural belongers, not just fundamentalists and their leaders.

        This is the danger of religion. This blog is dedicated to showing hundreds of specific examples of this danger. There can be no real hesitation that organized religion has so far been the greatest obstacle to human progress and to the survival of humankind, and therefore the greatest evil.

        Religion must be opposed, not apologized for.

  5. Robster says:

    Hmmm…lots of similarity here. Why not, to keep the peace, just make an big merry mix of all the available deity’s, you know a sort of godallahjebuskrishna etc type thing and open a really big church where all the victims can be herded and they can spend the rest of their empty lives convincing each other that the godmix they’re using just has to be the right one, as it’s all inclusive? No more extremism, no more popes or odd buddist blokes in dusty robes, no more unshaven conservative muzzies or jews. Wouldn’t that be good?

  6. Lamanite says:

    Your flippant response is evidence of your uninformed world view. Your epistemological methodologies may need an overhaul.

    In regards to religion being the scapegoat for the existence of evil may I suggest that philosophically your approach to the “problem of evil” is amateurish. In my opinion the problem of evil in our world has more to do with libertarian free will than it does the deontological ethics. It is infantile to lay suffering and violence at the feet of “religion”.

    Human beings and the quest to define the truth and find a system of morality is the place to start. Religion may be a topic of interest within the context of universal morality and the existence of evil, but it is by no means the beginning or end of the discussion.

    Perhaps a crash course in Kant, Plato, Aquinas, William James et al.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s