Atheism (3)

[Gracchus]

I once read a story about a British scholar who spent his entire academic life trying to prove that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another poet of the same name.

The works attributed to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, et al, have survived on their own merits, which merits do not depend on who wrote them. Certainly, Plato's "Republic" never actually existed, but it is a significant early work of political philosophy, and so it has lasted. It doesn't really matter whether there ever was a mighty empire beyond the Pillars of Herakles that sank beneath the waves of the Atlantic. The author, whatever his name, was trying to make a point.

Just so, we can accept the various books of the Bible as attempts to make political, sociological, philosophical, or moral points without swallowing, whole and unexamined, fantastic stories of talking snakes, magic trees, Red Sea pedestrians, magical food from the sky, or people rising from the dead.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I once read a story about a British scholar who spent his entire academic life trying to prove that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another poet of the same name.

The works attributed to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, et al, have survived on their own merits, which merits do not depend on who wrote them. Certainly, Plato's "Republic" never actually existed, but it is a significant early work of political philosophy, and so it has lasted. It doesn't really matter whether there ever was a mighty empire beyond the Pillars of Herakles that sank beneath the waves of the Atlantic. The author, whatever his name, was trying to make a point.

Just so, we can accept the various books of the Bible as attempts to make political, sociological, philosophical, or moral points without swallowing, whole and unexamined, fantastic stories of talking snakes, magic trees, Red Sea pedestrians, magical food from the sky, or people rising from the dead.

I agree with you actually. I'm not trying to make the case that the Bible is a completely evil book. There are some pieces of good philosophy and good advice, there's no reason to throw out lessons which are good.

What I'm arguing against are the passages based on superstition and the supernatural, as well as the clearly immoral passages. Those are the ones causing all the problems.

However, unfortunately the Christian religion depends on some of those passages to remain valid. So, obviously I oppose the Christian religion as much as I oppose the immoral sections in the bible that it supports.

 

[Gracchus]

I agree with you actually.

Well, I wasn't replying to anything you wrote. Had I been, I would have quoted it.

I'm not trying to make the case that the Bible is a completely evil book.

I should hope not. People do things we often label "good" or "evil", but since most people drop acts bearing both labels into the mix, their is some disagreement as to whether the people should be labeled "good" or "evil".

There are some pieces of good philosophy and good advice, there's no reason to throw out lessons which are good.

Reason plays a minor role in human affairs. Rationalization is far more common.

What I'm arguing against are the passages based on superstition and the supernatural, ...

Well, I for one liked the Harry Potter books, though some folks labeled them "evil" because they think any book must be completely and literally true, and justify their own beliefs, to be "good".

... as well as the clearly immoral passages.

Morality is a function of culture. No Eqyptian would have considered it immoral that the pharohs married their sisters. No Aztec would have considered it immoral to cut out the hearts of prisoners of war, nor would the Southern Pacific islander have considered it immoral to eat them.

Those are the ones causing all the problems.

Nonsense! There are plenty of other causes of problems. I do agree that most reigions require a degree of dementia. (Some more than others!)

However, unfortunately the Christian religion depends on some of those passages to remain valid.

Dogma is a form of idolatry.

So, obviously I oppose the Christian religion as much as I oppose the immoral sections in the bible that it supports.

Most of the religions I have examined over that last sixty years are pretty silly, and I have examined a great many. And, again, it is not the books or sections of books that are immoral, it is just that those sections are often used to rationalize evil acts.

With a little refinement and rigour of thought, we would probably agree on a lot.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I should hope not. People do things we often label "good" or "evil", but since most people drop acts bearing both labels into the mix, their is some disagreement as to whether the people should be labeled "good" or "evil".

I don't generally label people as good or evil, instead I think it's more appropriate to label actions as good or evil.

Reason plays a minor role in human affairs. Rationalization is far more common.

In many cases, you're right. Which is rather unfortunate.... People can rationalize almost anything they want to.

Well, I for one liked the Harry Potter books, though some folks labeled them "evil" because they think any book must be completely and literally true, and justify their own beliefs, to be "good".

Well, in a way that's apples and oranges. Most people are fully aware the Harry Potter series (or any other fantasy / sci-fi series) is completely fictional and for entertainment only. The Christians actually believe their superstitions are true, and many base their lives upon it.

Morality is a function of culture. No Eqyptian would have considered it immoral that the pharohs married their sisters. No Aztec would have considered it immoral to cut out the hearts of prisoners of war, nor would the Southern Pacific islander have considered it immoral to eat them.

I totally agree here too. However, based on my own personal view of morality, and the society in which we live, many biblical passages are immoral.

Nonsense! There are plenty of other causes of problems. I do agree that most reigions require a degree of dementia. (Some more than others!)

In fairness, I should have been more clear with what I wrote. Obviously religious fundamentalism is not the cause of all the worlds problems. However, the problems that Christianity is causing for society are generally because of some immoral teachings within the bible that people think are the command of their God.

There's been many examples of civil rights issues and slowed medical research among other things that are clearly because of the influence of the churches.

Dogma is a form of idolatry.

Interesting, I never really thought of it that way.... but you are right.

Most of the religions I have examined over that last sixty years are pretty silly, and I have examined a great many. And, again, it is not the books or sections of books that are immoral, it is just that those sections are often used to rationalize evil acts.

That's very true.

With a little refinement and rigour of thought, we would probably agree on a lot.

I also completely agree

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I said a document is considered reliably historical if confirmed by other accounts of an event, or some other form of evidence. The writings of Plato are backed by a number of other Greek historians.

However, if the original documents are not contemporary, it's simply not historic. Something written down for the first time 60-80 years after the fact can not be called reliable. That just basic common sense.

so the dating itself is invalid. And this proves my point if the Bible has other sources backing it up then it does not matter that the Bible was written after the fact. And I emphasize IF. So then the dating does not really matter to you. Just the historical part.

 

[Dave Ellis]

so the dating itself is invalid. And this proves my point if the Bible has other sources backing it up then it does not matter that the Bible was written after the fact. And I emphasize IF. So then the dating does not really matter to you. Just the historical part.

No....

Please point out anywhere where I said that the dating is invalid?

 

[createdtoworship]

No....

Please point out anywhere where I said that the dating is invalid?

you are saying that the date matters until the date is bad, then what matters (in plato's case) is the historicity of the material.


but Who are you to say a date is good or bad?

 

[trientje]

gradyll, I found a really neat site about Nazareth. Nazareth Village

Sorry, I tried to post the site and they wouldn't let me. Guess I have to have had more posts before I can do that. Forgive me.

 

[Elioenai26]

gradyll, I found a really neat site about Nazareth. Nazareth Village

Sorry, I tried to post the site and they wouldn't let me. Guess I have to have had more posts before I can do that. Forgive me.

Excellent site trientje.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, I found a really neat site about Nazareth. Nazareth Village

Sorry, I tried to post the site and they wouldn't let me. Guess I have to have had more posts before I can do that. Forgive me.

good site, thanxk

 

[trientje]

If you had any knowledge regarding Biblical history, you would be aware that "Jesus of Nazareth" is a mistranslation of the Greek "Jesous o Nazoraios", which means "Jesus the Nazarene"

The Nazarene translates into English as "The One of the Truth", and does not refer to any place name whatsoever.

When the original New Testament manuscripts were written, Nazareth did not exist. There's no archaeological evidence that shows a 1st century settlement there. When it was translated long after, they mistranslated Jesus the Nazarene into Jesus of Nazareth. At this point in history, Nazareth had been founded.





Yeah, pretty much. The same way that Muhammad, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard were liars too. None of them had any problems building religions with millions of followers either.



I have studied the 12 tribes, however I have not been to Israel



Absolutely, I've read both sides of the argument. The side which says Nazareth didn't exist in the early 1st century is backed up by both archaeological evidence, and the fact it was not mentioned by any historian (when talking about towns and cities in the area) at any point until long after the time period that matters.



I didn't ever tell God he didn't exist.... You can't tell something you don't believe exists that he doesn't exist. Did you one day tell Santa Claus that he didn't exist, or did you merely stop believing?

I still read up on not only the Christian, and Atheistic side of the argument, I'm taking a lot of time to learn about the views of many other religions as well.



I was never going to make that claim... unlike most Christians I can take criticism of my beliefs, because I have evidence to back them.

Feel free to keep firing away!

All the articles I looked up refuting the existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus are atheist sites. Are you limiting your knowledge on just that?

 

[trientje]

All the articles I looked up refuting the existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus are atheist sites. Are you limiting your knowledge on just that?

Sorry I hit the submit button before I was done. Hebrew:

JESHUA HANOZRI WUMELECH HAIEHUDIM

JESHUA HANOZRI=JESUS OF NAZARETH
WUMELECH=KING
HAIEHUDIM=OF THE JEWS

In those days the scribes took the first letter of each word and gave it new meaning. They still do this. In this case the initials of this inscription showed the most holy name of God. JHWH.

 

[Dave Ellis]

you are saying that the date matters until the date is bad, then what matters (in plato's case) is the historicity of the material.


but Who are you to say a date is good or bad?

Please show me where I also made that argument..... Look, if you're just interested in straw-manning, you're simply wasting time. If you want to argue the points both of us are actually making, then I'm interested in continuing.

So to re-state my entire argument..... (And please pay attention)

Obviously the dating matters in all cases. Having an original, contemporary source is a bonus, but doesn't even guarantee that work is historically accurate.

In the case of the Bible, even biblical scholars agree the ORIGINAL works were written decades, if not a century after the event in question. That alone essentially rules them out as historically reliable.

What makes us deem a piece of work as historically reliable is evidence to believe it is indeed accurate. This can come in a number of forms.... when taking about historical events, having multiple accounts that have fairly similar descriptions of the event in question would lend serious credibility.

Or, even a single document about something like a battle, or the existence of a settlement can be backed up by finding the battleground, or the settlement.... provided there are artifacts there from the period in question consistent with what's written.

For the Bible, there are examples in the case of Archaeology where it is a useful book. However, the key areas of the bible (namely the divine/supernatural claims) have no evidence to back them, and we have no reason to assume are historically accurate. In many examples, it is directly contradictory to what we know about history.

In short, we accept things as historical that we have some good reason to believe are accurate through various types of evidence. We reject things that by those same standards make it very unlikely to be true.

The Gospels and various supernatural claims within the books of the bible do not meet that standard... Just like every other holy book. That's not to say the book is devoid of any useful historical information, but the supernatural claims made that are key to Christianity simply are not reliable enough to be taken seriously.

 

[Dave Ellis]

All the articles I looked up refuting the existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus are atheist sites. Are you limiting your knowledge on just that?

Do you really expect to find a Christian site that refutes the existence of Nazareth?

I'm not limiting my knowledge to Atheist websites... I'm limiting it to historical documentation and archaeological finds.

The fact that the town is not mentioned in any survey or listing of settlements in the area until the 3rd century is quite puzzling, if this was indeed the hometown of the messiah.

Most telling is the works of a famous historian that Christians love to trot out.... Josephus himself. Josephus lived in a city called Japha, which was located roughly one mile away from where Nazareth is now. Josephus never decribed or listed the town in any of his works, including local area town and settlement listings, even in his later surveys (he died roughly around 100AD).

I found a great paper online written about the archaeological findings, dating and whatnot from the Nazareth area a number of years ago... If I can find it again I'll link it to you, so far I've unfortunately had no luck.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sorry I hit the submit button before I was done. Hebrew:

JESHUA HANOZRI WUMELECH HAIEHUDIM

JESHUA HANOZRI=JESUS OF NAZARETH
WUMELECH=KING
HAIEHUDIM=OF THE JEWS

In those days the scribes took the first letter of each word and gave it new meaning. They still do this. In this case the initials of this inscription showed the most holy name of God. JHWH.

What's your point?

 

[createdtoworship]

In the case of the Bible, even biblical scholars agree the ORIGINAL works were written decades, if not a century after the event in question. That alone essentially rules them out as historically reliable.

actually you are wrong, just like plato has an original source, the Bible does too. They are eye witness accounts to Jesus! How could they be written 20-30 years later, would you remember all that detail after that long. Most likely as with plato, the writings had an original that is no longer extant. No longer available. One difference plato's copies are dated 1000 years after the alleged original. Not 20-30 like the Bible.

For the Bible, there are examples in the case of Archaeology where it is a useful book. However, the key areas of the bible (namely the divine/supernatural claims) have no evidence to back them, and we have no reason to assume are historically accurate. In many examples, it is directly contradictory to what we know about history.

empirical labratory support lacks for many things.

as a friend once said " Nothing like a graviton has ever been seen in the 'natural' world. Some non standard brands of particle physics theory include theoretical SUSY particles, again such theoretical particles are completely "unseen" in any lab. LHC has already looked for and eliminated several SUSY particle models. The cosmology side of physics proposes inflation, dark energy and dark matter, none of which enjoy empirical laboratory support. These things are all "unseen" (in the lab)"

so since the miracles are unseen like cold dark matter, it does not mean they don't exist.

 

[dlamberth]

actually you are wrong, just like plato has an original source, the Bible does too. They are eye witness accounts to Jesus! How could they be written 20-30 years later, would you remember all that detail after that long.

The original accounts about Jesus were passed on through the oral traditions...which was the way information was passed on in those ancient times. As an example it is through the oral tradition in which Paul learned about the teachings of Jesus.

Today, it's commonly accepted knowledge among Biblical historical scholars that none of the gospels were written by anyone who actually saw Jesus.

.

 

[createdtoworship]

The original accounts about Jesus were passed on through the oral traditions...which was the way information was passed on in those ancient times. As an example it is through the oral tradition in which Paul learned about the teachings of Jesus.

Today, it's commonly accepted knowledge among Biblical historical scholars that none of the gospels were written by anyone who actually saw Jesus.

.

I could say the same about plato then, and we would have to toss his work.

 

[dlamberth]

I could say the same about plato then, and we would have to toss his work.

I don't care about Plato...I'm only stating the facts about the Bible. Oh...as far as detail goes...there really is very little detail about Jesus in the Bible. And a great deal of what is there does not even jibe across the various books in the Bible.

.

 

[createdtoworship]

defense of biblical miracles from a philosophical perspective

(eBook) Geisler, Norman - MIRACLES and the Modern Mind - A Defense of Biblical Miracles Complete) (Christian Library, Apologetics