Question For Those Who Reject Religion But Believe In God (atheist, gospel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nor did I suggest you reject it for this reason. I suggested rejecting it for the sole reason it is not just slightly, but entirely, unsubstantiated.
My main mantra in life remains that if someone comes before you with a claim and that claim is entirely unsubstantiated then you simply reject the claim.
That does not mean the claim is false of course, one can not prove an unfalsifiable negative, it might well be true for all we know, but given there is no reason to think so that is how one must act.
Quite correct. Where there is such doubt about a claim that one cannot reasonably decide, the logically correct stance is disbelief until better support is forthcoming. As regards Books, see my post above.
Some claims are complex, of course and 'believe of not' is either logically inept or downright dishonest. While i do not deny the mystical experience, what causes it is open to question (though some research and tests suggest that it is a mental state) and what it signifies even more.
Similarly Hypnotic recall of former lives and alien abduction is undeniable as are OOB and NED experiences and sightings of unexplained Aerial objects, but what is the cause of these and what they signify is yet open to question.
The fact is that they are Unexplained and that science cannot yet fully explain them (or even give a reasonable explanation) is NO justifying for claiming them as true, not because we reject them as unscientific, but because they are untested, unresearched and, in any meaningful scientific sense, unexplained.
Theists and Cultists get infuriated that we rationalist bastards refuse to accept their claims at face value but, as I said to Eusebius, when he and others disagree about how to interpret this stuff (and that applies to the Buddhist reading of the 'god' experience, too) then we logically have to opt for 'we don't know- yet'. Which is actually a good answer when one get used to it.
We should of course consider what is factual in the library and in the bible, but we also should not put too much weight behind it being factual either because we should fully expect much of it to be. Fiction often works like this.
Imagine for example a historian 5000 years from now who is handed a copy of the Bourne Identity. Clearly this book is fiction, but still much of it is factually correct. The politicians named in it, the historical events referenced, the scenes and locations the events occur in, even the air lines Bourne uses to move around are all factual and real. If memory serves he even consumes a Mars Bar in one of the books which is a real product.
Does all this verifiable fact, history, events, people and places for one moment lend even a modicum of credence to the idea a super solider names Bourne actually ever existed or the events in the book are real? No, it does not. Nor does realizing that preclude the historian from learning much of factual interest from reading the book. There is no requirement for him to suspend his disbelief about the existence of Bourne in order for him to use the book as a historical reference.
Similarly by all means we should explore the factual correctness in the Bible and use it as one source of our knowledge of history, cross referencing it as best we can with all our other sources of knowledge of history but this does not mean god exists, Jesus was its off spring, or that Jesus has magic powers or was anything more than a simple preacher with a small but fanatical following.
Even fiction can be a good source of knowledge for the historian, but one should not lose sight of the fact it is and remains fiction. And if one keeps that fact in sight then I do not think the issues you describe of having to suspend your disbelief are all that much of an issue at all. The claims are entirely unsubstantiated and there is no reason for you to treat them as anything BUT unsubstantiated.
We have to be careful that we don't skew the mind experiment through foreknowledge that the Bourne identity is indeed fiction. If we really put that knowledge out of our mind, we really would have to evaluate the book on its internal credibility.
The same with the Bible. Job is a particular case. Is is fiction or fact? It is the most obvious moral teaching tale in the book as distinct from purported fact, Jonah coming a close second. 'Myth' is a different matter.
I have a book called 'diary of a working occultist' which I bought in the days when i took an interest in such things. I took it as factual until the last story where the occultist constructed an exorcism using characters from star-trek. 'Fascinating' murmurs Spock with a cocked eyebrow as a demon fizzes around the room like a balloon, trailing sparks. If not for that I'd still take it intended fact rather than fiction.
Of course, if the Gospels had Boadicea rescuing Jesus from a stoning in her chariot, I'd have to consider that most doubtful. As it is, the characters of Pilate and indeed Caiaphas and the Pharisees in their blanket Jewsmearing manifestation all suggest a fictional element. There are other points that strongly suggest a fictional element, and all that remains is what looks at least possible, if not likely, basic fact.
After all, if Bourne or any other fictional character seemed to have some basis in fact then we might wonder whether there was a factual element on which the fiction was based. Of course, nobody expect us to take Bourne for our Lord and live our lives according to his words, so normally it doesn't matter.
In the same way, a God (I haven't forgotten the brief ) apart from a Bible which one could not accept may also not matter. So a Cosmic Mind or intelligent nature - pick your own title - created it all. So what? It would be nice to know that for a fact, but if not, what difference does it make?
None, unless one postulates some interaction and indeed something we are expected to do or need or have to do in order to fit the desires of this cosmic mind. Even then, unless the hellthreat or something equally nasty is real, we could tell it to get lost.
We have to be careful that we don't skew the mind experiment through foreknowledge that the Bourne identity is indeed fiction.
Indeed, that is why I was careful to mention cross referencing in my post, though verifying historical documents is not limited to just that. You would be amazed how many people think Robin Hood existed for example.
Take the claim all the graves opened around the time of the Resurrection and all the dead got up and walked. An event of that magnitude would make some impact at the time and should be somewhat verifiable by cross reference to other sources of information of the time. Unremarkably however no such event is discussed anywhere else... as one would expect when one is holding a work of fiction in ones hands.
Other forms of cross referencing however tell a different story as not only does the work appear to be fiction but plagarised fiction. Many of the myths, miracles and stories attributed to Jesus predate Jesus and have been told about other people before. Very little of it is original material.
When considering internal credibility I think we can discount the bible on many grounds. Clearly there is no internal credibility to the claims of the miracles in the bible and the feats that one sole human being achieved without the aid of technology. Credibility checks is one thing the bible does NOT pass muster on at any level.
So again I have to repeat that the events and claims of the book remain entirely unsubstantiated and the only grounds whatsoever one can even begin to suggest for taking it seriously is "Credo quia absurdum" which is not saying much.
Last edited by Nozzferrahhtoo; 05-10-2012 at 07:52 AM..
Sorry for delay...I was running a virus check...took nearly 4 hours.
Yes, I agree about the Bible. Eusebius raises the argument that the four accounts can be fitted together and to a certain degree that is true - as I said to him John fits the synoptics better than I had ever dreamed (once the crap had been pared away and the fiddlings unfiddled and restored to where they should have been..(1). But the unfiddling means that a lot of the material that makes Jesus divine and a proto -Christian has to go.
I have read a few attempts to find a historical basis for Robin Hood and some are quite ingenious, but based on a lot of circumstantial evidence and filling in the gaps with speculation. There's also the suspicion that the character goes back a lot earlier than the medieval or early medieval and links up with pre - Saxon myth and may relate Robin Hood to Scotland. So one has to have reservations and of course any possible historical basis begins to look a lot thinner in fact than Tacitus' crucified Castus.
(1) can't resist this
John 2.13 -temple cleansing
John 7. Feast of Tabernacles and dedication
John 12. Anointing at Bethany and procession
should be:
Anointing at Bethany and procession,
Temple cleansing
Feast of tabernacles
Sorry for delay...I was running a virus check...took nearly 4 hours.
I recommend using SSD drives rather than standard hard disks in the future. I have found virus checking drop from 5 hours to 5 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Eusebius raises the argument that the four accounts can be fitted together and to a certain degree that is true
Too many contradictions between them to be THAT true, however even then I am unimpressed. They are all part of the same book. Being impressed that the events in Book 1 match those in Book 2 is about as useful as thinking the Lord of The Rings is true because the same is true of them.
Again however this is how fiction works. It is often based against a back ground of real world events, people, places, and products. As such some amount of consistency is to be expected, not wowed at.
I recommend using SSD drives rather than standard hard disks in the future. I have found virus checking drop from 5 hours to 5 minutes.
I shall have to ask the little genius about that. For me, I am a trained monkey on computers. If you press the right button, you get a peanut.
Quote:
Too many contradictions between them to be THAT true, however even then I am unimpressed. They are all part of the same book. Being impressed that the events in Book 1 match those in Book 2 is about as useful as thinking the Lord of The Rings is true because the same is true of them.
Again however this is how fiction works. It is often based against a back ground of real world events, people, places, and products. As such some amount of consistency is to be expected, not wowed at.
I did just say that to a certain extent it is true that the four accounts (true or not) do fit together -which may mean no more than four versions of an original story -true of not.
While I fully agree with you that the contradictions do strongly argue or demonstrate that massive editing, elaboration and addition has gone on, whether the basic story that is common to all four gospels is true (or has some historical basis) is another matter.
I think that there are strong indications that there is a factual basis. I think there is too much to be explained away to make it totally mythical. I am not closed -minded about that however.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-11-2012 at 05:35 AM..
I shall have to ask the little genius about that. For me, I am a trained monkey on computers. If you press the right button, you get a peanut.
You were running virus protection software on a peanut dispensing appliance?
THAT would take genius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
While I fully agree with you that the contradiction do strongly argue or demonstrate that massive editing, elaboration and addition has gone on, whether the basic story that is common to all four gospels is true (or has some historical basis) is another matter.
Which as I said in previous posts is where one needs to cross reference further. One of the things one finds when one does such referencing is that much of the stories being told therein are not original, and are plagiarisms of stories that came well before the time of Jesus. Everything from being born of a virgin, the lamb of god, sacrifice to account for human sins, Resurrection on a third day, and crucifixion between two thieves has all been done before.
Its the big picture after applying ALL kinds of external and internal referencing, credibility checking and more that one has to consider. We could go around in circles for every if every time I mention one, you move to another, and when I move to that you move to the next. We could be here for some time :-)
Apply the credibility checks AND notice the internal contradictions AND noticed the plagiarisms and all together you will be hard pushed to reach any conclusion other than to treat the book as a work of bronze age moral fiction and myth which, at best, was inspired by real characters who existed around the right time.
You were running virus protection software on a peanut dispensing appliance?
THAT would take genius.
No wonder it said no new hardware detected.
Quote:
Which as I said in previous posts is where one needs to cross reference further. One of the things one finds when one does such referencing is that much of the stories being told therein are not original, and are plagiarisms of stories that came well before the time of Jesus. Everything from being born of a virgin, the lamb of god, sacrifice to account for human sins, Resurrection on a third day, and crucifixion between two thieves has all been done before.
Its the big picture after applying ALL kinds of external and internal referencing, credibility checking and more that one has to consider. We could go around in circles for every if every time I mention one, you move to another, and when I move to that you move to the next. We could be here for some time :-)
Apply the credibility checks AND notice the internal contradictions AND noticed the plagiarisms and all together you will be hard pushed to reach any conclusion other than to treat the book as a work of bronze age moral fiction and myth which, at best, was inspired by real characters who existed around the right time.
I am a great believe the the big picture, provided that is not the meaning found in the Theist-English phrasebook. As for the mythical elements, you are welcome to consider being born of a virgin, the lamb of god, sacrifice to account for human sins, Resurrection on a third day, and crucifixion between two thieves as derived from myth and also add the supposed mithraic elements to Matthew's nativity and I won't have a problem with it.
Mind, I would like to see just where some of those myths originated and in what form, but that would merit another thread.
All I maintain is feasible as fact is birth in Galilee, baptism by the baptist, taking up a 'mission' after the execution of the baptist by Antipas (that at least seems to be history, if Josephus is to be trusted) the kerfuffle in the temple and the subsequent crucifixion, plus of course Paul somehow attaching himself to the Jesus movement and taking his own rather personal message to the gentiles -with some opposition from the Jewish community. The rest, pretty unarguably, IS history.
Tracing those myths is not really easy. I think it has been tried and I remember seeing some books on the subject though their titles escape me now. The problem is that some of these myths were told, and retold for so long that many of them are like so systematically plagarised as to go back as far as verbal tradition and for obvious reasons the origins of verbal traditions are difficult to trace.
Suffice to say however that aside from internal contradiction and lack of credibility... the content of the biblical myths about Jesus are not original in any sense and appear to be retelling of old stories centered around a new central character.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) apart from a Bible which one could not accept may also not matter. So a Cosmic Mind or intelligent nature - pick your own title - created it all. So what? It would be nice to know that for a fact, but if not, what difference does it make?
