Why do people believe religious texts?

[Minimalist]

some theist input.

Careful. To Herr Von Popenfuhrer and his gang of perverts theist input means sodomizing the altar boys.

[Thor]

Oh and I watched the vid, nasty stuff

Yes, it is! If I went around scaring the shit out of kids like this I'd be arrested! But because it's under the guise of "religion" these fucktards can get away with this crap. And what does this say about their supposed message of "love"? They're more about scaring you into obedience than loving you!

[fr0d0]

I simply can't understand why people believe in religious texts such as the Bible and the Qur'an. They have been changed so many times are written based on hearsay long after events that took place, contain events which are simply impossible and are full of so many contradictions.

Can someone explain why people so blindfully place their faith in them without question?

Thanks

People understand that they've been changed over time and were created by humans and are therefore potentially errant.

People don't place their faith in religious texts without question. Questioning is a core requirement of faith. It would be illogical to assume faith could exist without.

So, neither question applies to me, and I don't agree with people who act without thinking.

There are very many simple people who believe in a simple way. They possibly have a better understanding than you or I, and just get on with the practical application rather than over intellectualising.

[Thor]

some theist input.

Careful. To Herr Von Popenfuhrer and his gang of perverts theist input means sodomizing the altar boys.

Ya know... when I was a kid I always wondered why there were no altar girls...

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

People understand that they've been changed over time and were created by humans and are therefore potentially errant.

People don't place their faith in religious texts without question. Questioning is a core requirement of faith. It would be illogical to assume faith could exist without.

So, neither question applies to me, and I don't agree with people who act without thinking.

There are very many simple people who believe in a simple way. They possibly have a better understanding than you or I, and just get on with the practical application rather than over intellectualising.

Why are you generalizing so much? I may be nit picking or whatever the term is... but you are being contradictory when you say that 'people' do such and such and then say you don't agree with people that don't do such and such. There are plenty people that call themselves Christian without ever questioning the foundations of Christianity, true?

[The Piper]

I simply can't understand why people believe in religious texts such as the Bible and the Qur'an. They have been changed so many times are written based on hearsay long after events that took place, contain events which are simply impossible and are full of so many contradictions.

Can someone explain why people so blindfully place their faith in them without question?

Thanks

Do you believe that Julius Caesar existed? Why?

[Eilonnwy]

Do you believe that Julius Caesar existed? Why?

Because there is reliable contemporary evidence for the existence of Ceasar

There is none for the existence of Jesus or other myths in the Bible.

Nice try, but bad comparison.

[The Piper]

Do you believe that Julius Caesar existed? Why?

Because there is reliable contemporary evidence for the existence of Ceasar

There is none for the existence of Jesus or other myths in the Bible.

Nice try, but bad comparison.

There are just as many historical texts and evidence to support the existence of Jesus as there is Caesar. It's actually a very good comparison and a valid one.

[Minimalist]

Do you believe that Julius Caesar existed? Why?

Because there is reliable contemporary evidence for the existence of Ceasar

There is none for the existence of Jesus or other myths in the Bible.

Nice try, but bad comparison.

There are just as many historical texts and evidence to support the existence of Jesus as there is Caesar. It's actually a very good comparison and a valid one.

You are completely fucking wrong. This tired old canard is beaten to death by jesus-freaks and there is not a shred of truth to it.

There is NO non-canonical evidence for your godboy. And by 'canonical' I mean one lies and the other swears to it. Caesar, aside from his own writings, figures in inscriptions, other writings, including his enemies' writings, statues, coins, and even archaeological finds of his extensive earthworks at the battle of Alesia which he detailed. You should be embarrassed to make such an assertion but, I'm sure you are not.

Not a single Greco-Roman writer in the first half of the first century ever heard of your boy. Why is that?






{Now...get ready for the Great Xtian Paradox Answer}

[Eilonnwy]

Nope.

I said contemporary evidence. There is none.