This post is aimed at non-believers. If you are a believer of God/Gods then that is your right, but be aware that the content may offend you. This isn't the intent of the post.
Falling meteor may have changed the course of Christianity
The early evangelist Paul became a Christian because of a dazzling light on the road to Damascus, but one astronomer thinks it was an exploding meteor
NEARLY two thousand years ago, a man named Saul had an experience that changed his life, and possibly yours as well. According to Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the biblical New Testament, Saul was on the road to Damascus, Syria, when he saw a bright light in the sky, was blinded and heard the voice of Jesus. Changing his name to Paul, he became a major figure in the spread of Christianity.
William Hartmann, co-founder of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, has a different explanation for what happened to Paul. He says the biblical descriptions of Paul's experience closely match accounts of the fireball meteor seen above Chelyabinsk, RussiaMovie Camera, in 2013.
Hartmann has detailed his argument in the journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science (doi.org/3vn). He analyses three accounts of Paul's journey, thought to have taken place around AD 35. The first is a third-person description of the event, thought to be the work of one of Jesus's disciples, Luke. The other two quote what Paul is said to have subsequently told others.
"Everything they are describing in those three accounts in the book of Acts are exactly the sequence you see with a fireball," Hartmann says. "If that first-century document had been anything other than part of the Bible, that would have been a straightforward story."
But the Bible is not just any ancient text. Paul's Damascene conversion and subsequent missionary journeys around the Mediterranean helped build Christianity into the religion it is today. If his conversion was indeed as Hartmann explains it, then a random space rock has played a major role in determining the course of history (see "Christianity minus Paul").
That's not as strange as it sounds. A large asteroid impact helped kill off the dinosaurs, paving the way for mammals to dominate the Earth. So why couldn't a meteor influence the evolution of our beliefs?
"It's well recorded that extraterrestrial impacts have helped to shape the evolution of life on this planet," says Bill Cooke, head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office in Huntsville, Alabama. "If it was a Chelyabinsk fireball that was responsible for Paul's conversion, then obviously that had a great impact on the growth of Christianity."
Hartmann's argument is possible now because of the quality of observations of the Chelyabinsk incident. The 2013 meteor is the most well-documented example of larger impacts that occur perhaps only once in 100 years. Before 2013, the 1908 blast in TunguskaMovie Camera, also in Russia, was the best example, but it left just a scattering of seismic data, millions of flattened trees and some eyewitness accounts. With Chelyabinsk, there is a clear scientific argument to be made, says Hartmann. "We have observational data that match what we see in this first-century account."
Shaping history's arc: the Chelyabinsk meteor (Image: RIA NovostiI/SPL)
The most obvious similarity is the bright light in the sky, "brighter than the sun, shining round me", according to Paul. That's in line with video from Chelyabinsk showing a light, estimated to be around three times as bright as the sun, that created quickly moving shadows as it streaked across the sky.
After witnessing the light, Paul and his companions fell to the ground. Hartmann says they may have been knocked over when the meteor exploded in the sky and generated a shock wave. At Chelyabinsk, the shock wave destroyed thousands of windows and knocked people off their feet.
Paul then heard the voice of Jesus asking why Paul, an anti-Christian zealot to begin with, was persecuting him. The three biblical accounts differ over whether his companions also heard this voice, or a meaningless noise. Chelyabinsk produced a thunderous, explosive sound.
Paul was also blinded, with one account blaming the brightness of the light. A few days later, "something like scales fell from his eye and he regained his sight". Our common idiom for suddenly understanding something stems from this description, but Hartmann says the phrase can be read literally. He suggests that Paul was suffering from photokeratitis, a temporary blindness caused by intense ultraviolet radiation.
"It's basically a bit of sunburn on the cornea of the eye. Once that begins to heal, it flakes off," says Hartmann. "This can be a perfectly literal statement for someone in the first century who doesn't really understand what's happening." The UV radiation at Chelyabinsk was strong enough to cause sunburn, skin peeling and temporary blindness.
Raj Das-Bhaumik of Moorfields Eye Hospital in London says the condition is common among welders whose eyes are exposed to bright sparks, but the symptoms aren't exactly as Hartmann is suggesting. "You wouldn't expect bits of the eye to fall off; I've not come across that at all," he says. It's possible that the thin skin of the eyelids could burn and peel off, he says, but that is unlikely to happen in isolation. "If this were a meteorite, I'm sure you'd have other damage as well."
Mark Bailey of Armagh Observatory in the UK, who previously identified a Tunguska-like event in Brazil in the 1930s, says it's worth analysing old texts for clues to ancient impacts – bearing in mind that accounts are shaped by what people knew at the time. "Sometimes that doesn't make sense to us, but it does make sense if you can reinterpret it." What does he think of Hartmann's argument? "He does a very detailed analysis," says Bailey.
"I would label it as informed speculation – Bill Hartmann is an excellent author," says Cooke. "But like so many other things in the ancient past there is no real concrete evidence, no smoking gun." And with no other accounts from the time to draw on, there is little additional evidence to confirm or disprove the idea.
A search for meteorites in and around Syria could prove fruitful – Chelyabinsk left small chunks all over the region – but even that would be inconclusive. "If a meteorite is discovered in modern Syria in the future, the first thing to test would be how long it's been on the Earth and whether it could potentially be associated with such a recent fall," says Bailey. But even with our best techniques, dating such a rock to the nearest hundred years would be difficult.
Even so, Hartmann believes we need to think seriously about the implications of his idea. "My goal is not to discredit anything that anybody wants to believe in," he says. "But if the spread of a major religion was motivated by misunderstanding a fireball, that's something we human beings ought to understand about ourselves."
Christianity minus Paul
IF A falling meteor did inspire Paul's conversion to Christianity (see main story), that makes a random event hugely important in the history of humanity. What if Paul hadn't seen the fireball?
"Some scholars call Paul the second founder of Christianity," says Justin Meggitt, a religious historian at the University of Cambridge. At the time, Christianity was a small offshoot of Judaism, but Paul helped preach a version of it that broke with Jewish law.
Paul wasn't the only first-century missionary, and without him Christianity would probably still have separated from Judaism and spread around the world, says Meggitt. But Paul's teachings have endured through the ages, and their absence would be felt.
"People's interpretation of Paul is absolutely fundamental to some of the central figures of Christianity," says Meggitt. For example, Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation in 1517, was heavily inspired by Paul's letters.
Specific predictions about how Christianity and world events would have unfolded without Paul's influence are hard to make, says Meggitt, but "Christianity probably would be very different without him".
Manchu wrote: This article reminds me of religious people trying to literally explain the parting of the Red Sea/other miracles.
Except in your example, that is a misguided attempt by religion to use science to prove the supernatural (which in itself is absurd). This is using science to describe non-supernatural event that was misinterpreted by an otherwise unknowing observer.
Manchu wrote: This article reminds me of religious people trying to literally explain the parting of the Red Sea/other miracles.
Arguably Reed Sea.
Its very interesting if you like at the Bible also as a chronicle of certain events and leave out the supernatural driver behind them.
*Red Sea could have been a volcanic explosion and effectively a tsunami in the delta near the shore.
*Destruction of Sodom and Gammorah as an attempt to tell what happened to two very early villages hit by natural disaster.
*Great flood. There is evidence of a flooded regions in the Black Sea or Baltic Sea. Again a tsunami in an area not known for it, or just rising water could have been passed down generation by generation to become The Great Flood.
Its fascinating really, and similar items can be found in other religions, both still alive and dead.
They are both examples of projecting a contemporary world view (in both cases, a kind of materialist monism) on a past worldview. This presumption is the basis of fundamentalism. Paul understood his experience; whether we believe him is another matter.
Frazzled wrote: Its very interesting if you like at the Bible also as a chronicle of certain events and leave out the supernatural driver behind them.
Maybe fascinating ... but of course you would also be fatally misinterpreting the text. All the more ironic when you read things like:
But if the spread of a major religion was motivated by misunderstanding a fireball, that's something we human beings ought to understand about ourselves.
Frazzled wrote: Its very interesting if you like at the Bible also as a chronicle of certain events and leave out the supernatural driver behind them.
Maybe fascinating ... but of course you would also be fatally misinterpreting the text. All the more ironic when you read things like:
But if the spread of a major religion was motivated by misunderstanding a fireball, that's something we human beings ought to understand about ourselves.
You're only misinterpreting the text if you're viewing everything in the Bible as literal and word for word correct. Especially with the Old Testament, we have a collection of (holy mostly-the David stuff is pretty heavy PR) origin and travel stories. Some could point to real events that occurred in some form and were woven into these stories.
The plagues in Egypt are a good one. They could be a recording or real events that took place in some form. That doesn't mean they weren't divinely caused.
Just because the Tertio used a paint brush doesn't make it any less divine.
Medium of Death wrote: Why discredit useful allegory with science? Which seems to be the main goal of atheists.
"HAHA A METEOR TALKED TO PAUL!"
"WHAT AN IDIOT!"
"EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS NOW NULL AND VOID!"
Spoiler:
Where are you getting that from? There is no goal to atheism, it's just not believing in something. It's like saying there is a goal to not believing in ghosts or something like that. Atheism is no religion, not anti-religion. Not only that, it's not like atheists are a cohesive group. We don't all go to atheist meetings to discus how god isn't real or something like that. Most atheists will almost never think about religion, it's kind of the point.
Frazzled wrote: You're only misinterpreting the text if you're viewing everything in the Bible as literal and word for word correct.
Well, that's the most common way people misinterpret the Bible but it is far from the only way. Another way would be to believe the Bible is a history in the modern sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: We don't all go to atheist meetings to discus how god isn't real or something like that.
Some do. There are groups of atheists in the US and UK who get together on a certain day to sing songs and listen to a speaker talk about non-believer values. Sometimes, this even happens in a church building.
Medium of Death wrote: Why discredit useful allegory with science? Which seems to be the main goal of atheists.
"HAHA A METEOR TALKED TO PAUL!"
"WHAT AN IDIOT!"
"EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS NOW NULL AND VOID!"
Spoiler:
Well done sir. You didn't exactly what I was trying to avoid. This wasn't a post about trying to convert Believers, it was for us Atheist to have a chat about such observations.
curran12 wrote: It's almost like it is unfair to use a single example of a group to judge the others by, huh?
Yes.
Was that supposed to be a gotcha of some kind, or am I just misinterpreting your remark?
Not on you, more of a general sentiment towards the thread and what you might call the loud, public face of atheists online and the continue quest to 'gotcha' those who are religious. Like it or not, the loud, irritating ones are what one tends to think about when the name comes up.
Frazzled wrote: You're only misinterpreting the text if you're viewing everything in the Bible as literal and word for word correct.
Well, that's the most common way people misinterpret the Bible but it is far from the only way. Another way would be to believe the Bible is a history in the modern sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: We don't all go to atheist meetings to discus how god isn't real or something like that.
Some do. There are groups of atheists in the US and UK who get together on a certain day to sing songs and listen to a speaker talk about non-believer values. Sometimes, this even happens in a church building.
You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.
Frazzled wrote: You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.
bs. Whatever one might say about the events depicted in the text, the text itself is historical and therefore subject to a scientific historical-critical approach.
jasper76 wrote: @OP: It's certainly possible that Paul saw a meteor in the sky, and heard the voice of a deity (or imagined that he did).
The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.
I wouldn't say fictional but allegorical instead.
To me, the entire new testament always read like it was a political manifest, meant to defend Jesus as the new King of the Jews, that was increasingly misunderstood over time until it became the religious manifest that we see today.
The Romans never gave two rats asses about religion, there were dozens of religions practised all over the Roman Empire, but they did care allot about uprisings. Why would they care about one more lunatic with a few dozen followers that claimed that he was the son of a new God?
Now, if instead of that, Jesus was a Jewish King that could lead his people to rebellion? That might get someone crucified.
jasper76 wrote: The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.
Why?
Let's "de-religify" the example. Instead, let's say a contemporary person told a story of seeing a UFO. Is the simplest explanation that they made the story up?
jasper76 wrote: The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.
Why?
Let's "de-religify" the example. Instead, let's say a contemporary person told a story of seeing a UFO. Is the simplest explanation that they made the story up?
Erm... yes?!
Try the experience yourself. Go up to someone and tell them that you saw an UFO. Most people will say that you are outright lying. Only if they care about your feelings, will they say that you must have saw something else and misinterpreted it.
jasper76 wrote: The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.
Why?
Let's "de-religify" the example. Instead, let's say a contemporary person told a story of seeing a UFO. Is the simplest explanation that they made the story up?
Is this witness' beer also kept in a koozie, because if so, then yes. They made it up.
jasper76 wrote: The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.
Why?
Let's "de-religify" the example. Instead, let's say a contemporary person told a story of seeing a UFO. Is the simplest explanation that they made the story up?
UFO sightings are not supernatural. They are unidentified flying objects, and they happen all the time. If someone says, "I saw something in the sky and didn't know what it was," there is nothing particularly outrageous, and certainly nothing supernatural about that claim.
Claiming to hear the voice of a deity, on the other hand, does invoke a claim about the supernatural. Since there is no good evidence that supernatural truth claims are real, the likeliest explanation is that the person is lying, or the person is attributing some sort of natural phonemomen to a supernatural source.
Frazzled wrote: You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.
bs. Whatever one might say about the events depicted in the text, the text itself is historical and therefore subject to a scientific historical-critical approach.
And bs is called back at you. Reinterpreting the Bible is why there are so many different denominations. Now you may not like that, but thats because you're catholic and have that whole dogma and doctrine thing. Don't make me come over there and steal all your Christ Cheks and Jesus Juice!
I am not talking about interpretation, just the alleged factual underpinning of the story. A person sees a strange light in the sky. Whether they believe it to be God or alien invaders is beside the point. Is the simplest explanation for a report of seeing a strange light in the sky that it is fictional?
Frazzled wrote: Reinterpreting the Bible is why there are so many different denominations. Now you may not like that, but thats because you're catholic and have that whole dogma and doctrine thing.
(1) The existence of a denomination does not mean its method of interpreting of the Bible makes sense.
(2) Historical-critical study of scripture was pretty much forbidden in Catholicism until the (relatively speaking) recent past. It was pioneered by German protestants. So this is not a matter of me being Catholic.
Manchu wrote: I am not talking about interpretation, just the alleged factual underpinning of the story. A person sees a strange light in the sky. Whether they believe it to be God or alien invaders is beside the point. Is the simplest explanation for a report of seeing a strange light in the sky that it is fictional?
No, if the issue at hand were just seeing a strange light in the sky, there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about that claim.
But that's not the only claim made in story of the road to Damascus.
Manchu wrote: I am not talking about interpretation, just the alleged factual underpinning of the story. A person sees a strange light in the sky. Whether they believe it to be God or alien invaders is beside the point. Is the simplest explanation for a report of seeing a strange light in the sky that it is fictional?
if thats referring to me I think we're actually on the same page. I'm arguing the potential study of what that "bright light" was is interesting. Some of those studies could tie to historical geological or astronomy events.
So you agree Paul's claim to have seen a light is probably not fictional? Good. But you believe that Paul's experience of God's presence is fictional? Is that the simplest conclusion? No. That is just a matter of you having different beliefs than Paul.
Manchu wrote: I am not talking about interpretation, just the alleged factual underpinning of the story. A person sees a strange light in the sky. Whether they believe it to be God or alien invaders is beside the point. Is the simplest explanation for a report of seeing a strange light in the sky that it is fictional?
No, if the issue at hand were just seeing a strange light in the sky, there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about that claim.
But that's not the only claim made in story of the road to Damascus.
Seeing a strange light in the sky in 1st Century Middle East would indeed have been an unusual occurrence.
So you agree Paul's claim to have seen a light is probably not fictional? Good. But you believe that Paul's experience of God's presence is fictional? Is that the simplest conclusion? No. That is just a matter of you having different beliefs than Paul.
Where to begin:
Assumption 1: Paul was indeed a historical human being.
Assumption 2: The author of the Acts of the Apostles was a first hand witness to the events that he recorded, and he recorded them accurately.
Assumption 3: There is a deity.
Assumption 4: This deity is interested in communicating with human beings.
Assumption 5: That deity is Jesus of Nazareth.
All of these five assumptions (at least) would have to be dealt with in order for me personally to switch from "almost certainly fiction" to "plausible" as relates to the story of Damascus. There may very well be evidence that Paul was a historical human being, but I'm not privy to that info.
This is a period in history when 'omens' still have a strong hold. It's not just the Pagan's who would of believed in them. A 3 year drought would of seen farmers believing in or being told that God was unhappy with them. You even had Anglo Saxon monks writing that Dragons were abroad when the Vikings struck. So a close encounter with a meteor could of easily be seen as 'God' getting in touch. Ok he may of just seen a very bright light and got hit by a pressure wave. No way of telling how much the story was embellished after this, by Paul or 3rd parties.
There is no credible dispute that Paul was an actual, historical person. Whether Luke or whoever wrote Acts was a first-hand witness to Paul's experience has no relevance to the notion that the simplest way to explain Paul's experience of seeing a light as being fictional.
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
There is no goal to atheism. Its just a descriptor of a mindset about the existence of one or more deities.
Science is about empiricism. It is not designed to provide succour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: There is no credible dispute that Paul was an actual, historical person. Whether Luke or whoever wrote Acts was a first-hand witness to Paul's experience has no relevance to the notion that the simplest way to explain Paul's experience of seeing a light as being fictional.
OK, lets say you're correct and there is a mountain of evidence showing that Paul was indeed an historical human.
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
There is no ultimate goal of atheism. You simply don't believe in any god.
Science gives many things, medicine, technology, but most importantly, it answers mankind's unending thirst for answers.
And no, it does not lead to nihilism or selfishness. Just because I believe I end when I die, does not mean that I can't live for today. That I can't live my life to the fullest. I help as many people as I can, and not out of some belief in reward, but because that is what I think it best to do. I wish to help people for the simple act of helping. You don't need religion to be a good person.
The issue is, we have an account: a man saw a light in the sky and believed it was God talking to him.
Far from it being the simplest explanation, there is no reason to say this is a fictional story.
Maybe you don't believe God exists. That doesn't mean what happened to Paul fictional. It certainly doesn't mean Paul was lying or that he did not understand what he experienced. All it means is, you don't believe God exists.
No, science does not do this. Science is only one of many ways that human beings wonder about themselves and the world and everything else. Science is the product of human curiosity, not the end.
The issue is, we have an account: a man saw a light in the sky and believed it was God talking to him.
Far from it being the simplest explanation, there is no reason to say this is a fictional story.
This is much, much more than an account of a man thinking God was talking to him. This is an account of a deity actually talking to him. And, as it turns out (unless soemthing is missing in translation) that the light was not in the sky....rather, it came from the sky and shone all around him (presumably he is on the ground)
Acts 9
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
The issue is, we have an account: a man saw a light in the sky and believed it was God talking to him.
Far from it being the simplest explanation, there is no reason to say this is a fictional story.
Maybe you don't believe God exists. That doesn't mean what happened to Paul fictional. It certainly doesn't mean Paul was lying or that he did not understand what he experienced. All it means is, you don't believe God exists.
No, science does not do this. Science is only one of many ways that human beings wonder about themselves and the world and everything else. Science is the product of human curiosity, not the end.
So... it does anwser mankinds thirst for anwsers...?
No, science does not do this. Science is only one of many ways that human beings wonder about themselves and the world and everything else. Science is the product of human curiosity, not the end.
When you get answers, you also get more questions.
Why does an apple fall? Gravity. What is gravity? The pull objects exert on each other. What causes this pull ? The bending of space-time. ect ect.
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
The goal is not believing in a theism. Full stop. Any other goal is something someone else has fabricated by hijacking the term. All qualities you ascribe to an atheist beyond that are stereotypes.
Why do you relate science and atheism together? Do you think there cannot be religious scientists or that science is somehow anti-religion? Why does it need to provide succor? It's not a religion or something.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Water answers your thirst, but you will continually need more of it to keep that thirst answered.
But literal water will always be sufficient to slake literal thirst. If thirst is the question, water is sufficient to be its only answer. That's where the analogy to human curiosity and science breaks down.
jasper76 wrote: This is much, much more than an account of a man thinking God was talking to him.
Okay ... it is an account of a person who believed Paul's claim that God spoke to him. That changes nothing.
Exactly. There are people alive today that claim that God speaks to them or has spoken to them.
In the end, we are left with an extraordinary claim, that a deity communicated with a human. I don't buy it just because it was written down in a book. That is a very, very low standard of skepticism.
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
The goal is not believing in a theism. Full stop. Any other goal is something someone else has fabricated by hijacking the term. All qualities you ascribe to an atheist beyond that are stereotypes.
Why do you relate science and atheism together? Do you think there cannot be religious scientists or that science is somehow anti-religion? Why does it need to provide succor? It's not a religion or something.
No. No, it doesn't.
Where do you get your succour from then?
Atheism and science are more closely linked because it's the single source of how you want to live and where you get your answers.
You don't want to be defined by religion but you live in societies that never would have developed without it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Water answers your thirst, but you will continually need more of it to keep that thirst answered.
But literal water will always be sufficient to slake literal thirst. If thirst is the question, water is sufficient to be its only answer. That's where the analogy to human curiosity and science breaks down.
The analogy is not the argument. It simply explains it.
Humans have a wanting for knowledge. We want to know what stuff does and why. Science answers that by telling us (to the best of our ability at the time). But the more "answers" we get, the more questions it gives us. Human curiosity will not be slaked until everything is understood, something that will never happen. I know I am never happy unless I know the reason why. I spend most of my free time learning, gaining knowledge. Learning all the lies, so I can learn the truth.
MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The analogy is not the argument. It simply explains it.
Rather say then that knowledge slakes the thirst of curiosity, and understand that not all knowledge is scientific.
Manchu wrote: Well, maybe we are talking past each other. There is a difference between not sharing someone's beliefs and their beliefs being lies/fictions.
For what it's worth, I treat all supernatural truth claims as fictional (not necessarily intentional lies) unless I am presented with compelling evidence that they are true.
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
The goal is not believing in a theism. Full stop. Any other goal is something someone else has fabricated by hijacking the term. All qualities you ascribe to an atheist beyond that are stereotypes.
Why do you relate science and atheism together? Do you think there cannot be religious scientists or that science is somehow anti-religion? Why does it need to provide succor? It's not a religion or something.
No. No, it doesn't.
Where do you get your succour from then?
Atheism and science are more closely linked because it's the single source of how you want to live and where you get your answers.
You don't want to be defined by religion but you live in societies that never would have developed without it.
I gain help from myself and those around me. I need no gods, or deities to know who I am and where I stand. If I have lost my home, my job, everything, no god will not help me.
Atheism isn't about answers. Atheism is just not believing in gods. That's all, and that's all it will ever be.
This particular society developed with religion, but society in general does not require religion.
Manchu wrote: Claiming someone is lying is only the simplest explanation if you already committed (that is prejudiced) against their claim.
Nope.
When the alternatives are:
- An extremely rare cosmological phenomenon caused the light and the pressure wave that knocked the person down. The resulting disorientation then led that person to believe that an entity was talking to him in a coherent fashion that even led him to change his mind about something.
- An actual deity manifested itself to that person.
"He was lying" is indeed the simplest explanation because if nothing else, its an everyday occurrence: people lie... a lot!
Just because you don't like that explanation doesn't mean that it isn't the simplest one.
is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
Wouldn't be the first. Many people truly believe a god has given them a sign. Might be a coincidence, might be them looking for it, might be a god giving them a sign. You can't know for sure
Medium of Death wrote:What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?
What is the goal of religion?
What succour does science give to the common man?
None. Our species has existed for such a short period of time, it can be lost to rounding errors, in the history of one insignificant blue planet, around a tiny star on the edge of one galaxy. Finding this galaxy in the universe would be like finding a single grain of sand on the beach.
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
I'd argue the opposite. We cannot pass off a problem with "God will fix it". We must confront the problem ourselves, and deal with it. Yes, there are morally bankrupt atheists. But there are also those who are religious, and justify their crimes by religion (Looking at you ISIS). But whereas a religious person is told they must be good, an atheist is only good because they genuinely want to be good.
As a slight aside to an already massive derailed thread (the more the merrier right ), being atheist doesn't mean you disrgaurd any possibility for gods either. I am atheist, but if it could truly be proven to me that a god/gods were real, I wouldn't deny it just to remain atheist.
Atheist isn't something you choose, it's something you are. It's the default state for humans, and religion is then imparted onto us by the people around us, often at a very young age, but sometimes older.
That a man saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to him.
So you are saying that a man in the first century seeing bright lights in the sky and hearing disembodied voices is a simplest explanation than "he was lying"?
Frazzled wrote: You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.
"Hmm.... this book says it is better to cut off your own hand than use it to sin. Ergo, it is better for me to cut off my neighbor's hand than stand by and let him use it to sin."
Manchu wrote: MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."
Do we have any examples of atheist societies?
They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.
'd definitely say Agnostic leaning toward Christianity. Finding my faith I guess?
I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.
Frazzled wrote: You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.
"Hmm.... this book says it is better to cut off your own hand than use it to sin. Ergo, it is better for me to cut off my neighbor's hand than stand by and let him use it to sin."
Is this person misinterpreting the Bible?
No thats misinterpreting English (or the original Greek).
Manchu wrote: MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."
I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.
I can't see how on earth you have decided this.
Never has the level of comfort, health, the life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc, been as positive as they are in modern western societies, for everyone.
There isn't a single measurable indicator that doesn't show that the quality of life in any modern agnostic state is much, much better than the quality of life on a religious state present or past.
Manchu wrote: MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."
Do we have any examples of atheist societies?
North Korea.
Pretty much every communist country.
Right, because a society where they worship their leader as a living God is most definitely atheist.
Manchu wrote: MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."
Do we have any examples of atheist societies?
They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.
'd definitely say Agnostic leaning toward Christianity. Finding my faith I guess?
I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.
OK. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. It doesn't matter if that deity is meant to be in the sky, another dimension, or playing video games in a palace.
A society that believes that their leader is a deity cannot be accurately called atheistic.
I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.
I can't see how on earth you have decided this.
Never has the level of comfort, health, the life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc, been as positive as they are in modern western societies, for everyone.
There isn't a single measurable indicator that doesn't show that the quality of life in any modern agnostic state is much, much better than the quality of life on a religious state present or past.
Weakening of the family unit.
Rise in depression.
Indecent and lewd behaviour.
The weakening of law and the downgrading of crimes because there's a lack of moral authority.
Manchu wrote: MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."
Do we have any examples of atheist societies?
They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.
'd definitely say Agnostic leaning toward Christianity. Finding my faith I guess?
I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.
OK. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. It doesn't matter if that deity is meant to be in the sky, another dimension, or playing video games in a palace.
A society that believes that their leader is a deity cannot be accurately called atheistic.
Not seeing where North Korea PR has called him a deity. I could be wrong. I don't listen to NK NPR.
Atheism and science are more closely linked because it's the single source of how you want to live and where you get your answers.
You don't want to be defined by religion but you live in societies that never would have developed without it.
Spiritually, I don't know if I really do. Emotionally and mentally, generally from the fine people that I surround myself with, I guess.
Well, "where you get your answers", to a certain extent, I will agree with. Science is not really moral in any real way, though that discussion could probably be a thread in and of itself.. For questions of morality, typically, I turn to the philosophers. You can have the ability to subscribe to a set of moral imperatives sans theism. Further, even the apologist philosophers have merit. Kierkegaard is fascinating, though I'm not sure for the ways he himself intended.
I mean, people can define me as a sign post for all I care. That's not really what keeps me up at night. The fun thing here is that religious things can bear total merit for reasons that aren't rooted in the subscription to said religion. I rather admire old Catholic churches, listen to Christian Ska, read the bible, and agree emphatically with what the pope says without actually believing in any gods whatsoever. Not believing is different from denying that the religion exists.
The weakening of law and the downgrading of crimes because there's a lack of moral authority.
Everything is subjective.
How is atheism responsible for any of that? Atheism isn't a lack of moral authority or a claim that everything is subjective. Theists have done some indecent and lewd things. If there is a weakening of the family unit or a rise in depression, what is the link to atheism?
OK. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. It doesn't matter if that deity is meant to be in the sky, another dimension, or playing video games in a palace.
A society that believes that their leader is a deity cannot be accurately called atheistic.
Not seeing where North Korea PR has called him a deity. I could be wrong. I don't listen to NK NPR.
Juche is no longer just an ideology, but a full-fledged religion that worships Kim Il Sung as god, and his son, Kim Jong Il as the son of god.
Generally, it starts with the father, Kim II Sung, and then goes on as basically that as he's god, his son is god, and any children he has are gods.
Alpharius wrote: What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?
I'm still trying to figure that one out myself. I didn't think that the concept of trying to rationalize phenomena referenced in ancient texts using modern science was really a new one.
Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.
"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.
Chongara wrote: Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.
"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.
I am being picky here, but in this case, the one making the claim of hearing God speak is not really in play. What we have is an ancient author who is writing about an alleged experience undergone not by himself, but by someone else. We are not presented with any claims made by the subject of the story, Paul, because he is not the author of the book. We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
2. What succour does science give to the common man?
3. It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.
1. Nothing. Most are just individuals, going about their own lives, minding their own business. I haven't met many Evangelical Atheists.
2. Nothing. But Bourbon helps.
3. Bologna. It's not just for sandwiches. One of the most compassionate, "Won't Somebody Think of the Children" people I know is an atheist.
Alpharius wrote: What exactly are non-believers mulling over from this 'revelation' anyway?
jasper76 wrote: We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
That doesn't really change the analysis. As I mentioned, the claim remains a belief: namely Luke (or whoever) believed Paul saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to Paul.
Chongara wrote: Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.
"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.
I am being picky here, but in this case, the one making the claim of hearing God speak is not really in play. What we have is an ancient author who is writing about an alleged experience undergone not by himself, but by someone else. We are not presented with any claims made by the subject of the story, Paul, because he is not the author of the book. We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
It's even harder to claim him a liar since the bar he needs to pass to be honest without being intentionally fictional is "He heard and/or read this story once somewhere, and believed it was true".
EDIT: And that's a very low bar. We're talking like limbo world-record low bars.
jasper76 wrote: We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
That doesn't really change the analysis. As I mentioned, the claim remains a belief: namely Luke (or whoever) believed Paul saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to Paul.
I'd add a minor correction as follows:
the claim remains something that a third person wrote: namely Luke (or whoever) wrote that Paul saw a light and wrote that it meant God spoke to Paul.
We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.
Chongara wrote: Lying requires conveying factually incorrect information while being aware you are doing so with intent to deceive. There is plenty plausible space that could account for claims of hearing god speak other than the one making the claim being a liar, or actually hearing god speak.There are plenty of experiences that account for coming to have sincere belief in that claim even ifwe actively assume that belief is false, or that the events that led to developing that belief did not actually occur.
"Hallucination", "Dream", "Coping Mechanism" are all viable explanations to account for the belief if you want to discount the supernatural entirely. We've as much basis for them as "Liar" I'm not sure how in the absence of the actual voice of god "Liar" is the obvious explanation.
I am being picky here, but in this case, the one making the claim of hearing God speak is not really in play. What we have is an ancient author who is writing about an alleged experience undergone not by himself, but by someone else. We are not presented with any claims made by the subject of the story, Paul, because he is not the author of the book. We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
It's even harder to claim him a liar since the bar he needs to pass to be honest without being intentionally fictional is "He heard and/or read this story once somewhere, and believed it was true".
EDIT: And that's a very low bar. We're talking like limbo world-record low bars.
I don't claim to know if the author really believed in what he wrote or what.
In my original point, I probably shouldn't have used the word "fiction".
Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue. Because otherwise, we have to assume many things, for which we have no compelling evidence, are true:
- There is a deity
- This deity is communicates with humans
- This deity is Jesus
etc.
jasper76 wrote: We are dealing with claims made by the author of the book, who is writing in the third person.
That doesn't really change the analysis. As I mentioned, the claim remains a belief: namely Luke (or whoever) believed Paul saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to Paul.
I'd add a minor correction as follows:
the claim remains a something that a third person wrote: namely Luke (or whoever) wrote that Paul saw a light and wrote that it meant God spoke to Paul.
We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.
None of that requires, implies or even makes it likely either of them were lying. There are just to many other plausible alternatives even if you dismiss the legitimacy of their narratives as presented entirely.
Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue. Because otherwise, we have to assume many things, for which we have no compelling evidence, are true:
- There is a deity
- This deity is interested in communicating with humans
- This deity is Jesus
etc.
OK Great. You've pointed out a difference between Christians and non-Christians is the willingness to take those assumptions on matter of faith rather than hard evidence. Good for you. This is total revelation and we super-duper need this big long discussion to come to THOSE conclusions. Good job. You should have a party.
As I said with an edit to my last psot, I didnt mean to state that I have special knowledge into the intention of the author, or of whoever told thee author this story, and the word "fiction" on my part was a poor choice of words.
Really all I mean is that the simplest explanation for this story is that it is factually untrue.
jasper76 wrote: We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.
What in the world is your point here? Acts was composed for believers by a believer to confirm their faith. Luke (or whoever composed the Gospel of Luke and Acts) prefaced his work thusly:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
jasper76 wrote: We do not have a window into the mind of the author to know if he actually believed it.
What in the world is your point here? Acts was composed for a believer by believers to confirm their faith. Luke (or whoever composed the Gospel of Luke and Acts) prefaced his work thusly:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
My original point was, it is more likely that the story of the Road to Damascas is just a fatcually untrue story, than that the story was at least loosely true and was inspired by a meteoric fireball, as the author of the article in the OP hypotheisizes.
jasper76 wrote: Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue.
Your argument boils down to you not believing in God. That does not prove that the simplest explanation for any portion of Acts is that it is not factually true.
jasper76 wrote: Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue.
Your argument boils down to you not believing in God. That does not prove that the simplest explanation for any portion of Acts is that it is not factually true.
It requires the least assumptions, and all the assumptions required to make the story factually true are extraordinary. Occam's Razor.
jasper76 wrote: My original point was, it is more likely that the story of the Road to Damascas is just a fatcually untrue story, than that the story was at least loosely true and was inspired by a meteoric fireball, as the author of the article in the OP hypotheisizes.
(a) Nothing about the story is true at all.
(b) Paul did see something and it could have been a meteor.
In fact, really it is even more simple:
(a) not only did Paul see nothing, he did not even exist
(b) Paul existed and saw something
These are equally simple/complex. More importantly, they are equally speculative.
jasper76 wrote: My original point was, it is more likely that the story of the Road to Damascas is just a fatcually untrue story, than that the story was at least loosely true and was inspired by a meteoric fireball, as the author of the article in the OP hypotheisizes.
(a) Nothing about the story is true at all.
(b) Paul did see something and it could have been a meteor.
These are equally simple/complex. More importantly, they are equally speculative.
(a) The supernatural elements, if not the enirety, of the story of the Road to Damascus are not true.
(b) Paul was engulfed in light and spoken to by a deity.
These are not equally simple or complex explanations.
jasper76 wrote: These are not equally simple or complex explanations.
They are also not the explanations at issue.
Luke and Paul believed God spoke to Paul. You do not. Each position has an equal number of assumptions: the God of their faith is real on one hand and the God of their faith is not real on the other.
jasper76 wrote: Really what I meant was that the simplest explanation for the story of the Road to Damascus is that it is factually untrue.
Your argument boils down to you not believing in God. That does not prove that the simplest explanation for any portion of Acts is that it is not factually true.
It requires the least assumptions, and all the assumptions required to make the story factually true are extraordinary. Occam's Razor.
The idea that "Some guy named Paul thought he saw something this one time and then attributed it to the word of god" doesn't require all that many assumptions. In fact it seems entirely plausible to me. In fact I could probably find someone in america right now making similar claims. There is nothing extraordinary about the story at all, at least from where I'm standing
.In fact the only thing that could make the story extraordinary is if you believe it truly was the word of god. Otherwise it's just kind of a run of the mill claim people make all the time.
Chongara wrote: In fact the only thing that could make the story extraordinary is if you believe it truly was the word of god.
This is a good point; rephrased in a non-religious sense, we can say the only remarkable thing about Luke's story is that so many people believe and have believed that God spoke to Paul whereas far, far fewer people believe that God spoke to just about anyone else.
Manchu wrote: This is a good point; rephrased in a non-religious sense, we can say the only remarkable thing about Luke's story is that so many people believe and have believed that God spoke to Paul whereas far, far fewer people believe that God spoke to just about anyone else.
That this is the case would probably make for a pretty interesting psychology study in and of itself.
Manchu wrote: I think it has more to do with history than psychology, honestly.
Yeah. That horse left the barn over 1000 years ago. The story has too much momentum for any such study to be meaningful now. People believe it because it's a part of the canon they were raised to believe, or that they took up after a striking personal experience. Any insight as the ability for Luke and/or Paul to seem credible and build up that momentum for the story would have had to happened in their own time.
I can tell you that I believe the story exactly because it is part of the larger tradition of Christianity. I would not believe a similar story told to me by my friend about his professor or something.
jasper76 wrote: These are not equally simple or complex explanations.
They are also not the explanations at issue.
Luke and Paul believed God spoke to Paul. You do not. Each position has an equal number of assumptions: the God of their faith is real on one hand and the God of their faith is not real on the other.
The idea that a particular deity does not exist is not an assumption so much as a default position (you presumably hold this position for every other deity you do not recognize as existing).
The idea that "Some guy named Paul thought he saw something this one time and then attributed it to the word of god" doesn't require all that many assumptions. In fact it seems entirely plausible to me. In fact I could probably find someone in america right now making similar claims.
I agree with all of this. However, the story of the Road to Damascus in the Acts of the Apostles is not summarized by "Some guy named Paul thought he saw something this one time and then attributed it to the word of god".
Rather, it is as follows:
Acts 9
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
jasper76 wrote: These are not equally simple or complex explanations.
They are also not the explanations at issue.
Luke and Paul believed God spoke to Paul. You do not. Each position has an equal number of assumptions: the God of their faith is real on one hand and the God of their faith is not real on the other.
The idea that a particular deity does not exist is not an assumption so much as a default position (you presumably hold this position for every other deity you do not recognize as existing).
That's nothing to do with the credibility that either Paul (assuming he existed) made his claims in good faith, or that Luke (no matter if Paul existed or not) wrote his story in good faith. For Luke to have written the account and have been honest about does not require anything actually be true about Paul or the Christian god. They're immaterial to if he was making writing the testimony honestly or not.
My original point was pretty dull and non-controversial, although I should not have used the word "fictional" but instead "factually untrue".
jasper76 wrote: @OP: It's certainly possible that Paul saw a meteor in the sky, and heard the voice of a deity (or imagined that he did).
The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.
We have a extraordinary ancient story of a supernatural event. It is simpler IMO to dismiss the supernatural portion of the story as factually untrue, than to go out on a quest for an elaborate theory about a meteoric fireball in the sky, and the effect such a phenomenon might have on the human body and brain, as the author of the OP article describes.
Again that comes down to "Paul saw something" and "Paul did not exist/saw nothing" -- which are equally simple. The real issue is your personal disbelief, which implies nothing about the simplicity of either position. This is why I wanted to avoid your repeatedly demonstrated prejudice against religion by reframing the issue as non-religious. Which we can try again: Let's say Ernest claims he was abducted by aliens. All other things being equal, which explanation requires less assumptions: something happened to Ernest that he misinterpreted or that Ernest is lying? They require the same amount of assumptions: (a) Ernest thinks he is telling the truth or (b) Ernest is knowingly lying.
I'm sorry to not answer your question directly, but we are asking two different questions.
I will continue with your metaphor of Ernest and the UFO, so that hopefully you see what I mean.
Ernest tells me he was abducted by aliens.
Given that there is no compelling evidence that intelligent aliens have ever visited this planet, is it simpler to conclude that there were no aliens? Or is it simpler to devise an alternative theory about unusual meteorological phenomenon to explain what happened?
Manchu wrote: It has nothing to do with whether aliens exist and visit earth. The alternatives are, Ernest is lying and Ernest thinks he is telling the truth.
To be fair, he's already relented on this point:
jasper76 wrote: I agree with you. It is entirely plausible that the author of Acts actually believed that what he was writing was true.
jasper76 wrote: Ernest's intentions are immaterial to whether he was factually abducted by aliens.
The issue in our analogy is not whether Ernest was actually abducted by aliens precisely because the guy in OP article does not care whether God actually spoke to God.
Manchu wrote: The issue in our analogy is not whether Ernest was actually abducted by aliens precisely because the guy in OP article does not care whether God actually spoke to God.
Right, what I am saying is this professor is most likely chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.
Chongara wrote: To be fair, he's already relented on this point:
But, as he explained, that is unrelated to the point he is trying to make -- that it is simpler to assume that the story is entirely non-factual than it is to assume any part of the story is factual.
jasper76 wrote: Right, what I am saying is this professor is chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.
The professor does not claim there was a supernatural event. He assumes there was some kind of event.
It is no simpler to assume no event happened than it is to assume some event happened.
Chongara wrote: To be fair, he's already relented on this point:
But, as he explained, that is unrelated to the point he is trying to make -- that it is simpler to assume that the story is entirely non-factual than it is to assume any part of the story is factual.
jasper76 wrote: Right, what I am saying is this professor is chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.
The professor does not claim there was a supernatural event.
I believe you are inserting the word "entirely" into my mouth.
Chongara wrote: To be fair, he's already relented on this point:
But, as he explained, that is unrelated to the point he is trying to make -- that it is simpler to assume that the story is entirely non-factual than it is to assume any part of the story is factual.
jasper76 wrote: Right, what I am saying is this professor is chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.
The professor does not claim there was a supernatural event. He assumes there was some kind of event.
It is no simpler to assume no event happened than it is to assume some event happened.
Right. He assumes that a supernatural story might be rooted in a meteorological phenomenon similar to one recorded in recent history.
I'm saying he's wasting his time trying to find a natural explanation for an event that most likely never transpired, because there is no compelling evidence that supernatural events occur.
jasper76 wrote: I believe you are inserting the word "entirely" into my mouth.
So clarify, we'll see if it matters.
I have no idea what ratio of truth/falsity that story is made up of. What do you think? I certainly think that the supernatural claims of the story, a man becoming illuminated from the heavens and spoken to by a deity, is pretty low on the probability meter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The guy in the article is saying Paul could have seen something natural and misinterpreted it as supernatural.
A person seeing something is not a supernatural story.
I know. He is trying to produce natural explanations for a legendary event that most likely never transpired.
Manchu wrote: There is no reason to believe Paul did not see something, whether or not you disbelieve in God or that God spoke to Paul.
There sort of is, though, when you consider the volume of supernatural claims made in the same book. In my worldview, supernatural claims compound to the improbability that any individual claim in the set of claims might be true, if that makes any sense.
Paul is not a fictional character, like Hercules or Thor*. Given Paul was a historic person, the notion that he saw a light is not part of a supernatural claim. His own claim, related by Luke, that God spoke to him is. The OP article is not concerned about that latter claim; in fact, it seems to perfunctorily dismiss it. The only claim the guy cares about is that Paul saw something, particularly some kind of bright light. Your argument is that it is simpler to assume Paul saw nothing than it is to assume he saw something.
* One of my original examples was Dracula but I don't want to have to explain the difference between Vlad III of Wallachia and Dracula the vampire.
Manchu wrote: Paul is not a fictional character, like Hercules or Thor. Given Paul was a historic person, the notion that he saw a light is not part of a supernatural claim. His own claim, related by Luke, that God spoke to him is. The OP article is not concerned about that latter claim; in fact, it seems to perfunctorily dismiss it. The only claim the guy cares about is that Paul saw something, particularly some kind of bright light. Your argument is that it is simpler to assume Paul saw nothing than it is to assume he saw something.
Correct. Paul, as well as the author of Acts, made a whole lot of supernatural claims.
Lets go back to Ernest. He tells you he was abducted by aliens once...you might think that something wierd actually might have happened outside of Ernest's brain/body.
A month passes, and Ernest comes to you with a compilation of events loaded with various things you find highly improbable.
Be serious when answering this if you please. Is it now simpler to assume that (a) Ernest is lying about these things, (b) these phenomena are attributed to problems with Ernest's nervous system, or (c) any one of these events actually happened?
By the way, to continue with our analogy, we must add that we have never, ever met Ernest before.
(A) and (B) are the only relevant choices for me. (I would discount (C) entirely.) (A) and (B) require the same amount of assumptions: only one. (A) requires that I assume Ernest believes he is telling the truth. (B) requires that I assume Ernest is lying. Neither explanation is more simple than the other.
Whether I ultimately go with (A) or (B) probably has to do with my prejudice regarding people who claim to have been abducted by aliens; e.g., whether I think these people are most likely to be motivated by getting attention.
I think we got the As and Bs switched around, but I'll follow your lead:
(A) requires one assumption: Ernest is lying.
(B) requires two assumptions: Ernest believes he is telling the truth. Something is wrong with Ernest.
In any case I discount C, as well, and also with the Biblical counterpart, and I think the professor is chasing ghosts in his quest to explain Paul's light from the heavens.
(B) does not require that I assume something is wrong with Ernest any more than it requires that aliens really did abduct him. If I assume Ernest believes he is telling the truth, the next step is to consider whether (given everything else I know) his account is probable. Since I agree with you that there is no credible evidence that intelligent extraterrestrial life even exists much less that such beings have visited Earth, I would conclude (1) that Ernest was not abducted by aliens and (2) there must be some other explanation for what Ernest's sincerely believes he experienced. All of this is a further train of thought from the assumption that Ernest believes he is telling the truth; not required to assume as much.
I find folks are talking past each other. There's a distinct and definitive difference between the absence of proof and the proof of absence. One cannot draw any conclusion, for or against, as situation of the former while one can draw conclusions on the latter.
Also, to the finding succor bit, I'd suggest Hellenistic philosophy, specifically Stoicism. It's the rational zen, of sorts. Religion does not beget morality and morality does not beget religion. You can have a philosophy of life that defines good and virtue independent to spiritual beliefs.
TheKbob wrote: difference between the absence of proof and the proof of absence
That is not really the crux of the present debate.
There is no proof of Paul, that is 100% concrete. And no proof of an astrological or spiritual based event, either. There is also no proof that Paul didn't exist. Etc. Etc.
jasper76 wrote: In any case I discount C, as well, and also with the Biblical counterpart, and I think the professor is chasing ghosts in his quest to explain Paul's light from the heavens.
The professor in question also discounts possibility (C) as far as the story of Paul's conversion goes. He only assumes Paul saw some kind of light.
jasper76 wrote: But perhaps you interpreted my B another way.
Yes, I specifically reject your compound assumption as explained above. (B) should be only "Ernest believes he is telling the truth."
False. I think what you mean is no document outside of the Christian tradition corroborates Paul's existence. But, as in academia, there is no debate ITT that Paul was a historical person.
So in my worldview, the more tall tales someone tells, the veracity of any one of those tales becomes more and more suspect. And I apply that same skepticism to literature.
jasper76 wrote: So in my worldview, the more tall tales someone tells, the veracity of any one of those tales becomes more and more suspect. And I apply that same skepticism to literature.
Seems like you are assuming Ernest is a liar in order to conclude that Ernest is lying or even assuming he is a liar because you have also assumed the account in question is a lie. But in our hypothetical, all we know about Ernest is that he claims to have been abducted by aliens. The options we have allowed in response are (a) the assumption that Ernest believes he is telling the truth or (b) the assumption that Ernest is lying. As you can see, each position consists of one and only one assumption. Therefore, neither is more simple or complex than the other.
Great -- and now that we have gone through all that, let me say I think we might actually agree that what the professor in OP's article is doing is a waste of time. I think it is a waste, just as much as I think it is a waste for religious people to invent these wishful rationalizations, not only because it is pure speculation but also because such speculation implies nothing about the meaning/significance of the event.
The OP doesnt make sense, if the light on the Road to Damascus was a meteor it would be a light on the road to everywhere else too. Once Saul had learned that travelers everywhere in the region saw the same meteor/light, he wouldn't feel like he was singled out by God. Saul was an aware and educated man.
In Luke's account, Paul not only saw a light but heard the voice of God. Interestingly, it is clear from Luke's account that Paul's companions also heard the voice. It is not so clear whether they also saw the light.
Manchu wrote: Great -- and now that we have gone through all that, let me say I think we might actually agree that what the professor in OP's article is doing is a waste of time. I think it is a waste, just as much as I think it is a waste for religious people to invent these wishful rationalizations, not only because it is pure speculation but also because such speculation implies nothing about the meaning/significance of the event.
I think this research would be somewhat interesting if there were multiple, non-related, contemporaneous accounts of a similar observed astrological phenomenon. I don't assign personal meaning to astrological events, but it would be interesting if there were any evidence that a common, identifiable astrological observance impacted the evolution of multiple religions, cultures, or whatever.
Yeah I'm not versed in the particular hypotheses, but I find the flood stuff pretty interesting. If something really bad or impressive happens, it's bound to become part of the mythos of the time, at least to those impacted.
Wouldn't an epileptic (or other) seizure be a much simpler explanation than either divine intervention or a compliacted, rare, highly visual but otherwise completely unnoticed in one of (at the time) the most populated and highly civilised areas of the world astronomical occurence?
And it would also not require Paul (or his chronicler) to be aliar, merely to have misinterpreted the event in question.
No. People can be selfless even without someone telling them they have to be to earn enough “good points” to buy a ticket to paradise. Actually, trying to earn “good points” for paradise is not even selflessness…
It's a theory. Like all the other theories (religious or not) about the things that went on around that time, there's no real way to prove or disprove it at this point.
No. People can be selfless even without someone telling them they have to be to earn enough “good points” to buy a ticket to paradise. Actually, trying to earn “good points” for paradise is not even selflessness…
Who could takes eriously silly stories about people that pretend to have rules you need to abide to so that you get cool rewards, but conveniently only after you die, meaning nobody can check?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Who could takes eriously silly stories about people that pretend to have rules you need to abide to so that you get cool rewards, but conveniently only after you die, meaning nobody can check?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Who could takes eriously silly stories about people that pretend to have rules you need to abide to so that you get cool rewards, but conveniently only after you die, meaning nobody can check?
I'm not sure how to answer that.
I'd suggest "At least 5 billion different people, you looking for a list a names or something?" though that number is probably kind of a low estimate.
Considering the sheer frequency with which SMBC criticized religion and promotes atheism, it's hard to consider it to be friendly satire. Their jokes are funny, but get pretty repetitive after a while.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Who could takes eriously silly stories about people that pretend to have rules you need to abide to so that you get cool rewards, but conveniently only after you die, meaning nobody can check?
I'm not sure how to answer that.
By adding trolls to your ignore list? At least, that's the easiest way of doing things.
In a sense i'm a theist but i don't believe in the bible in much more than events that happened but once told again and again became mythological in scope to boast the story. Could jesus have been real? Maybe. Could he have just been a really good person? I think so.
I'm not into religion really but i think there's a god or gods out there. I mean with all the strange life we have on our own planet who's to say there isn't. We are multi-cellular beings and in a sense are made up of things that might make us a god to them.
All this said i feel atheism's biggest beef is with the Old Testament rather than the New Testament. I know some of you guys might cringe but think on how hard how many times god punished those he deemed unworthy for various reasons vs how many times he actually rewarded people. Also please don't go the route some theists do and say "He's God and that makes it ok." That is crap and you know it. He didn't need to kill all the people he killed. All he had to do was convert them through being a good and loving god.
My main problem is god himself seems really terrible and if he was a person you'd consider him really, really bad.
---------
All that said my main view on the issue is believe whatever you want as long as you don't let it turn you into an *** and as long as you aren't as *** to everybody else.
Jesus was a real person, and we know that as certainly as we can know that about any historical figure of antiquity. Just wanted to point that out. Whether or not you believe he was divine is another story, but the historical person did exist. Those who claim otherwise are usually promoting what amount to conspiracy theories.
flamingkillamajig wrote: In a sense i'm a theist but i don't believe in the bible in much more than events that happened but once told again and again became mythological in scope to boast the story. Could jesus have been real? Maybe. Could he have just been a really good person? I think so.
I'm not into religion really but i think there's a god or gods out there. I mean with all the strange life we have on our own planet who's to say there isn't. We are multi-cellular beings and in a sense are made up of things that might make us a god to them.
All this said i feel atheism's biggest beef is with the Old Testament rather than the New Testament. I know some of you guys might cringe but think on how hard how many times god punished those he deemed unworthy for various reasons vs how many times he actually rewarded people. Also please don't go the route some theists do and say "He's God and that makes it ok." That is crap and you know it. He didn't need to kill all the people he killed. All he had to do was convert them through being a good and loving god.
My main problem is god himself seems really terrible and if he was a person you'd consider him really, really bad.
---------
All that said my main view on the issue is believe whatever you want as long as you don't let it turn you into an *** and as long as you aren't as *** to everybody else.
See here is the thing.
If you buy into the idea that God exists, then you also have to buy into the fact that he calls the shots. He's God. End of discussion. You can't apply any human levels of morality onto him, because he is the definer of absolute morality.
You have to accept that God is both loving and good, but he's also just and does what is right according to his law. That means punishment and judgement of those who rebel against him, and again you must accept that he is the ultimate arbiter. You may not like it, but who are you to say otherwise?
If a parent punishes their child, it doesn't mean they don't love them. Children also don't always understand why their parent has set the rules up the way they have, but the parent is the decider of the rules, not the child. The child can't apply his view of what is right and wrong to what the parent is applying. And that is what the relationship between God and people is, a parent vs a child.
And all things considered, God is incredibly merciful. The wages of sin is death, all sin. But he is merciful enough to offer the choice of redemption instead of immediate sentencing.
Also, Jesus definitely existed. There is no arguing that fact.
Jesus was a real person, and we know that as certainly as we can know that about any historical figure of antiquity. Just wanted to point that out. Whether or not you believe he was divine is another story, but the historical person did exist. Those who claim otherwise are usually promoting what amount to conspiracy theories.
Not always. One of my friends said it was a knock off of greek mythology with hercules being zeus's son. Of course hercules was kind of a jerk in the non-disney version of the story. Oddly enough jesus seemed pretty good in a way most people would have trouble being (provided all the stories are true and nothing was left out).
@Grey Templar: So turning an entire city to salt (and other acts of mass genocide like with the great flood and noah's ark) is merciful whether it be man, woman, child, domesticated animals, bugs or plants? I realize it's probably not painful but you know saying 'A whole town is evil!' seems like justification for a terrible deed. If i killed a bunch of people and said it was god's will would that make it ok? An atheist youtuber once commented that's like extremists saying the 9/11 terrorist attacks were ok because the people inside were just infidels. Of course he was comparing the deaths of philistines that sampson (the strength from hair dude) killed (spelling?) when he collapsed that building. To be honest the whole hercules/sampson idea seem more inspired by one or the other than the hercules/jesus one.
Anyway you may think god can say what's ok and what isn't but i don't think that's the case. Besides even if he was to know everything he could go about it in a less jerky fashion. I mean when you kill people they don't learn anything. They probably had no idea of the wrongs they committed because they didn't know of your supposed god and his rules.
Another problem i have is when you go to the new testament jesus is mostly a pretty cool dude. With the exception of maybe hell everything seems ok. I mean eternal damnation for one life time's worth of sin. Even by human laws killing somebody is equivalent to life or death sentences. Having somebody live in eternal pain is just ridiculously terrible. Not to mention the idea of going to heaven is also pretty ridiculous since everything would have to be even better than it previously was for things to keep seeming great to you. The reason for this is when things are pretty good all the time the bar is raised and you expect more (the average is pretty good in this case). Suddenly everybody in heaven is just super spoiled by good things. "Ugh just a mansion. I want 10 mansions!"
My biggest issue is the old testament where god is just kind of horrible to people and the lessons are basically don't **** with god or else and everything's ok as long as you can say it's done by god's will.
So yeah i don't mind punishment as long as the points are stated and clear to those being punished. Even then in many cases the old testament usually reads like a punishment hand book rather than anything about forgiveness or giving gifts to the good and deserving. It's kind of telling that some people use religion as an excuse to fight their wars. Even in the bible saying you had god's will was probably just as an excuse to make people think of their enemies as evil and undeserving of mercy or life. This kind of extremism is not needed and i think it's very harmful to people.
So yeah the old and new testaments seem so different i wouldn't be surprised if jewish people were confused by the different books. It's like the whole bible switches gears from unforgiving and wrathful to forgiving.
-----------
Also i'm still of the opinion that the bible is a series of stories that were told over and over through oral tradition till the point where they were heard wrong, misinterpreted and in some cases exaggerated. Greek mythology is similar when you talk about Troy. People believe Troy existed but that certain events with odysseus were far-fetched and mythical.
Even if the god of the bible is real (inaccuracies and improbable events), even if you can explain why there are no supernatural events now and all that i still think god himself isn't that good in a personality. I know people that are jerks and i hate them. Why should god be held to a different standard for acting the same way? That personality type just always bothers me regardless of who it is. I mean think about it. If god is so forgiving why is it an abusive parent can be more forgiving than god can be and we can still hate the abusive parent but not god? Why is that the case?
And all things considered, God is incredibly merciful. The wages of sin is death, all sin. But he is merciful enough to offer the choice of redemption instead of immediate sentencing.
All this said i feel atheism's biggest beef is with the Old Testament rather than the New Testament. I know some of you guys might cringe but think on how hard how many times god punished those he deemed unworthy for various reasons vs how many times he actually rewarded people.
This is a common misconception. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of one or more deities.
Personally, if either set of books, but not the other, were to be true in some manner, I'd rather it be the Old Testament, because the doctrine of infinite punishment is quite frankly more repulsive than a deity who commits atrocities against the living, but leaves you alone after you've died. A god who doled out infinite punishments would be the pinnacle of an unforgiving god, so I'm not sure why you'd think there was a shift from an unforgiving god to a forgiving one from the Old Testament to the New.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Oddly enough jesus seemed pretty good in a way most people would have trouble being (provided all the stories are true and nothing was left out).
If they left that in, they must not have left anything out.
Ketara wrote: I'm not going to lie, I read the thread title about 'us non-believers', and this was what jumped to mind. Warning; mild nudity.
Honestly, I love Oglaf very much and I am usually not to prude about what I post on Dakka, but if I were you, I would remove this quick before a mod notice it. It is full frontal nudity, with one guy about it jerk it. Not to mention what will all knows happen in the next page .
And all things considered, God is incredibly merciful. The wages of sin is death, all sin. But he is merciful enough to offer the choice of redemption instead of immediate sentencing.
Anyway you may think god can say what's ok and what isn't but i don't think that's the case. Besides even if he was to know everything he could go about it in a less jerky fashion. I mean when you kill people they don't learn anything. They probably had no idea of the wrongs they committed because they didn't know of your supposed god and his rules.
See, this is basically you saying you know better than God. Which is pretty damn arrogant. Who are you to say what is right and wrong when God has already spoken on the subject?
And how do you know that those people weren't given the option of repentance or that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong? You weren't there, but God was.
Another problem i have is when you go to the new testament jesus is mostly a pretty cool dude. With the exception of maybe hell everything seems ok. I mean eternal damnation for one life time's worth of sin. Even by human laws killing somebody is equivalent to life or death sentences. Having somebody live in eternal pain is just ridiculously terrible. Not to mention the idea of going to heaven is also pretty ridiculous since everything would have to be even better than it previously was for things to keep seeming great to you. The reason for this is when things are pretty good all the time the bar is raised and you expect more (the average is pretty good in this case). Suddenly everybody in heaven is just super spoiled by good things. "Ugh just a mansion. I want 10 mansions!"
This just shows ignorance of the subject matter.
Eternal damnation is terrible because sin is terrible, and that is the penalty for it.
As for Heaven, we aren't told much about it. Other than its going to be an amazing place, so amazing its beyond our comprehension. Thats how it works. God is also there, and he is also amazing, and also infinite. So simply learning more about an infinite God alone would take eternity. Imagine the best book you ever read, except it has no end. The story just continues forever.
My biggest issue is the old testament where god is just kind of horrible to people and the lessons are basically don't **** with god or else and everything's ok as long as you can say it's done by god's will.
So yeah i don't mind punishment as long as the points are stated and clear to those being punished. Even then in many cases the old testament usually reads like a punishment hand book rather than anything about forgiveness or giving gifts to the good and deserving. It's kind of telling that some people use religion as an excuse to fight their wars. Even in the bible saying you had god's will was probably just as an excuse to make people think of their enemies as evil and undeserving of mercy or life. This kind of extremism is not needed and i think it's very harmful to people.
So yeah the old and new testaments seem so different i wouldn't be surprised if jewish people were confused by the different books. It's like the whole bible switches gears from unforgiving and wrathful to forgiving.
The punishment and reasons for it are pretty clear in the Bible.
If you take the whole thing together, and actually attempt to understand it, you can see how the story fits together. Mankind sins, and God shows how you can't attain forgiveness through works and deeds, but instead you have to accept his forgiveness through Jesus, and the sign of that forgiveness is following his commandments.
Also i'm still of the opinion that the bible is a series of stories that were told over and over through oral tradition till the point where they were heard wrong, misinterpreted and in some cases exaggerated. Greek mythology is similar when you talk about Troy. People believe Troy existed but that certain events with odysseus were far-fetched and mythical.
Even if the god of the bible is real (inaccuracies and improbable events), even if you can explain why there are no supernatural events now and all that i still think god himself isn't that good in a personality. I know people that are jerks and i hate them. Why should god be held to a different standard for acting the same way? That personality type just always bothers me regardless of who it is. I mean think about it. If god is so forgiving why is it an abusive parent can be more forgiving than god can be and we can still hate the abusive parent but not god? Why is that the case?
Again, you attempt to put a human definition of morality onto God without understanding his nature, or accepting that he is God and not someone beholden to any mortal notion of right and wrong.
As for why there are no more supernatural events, its because we live in the time of silence between the fullness of time and the second coming.
@Grey Templar: Provided that god is all-knowing and provided he actually exists. How do you know somebody didn't say this is what god said and just lied that god said that or that it even was god saying it. Think about how many types of smaller forms of each religion there is. Also given some of the minutia given in these books why would you leave out something that would've mattered such as a chance at forgiveness or repentance?
Yeah totally because stealing something and not apologizing for it is worth eternal damnation. You can't seriously agree with that. It's infinitely more punishment and wrongs than the original wrong in the first place. It's like saying don't steal bread or i'll roll you over completely with a steam-roller (as in absolutely dead and painfully so).
So basically if you don't follow the commandments 100% of the time and accidentally mess one up no amount of being a good person for the rest of your life and helping others will ever atone for that. So i guess it's hell or possibly purgatory for you. That's really nice.
So because he's God you have to listen 100% to everything he says. Even if God's word was only told to his 'chosen ones' which may be outright lying that it was his word and being 'chosen' in the first place. The writers or various people could also have misinterpreted or lied in the process or left things out of the bible. In fact we know that they did in fact leave stuff out of the bible when making it.
The time of silence huh. That sounds like a really convenient way to explain away why we don't see miracles or god throwing down his wrath. Same goes with beyond our comprehension, all-knowing or god being something you can never question. Notice how this all fits with not asking questions. Perhaps it's because when you do you realize it's just a massive load and that perhaps you're threatened and commanded not to think.
Part of the reason why i stopped being christian is the fact that it seemed like a bunch of fear-mongering. I felt i shouldn't be afraid of doing the wrong thing and going to hell because i didn't pee the right way (basically what it feels like). Seriously you mean to tell me whatever mortal sin i do that will affect me and others for just one lifetime is worthy of punishment or reward for all time. Keep in mind this only affects them for one life time of probably 80 years tops and they could still repair the damage i did to an extent. Oh and god is doing this to everybody.
You know what i can understand though? I can understand people not being terrible to each other. I can also realize that in general god is endlessly punishing people in the old testament. He could have just rewarded the good ones and possibly punished the bad ones but no he just punishes any non-believers and any other living things which aren't human and in the crossfire.
God and the people who claim to act of god should be held accountable (the pope included) just like everybody else or like anybody else will act as if the rules don't apply to them and do whatever the **** they please (in other words be an ***). Not to mention if you can come up with a simple system to help a group out why does it absolutely need to have so much killing. Perhaps you know you can teach people why they shouldn't do something rather than kill them without telling them why. Giving no reasons for your actions to the opposing side makes no sense. It's like me punishing somebody and never telling them why. If god could've told the baddies why then why didn't he? Not only that but considering an entire group the bad guys (who probably twirl their mustaches) justifies doing terrible things to them for some. Imagine if somebody said a person was a horrible nazi and they only said something a little offensive or racist. What would happen if i listened to this person and treated the supposed nazi like a war criminal. Claiming a side to be bad or extreme only allows us an excuse to treat them badly and if we truly believe it with what seems like evidence to us than we will act on it.
@flamingkillamajig: one less literal, more nuanced Christian and Jewish worldview is that the Old Testament wasn't written by God, just by men who believed in God, and the Old Testament is a legendary history that chronicles an evolving understanding of the Jewish people and their God.
I'm not mentioning this to you with the intent to persuade, because I'm an atheist, but not all Christians and Jews believe that Yahweh was really out there smiting people, or that Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc were even real people.
jasper76 wrote: @flamingkillamajig: one less literal, more nuanced Christian and Jewish worldview is that the Old Testament wasn't written by God, just by men who believed in God, and the Old Testament is a legendary history that chronicles an evolving understanding of the Jewish people and their God.
I'm not mentioning this to you with the intent to persuade, because I'm an atheist, but not all Christians and Jews believe that Yahweh was really out there smiting people, or that Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc were even real people.
I heard about this before somewhat. Personally the new testament isn't even that bad as far as a moral code goes (far as i know anyway). It's more the literal version of the bible that i can't stand. That said it's your right to believe whatever you wish as long as you don't allow it to make you do terrible things to others.
Yeah, Christianity is a spectrum from people who admire Jesus as purely a literary figure, to people who believe every word in the Bible must be true, with so much in between its hard to even say the word "Christianity" has much common meaning anymore besides thinking Jesus is admirable.
I think Jesus had some nice things to say about helping those less fortunate, some morally bad things to say as well, but even if I thought it was all good, the belief system rests on the premise that there is a divine intelligence behind the universe, which is the very premise that people like me find no compelling evidence for.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yeah totally because stealing something and not apologizing for it is worth eternal damnation. You can't seriously agree with that. It's infinitely more punishment and wrongs than the original wrong in the first place. It's like saying don't steal bread or i'll roll you over completely with a steam-roller (as in absolutely dead and painfully so).
I love how Muslims call God the “most merciful”. Condemning people to an eternity of torture, and for the crime of not believing he/she/it exists is being the most merciful? Riiiiiight.
(And it is basically the same for Christians.)
flamingkillamajig wrote: So basically if you don't follow the commandments 100% of the time and accidentally mess one up no amount of being a good person for the rest of your life and helping others will ever atone for that.
Of course! Disrespecting your parents, even if you are the son of Adolf Hitler, is totally a terrible crime deserving of an eternity of torture. Helping others? That is irrelevant.
flamingkillamajig wrote: The time of silence huh. That sounds like a really convenient way to explain away why we don't see miracles or god throwing down his wrath.
That sounds straight out of a South Park episode mocking scientology, actually.
I've always thought that if any god would condem me for not worshiping them or following stupid rules, when I otherwise live my life to the best of my ability, and try not to hurt others, it not a god I want to associate with. Especially as I have no way of knowing if their followers are telling the truth or not, or knowing they, themselves, exist.
And it's the worship part that gets to me especially. I will never prostrate myself to anything, be it man, god, or anything in between. My morality and consciousness is beholden only to myself, and I will give my freedom to nothing and no one. And why the feth does an all-powerful, all-knowing, being need people to worship them anyway? Unless they are an egoist who wants constant praise to assure themselves they are better than everyone.
Jesus was a real person, and we know that as certainly as we can know that about any historical figure of antiquity. Just wanted to point that out. Whether or not you believe he was divine is another story, but the historical person did exist. Those who claim otherwise are usually promoting what amount to conspiracy theories.
Not always. One of my friends said it was a knock off of greek mythology with hercules being zeus's son. Of course hercules was kind of a jerk in the non-disney version of the story. Oddly enough jesus seemed pretty good in a way most people would have trouble being (provided all the stories are true and nothing was left out).
This kind of stuff has been debunked, really hard. You might want to do a bit more reading on it (seriously, it's pretty interesting stuff). There is much, much more evidence that Jesus existed. Virtually every legitimate scholar of antiquity is in agreement on this subject.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yeah totally because stealing something and not apologizing for it is worth eternal damnation. You can't seriously agree with that. It's infinitely more punishment and wrongs than the original wrong in the first place. It's like saying don't steal bread or i'll roll you over completely with a steam-roller (as in absolutely dead and painfully so).
I love how Muslims call God the “most merciful”. Condemning people to an eternity of torture, and for the crime of not believing he/she/it exists is being the most merciful? Riiiiiight.
(And it is basically the same for Christians.)
flamingkillamajig wrote: So basically if you don't follow the commandments 100% of the time and accidentally mess one up no amount of being a good person for the rest of your life and helping others will ever atone for that.
Of course! Disrespecting your parents, even if you are the son of Adolf Hitler, is totally a terrible crime deserving of an eternity of torture. Helping others? That is irrelevant.
flamingkillamajig wrote: The time of silence huh. That sounds like a really convenient way to explain away why we don't see miracles or god throwing down his wrath.
That sounds straight out of a South Park episode mocking scientology, actually.
For as much as you criticize religion, and with as much authority as you try to convey in your posts, your breadth of knowledge on the subject is incredibly weak. There is more than just one unified view on most of these subjects, and you seem to be completely unaware of any other than the most extreme. Maybe you should try expanding your horizons a bit. Are you interested in actually learning anything about religion, or are you satisfied with criticizing it from a position of ignorance?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, Jesus (almost) defiantly existed, the contention is whether he was the sun of god and whether god exists at all.
Yes. You can argue all day whether or not you believe he was the son of God, but if you want to try to argue that he wasn't a real person, the deck is stacked against you. It's basically like trying to claim that Julius Caesar wasn't a real person.
Should check out Mormon afterlife. Pretty merciful. Gotta do some unbelievable, heinous, egregious stuff to go to Mormon Hell, and even then there's no torture.
IIRC, there is also no jewish hell. I think it was a christian creation originally. Not 100% sure though.
Judism is pretty cool, or at least whatever sect the synagogue near me is. I have quite a few Jewish friends, and have talked to Rabbi there. His interpretation is that it's actually harder for jews to go to heaven than non-jews, because (he thinks) that all non-jews have to to is be good, honorable people and jews have to follow all the rules. I quite like that interpretation. Just because you don't believe the claims of people that have no evidence to back them up, doesn't preclude you from being rewarded. I'
Co'tor Shas wrote: IIRC, there is also no jewish hell. I think it was a christian creation originally. Not 100% sure though.
Zoroastrianism has a hell that predates Jesus' hell. It is not dissimilar, with a Satan figure and everything. But it's not eternal.
Obviously the Greeks had Tartarus before Jesus' hell was ever recorded.
Jesus and his disciples likely would have been familiar with both myths. Certainly his biographers were, as Magi (Zoroastrian priests) play a prominent role in the nativity story, and iirc the earliest known copies of at least some of the gospels were written in Greek.
Co'tor Shas wrote: IIRC, there is also no jewish hell. I think it was a christian creation originally. Not 100% sure though.
Zoroastrianism has a hell that predates Jesus' hell. It is not dissimilar, with a Satan figure and everything. But it's not eternal.
Obviously the Greeks had Tartarus before Jesus' hell was ever recorded.
Jesus and his disciples likely would have been familiar with both myths. Certainly his biographers were, as Magi (Zoroastrian priests) play a prominent role in the nativity story, and iirc the earliest known copies of at least some of the gospels were written in Greek.
Part of Jesus's resurrection is the sundering of hell. How else are you going to tell a Greek/roman population that "btw, there is this cool new place called heaven, but all your ancestors are trapped in Hades... Too bad." So during his 3 days, Jesus marched into Hades and scooped out all the people from the "non suffering" side of Hades, and kicked the rest to the realm of fire... So basically Hades wasn't Christian hell, but after Jesus was done, everyone was basically in new heaven or lake of fire "new hell".
So basically both the Greeks and the Jews had beliefs of afterlife which was no where as extreme of the new heaven/hell, but to make people feel better about their ancestors, they had to have a solution so you could see Greek GranGran and Jewish PopPop when you die.
Grey Templar wrote: If you buy into the idea that God exists, then you also have to buy into the fact that he calls the shots. He's God. End of discussion. You can't apply any human levels of morality onto him, because he is the definer of absolute morality.
Then the concepts of "good" and "evil" no longer have anything to do with the way we understand them in human contexts. Calling god "good" is a meaningless statement because you've redefined "good" to mean "agreeing with and obeying the commands of god". All you've really said is "god obeys god". So you have to pick one: either god is beyond human morality and therefore you can't say "god is good", or "god is good" is a meaningful statement but god is subject to being judged by human standards.
You have to accept that God is both loving and good, but he's also just and does what is right according to his law.
No you don't. An evil entity with god-level power is just as plausible as a good one, as is a morally-neutral entity (the classic "divine watchmaker" god). Having vast universe-creating power doesn't automatically mean that you're good. A god that created us just to enjoy our suffering is no more or less plausible than one that created us with benevolent intentions.
That means punishment and judgement of those who rebel against him, and again you must accept that he is the ultimate arbiter. You may not like it, but who are you to say otherwise?
Having the ultimate power to enforce punishments is not the same thing as being morally correct. If I hold a gun to your head, demand that you obey me, and kill you if you don't I am clearly able to judge and punish you. But that authority is nothing more than "might makes right". And having hell as a threat instead of a gun doesn't change this situation.
And all things considered, God is incredibly merciful.
No, the Christian god isn't merciful at all. He's a sadistic tyrant and a genocidal zealot who issues punishments that are vastly disproportionate to any supposed offense. If the Christian god was a human ruler issuing those punishments he would be universally condemned at minimum, and quite possibly find himself on the wrong end of military intervention to save his victims. And either way he would be forever remembered as a brutal tyrant that made Hitler look like a pretty decent guy. Replacing the hypothetical human ruler with god doesn't change this at all.
The wages of sin is death, all sin.
And guess who invented that penalty: god himself. Consider a human situation: I break into your house, hold a gun to your head, and inform you that having a forum name with "Grey" in it is a capital offense in my moral system. But then I offer you a chance to save yourself: you can delete your forum account, give me all your money, and spend the rest of your life preaching the wisdom of Peregrinism. I'm pretty sure you'd take that offer, but would you consider it reasonable for other people to praise my mercy? Or would you consider me nothing more than a sadistic bully who only "saved" you from my own violence?
Hordini wrote: I don't think Jesus ever mentioned a "lake of fire" hell. If I remember right, that's from Revelation, not from the Gospels.
and post-death peter... Anything after Jesus was crucified came from "someone else"... You gotta remember a lot of the crazy S which is held as core aspects of Christianity are not from Jesus and were either divine inspiration given to his apostles or manufactured by "someone" later.
You never heard Jesus say "I gonna sock old satan in the jaw and get your granny from Hades to come live with me in eternal bliss" but someone who just lost their mentor and savior began telling people that when they were telling others of the life and teachings of Jesus and needed a logical ending to his story besides "he was a cool guy, he died, we were sad."
I’m really sure I get the point of theorising this was a meteor. The meteor itself is not that remarkable – they happen about once every 100 years. So meteors causing blinding light had been witnessed a lot of times before, and a lot of times since.
What makes Paul’s story remarkable is how it changed Paul, and how Paul then changed the world. Whether it a sign from God, or a meteor, or Paul just had some bad milk that morning doesn’t really matter.
Medium of Death wrote: Why discredit useful allegory with science? Which seems to be the main goal of atheists.
It's great when people declare what the goals of other groups must be. Especially when describing uncoordinated groups like atheists. It's always an honest and productive effort to engage in discussion, and never at all just a piece of petty tribalist bashing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Some do. There are groups of atheists in the US and UK who get together on a certain day to sing songs and listen to a speaker talk about non-believer values. Sometimes, this even happens in a church building.
You know better than to judge the majority by the actions of a rare few. Especially when that rare few are newsworthy precisely because they are very different to the majority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: Not on you, more of a general sentiment towards the thread and what you might call the loud, public face of atheists online and the continue quest to 'gotcha' those who are religious
There are atheist jerks, lots of them. The best way to disempower those atheist jerks is engage with the rest of us atheists who don’t bash your religion.
The worst thing you can do is come storming in to a reasonable thread like this looking to attack atheists, based on what you believe some atheists to be like. Then you’re re-affirming what the atheist jerks believe, and acting no better than them.
Like it or not, the loud, irritating ones are what one tends to think about when the name comes up.
If that’s the image you have then that’s your problem for you to deal with. Most of us aren’t like that, and you need to improve your understanding to engage with atheists properly.
Honestly, I’m having a hard time understanding how your statement is anything other than a justification for negative stereotyping.
And all things considered, God is incredibly merciful. The wages of sin is death, all sin. But he is merciful enough to offer the choice of redemption instead of immediate sentencing.
Like it or not, the loud, irritating ones are what one tends to think about when the name comes up.
If that’s the image you have then that’s your problem for you to deal with. Most of us aren’t like that, and you need to improve your understanding to engage with atheists properly.
I think we can agree that no cause, philosophy or movement deserves to be judged by what advocates on the Internet say about it.
But religious babble is in no way more productive to this discussion than trolling. Especially since the OP did not want the thread to go there.
You know, I was going to type up an intelligent explanation for why all of the above is wrong, but I just got off work and, frankly, will have better things tonight to do than play Internet Argument. Maybe if you caught me last night or tomorrow....
Anyway, if you honestly believe what you say, the responsible thing isn't to make a post saying, "I can't hear you lalalala!", it's to report the post, and cite your reason for it being off topic/trolling.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, Jesus (almost) defiantly existed, the contention is whether he was the sun of god and whether god exists at all.
Actually, it wasn't until about 200ish years AFTER his death/birth in the roman empire that there was ANY mention of Christianity, and that was some lowly scribe simply stating "there is a cult that calls themselves Christians" (more or less, not exactly what the scholar said). Also, Jesus's "story" is INCREDIBLY similar to Horus's story (not the 30k horus obv, the Egyptian one). Also, interestingly enough, there's not a picture of any kind (drawn, painted, scribbled, etc), or written word from Jesus's time about him.
Few things to sum it up:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/31/1326090/-Scholars-acknowledge-no-evidence-Jesus-existed (bit lengthy) Please ignore this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTqyocFOMXE (First minute and a half sums it up, but the video itself goes into a little better detail, and in the description there's a link to a much more in depth video. Also warning towards 4:10 or so, he starts swearing if anyone is sensitive to that.)
A lot of the stuff about Jesus' story being similar to Horus' story stems from the movie Zeitgeist, and much of the material in that film is simply factually incorrect.
And Jesus was Jewish and so were his close followers, so I wouldn't expect mentions of Christianity to be popping up all over the place in his lifetime. Christianity wasn't a term that any of them used while they were alive.
That Daily Kos article you posted is a complete crock as well, because if you were actually familiar with Bart Ehrman you would know that he pretty firmly believes that Jesus existed.
Hordini wrote: A lot of the stuff about Jesus' story being similar to Horus' story stems from the movie Zeitgeist, and much of the material in that film is simply factually incorrect.
I honestly don't know enough about zeitgeist to say anything on it. But:
They're both only childs
Both mothers are Meri/Mary, however with Meri, it simply means "beloved", i.e. Meri-Isis. However, the time difference between when jesus was supposed to exist and when the Egyptian mythology was prevalent had quite a massive time difference, so some translation errors could be expected.
Both Horus and Jesus had a rather powerful enemy try to kill them as a baby
Both were "rightful kings", instead of the one in charge
I'm not gonna get every single similarity, that'd take more time than I'm willing to invest honestly.
And Jesus was Jewish and so were his close followers, so I wouldn't expect mentions of Christianity to be popping up all over the place in his lifetime. Christianity wasn't a term that any of them used while they were alive.
So... How does that explain any lack of records of Jesus? It's not about what it's called, think you missed the point on that. I know that the term "Christianity" wouldn't pop up for awhile, but that doesn't explain the COMPLETE lack of evidence of anything that happened during the time he was supposedly alive.
That Daily Kos article you posted is a complete crock as well, because if you were actually familiar with Bart Ehrman you would know that he pretty firmly believes that Jesus existed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Bart Ehrman discusses this starting at 51:15.
Spoiler:
“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)
That's what I assume you're referring to. However if you read the article, it goes on to say... Update: I am trying to find if Ehrman was taken out of context by Raw Story to infer he doesn't believe Jesus existed. So might the rawstory article (http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/did-historical-jesus-exist-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/) get what Bart Ehrman believes wrong/misconstrue what he wrote? Sure, assuming what that quote is, is someone Bart is quoting, and not his own words, I'm not gonna deny that, but at the same time that doesn't mean the entire theory of Jesus being a myth suddenly falls apart.
Again, I think this video
Spoiler:
explains everything very well. It's long, but it goes over all the evidence, or lack of, of Jesus.
Hordini wrote: A lot of the stuff about Jesus' story being similar to Horus' story stems from the movie Zeitgeist, and much of the material in that film is simply factually incorrect.
I honestly don't know enough about zeitgeist to say anything on it. But:
They're both only childs
Both mothers are Meri/Mary, however with Meri, it simply means "beloved", i.e. Meri-Isis. However, the time difference between when jesus was supposed to exist and when the Egyptian mythology was prevalent had quite a massive time difference, so some translation errors could be expected.
Both Horus and Jesus had a rather powerful enemy try to kill them as a baby
Both were "rightful kings", instead of the one in charge
I'm not gonna get every single similarity, that'd take more time than I'm willing to invest honestly.
Virtually all of the "similarities" between Horus and Jesus come about because people are woefully unfamiliar with ancient Egypt and are quoting material from debunked works by pseudo-scienists and conspiracy theorists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And with Bart Ehrman, did you watch the part of the video I pointed out where he talks about the evidence that Jesus was a real person?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I read the whole article including the updates before I made my post. My point is, why are you using an article to support your argument that is admitted to be unreliable by its own author?
Hordini wrote: A lot of the stuff about Jesus' story being similar to Horus' story stems from the movie Zeitgeist, and much of the material in that film is simply factually incorrect.
I honestly don't know enough about zeitgeist to say anything on it. But:
They're both only childs
Both mothers are Meri/Mary, however with Meri, it simply means "beloved", i.e. Meri-Isis. However, the time difference between when jesus was supposed to exist and when the Egyptian mythology was prevalent had quite a massive time difference, so some translation errors could be expected.
Both Horus and Jesus had a rather powerful enemy try to kill them as a baby
Both were "rightful kings", instead of the one in charge
I'm not gonna get every single similarity, that'd take more time than I'm willing to invest honestly.
Virtually all of the "similarities" between Horus and Jesus come about because people are woefully unfamiliar with ancient Egypt and are quoting material from debunked works by pseudo-scienists and conspiracy theorists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And with Bart Ehrman, did you watch the part of the video I pointed out where he talks about the evidence that Jesus was a real person?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I read the whole article including the updates before I made my post. My point is, why are you using an article to support your argument that is admitted to be unreliable by its own author?
I did, what he said was "I have a whole book on it." and (paraphrased) "There's a whole lot." What I DIDN'T hear was specific proof. What I did hear was an appeal to authority (professors), appeal to popularity, and him babbling about something unrelated (evolution vs creationism, but the way he phrased sounded to me like he thought evolution explained how life started. (Which it doesn't, that's abiogenesis, for the record, evolution explains the diversity, and how animals change))
The burden of proof here is on Christians to provide reputable proof he exists now, from a reliable 3rd party source (again, i.e. roman records of some kind).
Have you watched MY videos yet? It TOTALLY destroys everything he's talking about. If his definition of a 3rd party source to Jesus existing is Jesus's disciples... holy crap. And Paul, an eyewitness? Now, I don't remember the EXACT time difference, but Paul was BORN decades AFTER Jesus died.
I'm not using the article anymore, you're right, let me it edit to reflect such, but If you have proof (i.e. roman census records, records of earthquakes that correspond with jesus's death/birth/miracles/etc) please feel free to post a link to them.
Did you listen to him answer the whole question, in which he talks about abundant attestations in early independent sources and specifically mentions an author who knew both Jesus' brother as well as Peter?
As far as I know there are some limited historical references outside of the Bible that contain references to Jesus though nothing as detailed and direct as for instance a birth certificate. However the lack of these records doesn't prove that Jesus was not a real person. Conversely if they definitely existed, it would not prove that Jesus was the Son of God.
It is amusing to note that many people in the modern USA dispute the existence and authenticity of the President's birth certificate, even on the basis of minor elements of phrasing. This being the case, what possible proof could be given from 2,000 years ago of the reality of Jesus that would satisfy sceptics?
IMO part of the problem is defining what is meant by "historical Jesus". There are really three interpretations of the Jesus character, two of them valid candidates for "historical Jesus":
1) The very general inspiration. There was a religious figure (who may or many not have been named Jesus) at roughly the right time and place who gained some followers, was executed, and had his followers continue to preach his message after his death. The various details of the story may have actually happened, may have been details of someone else's story that were later attributed to him, or may have been entirely fictional. AFAIK there is at least some evidence for this claim, and it's a very weak claim that shouldn't inspire too much skepticism. In fact, it would be harder to believe that there was never even the slightest real-world inspiration for the Jesus story and his followers made the whole thing up (but still followed the lie).
2) The "Jesus without the miracles" character. There was a real Jesus who matched most of the details of the story, except for all of that weird supernatural stuff. He claimed to be the son of god (even though he wasn't), he said the specific quotes that are attributed to him, he was executed in the same way, etc. Later authors embellished the story a bit by adding in the supernatural stuff, but most of the events were true. This is a much stronger claim that gets a lot more specific on the details, and AFAIK there is little or no evidence for it outside of Christian religious texts (which are questionable sources at best for obvious reasons).
3) The literal interpretation. Jesus existed and did everything, including all the supernatural stuff. This is obviously absurd and has no credible evidence at all behind it, and strong evidence that it couldn't possibly have happened. No (mainstream) secular scholars take this even remotely seriously.
So, before you continue the debate, I think you should both clarify whether you're talking about Jesus #1 or Jesus #2.
There are several variations on your point 3. One is that Jesus existed and did the various miracles attributed to him but they are explicable by scientific means; for example, that Lazarus was in a coma rather than daed and woke up at the right moment. Another is that Jesus actually was the Son of God and did the miracles by divine intervention as the Bible says. Yet another is that the miracles are actually parables and not intended to be taken literally.
Hordini wrote: Did you listen to him answer the whole question, in which he talks about abundant attestations in early independent sources and specifically mentions an author who knew both Jesus' brother as well as Peter?
And yes I'm watching your videos.
Yes, I watched the entire question + answer. He gives no proof that is then backed up by some historical document or something of the like. What I hear is vague claims about "early and independent sources" and the logical fallacies I stated before, and nothing to back up the "early and independent sources". That's about as vague as you can get! No names, no locations, nothing.
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I know there are some limited historical references outside of the Bible that contain references to Jesus though nothing as detailed and direct as for instance a birth certificate. However the lack of these records doesn't prove that Jesus was not a real person. Conversely if they definitely existed, it would not prove that Jesus was the Son of God.
It is amusing to note that many people in the modern USA dispute the existence and authenticity of the President's birth certificate, even on the basis of minor elements of phrasing. This being the case, what possible proof could be given from 2,000 years ago of the reality of Jesus that would satisfy sceptics?
I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.
Peregrine wrote: IMO part of the problem is defining what is meant by "historical Jesus". There are really three interpretations of the Jesus character, two of them valid candidates for "historical Jesus":
1) The very general inspiration. There was a religious figure (who may or many not have been named Jesus) at roughly the right time and place who gained some followers, was executed, and had his followers continue to preach his message after his death. The various details of the story may have actually happened, may have been details of someone else's story that were later attributed to him, or may have been entirely fictional. AFAIK there is at least some evidence for this claim, and it's a very weak claim that shouldn't inspire too much skepticism. In fact, it would be harder to believe that there was never even the slightest real-world inspiration for the Jesus story and his followers made the whole thing up (but still followed the lie).
2) The "Jesus without the miracles" character. There was a real Jesus who matched most of the details of the story, except for all of that weird supernatural stuff. He claimed to be the son of god (even though he wasn't), he said the specific quotes that are attributed to him, he was executed in the same way, etc. Later authors embellished the story a bit by adding in the supernatural stuff, but most of the events were true. This is a much stronger claim that gets a lot more specific on the details, and AFAIK there is little or no evidence for it outside of Christian religious texts (which are questionable sources at best for obvious reasons).
3) The literal interpretation. Jesus existed and did everything, including all the supernatural stuff. This is obviously absurd and has no credible evidence at all behind it, and strong evidence that it couldn't possibly have happened. No (mainstream) secular scholars take this even remotely seriously.
So, before you continue the debate, I think you should both clarify whether you're talking about Jesus #1 or Jesus #2.
I'm talking about Jesus #1 at a minimum, leaning towards Jesus #2.
Hordini wrote: Did you listen to him answer the whole question, in which he talks about abundant attestations in early independent sources and specifically mentions an author who knew both Jesus' brother as well as Peter?
And yes I'm watching your videos.
Yes, I watched the entire question + answer. He gives no proof that is then backed up by some historical document or something of the like. What I hear is vague claims about "early and independent sources" and the logical fallacies I stated before, and nothing to back up the "early and independent sources". That's about as vague as you can get! No names, no locations, nothing.
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I know there are some limited historical references outside of the Bible that contain references to Jesus though nothing as detailed and direct as for instance a birth certificate. However the lack of these records doesn't prove that Jesus was not a real person. Conversely if they definitely existed, it would not prove that Jesus was the Son of God.
It is amusing to note that many people in the modern USA dispute the existence and authenticity of the President's birth certificate, even on the basis of minor elements of phrasing. This being the case, what possible proof could be given from 2,000 years ago of the reality of Jesus that would satisfy sceptics?
I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.
Well maybe you should read his book. Forgive me if I put a bit more stock in a well-respected scholar of antiquity who does peer-reviewed research over a guy who does YouTube videos, particularly a guy who does YouTube videos and also appears surprised that Jesus didn't write anything down, since Jesus most likely couldn't write (in reference to the second video).
Why are you looking for records of miracles if we're talking about the historical Jesus and not the supernatural, divine Jesus?
Wolfblade wrote: I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.
I don't think you really understand the problem here. You're talking about events that happened ~2000 years ago, and we don't have perfect records from back then. At the time of his execution Jesus #1 was just one of many irrelevant cult leaders with a few followers in a not-too-important corner of the empire, and even Jesus #2 might not have been well known until after his death. The most likely answer is that if any paperwork existed in the first place nobody bothered to preserve it and it was thrown in the trash next time someone cleaned the storage closet.
Also, like I said, Jesus #1 is actually a very weak claim. There is nothing at all unbelievable about a religious figure existing, attracting some followers, being executed, and later inspiring a character in a story. So the standards for supporting that claim should be appropriately low, especially given what we know about the small odds of conclusive proof surviving.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There are several variations on your point 3. One is that Jesus existed and did the various miracles attributed to him but they are explicable by scientific means; for example, that Lazarus was in a coma rather than daed and woke up at the right moment.
Two things here:
1) This is covered by Jesus #2. The story was still based on real events but enhanced a bit for religious reasons, but we reject the claim that Jesus was the son of god/actually performed supernatural miracles/etc. It just gives us a theory about how exactly we went from the real person to the myth.
2) None of those theories have ever seemed very convincing to me. IMO they have much more to do with a desire to avoid saying "this is a work of fiction, and 'based on a true story' does not mean that everything in the story happened" and offending people than a genuine attempt to find the most likely explanation.
Yet another is that the miracles are actually parables and not intended to be taken literally.
And, again, that's #2: the story of Jesus is based somewhat closely on a real person, but the supernatural stuff didn't happen.
Wolfblade wrote: I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.
I don't think you really understand the problem here. You're talking about events that happened ~2000 years ago, and we don't have perfect records from back then. At the time of his execution Jesus #1 was just one of many irrelevant cult leaders with a few followers in a not-too-important corner of the empire, and even Jesus #2 might not have been well known until after his death. The most likely answer is that if any paperwork existed in the first place nobody bothered to preserve it and it was thrown in the trash next time someone cleaned the storage closet.
Also, like I said, Jesus #1 is actually a very weak claim. There is nothing at all unbelievable about a religious figure existing, attracting some followers, being executed, and later inspiring a character in a story. So the standards for supporting that claim should be appropriately low, especially given what we know about the small odds of conclusive proof surviving.
Hm, I see what you're saying, that we're arguing different variations here. I personally dislike the "pick and choose" aspect people take to the bible, which is why I'm arguing against Jesus 3, taking the bible as saying Honestly this entire argument is based on what variation of "Historical Jesus" that we're trying to argue.
1 is the hardest to prove. There is an unknown number of people making up "Jesus" here, with who knows how many pieces of evidence lost or destroyed.
2 is in the middle obviously. Even if some evidence was destroyed, or lost, and some of it survived, it could be pieced together still.
3 is the easiest obviously, because I think leper colonies being healed, or a man rising from the dead would be pretty big news (for example).
However, there is still the problem with conflicting accounts in the bible about the same events (i.e. Lazarus rising from the dead)
Co'tor Shas wrote: The teachings of Jesus may have also been from more than one person, but it was all attributed to only one. It's impossible to know for sure.
That's what Peregrine described as Jesus 1 (if my understanding is correct, Jesus 1 is one man who was executed, and is "taking" credit for other people's stories/actions/etc)
But Jesus #3 isn't "historical Jesus", it's "Christianity is true". If you're talking about "historical Jesus" then you're making the assumption that the story in the bible is, at best, based on a true story. And that means either #1 or #2.
However, there is still the problem with conflicting accounts in the bible about the same events (i.e. Lazarus rising from the dead)
But this isn't a problem when you're talking about "historical Jesus". The entire premise of the concept is that the story in the bible is a work of fiction, so finding a contradiction just means that its authors weren't being careful enough about avoiding contradictions. It's like watching two different "based on a true story" movies about the same real person and concluding that, because the movies contradict each other, we should question whether the person existed at all.
That's what Peregrine described as Jesus 1 (if my understanding is correct, Jesus 1 is one man who was executed, and is "taking" credit for other people's stories/actions/etc)
Not quite, it's actually more general than that. Jesus #1 is "Jesus the character is very roughly based on a real person, but the details are from somewhere else". The additions to Jesus the character could be based on other people, other religious myths, or purely a work of fiction by the author of his story. Jesus #2 is "Jesus the character is based closely on a real person and the story is mostly accurate, except for the supernatural bits (which are obviously absurd)". And Jesus #3 is "it's all true, Jesus was the son of god/performed miracles/etc".
I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.
Very little paper records survived the fall of the Empire, if they were ever created in the first place.
Birth registration, for instance, was not a legal requirement even for citizens (and Jesus was not a citizen) until Hadrian, and was not strongly enforced after that. Only about 30 Roman birth certificates have survived into the modern era, negligible for an empire of 30 or 40 million people over several hundred years. Other forms of bureaucratic records, like census returns, as also very limited.
Roman books including their histories (e.g. Julius Caesar, Tacitus) survived better because there were more copies distributed across a very wide area. Some references to Jesus are found there.
The historical truth of Pontius Pilate is proved by stone records, which naturally have survived better.
I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.
Very little paper records survived the fall of the Empire, if they were ever created in the first place.
Birth registration, for instance, was not a legal requirement even for citizens (and Jesus was not a citizen) until Hadrian, and was not strongly enforced after that. Only about 30 Roman birth certificates have survived into the modern era, negligible for an empire of 30 or 40 million people over several hundred years. Other forms of bureaucratic records, like census returns, as also very limited.
Roman books including their histories (e.g. Julius Caesar, Tacitus) survived better because there were more copies distributed across a very wide area. Some references to Jesus are found there.
The historical truth of Pontius Pilate is proved by stone records, which naturally have survived better.
That would make sense, except the Eastern Part of the Empire surivied for hundreds of years after Jesus was supposedly around. They didn't lose Israel until about 900AD. By then Christianity was the religion of the Empire, so you'd figure they'd actually keep any records about their lord.
The Roman empire didn't have a modern style system of birth and death registration. What laws it did have were often not applicable to non-citizens, and were not established until about or after the rough date of Jesus's death, si he may well have slipped the net anyway.
The Roman Empire wasn't divided into eastern and western administrations until 285 AD. It didn't become officially Christian until about 400AD. You are thinking that the government at that point ought to retrieve any official records that might have existed of Jesus from Rome/Jerusalem, and copy them to Byzantium, whey will have needed to survive two sackings of the city before the fall of the empire.
Apart from the above factors, the early Christians didn't need to preserve probably non-existent historical evidence of Jesus's life because many of them had met him personally, and did not anticipate a need to provide documentary evidence for the use of historians 2,000 years later.
.
