[maerF0x0]

> Does anyone actually believe this? What religion's pitch is "just trust me bro"?

Yes they do. Not really -- the pitch is more than that. Personally I believe the standard is we need _some_ evidence (not necessarily to the level of scientific journals) to claim something exists. If there's no evidence, it's as good as not existing.

The evidence for Christianity is more like this:

The historical contexts in which the NT & OT Characters existed (including Jesus) did not have a scientific world view, but they did have a story telling tradition which handed down stories as the closest thing to "fact" in the time period.

We have a collection of copies of documents written by some people about a guy[1].

Then when it comes to is the content of the documents true, that's more where people are leaning on your own experience (contemporarily), or shared collective experience (moreso in the past). It seems to be true enough that many people find value, and experience something they believe they otherwise would not experience when interacting with their religion/faith. One can dismiss it as the placebo effect, but I'm not sure that's entirely fair to be so ready to dismiss so many people's experiences when we also see so many other fields which rely heavily on subjective experience (such some medications, marketing/advertising, arts etc) ...

[1]: https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1754

[deepdriver]

>The historical contexts in which the NT & OT Characters existed (including Jesus) did not have a scientific world view, but they did have a story telling tradition which handed down stories as the closest thing to "fact" in the time period.

So did the ancient Sanskrit (Hinduism, Buddhism) Greek (Hellenism) and Nahuatl (Azctec) written cultures. Their cosmologies and moral systems are totally at odds with one another, let alone Christianity or Judaism. The pitch for all of them is essentially still, "just true me bro." The more recent variants of Christianity alone are often cosmologically and morally incompatible, sometimes violently. We don't have a full picture of historical "original" Christianity as the Apostles are claimed to have practiced. And then there's Islam, which being newer has arguably more historical documentation than any of the aforementioned faiths. So, which to choose?

[mattbrewsbytes]

There are something like 3000 gods, goddesses, devils, demons, etc. that humans have documented over time.

Are some of them the same? Which one is the "right" one? How can anyone rationalize that multiple religions have core tenets to convert people, sometimes with war? Just like I don't want some "trust me bro" person proselytizing to me a new agile software process, I don't want that from any religious person.

I firmly believe someone can lead a moral and ethical life without religions varying rules, ceremonies, etc.

[maerF0x0]

> The pitch for all of them is essentially still, "just true me bro."

My only point was it's a lot more than "just trust me bro" ...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything more than that. Your journey is your own :)

[fennecfoxy]

"Collection of copies" Not really copies I'd say, more rewrites of rewrites of rewrites of rewrites.

It seems inherently human to hold faiths/beliefs, even outside of organised religions.

Hell, I consider myself a pretty logical guy, but knowing that opening an umbrella indoors is meant to be bad luck, or seeing faces/creatures in empty shadows at night always makes me second guess myself for a second.

I suppose it's just evolutionary survival mechanisms at play; if the members of your tribe drink from a certain spot and then die, nobody will drink from that spot. If doing the hokey pokey before planting crops always seems to result in a bumper crop then the rest of the tribe will start doing it - for the times where nature does not provide a bumper crop, well, that's why characters like the devil were invented, to explain away those scenarios.