Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Jesus and alien abductions

I haven't posted one of these for a long time, so I figured it was time. This is an excerpt from the Atheist Experience TV show, episode #586, with hosts Matt Dillahunty and Jeff Dee.

Why do you believe the fantastic stories of the Bible, none of them first-hand (at least, none of the authors of the Gospels had ever met Jesus, let alone witnessed any miracles), while dismissing eye-witness testimony about alien abductions today?

It's not that there's any good evidence for alien abductions, but it's far, far better than what you've got in the Bible.

Why don't you believe the people who claim to have seen Elvis still alive after his death, but you believe the supposed claims of unknown people, related by other unknown people and edited by still other unknown people, who, you think, saw Jesus after his death?

It seems to make absolutely no sense at all. The Elvis claims aren't believable, but they're a far, far better source of information than ancient stories from anonymous primitive people. And any halfway intelligent god would know that, so what kind of idiot god would depend on those old stories to convince anyone with half a brain in his head?

The only reason you believe that stuff is because you want to believe it, and because you've been taught it all your life.


Variable said...

This is just great! I'm gonna use that. Thanks for the headsup.

WCG said...

Thanks, Variable. I'm glad you liked it.

pookergirl said...


Anonymous said...

why don't atheists ever dismiss the other religions of the world? We have very little evidence, except here say, that siddharta gautauma was the man that became Buddha, and yet I don't ever see any atheists/skeptics dismiss him as not existing. Or what about the fact that most consistent historical records from Rome and Jews of the time don't mention the man Barrabbas, and that we have no other historical records of him than in the bible, yet most scholars and scientists state he empirically existed? Go on a tangent against the Qu'ran, or the Ramayana, maybe even try to dismiss the Native American mythos...fact of the matter is that atheism is simply anti-christianity. I believe in aliens, spiritual reawakening, reincarnation, etc...and a God: if you read into the meaning of the words, the Hebrew words used in the Bible, you find out that english is a poor vessel to carry their message. By reading only the surface words and accepting the name 'Jesus' as the only possible representation of this man in history, you are limiting your own thinking. The actual name for Jesus was 'Yeshua' and yet people look for the modern version as if that's what they called him back then. 'Joshua' is Jesus's actual anglified name. So, to say that the Bible is the only record of Yeshua (an incredibly common name of that time and this one) from Nazareth (which is actually a derivitive of the word 'Nazer' meaning 'branch' or a simplified version of the aramaic An-nasira) and to dismiss the possibility of this man's existence by using anglified terms for the accepted name today, shows little in the way of research and rather much more in the way of bias. There are accounts signed by Pontius Pilate, and even Herrod, that have thousands upon thousands of instances of the name Yeshua, many born all over the province, or known of in the provinces, that could account for Jesus of Bethelhem, which we know is/was a city/province in those times. Enlightenment for those who are serious in their scholarly pursuits.





WCG said...

Oh, where do I even begin, Anonymous? Atheists do dismiss the other religions of the world, but those of us here in America are surrounded by Christianity.

It's not Buddhists who are trying to get their religious beliefs taught in American public schools. It's not Hindus who try to get their prayers said at city council meetings. It's not Wiccans who dominate at every level of politics in our country.

All the time I grew up, I never knew a single other person who wasn't a Christian. So when I blog about these things, which religion would I focus most of my attention on? Of course, that doesn't mean I find the others any more plausible (although I also know less about them than I do about Christianity).

Second, why would I care what Jesus' actual name was? What difference does that make? I would even be willing to grant you the assumption that Jesus actually existed, although I believe the evidence for that is poor.

But so what? That wouldn't mean that any of the magic stuff in the Bible actually happened. Troy might have actually existed, but that doesn't mean that the gods in the Iliad and the Odyssey were real. It doesn't mean that Circe literally turned men into pigs, through magic.

London does exist, but that doesn't mean that everything else in the Harry Potter books is true. And you can't point to the Harry Potter books as evidence otherwise. (Further, you can't point to the existence of other people named "Harry" as evidence that Harry Potter exists, either - which is what you seem to be trying to do with "Jesus.")