Religion

Oy, I caan believe that. I really can.

 

Hey, I'm actually in agreement with you and F8L here! Perfectly valid point.

Let's take a step back and explain my position. I said:

My point is not that because certain parts of the Bible are true, the whole thing is, my point is that if the Bible were true, many of the evidences I'd expect to see are in place.

For example, if someone said they saw God as a man healing people, I'd expect to see their life change dramatically. I'd expect to see them excited to tell the world about what happened, and I'd expect them to be so convicted that they'd be courageous and confident about their belief even if threatened with poverty, imprissonment or death because of it!

That's what happened with the earliest Christians, and it's hard for me to believe that those who saw Jesus with their own eyes would march to their deaths for what they knew to be a simple story or a lie.

One piece of your analogy that I think doesn't entirely fit, however, is that the characters of your story are purely fictional. It's difficult to argue that Jesus didn't exist (even if you don't believe he's God incarnate come to save the world) because of the historical references to him.

TJ mentioned Josephus (whose work was probably embelished by Christians, though the reference likely existed beforehand), but there are others like Tacitus.

One thing Biblical scholars find interesting is that many of the non-Jewish cultures of the Middle East had similar accounts of a massive flood ("The Epic of Gilgamesh" for example).

 

Aye, there were many floods since "recorded" time and each culture had some kind of mystical reasonings for it. The Indonesian tsunami of 2004 had indigenous people running into the forest thinking the gods of sea and land were angry and fighting. While they were wrong, their little stories helped them to survive where others without such stories died.

It's from Wikipedia but it jives with other accounts I've read:

"Anthropologists had initially expected the aboriginal population of the Andaman Islands to be badly affected by the tsunami and even feared the endangered Onge tribe could have been wiped out. Of the six native tribes only the Nicobarese, who had converted to Christianity and taken up agriculture in place of their previous hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and mainland settlers had suffered significant losses. Onge tribespeople explained that the sea and land always fought over boundaries. First the spirits became angry and shook the trees and then when they saw changes in the sea and clouds they knew “the sea would enter the jungle and mix with the land until they decided on a new boundaryâ€. The aboriginal tribes evacuated and suffered few or no losses."

I'm not bashing religion my friend, just pointing out how events are viewed by all cultures and are just as important (and useful) to them as the bible is/was to others. Unfortunately those other cultures were not as dedicated as christian/catholics at ridding the planet of other religions. lol

 

This is not an argument that demonstrates anything.

Really? Lots of people march to their deaths for idiotic reasons.

While there is some evidence that Jesus may have existed, there is no incontrovertible evidence, and there are serious scholars who argue that the Jesus of the Bible is a construct drawn from a type of wandering mendicant preacher that was in fact common at the time.

Further, there are no extant manuscripts dating from the time of Jesus. What we have are copies of copies of copies, no two saying the same thing. There are errors of copying, there are intentional changes intended to correct a presumed earlier error, and there are intentional changes intended to promote a theory not otherwise supported by the original writings.

I think that Jesus probably existed, though many of the actions and sayings attributed to him are probably apocryphal. But there's probably no way to know for sure.

Most of the people who knew Jesus abandoned him when it became clear that he was headed for execution. Those few of his apostles who did go on to martyrdom might not have believed he was supernatural. The resurrection story is clearly apocryphal, since the Romans never allowed crucified people to be taken down and buried: they were left on their cross to be eaten by the birds.

A good friend of mine, a very devout liberation theology Christian, believes that Jesus was trying to lead a nonviolent revolution against Rome. In this view, when the people demanded the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus, they were choosing violent revolution over nonviolent revolution (a very bad choice in my friend's opinion). A few of his followers were committed to Jesus's nonviolent revolution, and went on to press it, and were themselves executed.

Consider the Abraham Lincoln Brigades: A lot of people went to their deaths for a cause they knew was lost from the start. Not because they believed the republican leadership was divine, but because they held the principles of anti-fascism so high they were willing to die for them. In my friend's view, the early Christian martyrs died, not because they had witnessed Jesus doing anything supernatural, but because they believed in freedom from Roman oppression and nonviolent revolution so much they were willing to die for it.

Flood myths are universal because flooding is universal. A bad flood looks as though the whole Earth is covered by water. Let a few generations of grandfathers tell their grandkids, with embellishment, about the big flood, and you have a whole-earth flood myth. It is incredibly naive to suggest that the universality of flood myths demonstrates that there really was a flood that covered the entire planet.

 

Sam Harris quotes Christopher Hitchens on the rule for religious discourse:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

If you want to assert that the world was created by a guy who gets mad at people who don't believe in him, you can, of course, do so. But if you offer no evidence for this assertion, then I can call that assertion bullshit, and I need give no evidence for doing so. Assertions about what is require evidence. It is a sad comment on the miserable state of the world when assertions made without evidence are accorded any level of respect whatsoever.

 

I don't know. I'll have to ask my Prius about it. Smart enough to have an opinion.

 

So if I assert that "It is better to be kind to people, than to take for myself exclusively", how does that come out using the logic above?

 

I hope I never have to testify in court. At this point I
will NOT lay my hand on that seething mess of fictional
folly so help me anything.
.
The other crowning irony is that throughout the history of
all-seeing, all-knowing, powerful imaginary friends, when the
claim is made that someone else has a bigger, more powerful
imaginary friend that can beat up ours, said imaginary
friends can't seem to just duke it out for themselves, but
somehow the common man is always called upon to put forth the
effort and go to war "in the name of" against those who
happen to prefer the other imaginary friend.
.
[Let's leave aside the issue that the imaginary friends were
all derived from the same source in the first place..]
.
Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course. I'm sure the
FSM can handle himself just fine without our help, simply
flogging all antagonists with a wet noodle. That's what
makes him [?] great.
.
_H*

 

It's equally as sad, that you can't be civil with others, no matter if you agree or disagree. Calling an other's view as bullshit, is just akin to me, as spitting in an other's face.

It's unnecessary, and is bordering on cruelty. You can, ( and I have no problem with saying this ), you can verbally disagree with my, or other people's views. You can, when you are with like minded people, say that what you all jointly agree is bullshit, is bullshit. But if we are to ever become a civil civilization, we need to treat each other, and each other's view, with respect.

It's simply a matter to me, of treating another, as you would want to be treated.

I will say this again and again. Sorry if that offends.

 

I would not swear on it as well. In fact, I would not swear in any form of testimony. I don't agree to that.

 

You're a cool cat TJ

 

I don't wholly disagree with you there.

I think what it demonstrates is that the Bible isn't pure fantasy. At worst, it's historical fiction.

In this case, however, the idea they were willing to die for is spreading the message that they saw God and He came to save us from ourselves. Many of the first martyrs saw Jesus in person and were some of His closest associates. It would be easy for them to see if he was a miracle worker, fraud, or simply a good teacher. I'd argue that such devotion would only be aroused for belief that Jesus was the first of these.

This is actually false. While you can reasonably argue against the truthfullness of the Bible and its stories, it's very hard to argue against the textual accuracy of the Bible because it is the best preserved work of antiquity. There are fragments of New Testament text preserved from within a few decades of Jesus, thousands upon thousands of ancient copies to check against.

The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran whose ages range from mid-second century BC to around 70 AD are one of the better proofs that not much changed in Biblical texts over time. Some expected to see drastic difference in more recent texts and what archaeologists discovered is that the differences were minimal and none changed the meaning of the passages.

You have to understand, the Bible is a sacred religious document and people didn't take its printing lightly. Scribes would throw out entire scrolls (quite a lot of hand-written work) if there was one letter wrong!

Actually it was left up to the local magistrates, who sometimes allowed burials (if bribed or wanting to avoid unrest, etc.). Claiming Jesus wasn't one of the ones allowed to be taken down is purely speculative, and unlikely if, as tradition holds, a very wealthy, well-connected man named Joseph of Arimathea (the buyer of Jesus' expensive tomb) stepped in to make things happen.

Most believe that Jesus angered the Sanhedrin (religious authority) rather than Rome, but that Rome stepped in to kill Jesus the rabel rouser to appease the Sanhedrin and avoid any trouble.

On political matters such as the taxes many Jews were furious about, Jesus simply said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" holding up a Roman coin with Caesar's face on it. The story illustrates Jesus' reaction to a trap the religious authority tried to lay to get him in trouble with the Roman authority by asking Him what He thought of taxes.

I guess my question would be what evidence is there for revolt against the government, because there's plenty of evidence for other topics like spreading the news of Jesus and promoting the values of the Christian God.

In fact, in Paul's letter to the Romans (part of New Testament canon) he says "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities... Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (Romans 13)

The evidence doesn't seem to support the claim of revolution, though it's true to say that early Christians distrusted and were persecuted by Rome.

I don't think the universal flood myth proves a universal flood, but I guess I do find it interesting, for what it's worth.

 

James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.


Wildkow

p.s. Glad to see you both following the Bible! LOL!

 

Very good arguments can be made for the above without resorting to assertions about supernatural beings.

No. You do not offend me. Those who have read Harris will at least understand my reasons, whether they agree with them or not. His argument, and it is one I agree with, is that religion is so entirely and remorselessly destructive of everything decent in the human spirit, and is the cause of such immense quantities of suffering, that it is just not possible to grant it unquestioning respect.

I do always respect people. I will no longer grant respect to bullshit. There are people who are deeply offended by aspects of my lifestyle that harm nobody. Shall I change my lifestyle so as not to offend them? Some right-wing bigots are deeply offended when two men have sex together in private. Must those men quit their private love-making so as not to offend bigots? I will use the word "bullshit" to describe irrational, murderous, villainous beliefs even if that offends the people who hold those beliefs.

This is one of Harris's central points: Up until now, unsubstantiated beliefs have been given a free ride. It's been unacceptable to criticize them even when they cause great harm. But in today's world, we will never be able to address our global problems if we are not willing to address the causes of those problems, and religion is very high on the list (perhaps at the very top of the list) of the causes of our problems. Allowing religion a free ride is at present the greatest obstacle to the creation of a civil society.

And do you propose that historical fiction is an adequate basis for belief in the supernatural? Are you satisfied that historical fiction is the justification for so much hatred and bigotry and slaughter? If the Bible were merely read as historical fiction I'd have no problem with it at all. I have often repeated that the Bible is a fascinating book, full of adventure and poetry and pornography. My only problem with it is when it's used to justify killing people who don't think that god wrote it.

Not at all! It is very easy to fool people. Consider the case of Uri Geller. He is a demonstrable fraud, yet untrained people view his spoon-bending demonstration and are convinced he has psychic powers.

And yet to this day the English translations preserve errors from the Septuagint, because the early English translators could not read Greek. And the Gospels contain errors derived from their authors' inability to read the Hebrew of the O.T.

And yet there were multiple errors, and even intentional alterations when the scribe or his boss wanted to promote a particular interpretation.

I was just giving the opinion of my friend there. A very devout Christian. You have no doubt noticed that Christians have a multiplicity of incompatible ideas about Jesus and god and what the Bible really means.

Paul invented Christianity out of whole cloth. Jesus was not a Christian. In a nutshell, Jesus preached that the end of the world was at hand, and to be saved people needed to behave in a certain way.

Paul rejected almost all of Jesus's recipe for salvation, and preached that salvation only required belief that Jesus was god.

Why is it especially interesting that the universality of rainfall, and therefore of occasional severe floods, should have resulted in flood myths in diverse cultures?

 

P.S. At my trial in federal court for trying to dig a nuclear missile silo out of the ground with a pick and shovel, as an act of protest against WMDs, I took the stand in my own defense. When asked to swear that I would tell the truth, etc., "so help you god," I simply said that there is no god, but that I would tell the truth. The judge accepted that. I did not put my hand on the Bible.

I do not know if all states follow the same rules in this respect, but generally people who object to being asked to swear, are permitted in court to "affirm" that they will tell the truth, without mention of god or touching any book.

I think you would be fine if you said something like: "I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I left out "the whole truth" because "the whole truth" would have to be the entire history of everything. Since nobody objected, I didn't have to justify my words.

 

:horn:

1. References to Dawkins and Harris
2. References to the Flying Spaghetti Monster
3. Overuse of the words "Fairy Tale" "myth" and "bullshit"

Dude - I think you might be a fundy atheist (credit goes to JP Holding for the "fundy atheist" term)!!

Seriously though, I'm not going to pretend to be an apologist, but I would like to see you defend your arguments at a forum I visit: www.theolgyweb.net or Reasonable Faith:

I enjoy watching debates. If you don't want to give it a go, it's cool.

 

"Faith," according to Mark Twain, is believing what you know ain't so. Therefore, as an atheist, I can still have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I don't really have time for another chat board. But the title "reasonable faith" sounds like an oxymoron. I comment only about the sound of the title, since I don't know the tone of the board.

I'm on Prius Chat because I own a Prius. I argue religion here, as well as discuss many other topics, because we do that here. I never seek out chat boards by and for people I disagree with, just to argue. And in real life I do not go around starting arguments.

 

Hey it cool.

Just to clarify, the above boards aren't really places to argue - mostly discussion with a separate section for formal debates. There's a fairly large community of respected and welcomed atheist at both boards.

I just thought you might wanna stretch the legs of your arguments so I tossed the offer out.

 

Daniel, I have enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. I haven't had the time, or perhaps lack the courage, to join this discussion. You have done a very good job expressing and defending your views, and have managed to avoid name calling and personal attacks. Thanks for the articulate presentation of a difficult topic.

Tom

 

Life is not this complex. Once the impossible has been removed from the argument the improbable becomes far more likely. Religion is the manifestation of that in which we have faith. Many people tend to follow the faith of others, such as Jesus, or such as a church or religious group. others choose to follow their own beliefs. Beliefs are not to be judged by others as they are simply beliefs.

Faith is what we have in our beliefs, be they Atheist, Theist or whatever... Religion generally strengthens belief however it is generally helpful if beliefs are based upon fact and that is one of the major issues with modern day religions.

Generally, the same person who if they read that a person called themself the son of God and then was sighted by others as coming back to life, and this occured last Tuesday, would dismiss the information as bs. However if the same information was contained in one of the Biblical texts then it has to be true...

Having beliefs is fine and I really do enjoy learning of the beliefs of other people, and part of my job (one of my jobs) is respecting beliefs. However I cannot base my existence upon that which I know for a fact is impossible with modern day science and certainly even more impossible 2000 years ago. It is far more likely that death was mis-diagnosed that the impossibility of actually rising from the dead.