What are the odds . . .?
Didn't get many replies last time, so I'm trying again!
You hear people make the claim, quite often, that the Bible or some other religious holy text is more than likely true - because people wouldn't take the time to propagate such a lie. "Who would die for a lie?" they say (Strobel?). Who would worship a man that REALLY didn't do anything special? Why would people go through all the trouble of making up these stories? etc.
But isn't that EXACTLY what all religious people believe of every other religion?
Sure, no one would take the time to make up stories about Jesus, or to spread his message and worship him if he hadn't really done all those things in the Bible . . . . but people will do it of Muhammad, or Buddha, Krishna, Mithras, Greek oracles, pharaohs, etc etc etc etc. People die for Allah all the time, does this put Islam nearer to the position of "truth?" Of course not.
There are countless gods and goddesses, as there are many many religions.
The religious believe EVERY other religion, and every other God and Goddess created in history is simply man-made. Stories. Lies. Yet, they believe their religion is the sole exception. It is incredibly unreasonable.
As Christopher Hitchens said: "What are the odds that God created man, when stacked against the odds that man created God?"
The religious MUST admit that man has created thousands and thousands of Gods, and written loads and loads of false doctrine and creeds . . . they have to. Obviously.
Yet, it's somehow unreasonable for others to think the same is true of their religion?
No people would possibly go through the trouble of making up the Bible. But people will go through the trouble of making up the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Necronomicon, the Enuma Elish, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita . . . etc?
Who is more unreasonable?
The person who, seeing the sheer quantity of religions and Gods and who recognizes the inability of the religious to provide evidence any better than any other religion - concludes them all to be false?
Or the person who, recognizing the many, many man-made Gods, refuses to think the same is true of his own?
r_u_real: Answers nothing. You are assuming the Biblical account is true from the beginning.
@UberVampyre: Well, I'm going from a logical standpoint. Christians believe Christianity is correct - and in believing so, they must believe EVERY other religion is incorrect. Same with other religions.
I don't "know" all these gods are man-made. There is just nothing at all to suggest they exist EXCEPT for the accounts given of them by men. WIthout any evidence to back them up. So, naturally I'm skeptical. And given the lack of evidence, I lack a belief in them.
@scip779: The Vedas predate the Bible. The Necronomicon predates the Bible. The Enuma Elish predates the Bible. Greek mythologies as well.
And Christianity borrows heavily from all these as well.
The Bible has mistakes. The Bible has contradictions. The authors could've COPIED each other (as is most likely the case with the gospels).
@R Rosskopf: Well, the odds of life arising in the universe has nothing to do with religion. At best, that argument will get you to deism . . . but if you're going to try and convince me that whatever created us cares about us, or even knows we exist, then you have quite a long way to go. Saying life is unlikely thus a creator can be inferred doesn't mean it's the Christian version of him. Or the Muslim one. Or the Hindu one. etc.
And I don't know the odds. Though, given the IMMENSE size of the universe, the sheer quantity of stars and planets, I don't think it's as amazingly unlikely as creationists might like to insist.
Also, to Rosskopf: In regards to your last question . . . no, that doesn't seem very likely to me. TOO faithless? Faith is terribly overrated and over-appreciated. It should be frowned upon, in my opinion.
Your questions presume religious beliefs to be true. That faith is a "good" thing and is required, and that we should be obedient to a god of some kind.