Something for us non believers to mull over

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.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
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!

**Manchu**

@jasper76

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.

**jasper76**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Manchu**

@jasper76

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.

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
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.

**jasper76**

I saw a strange light in the sky just last week.

Did they not have shooting stars in the 1st Centruty Middle East or something?

**Manchu**

A shooting star is a relatively common sight. I therefore doubt it qualifies as "strange."

**Frazzled**

Unless it was this shooting star.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/161st_Tactical_Reconnaissance_Squadron_Lockheed_RF-80A-5-LO_Shooting_Star_45-8310_1950_Shaw_AFB.jpg

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
@jasper76

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.

**Wolfstan**

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.

**Medium of Death**

What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.

**Frazzled**

Medium of Death wrote:
What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.

Good questions but I'd say a separate thread no?

**Manchu**

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.

**jasper76**

Medium of Death wrote:
What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

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.

We are still left with Assumtpions 2-5.

**Co'tor Shas**

Medium of Death wrote:
What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

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.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
We are still left with Assumtpions 2-5.

Assumptions 2-5 are immaterial.

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.

Co'tor Shas wrote:
it answers mankind's unending thirst for answers

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.

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
Assumptions 2-5 are immaterial.

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.

**Soladrin**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
We are still left with Assumtpions 2-5.
Assumptions 2-5 are immaterial.

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.

Co'tor Shas wrote:
it answers mankind's unending thirst for answers
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...?

**Co'tor Shas**

Manchu wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
it answers mankind's unending thirst for answers
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.

**Manchu**

Soladrin wrote:
So... it does anwser mankinds thirst for anwsers...?

Not in the sense that mankind has one question and science is its one answer.

**daedalus**

Medium of Death wrote:
What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

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.

**Manchu**

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

Manchu wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
So... it does anwser mankinds thirst for anwsers...?
Not in the sense that mankind has one question and science is its one answer.

Well, I never said it like that. Water answers your thirst, but you will continually need more of it to keep that thirst answered.

**Manchu**

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**

Manchu wrote:
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.

**Manchu**

Well, maybe we are talking past each other. There is a difference between not sharing someone's beliefs and their beliefs being lies/fictions.

**PhantomViper**

Manchu wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Go up to someone and tell them that you saw an UFO. Most people will say that you are outright lying.
Prejudice is not the same thing as Occam's Razor ...

No one said that it was, but in this case the simplest answer is that the person that is making that claim is lying.

**Manchu**

Claiming someone is lying is only the simplest explanation if you already committed (that is prejudiced) against their claim.

**Medium of Death**

daedalus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

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.