Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

OK, your point about simplicity is taken.

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.

There's a lot of speculation along those lines about flood-centric mythology.

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.

Any explanation would require knowing what someone who has been dead for a long, long time was thinking and/or feeling and that isn't very scientific.

One can believe or not without trying to force science into a hole it doesn't fit into.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why discredit useful allegory with science?

How to tell what is allegory and what is not in the Bible : http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2296

 Medium of Death wrote:
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.

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…

 Medium of Death wrote:
Indecent and lewd behaviour.

You got to be kidding me. How is that a bad thing?

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why discredit useful allegory with science?

How to tell what is allegory and what is not in the Bible : http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2296

 Medium of Death wrote:
It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.

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…

 Medium of Death wrote:
Indecent and lewd behaviour.

You got to be kidding me. How is that a bad thing?

Have an Exalt, good sir!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why discredit useful allegory with science?

How to tell what is allegory and what is not in the Bible : http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2296

That's a pretty funny comic. I hope nobody actually takes it seriously.

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

I'm pretty sure there aren't 5 billion Christians. IIRC, Islam has overtaken Christianity.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty sure there aren't 5 billion Christians. IIRC, Islam has overtaken Christianity.

He didn't specify religion, just believers, and 5 billion is probably low-balling it.

Ah, that makes more sense. Aethists and irriligious people are supposed to take up only about 10% or so, so 6-7 billion is probebly about right,

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Could jesus have been real? Maybe.

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Could jesus have been real? Maybe.

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?

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/beheaded-buried-alive-raped-crucified-5117145

Oh so merciful! Such a benevolent deity that which allows these acts to be committed in his name!

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Also, Jesus definitely existed. There is no arguing that fact.

Jesus probably existed, but there is no definite proof that he did.

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.

 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 .