Comment

Saturday Night Oddity: 'Does This Excite You?'

318
anubis_soundwave5/16/2009 10:15:44 pm PDT

CONT’D FROM: re: #315 anubis_soundwave

While what we do have points to the atheist’s position, I have to consider the messenger and the issue. Atheism as a philosophy has been around for all of three hundred years, tops—though I admit that longevity is no indicator of truth.

What’s keeping me out of the Atheist column is this: either every culture in history has concocted fanciful lies for some odd reason lost to antiquity, or all of those cultures saw “something” and—interpreted through each culture’s lens—called it “god”.

Most individuals chalk it up to faith and leave it at that, but the atheist and me: we want empirical evidence. Look, according to the New Testament, when Jesus came back from the dead (and this depends on four eyewitness accounts—one from a doctor who wasn’t even there at the time of the death/burial/resurrection), Thomas—one of the twelve disciples—wanted proof. Now to the christian, I ask you: What Would Jesus Do—or in this case, What Did Jesus Do?

Did he discount Thomas? Did he rebuke, punish, or curse Thomas? Did he reject Thomas? Did he issue a fatwa on Thomas demanding that he be burned at the stake? (Yes, I know: I’m conflating christian intolerance with muslim intolerance.)

To answer all of these: no. According to the New Testament that you recommended, christian, Jesus simply…showed Thomas the evidence he was asking for.

Before you scoff, atheist, there’s something you must consider.

One of the following occured:

A. some actor 2,000 years ago followed the Stanislavsky method; he willingly punched 1-inch nails into his hands (wrists) and impaled himself on a spear—after being flogged by the Praetorian guard to within an inch of his life

B. the early christian church around 70 CE was composed of a bunch of liars

C. someone in ancient Jerusalem survived a crucifixion and identified himself as Jesus

D. Jesus was in fact resurrected

A is irrational, B is one of several atheist conclusions, and C is completely impossible barring a miracle. Based on the facts, B and D are plausible and rational conclusions based on one’s philosophical outlook on life.

I know you guys hate it when I get so long winded. I’m not sorry. I’ve actually read your books, studied your philosophies and writings—along with a whole bunch more. I’ve given this more thought than any of you can imagine.

Why? Why won’t I take pat answers from any of you?

I want the truth.

To any intolerant jerk who would kill me for my questions: fuck off. I value my life.

/not an agnostic—closer to a deist with Christian flavor