No, seriously. Let's say that an element of supposed proof of the existence of God is that Christ was a real person -- a historical figure. Accordingly, his crucifixion represents a sacrifice of the highest order. Really? He was crucified.
So what? So were thousands of other people. What sacrifice did he make? None. What was his reward? Eternal life, supposedly. The prevailing argument is that Christ "died for our sins." How so? Because he fulfilled his destiny? If the manner and eventuality of his death was pre-ordained, why is it unreasonable to conclude that his sacrifice was not just staged, but phony?
When most people, including myself, profess to be atheists, we use this blanket term (atheism) to cover all religious belief in God. I don't believe in Zeus, but I've never been challenged on this because Greek mythology doesn't have a PR lobby. The reason we pick on Christianity in particular is because it is both the most popular (at least in the West) and the most stunningly absurd. Beginning from the first page of Genesis, Christianity requires a defenestration of reason. To wit, God created plants (which require the energy of the sun to survive), and then God created light and dark,
and then he created the sun. And then as an afterthought, "he made the stars also." Oh. Great. How can there be plants before there is a sun? How can there be light before our sun and the other stars? Snakes talk, they're "condemned to eat dirt," and so on and so forth. But that's not why I'm here today.
I want to know why Christ's crucifixion is noteworthy. The comedian, David Cross, opined likewise:
"Why wouldn't he want to get crucified? That was the most important thing that ever happened to him. That made him. Why would he fight that? 'I could fight this, and stay here, where everybody hates me, I'm misunderstood, uh, there's no health care, no dental care, everyone walks around with open sores, they're protein deficient, I can't eat one meal without getting sand in it. I could hang around here or ... I can be martyred and go up to Heaven where all my pets are, apparently, and sit at my father's side in judgment of all mankind for the rest of eternity. Hmmm, I wonder what I'll ... alright guys, go ahead, go ahead. What do you mean you only have 3 nails? Alright, do my feet like this, lets go!"
This isn't a rhetorical question. But it hasn't been answered because religion is about propaganda and brainwashing, not learning and understanding. If it was, they would have resolved some of the issues on page one.
Since Christ's place in Heaven is already assured, how can his suffering be significant in any way if he gets such an ultimate reward? Also, do you give any credence to the so-called Shroud of Turin? Do you think it's real? Do you think there's any material evidence for Christ's "resurrection"? On what basis did you come to this conclusion? Is it a scientific basis? If so, how can you justify an appeal to science when so much of faith depends on the wholesale rejection of material evidence?
Anyone? Does it haunt you to think that your choice of religion is largely dependent on geography? When you participate in politics, you let the evidence guide your view of the facts. But when it comes to religion, you let your faith guide your view of the evidence. Why? Are your convictions so fragile, they cannot stand in opposition to reality? Is your God so flimsy? So weak? For shame!
I generally don't like to talk about this issue because I feel like merely broaching the subject is condescending. And then there's usually a handful of barbs I can't resist throwing out. I also don't like to talk about it because I recognize that many people who believe in God do so out of psychological need. My observation is that many people express shock when people who have endured horrendous tragedies reaffirm their faith in God. But it shouldn't be a surprise. They're executing a weak cop-out. They make the easy choice, the weak choice, and cling to their belief in God because it is almost literally the only thing they have left. They choose to have "faith" as an alternative to accepting reality; as an alternative to making reasoned conclusions about the world they live in. "No. This can't be all there is." "No. It isn't possible that I've endured this much suffering without a divine purpose." "Yes. I'm a good person now because I follow the Good Book."
Because of that, I desire only to understand, NOT to persuade. I don't want to poke holes in anyone's belief in the Bible. And since it's so easy to do just that, I simply avoid the topic (in general). If someone believes in the Biblical God, they did not get there through a process of reasoned conclusions. As Jonathan Swift quipped, you cannot reason a person out of a position that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
.
P.S. Those who counter that not believing in "God," sight unseen, is equivalent to not believing in "love" are being absurd. "Love" is not associated with a dogma, nor is it a tenet of a system of belief. "Love" is also understood to be inherently irrational. It also has chemical precursors, the absence of which, greatly inhibit feelings that are associated with this phenomenon. The concept of love is utterly irrelevant to the concept of faith.