This is exactly what I was talking about. So it isn't REASONABLE then to say "after Jesus was crucified every single one of his followers HAD to be scared they were next, and their belief that he was the Messiah and came back from the dead was even stronger than before and not ONE single one of them recanted their claim. Not ONE said 'ok, we were lying, please don't kill me' every single one of them was willing to die defending their claims" thus it's REASONABLE to believe their claims.
Correct, it is not reasonable. First off, lots of people were crucified back then, and people from all walks of life had every right to be legitimately afraid of that consequence despite their continued actions endangering them... not that anybody, from Jesus' followers to the next "messiah" half a block down's fear of crucifixion really makes anything more or less reasonable. Don't forget that history is written by the victors; just because we have 19-20 century old records from the religion that ended up winning out saying "we've always been right" doesn't mean that there weren't dissenters and deserters at the time who's voices have been lost in the thousands of years of history since then. There is a far greater incentive for the followers of Jesus to assert their correctness over time than there is for those who did not believe to ensure their opinions retained a historic value.
1 Corinthians 15:6 holds that 500 people witnessed Jesus after his resurrection... This sounds impressive (though only a little, as even 500 people isn't all
that many when considering that such an outlandish claim would require a very high burden of proof, and the fact that they viewed something from the sort of distance required for 500 people to all see something) until you take into account that this was written
20 years after the fact by someone who benefits greatly from an impressive sounding story (it shouldn't even be necessary to ask "but what reason would he have to lie?" and it's worth noticing that only the apostles are on record as being close enough to touch him [Luke 24:37-43]). Paul tells us there were 500 people, where are ANY of their stories backing up his claims? Do, of course, correct me if I'm missing some key biblical lines here--do, however, take into consideration that even within the different sects of Christianity there are wildly contradictory beliefs, so please do try to find something that they all agree on if you'd like to bring it up.
I'm not saying you have to believe them or it's unreasonable not to believe them, it's reasonable to doubt them to be sure, but to say it ISN'T reasonable it's not looking at it objectively.
Since you have admitted that it's not "unreasonable not to believe them" (catch that double negative?) and that "it's reasonable to doubt them to be sure" than it is your own assertion that there is no certainty in the matter, since certainty is the antonym of doubt. Steadfast and certain belief in something that is reasonable to doubt and about which there is no certainty is
not reasonable, though it is faithful. As far as viewing the matter objectively, it is absolutely not objective to take the bible as the final word on the matter without weighing it against the far more logical alternatives.
Sorry, you obviously don't know much about the history of Christianity or religion in general and instead are looking at it from a "my side is reasonable and yours isn't" perspective. Which proves my point about the naming of the station to begin with.
I actually know
quite a bit about the history of Christianity and religion in general. I've explained in detail why a non-believer's perspective is reasonable (something you actually agree with several times in your post) and I've given many examples of how any given
faith is unreasonable. But y'know, thanks for the dismissive assumption, and for ignoring and steamrolling past all the points I've made.....
And just so that my position is clear I never said atheists AREN'T unreasonable, their beliefs, or lack thereof, can be supported 100% by reason. It's just extremely short sighted to think one side has a monopoly on reason. It's also incorrect to think faith and reason are mutually exclusive.
So we're on the same page that atheists' beliefs are reasonable. Great.
Now find me a definition from any non-religious source of the word "faith" that doesn't explicitly mention a lack of proof. Block yourself off some time for that search, it might take a while. Belief without proof is not generally considered to be "reason". It's less that one side has a monopoly on reason, as that the other side isn't using any.
By the way, don't ever tell me what Christians or more specifically what I base my faith on. You have no idea what I base my faith on and you have no idea what spiritual journey I've gone on. That kind of presumptuousness is based on nothing but ignorance.
Sorry to give you the impression that I was telling you what you personally believe, I assure you I only use the word "you" in the universal sense. Frankly, I don't really care and it's not really relevant what you personally base your faith on or what sort of spiritual journey you've gone on... unless it's somehow based on
objective, observable, testable evidence, the moral of the story is that it is, as you said in your own words, faith. Just because you have reasons for believing something does not mean you are utilizing reason... My buddy went on a spiritual journey into the woods and after tripping hard and petting a wild animal he now believes in The Divinity of the Seven Raccoons, but since nobody but him can see or test for the healing miracles of The Great Procyonidae, one must logically consider him devoutly faithful but entirely without reason.
As far as telling you what Christians base their faith (there's that word again) on, it's uh, a pretty well documented subject? Hardly presumptuous or ignorant having taken classes and done research on the subject, one might be more accurate to call my assertions in this regard well-versed. That being said, it's not even about you, or specifically Christians or the bible (though the fact that it's a very popular religion which many people know a lot about does make for lots of convenient examples to use), it's that
religion in general demands belief despite a lack of evidence whereas atheism promotes belief as a result of overwhelming evidence.
---
Now don't take it the wrong way, I'm not saying one doesn't have every right to their beliefs. Though a Christian believes in the word of the Bible, a Muslim believes in the word of the Quran, and my friend believes in word of The Great Tree Story, each individual is entitled to their beliefs... if it comforts you, or provides you some positive benefit without negatively impacting others, I can't help but support that. But don't delude yourself, or attempt to spread that delusion to others--unless you're a non-believer, you're faith is based on, well, faith. As I mentioned earlier: if that's upsetting to you, I'm truly sorry for your consternation, though again, it's not out of your control to change to a system of belief that's based instead on reason.
