Was christianity a hoax?

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok...

Proof as interpreted by an outsider would require empirics, usually objective.

Things like mysticism, aliens, divinity and so on can not be proven objectively and rarely empirically. Certainly I can go to a cold-reader and have my fortune told, if it's accurate I may be convinced, and assert that psychics are real. However, in reality it is just cold-reading, the illusion must have worked to convince me, but none-the-less it is still an illusion. Psychics are poor, they slip up way too often. But they identify with the desire imbued in us as children for mysticism. So, mathematically speaking, at least some people will believe that the readings are accurate. Once they commit themselves to believing in the readings they are prone to believe blatantly wrong readings.

An example of how flawed we are is love. Love at first sight, which is lust ontological to a series of chemical reactions within the brain, fades over time as the norepinephrine, testosterone and/or estrogen surges become more tolerated. At this point we see beyond our infactuation and begin to realize people aren't always who we think they are.

Beliefs are the same way, once we believe in something it's like love at first sight, we become blinded by it, we fail to see the evidence stacking up against it. This is especially true if it's a result of personal experience. Now, experience is subjective, things like psychosis are very common, there are many illusions as well, false memories and so on. The human condition is that of flawed awareness, we only see what we are looking for, wether it actually exists or not. There are two realities, the external reality which obeys the laws of nature and the internal reality which is ontologically subjective and doesn't seem to obey any laws in the sense that it's subjective.

So basically, in order to prove something, I mean to really prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you have to be able to see it, hold it, lick it and manipulate it. Then you have to be able to pass it around to others so they can do the same. That is proof. Asking me to disprove a personal subjective experience or a shady historical account is asking me to disprove something that has never really been proven to begin with. It's disproven simply by that fact, that it can not be proven.

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok...

Proof as interpreted by an outsider would require empirics, usually objective.

Things like mysticism, aliens, divinity and so on can not be proven objectively and rarely empirically. Certainly I can go to a cold-reader and have my fortune told, if it's accurate I may be convinced, and assert that psychics are real. However, in reality it is just cold-reading, the illusion must have worked to convince me, but none-the-less it is still an illusion. Psychics are poor, they slip up way too often. But they identify with the desire imbued in us as children for mysticism. So, mathematically speaking, at least some people will believe that the readings are accurate. Once they commit themselves to believing in the readings they are prone to believe blatantly wrong readings.

An example of how flawed we are is love. Love at first sight, which is lust ontological to a series of chemical reactions within the brain, fades over time as the norepinephrine, testosterone and/or estrogen surges become more tolerated. At this point we see beyond our infactuation and begin to realize people aren't always who we think they are.

Beliefs are the same way, once we believe in something it's like love at first sight, we become blinded by it, we fail to see the evidence stacking up against it. This is especially true if it's a result of personal experience. Now, experience is subjective, things like psychosis are very common, there are many illusions as well, false memories and so on. The human condition is that of flawed awareness, we only see what we are looking for, wether it actually exists or not. There are two realities, the external reality which obeys the laws of nature and the internal reality which is ontologically subjective and doesn't seem to obey any laws in the sense that it's subjective.

So basically, in order to prove something, I mean to really prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you have to be able to see it, hold it, lick it and manipulate it. Then you have to be able to pass it around to others so they can do the same. That is proof. Asking me to disprove a personal subjective experience or a shady historical account is asking me to disprove something that has never really been proven to begin with. It's disproven simply by that fact, that it can not be proven.

deadnothingbetter wrote:

my point exactly. it's impossible to prove and impossible to disprove. my request to ahnimus was to prove that Jesus is not the son of God and he disproved it by not being able to prove it.

In the court of law, there are many men/women who went to prison for crimes they indeed did not commit but somehow were proven that they did. How do you explain that?

catefrances wrote:

how can someone prove something doesn't exist if they believe it doesn't exist? just as someone who believes can not be dissuaded from that belief. a non believer can not offer any evidence because there is none to offer up.
personally for me God does not exist because i have seen no evidence or been privy to anything that proves to me he/she does. the idea of a divine entity makes no sense - to me. but then again faith requires no proof, just belief.
oh and ryan, i hate to break it to you but the easter bunny doesn't exist. :(

deadnothingbetter wrote:

Then evolution is an illusion. I'll say more on this later, but to summarize, you are saying that Jesus is not the son of God because it cannot be proven that he is. I will chew on this and reply with more later. btw, are you an atheist?

Ahnimus wrote:

It only exists in the mind.

I can't replicate an ice-cream cone in my mind, reach in and pull it out. It stays in there, I can smell it, taste it, lick it or convert into a million bucks in my mind. The mind's experience is so flexible it can do literally anything in an imaginary sense. But if you damage a specific region of your brain in the prefrontal cortex, you lose that ability, you can't imagine anything anymore. Additionally because imagination is required for visual experience, you can't see anymore either. The rest of the visual system works fine, but still can't see. (Christof Koch)

angelica wrote:

Facts are the facts. The theories that tie the facts together into a sensical package for us are imaginings of our minds.

catefrances wrote:

but it still exists. in what form, is irrelevant.

catefrances wrote:

to me evolution makes infinitely more sense than religion. i can see it's path. and then i can suppose what comes next. i can not do that with religion.