And.. that's religion.

[Mr_Quick]

game theory?

Essentially, the study of strategic thinking and planning when working with (or against) other rational, self-interested actors. Wikipedia has a more detailed explanation.

I would never make a claim, and then take the position "go learn yourself if you disagree". I hear that exact argument all the time, and a few sentence usually suffice.

This is where the problem in your argument lies. You said:

You made this claim before I stated anything. This is the problem I (and possibly others on this board) have with your argument. You're an intelligent person, and (correct me if I'm wrong) you made the claim that the idea of behaving morally because "I feel like it" (which is why a lot of us do behave morally, science aside) is LESS justified than fearing punishment (or whatever religion had to do with it). "Feeling" like it is SO broad. When it comes down to it, practically any decision you make is because you "feel" like it. If you act good because of a religion, you're still acting 'good' because you "feel" like it. For example, I might "feel" like not screwing someone over because I believe I was raised better, or because I wouldn't want that to happen to me.

If you're going to claim that the incredibly broad term "feeling" like behaving morally is less justified than behaving morally due to religious beliefs (which arguably could be due to "feeling" like it anyway), you have to back it up. Saying "people behave bad too" doesn't cover it, because religions disagree on morals all the time. (Terrorist attacks to get into heaven for virgins, etc. Lol)

This is where you're mistaken: I don't have to justify my beliefs to you, because I don't care about convincing you to share my opinion. You've made it clear that you're more interested in attacking the concept of religion than in listening to what I actually have to say on the subject, and I've learned that proving someone wrong is insufficient to change their beliefs; they have to be willing to listen to your proof for that to work. Otherwise, they may bend on tangential points that they care less about, but they'll never concede one central to their argument.

This is fine if the person has a good understanding of the subject in question; in that case the debate is usually enlightening in and of itself, so even if neither of our opinions change I don't walk away feeling like I've wasted my time. Given that your argument above is predicated on you not understanding the difference between thought and emotion (yet another intro-level concept that you seem to have no grasp of), this is clearly not the case here. Ergo, I have nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose (specifically time, energy, and patience) by arguing with you. Good day.

[MoralAtheist]

In essence, religion gave humans a solid justification for behaving morally besides "I feel like it",

If you're going to claim that the incredibly broad term "feeling" like behaving morally is less justified than behaving morally due to religious beliefs (which arguably could be due to "feeling" like it anyway), you have to back it up.

I don't have to justify my beliefs to you

Please don't attack my character. I disagreed with a statement you provided, and when I asked for clarity you assumed I was simply uneducated on the subject. I asked for you to support your claim, and you said I wouldn't understand. No. The burden of proof falls on the person asserting a claim, regardless of if you think I would understand or not. If you don't wish to support a claim, why waste "time and energy" asserting it without support? That contributes nothing to the conversation.

Oh, and one more thing.

you're more interested in attacking the concept of religion than in listening to what I actually have to say on the subject

I asked you to support your claim to see how you could reach such a conclusion, and you said you don't have to "justify your beliefs". This provides nothing towards the conversation.

your argument above is predicated on you not understanding the difference between thought and emotion

I'd ask for you to support your claim, but I think I already know your answer to that.

[BritishBlondie]

One quick comment...
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ, as in the one from the bible, than there is for Julius Caesar. Believe in the bible or not,there is MORE evidence for what he did than someone who I know all of you believe to have existed.
Just saying.

[sam20r]

One quick comment...
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ, as in the one from the bible, than there is for Julius Caesar. Believe in the bible or not,there is MORE evidence for what he did than someone who I know all of you believe to have existed.
Just saying.

more evidence from the bible that he existed? Or you're going to pull a Christian source with "evidence" that Jesus Christ existed? I have some photos of the lochness monster by the way.

[I_Am_Once_Was]

One quick comment...
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ, as in the one from the bible, than there is for Julius Caesar. Believe in the bible or not,there is MORE evidence for what he did than someone who I know all of you believe to have existed.
Just saying.

I'd put an asterisk next to 'evidence' if your evidence could easily be a bullshit myth. I'm sure there's much, much more eyewitness accounts and writings of El Chupacabra than, say, King Ashuk of India, then again we have no reason to disbelieve accounts of King Ashuk or Julius Caesar.

[BritishBlondie]

No,as in solid historical evidence. Like he was written about in Roman (note, not those where keen on Jesus) about him, saying he wa a rabble rouser, and that they eventually crucified him with a sign saying"King of the Jews". Im not saying you should believe in him, but just don't be ignorant and say that he's fictional if you haven't bothered to look into it.
Note how I didn't say "you've got to believe he's the son of God, its undeniable, you're wrong,you'll burn in Hell." Im saying there is evidence for Jesus, te carpenters son,who was crucified at age thirty odd for creating a rabble and speaking against Roman authorities and speaking against their Gods.
I also didn't say you had to believe the evidence. Just look at it before you palm off all Christians as idiots, please

[BritishBlondie]

And in which case, why do you have reason to disbelieve accounts of Jesus? Is it because you're too self centered to even BEGIN to consider there could be something bigger than you?

[I_Am_Once_Was]

No,as in solid historical evidence. Like he was written about in Roman (note, not those where keen on Jesus) about him, saying he wa a rabble rouser, and that they eventually crucified him with a sign saying"King of the Jews". Im not saying you should believe in him, but just don't be ignorant and say that he's fictional if you haven't bothered to look into it.
Note how I didn't say "you've got to believe he's the son of God, its undeniable, you're wrong,you'll burn in Hell." Im saying there is evidence for Jesus, te carpenters son,who was crucified at age thirty odd for creating a rabble and speaking against Roman authorities and speaking against their Gods.
I also didn't say you had to believe the evidence. Just look at it before you palm off all Christians as idiots, please

Actually that's not what you said. You said there was more evidence for what Jesus did, and this is a man who purportedly came back from the dead and magically transfigured water into wine. Now you've retreated back to the point of saying there once existed a flesh-and-blood man named Jesus.

For the purpose of argument, I'll assume your claim that the Romans wrote about him and how they crucified him. Just like this man caught a real alien. Nevermind that it could have been bullshit, that the Romans could have had incentive to let a group of people think they had eliminated their spiritual leader, or that the myths could have innocently sprung from information that was lost in translation.

I'm sick and tired of this "ancient regime didn't like Jesus so their accounts of him must be the stone cold bitter truth" bullshit. It's in the same vein as "Egyptians didn't want to be embarrassed, so they destroyed their records of the Jews' exodus" and equally stupid.

[BritishBlondie]

No, I said that Jesus Christ, as in the biblical one, existed. Go Google it all you want. Is it REALLY hard for you to accept that he existed? Im not asking you to accept him in your life as your lord oe any of that. Im just stating his existence. He existed, according to historical evidence. If you can find evidence AGAINST his existenc(Note:existence, that he lived, yeah?), Id lov ee to hear about it.
Why would Romans "bullshit" about it? And then let people believe he'd risen?
Do that photo you attached a photo of... One photo.
Jesus' existence: Hundreds of eyewitness accounts, official documents, similar evidence of others that the bible also mentions.

[I_Am_Once_Was]

No, I said that Jesus Christ, as in the biblical one, existed. Go Google it all you want. Is it REALLY hard for you to accept that he existed? Im not asking you to accept him in your life as your lord oe any of that. Im just stating his existence. He existed, according to historical evidence. If you can find evidence AGAINST his existenc(Note:existence, that he lived, yeah?), Id lov ee to hear about it.
Why would Romans "bullshit" about it? And then let people believe he'd risen?
Do that photo you attached a photo of... One photo.
Jesus' existence: Hundreds of eyewitness accounts, official documents, similar evidence of others that the bible also mentions.

This is what you said:

One quick comment...
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ, as in the one from the bible, than there is for Julius Caesar. Believe in the bible or not,there is MORE evidence for what he did than someone who I know all of you believe to have existed.
Just saying.

1. I don't have to prove that Jesus doesn't exist, just like you don't have to prove that Nessie doesn't exist.

2. You really want to compare the quantity of evidence of Jesus to UFO sightings? Because you won't win that one.

3. I actually believe in Jesus as a historical figure shrouded in myth. I am casting doubt on the reliability of ancient historical evidence. To use Exodus as an example again, we have reasons to believe that Jews existed in Egypt at that time due to it being the cultural center of the world, but no reason to believe in the Exodus story whatsoever.

I mention aliens because 'evidence' that aliens visited Earth is stronger than 'evidence' that Jesus or Julius Caesar ever existed in both quantity and quality. You can have reams and reams of bullshit evidence for a myth.

[BritishBlondie]

Okay, then you accept my original point: That Jesus was a historic figure that physically exised. So you kicked up an argmeuent against something you believe? That seems a bit silly....

Every UFO siting is different, for one, but I dont have the knowledge, nor ha I looked at the evidence enough to insult those that DO believe in Aliens or life outside this planet.
What I find relatively insulting is that this entire thread was based on insulting religion. Show me threads where people call people who believe in Aliens stupid, ignorant,small minded and believing in lies. Until you looked at l the evidence for yourself, and judge te evidence yourself, you ha no right to say any of those things.

[I_Am_Once_Was]

Okay, then you accept my original point: That Jesus was a historic figure that physically exised. So you kicked up an argmeuent against something you believe? That seems a bit silly....

Every UFO siting is different, for one, but I dont have the knowledge, nor ha I looked at the evidence enough to insult those that DO believe in Aliens or life outside this planet.
What I find relatively insulting is that this entire thread was based on insulting religion. Show me threads where people call people who believe in Aliens stupid, ignorant,small minded and believing in lies. Until you looked at l the evidence for yourself, and judge te evidence yourself, you ha no right to say any of those things.

Well no, see, you actually said that there was more evidence for 'what Jesus did,' as I quoted above. I believe there was actually a man in that time named Jesus, and not much else.

Historical accounts are little more than people claiming something happened, which is exactly what a UFO sighting is. It is the very definition of an eyewitness account.

You don't need a thread insulting UFO nuts or believers in Bigfoot or El Chupacabra, because it's generally accepted as bullshit by the majority. The great irony is that religion is not in this category in the hearts and minds of the masses, which is why threads like this exist.

[BritishBlondie]

It's in the hearts and minds of masses because SOME people chose to look at the evidence. Are you saying that the majority (yes, the majority of the world is religious, and the biggest majority of religion is christianity) is stupid, and incapable of deciphering fact from fiction?

[BritishBlondie]

And yeah, there is… There is more evidence for the basic things he did. Like preached to thousands, blah, got crucified, blah, disappeared from the tomb.

[Mahometan]

Where is there evidence of these things? The only evidence we have is that he existed, but beyond that, not much can be verified.

[I_Am_Once_Was]

It's in the hearts and minds of masses because SOME people chose to look at the evidence. Are you saying that the majority (yes, the majority of the world is religious, and the biggest majority of religion is christianity) is stupid, and incapable of deciphering fact from fiction?

Perhaps not the majority but yes a gigantic chunk of religious people are stupid and incapable of differentiating between fact and fiction. There are, however, people who accept that their beliefs are indeed beliefs and not proven facts.

Show me one piece of historical evidence for any of the shit Christ supposedly did and I'll give you 2 UFO sightings, a sasquach footprint, and hell I'll even throw in a ghost story.

I am asserting that your evidence is unreliable garbage, and your response is to say "we have evidence."

[BritishBlondie]

Im sorry I didn't reply faster, I've been too busy being content with my life and beliefs to come on a teen chat room and argue with men who are probably older than me trying to tell me Im stupid for what I believe and that my evidence is useless because now a days people have phooshop so believe in some other strange stuff.

Out if interest, why DO you believe the majority of the world is religious ifits all just bull?
(p.s. most major religious texts mentions Jesus, they just argue over exactly what gets to the world. They agreeon the major events. I can't find any if the over evidence at this moment because Im in my phone. Gimme a few days)

[Ali-31]

look we know that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that he was a Jewish teacher, baptised by John and crucified.

we have a pretty good idea that he preached to thousands, and that most of what he did happened, except of course anything he did which is completely illogical and which would be an indicator of divinity (healing the sick, etc.)

I don't understand why this is such a massive issue as Jesus' existence does not "prove" Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Nothing will prove any of the actions Jesus is said to have done in religious scripture which show him in a divine light.

I believe that Jesus was a good man, a popular teacher/rabbi and a good example to Jews who became a mythological legend after his death due to the fact he appointed himself the Messiah and then effectively was given his divinity retrospectively.

On the subject of why the majority of the world is religious, surely a multitude of reasons, however tradition is surely the overwhelming reason. It gets passed down through the family, and through society. On top of that, some people find solace and draw inspiration from a belief in God. Some people like the moral code and see their interpretation of it as an aspiration.

[Mahometan]

Im sorry I didn't reply faster, I've been too busy being content with my life and beliefs to come on a teen chat room and argue with men who are probably older than me trying to tell me Im stupid for what I believe and that my evidence is useless because now a days people have phooshop so believe in some other strange stuff.

Out if interest, why DO you believe the majority of the world is religious ifits all just bull?
(p.s. most major religious texts mentions Jesus, they just argue over exactly what gets to the world. They agreeon the major events. I can't find any if the over evidence at this moment because Im in my phone. Gimme a few days)

I don't know what the others are saying, but I'm personally not suggesting that you're stupid. You simply have yet to present us with any solid, historical evidence about Jesus' miracle working. All we know about the historical Jesus is that he existed and that he was executed by the Romans.

[VivienTx]

Someone up here was talking about morals... we don't need religion for morals and ethics. Also those 2 date back BEFORE christianity and so on. They actually reside in the early civilizations.

Also I believe as time progresses the importance of religion will drop more and more. And I'm happy it's going away because it's holding humanity back in it's progress.