But I think there must have been someone running around then and started a religion. Otherwise Christianity would not exist.

Not true.  

That is on par with saying "Well someone named Frodo Baggins must have existed, look at the all the literature around Middle Earth."  People make stuff up, they lie, they promote falsehoods as facts, especially if it will benefit them in some way which religion does.

If you really want to learn about the subject I recommend taking some theology courses, reading the bible, reading the various versions, read through the Tanakh and the Qu'ran.  Follow that up, or go straight, with historical information on these characters, read what research has been done, what evidence there is supporting them.

You will walk away from them dumbfounded how anyone can believe it, none of it holds up to scrutiny.  In any other aspect the evidence put forward would be laughed at, but because its old and because people believe it, somehow that makes it valid or free from harsh criticism.

My search for God in my mid teens to early 20s wasnt spent watching Atheism videos on youtube, I spent that time researching everything I could, every religion I could find, writings, records, everything.  Even to this day I still try to stay up on things, and even to this day I can, without a shred of doubt, say that the Jesus of the bible is as much myth as all the African gods, native American spirit folk, Greek and Roman Gods, Egyptian Gods, the various Hindu gods and spirits, its all made up nonsense that is incompatible with reality.  

Funny thing is though, we have more writings about the gods of Hinduism and more corroborating evidence to their "existence" than we do for Jesus.

All of the major religions are wrong, all the people who believe them are wrong. (Yes all 7.1bil of them)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

It should come to no surprise to anyone that modern interpretations on God have gone to the metaphysical, everywhere at all times and outside reality or built into reality in a way that is indistinguishable from reality.  This is just wishful thinking and trying to get something out of reality that just isn't there.

----

Thought experiment

Imagine today I snap my fingers and all written works disappear, all movies, all shows, all buildings, all technology, all writings, and all memories of those things.

in a few thousand years after mankind has recovered, what do you think will exist?  It won't be any of the modern or ancient religions, it will be new religions, but science will exist again.  People will rediscover how to question reality, how to test reality, but they certainly won't "rediscover" any of the gods we made up this time around.

[hr]

[youtube]MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube]
[youtube]yPfFx9JTQl8[/youtube]
[youtube]g9x_oa--KAc[/youtube]

Not someone named Frodo Baggins, but somebody named J.R.R. Tolkien walked around and invented this story.
That is, for every story, for every rumor, for every religion there is an origin.
How the story develops then is another matter. How the story is later decorated, what is added, what is stolen from other stories and added is, so to speak, no longer in the hands of the inventor.
I can well imagine that in a few hundred years the stories of Middle-earth will be considered 'true' mythology.

But actually it does not matter who invented or how the religions were invented, God is an invention from a time when people did not know better.
Personally, I do not understand that someone can still believe in God today. But then, there are also people who believe in a flat earth. (Sorry, but I just had to say that.)

There are a lot of people of antiquity whose year of birth and death we don't know.  And what we know of them, of their families etc, was written down decades or even centuries later, then copied more or less accurately a dozen times.  Unless there is good contrary evidence, it's clearly fairly safe to assume that a real person is the source when there exists numerous manuscripts that are fairly in agreement.  Now, whether the stories about these persons are all accurate, is another question.  Remember that the manuscripts were written in a time when superstition was a central part of everyday life.  At the time there was nothing very remarkable about stories about persons performing miracles.

If somehow civilisation ended today and only fragments of writings would survive, but there was a cult that became a world religion which worshipped a person called Elvis who died some decades ago and, according to legend, rose from the dead and spent a brief time with his followers, it's not unreasonable for people a couple of thousand years later to assume that this Elvis person actually existed.

When people argue that no Jesus person existed whatsoever, their opinion seems clouded by some dislike of Christianity.  I'm mostly fine with people having their religion and superstitions, and I find Christianity a pretty harmless religion as long as it's reasonable true to its founder who was an unpolitical pacifist.  I am more concerned about a religion founded by a very political warlord, precisely because of that difference.

People make stuff up, they lie, they promote falsehoods as facts

Of course, but consider Occam's razor.  What's the simplest explanation, a historical person or a major conspiracy and cover up?  Jesus appears in literature too soon to be dismissed as euhemerism.

Jesus appears in literature too soon to be dismissed as euhemerism.

I acknowledge that point in my first post on this subject, that a historical figure very well may have existed, though it could also be historical figures.  But I also still need to point out that the historical "Jesus" that resembled anything close to what the bible or other mythologies say did not exist.

We have plenty of historical mentions of individuals or people and completely inaccurate mythologies around those people or combining individuals histories into a larger mythos.

It would be like if in 1000 years we had a religion based around The Engineer, fantastical stories about universe creators and the godlike men who built them.  In that scenario you would have a small grain of truth surrounded by nothing but myth surrounding Vladimir and SpaceEngine.  No mention of the real individuals name(s) or works, but a story based on some individual somewhere who existed at some point spread by word of mouth and anecdotes.  

That would put it to where Jesus is today, where the grain of truth is basically on par with saying
"some dude was alive in the middle east at some point in time between the years 6-4 BCE and died sometime around AD 40 or before"

Speaks nothing to the existence of any man named Jesus until the name was used decades later in reference to someone who may or may not have existed.

Remember that the manuscripts were written in a time when superstition was a central part of everyday life. At the time there was nothing very remarkable about stories about persons performing miracles.

And that is part of the point I was putting forward. We have very detailed stories about gods and demigods coming to Earth and interacting, prophets, church propaganda, false testimonies, word of mouth. It means many things cannot be substantiated or verified properly and is the poorest form of evidence.

Why this hostility against religion?  Face it, it's human nature.  Humans are social animals with a need to serve.  And to seek connections and purposes even where there is none.  That's what has brought us to this point where we have an advanced society.  The "do ut des" principle is found in most faiths - to serve and suffer for some later reward.  There are things that could be worse than Christianity.  Jesus warned against mixing religion and politics ("give Caesar what is Caesar's"), he was fairly clear on not to implement some perfect society on Earth ("my kingdom is not of this world"), and he had pacifist sympathies ("turn the other cheek").  Fine.  Followers of other beliefs preach the opposite of all this, and that could turn the world into something far more ugly.

Why this hostility against religion?

Discerning truth from fiction is a key part of understanding one's relation to the world. I am no more hostile to religion than I am to any other idea put forward. The problem with religion is the emotional attachment people have to it, the leaps of logic that are not logical, like any philosophy it is full of fallacies that should be pointed out.

Humans are social animals with a need to serve. And to seek connections and purposes even where there is none. That's what has brought us to this point where we have an advanced society. The "do ut des" principle is found in most faiths - to serve and suffer for some later reward. There are things that could be worse than Christianity.

Christianity had a reformation, things like Islam did not and will not. You see I look at these belief structures in the same way I view other philosophies. Sure they were useful some time in the past leading to today, but that use is virtually gone in regards to explaining the world or finding meaning in the world when the very books are so wrong about the world. Reformations can be undone, religions can change, you don't need it for community and meaning. I view those bronze age religions as harmful to humanity, it was less the actions of religion leading to a better world but the application of science and critical thinking. Religions didn't become more moral on their own, it took other philosophies and approaches for religion to change as it always does to fit the times.

Does anyone here think that future spirituality will be heavily influenced by advances in technology, specifically Artificial Super Intelligence? I already see some religious overtones in many Transhumanism movement. I'd venture that these future religions would be similar to Cosmism, which is essentially a combination of natural philosophy, old Russian cultural trends and non-fundamentalist Christianity.

While it's possible that our modern religions may die in the future (or at least reform to such a state that calling them 'organized' would be a joke), I don't think a sense of spirituality in humanity will. Even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence contrary to our precieved universal 'specialness', we tend to see some sort of 'greater intent' behind the impartial universe that we observe. As it was pointed out somewhere above, it is a social trend of ours to maintain a belief system that validates our societal actions and human existence. I think many people would see an ASI whose actions towards us are mostly benevolent  as a literal god, and more people would be inclined to believe that as its influence increases in their lives.

I think the Christian God would be the best and most logical choice.

Not even remotely and it isn't even a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.

The Christian God is a god built from thousands of years of prior belief systems, co-opted pagan rituals, conflicting with well established historical, geologic, paleontologic, biologic, sociological, and cosmic evidence to the point of absurdity.  The very notion of a historical Jesus can't even be substantiated to the point he very well may not have existed.  The Christian religion is wrought with so many flaws it holds quite literally no weight in regards to the universe we observe.

This is not to denigrate just Christians however, the same can be said about every single other man made religion and ideology.

Sagan said it best

There is in this Universe much of what seems to be design.

But instead, we repeatedly discover that natural processes—collisional selection of worlds, say, or natural selection of gene pools, or even the convection pattern in a pot of boiling water—can extract order out of chaos, and deceive us into deducing purpose where there is none.

[youtube]ew_cNONhhKI[/youtube]

I dont even think there is such a thing as purpose- even where humans are concerned.  We like to comfort ourselves with ideas of free will, when no such thing exists, because "will" itself does not exist- free or otherwise.  Things simply happen because thats how the universe and everything in it works.  Because if it didn't work that way we nor our universe would exist.  I suspect other universes evolve similarly, because if they didn't, they'd probably never expand like ours did and still does.  The universe represents an elegance of design on various levels in repeating patterns that create complexity out of simplicity, but that is not because of an ulterior purpose, but because that is the very nature of the universe!
Sagan also said that the universe created us (and other sentient beings) in order to understand itself, but that does not mean an outright purpose either, rather another aspect of the reality of how the universe works.

Also- good point about Hinduism being most reflective of what we know about cosmology- Sagan stated that also.  That Hinduism is the closest thing to what the universe's origin is.  But let's hope the classist nature of its aristocracy vs the "untouchables" isn't also replicated!

Christianity is pretty harmless now but has gone through some very bad stages where they were trying to force their ideas on other people and even went after scientists like Galileo and others.  And the conservatives that live in the South are pretty regressive in their ideas, which is usually the result of religion.

I dont even think there is such a thing as purpose- even where humans are concerned.  We like to comfort ourselves with ideas of free will, when no such thing exists, because "will" itself does not exist- free or otherwise.  Things simply happen because thats how the universe and everything in it works.  Because if it didn't work that way we nor our universe would exist.  I suspect other universes evolve similarly, because if they didn't, they'd probably never expand like ours did and still does.  The universe represents an elegance of design on various levels in repeating patterns that create complexity out of simplicity, but that is not because of an ulterior purpose, but because that is the very nature of the universe!
Sagan also said that the universe created us (and other sentient beings) in order to understand itself, but that does not mean an outright purpose either, rather another aspect of the reality of how the universe works.

Elegantly stated, A-L-E-X.

very bad stages where they were trying to force their ideas on other people and even went after scientists like Galileo and others.

The Catholic Church went after Galileo because they were losing converts to the up-coming Protestants. That rival faction wasn't as tolerant to new ideas as the Church was during the Renaissance (I know right - who ever described the Old Holy Roman Catholic Church as 'tolerant'). As a good example of how chill they were towards science before the 17th century - Copernicus, a man that most histories say was vilified by the Church, actually dedicated his groundbreaking book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) to the current pope of his time, Pope Paul III. It was a curriculum book for many clerical schools etc for a few years until the Church decided to present to the public a more dogmatic and harsh face and banned any books that explored the universe outside holy scripture - even if those individuals were religious. It was pure politics.

It was a curriculum book for many clerical schools etc for a few years until the Church decided to present to the public a more dogmatic and harsh face and banned any books that explored the universe outside holy scripture - even if those individuals were religious. It was pure politics.

The more recent history of climate science seems almost an echo of that.  The study of climate and how it is changing isn't political, but solutions to problems posed by climate change have political and economic implications.  So naturally there are factions with wildly different views about it to the point that some reject the scientific basis of it, spread misinformation, or even propose that research shouldn't be funded.

Thankfully, these days there is somewhat more freedom to pursue and present different ideas, and we don't burn people at the stake.

and we don't burn people at the stake.

In most countries....

I dont even think there is such a thing as purpose- even where humans are concerned.  We like to comfort ourselves with ideas of free will, when no such thing exists, because "will" itself does not exist- free or otherwise.  Things simply happen because thats how the universe and everything in it works.  Because if it didn't work that way we nor our universe would exist.  I suspect other universes evolve similarly, because if they didn't, they'd probably never expand like ours did and still does.  The universe represents an elegance of design on various levels in repeating patterns that create complexity out of simplicity, but that is not because of an ulterior purpose, but because that is the very nature of the universe!
Sagan also said that the universe created us (and other sentient beings) in order to understand itself, but that does not mean an outright purpose either, rather another aspect of the reality of how the universe works.

Elegantly stated, A-L-E-X.

very bad stages where they were trying to force their ideas on other people and even went after scientists like Galileo and others.

The Catholic Church went after Galileo because they were losing converts to the up-coming Protestants. That rival faction wasn't as tolerant to new ideas as the Church was during the Renaissance (I know right - who ever described the Old Holy Roman Catholic Church as 'tolerant'). As a good example of how chill they were towards science before the 17th century - Copernicus, a man that most histories say was vilified by the Church, actually dedicated his groundbreaking book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) to the current pope of his time, Pope Paul III. It was a curriculum book for many clerical schools etc for a few years until the Church decided to present to the public a more dogmatic and harsh face and banned any books that explored the universe outside holy scripture - even if those individuals were religious. It was pure politics.

Galileo was actually quite clever and was able to keep them from doing what they did to Giovanni Bruno (burned at the stake- SHUDDERS!)
During the Middle Ages/ Dark Ages, when people in Europe started believing that the Earth was flat again and that it was the center of the universe (did they forget the Ancient Greeks?) in the Middle East, astronomy, mathematics and medicine were alive and well (it's why most of our bright stars have Arabic names.)  The concept of zero came from India and was later incorporated into other cultures.  The real tragedy is that the Middle East was quite scientifically advanced and not religious zealots until the Mongols ravaged the land and raped and pillaged and burned down whole cities.

The real tragedy is that the Middle East was quite scientifically advanced and not religious zealots until the Mongols ravaged the land and raped and pillaged and burned down whole cities.

Yes, but the real decline behind Middle-eastern science was due to cultural apathy (to put it one way). By about 900AD the civilizations residing in that region had explored as far as their technology allowed them to and only encountered what they described as barbarism and 'savages' (by their standards) - this included those cultures living in Europe after Rome and its territories fell. The lack of outside trade and new ideas secularised the Muslim world, leading to a drop in scientific interest and more harkening back to old beliefs and xenophobic inclinations. Astronomy, physics and chemistry was dimonised by new Islamic takes on old philosophies. Mongolian conquest came later. The rest is history.

I think we can learn a lot from this.  History is often repeated and we could enter such an era on a global level in the near future.  Also, if someone wants to "invade" no wall- not even the Greal Wall of China- which is said to be the greatest artifact in human creation and the only one visible from the moon (?)

Didn't the ancient Greek traditions pass on to the Middle East before they eventually came back to Europe during the Renaissance?