Son of Liberty
You're completely missing the point. You're giving me reasons why you think Jesus wasn't the Son of God, all of which could lead one to reasonably conclude he wasn't. But the truth of the matter is they are just reasons, not known facts. I also gave reasons why many believe he was the Son of God. Also reasons why one could reasonably conclude he was. But again, the truth of the matter is they are reasons, not known facts. It comes down to whether one has faith or not, but I would still argue both conclusions are reasonable.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.
Far more logical to whom? Since neither side can prove nor disprove the existence of God, what makes one alternative more logical than the other?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.
Right, sure you do. I didn't roll past anything. I got your points. "My side is reasonable while yours isn't". See? I got the gist of them.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.....
Proof? Whoever said anything about proof? My ONLY argument is it's incorrect to argue having faith is unreasonable. I never said anything about proof. Talk about steamrolling past points made.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.
I believe there is life on another planet somewhere. The vast size of the universe leads me to conclude the odds of life existing on another planet is exponentially high. I have no proof of this life, but it's silly to say my belief is unreasonable.
Actually there is plenty of evidence, you just find it unconvincing. Which is fine, I really don't care, I can still find your lack of faith reasonable. It's just incorrect to say those who find the evidence unreasonable since you can't prove God does not exist.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.