Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 12-13-2002, 10:34 AM

I know this was a pretty simple statement but in all this "high minded" yet basicly meaningless talk would anyone like to consider it?

I considered it for 45 years, does that count? My conclusion: it's an unreliable book with a nice, but unoriginal, fable about a mythical man-god that died and rose from the dead.

crocodile deathroll · 12-13-2002, 10:53 AM

Keith:

Of course there is a we capable of forgetting haven't you ever forgotten where you placed your car keys? and if you die then that is the ultimate form of forgetting and you will forget that you have even been born in the first place let alone remembering the event of your death.
And don't tell be about forgetting because you are forgetting there is no "we" before you were born in fact you could not even have a concept of what the prefix "ex" meant, so how can you could you discern the difference between an "ex-person" and a "non-person"?, or do you believe there is a great cosmic scrutineer out there to insure you can only live one possible life?
If so, show me the evidence and not your circular reasoning

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Skepticos · 12-13-2002, 11:03 AM

In my humble opinion, I think the phenomena of OBEs, NDEs, and mediumship is a step in the "evidence" direction that some of ya'll rely so heavily upon.

- Skepticos

Jamie_L · 12-13-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skepticos:
In my humble opinion, I think the phenomena of OBEs, NDEs, and mediumship is a step in the "evidence" direction that some of ya'll rely so heavily upon.

All annecdotal evidence, which in general is one of the poorest sources of evidence.

Furthermore, there is evidence that OBE's and NDE's are purely physiological in origin. And pretty much all mediums can be shown to actually be mentalists - that is people with no psychic powers at all who know how to put on a good show.

Jamie

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

crocodile deathroll · 12-13-2002, 11:36 AM

Yes I have often stated that comparing NDE's to death is like comparing a bungee jump to a suicide jump

Skepticos · 12-13-2002, 12:32 PM

That's why I call it my "humble" opinion. =)

Seriously, though. I have been trying to induce an OBE for a couple of weeks now, and I have set up a test to "prove" the validity of the experience. Time and practice will tell how successful I am. If I pass the test, then I will be a firm believer that all persons possess an astral body. And this is the first step for believing, and verifying for oneself, the fact that we do continue to exist after death.

- Skepticos

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

Powerfull Voices · 12-13-2002, 02:53 PM

I considered it for 45 years, does that count? My conclusion: it's an unreliable book with a nice, but unoriginal, fable about a mythical man-god that died and rose from the dead.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes of course that counts! Thank you for responding I didn't mean to sound rude but surely this can be discussed not simply ignored. Last I heard 80% of the American population considered themselves Christians. That alone should speak(to a degree at least) of the coherence of this truth claim, right. Anyway I would be interested in hearing why you belive the Bible to be unreliable and Jesus a mear man, a mythical man at that. Do you deny the claim that the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity in existence? Come let us reason together.

Jaime, this also responds to your questions.

Mageth · 12-13-2002, 04:54 PM

Last I heard 80% of the American population considered themselves Christians. That alone should speak(to a degree at least) of the coherence of this truth claim, right.

Wrong. The logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Numerum again rears its ugly head.

Anyway I would be interested in hearing why you belive the Bible to be unreliable and Jesus a mear man, a mythical man at that.

This is really a discussion for BC&A or another forum, rather than the Philosophy forum. To be brief:

- Much of the "history" in the bible is either unverifiable, probably false, or demonstrably false. Some important examples: starting in Genesis 1 with creation and the flood, both demonstrably false; the Exodus, for which little or no eternal corroboration has been found; Herod's massacre of young boys, for which no external corroboration has been found; the resurrection, the same; etc. Add to that many outright contradictions in the bible.

I think someone probably existed from which the Jesus myth was generated. I don't think he was a god, though, or that he performed the miracles that are attributed to him, including being raised from the dead.

Do you deny the claim that the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity in existence? Come let us reason together.

Yes, I do deny it, and I doubt if you can prove it is. However, that's enough for this forum; this discussion belongs in BC&A or some other forum.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Heraclitus Nietzsche · 12-13-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Powerfull Voices wrote:

Last I heard 80% of the American population considered themselves Christians. That alone should speak(to a degree at least) of the coherence of this truth claim, right.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because a belief has high membership doesn't therefore mean it is true.

Quote:

Powerfull Voices wrote:

Anyway I would be interested in hearing why you belive the Bible to be unreliable and Jesus a mear man, a mythical man at that. Do you deny the claim that the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity in existence?

I deny that the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity in existence. It may be claimed to be the most reliable, but claiming its reliability doesn't therefore mean it is reliable (I define "reliable" here as meaning: can be trusted as being true). But, if you meant reliable to mean simply: a lot of people rely on the Bible's message, well... we again have the fallacy of popularity. So what if a lot of people rely on the Bible? They are looking for some type of meaning and hope in their lives that they need someone else to give them.

The Bible was written about 2,000 years ago. Ever since then, it's message has been reinterpreted over and over. That type of track record tells me that its message is not timeless. It has to be reinterpreted to keep up with the times.

Also, the word "Christian" is so broad these days that it fails to explain a person's individual belief without having to have a subcategory attached (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, etc.) This splintering of what is called "Christianity" tells me that there is no clear message about belief in Jesus Christ. The martyred hero has always been an archetype. It is modern day mythology. The Jesus you, and many others, believe in is a formula you want to believe. This "will to believe" reveals your wants. Some people believe in Jesus to increase their personal power (that's what praying is for right?), others want him to give them immortality. While still others believe in Jesus to feel a sense of well-being (in this sense its similar to Buddhism). This psychological need is why there are so many interpretations of what Jesus's message really was. The Bible, read after so much time has passed, is unintelligible. After so much reinterpretation of its meaning has been spoken and written about its authors' real meaning has been blurred to a staggering degree. This tells me that the original message is hopelessly out-dated. Every religious book that is written as an exposition for the Bible's meaning is a re-writing of the text itself. Shouldn't the Bible stand on its own? Why do so many books need to be written as concordances?

Powerfull Voices · 12-13-2002, 08:25 PM

First off I have no idea how you make stuff bold. I tried copying and then hitting the little bold symbol and pasting but it wouldn't work. So could you please tell me how to do that. It's probably simple but I don't feel like messing with it. So I'll do my best

I wasn't saying that that percentage made it true I was just using that as leverage to imply that it is worth talking about but at least I learned a new phrase today.
To tell me something is demonstratably false without saying why is pointless. Why is the creation and the Flood false? Simply because Evolution is true? What's your evedence for saying that? I am wondering why we should doubt certain events simply because no external evidence has yet been found to corroborate it. It may still be true that Herod massacured the children. This may be what they call the Genetic fallacy. I would be interested in evidence of the period that contradicted these events. Otherwise at best were simply left with Agnosticism.

Concerning the Ressurection. The Bible says there were 500 plus witnesses, the belief arose in hostile Jerusalem, all but one of the apostles died for this belief(wich they would have known to be a lie). Josephas wrote about it as well as a lot of other external sources, over 30 I belive, but that statment is meaningless I know.
The Resurrection is a big deal so if we go into that I'll have to pull out some old books and pop in William Lane Craig vs ... video.
What contradiction are you talking about?

I respect your thoughts concerning the supernatural aspect though. How does one confirm them. I guess that's why the Bible needs to be outright proven to be uninspired and a lie otherwise are we not simply left with agnosticism and if that's the case I would much rather be on my side of the fence if you will.
It would be neat to address the aspect of the Bibles reliability further. Off the top of my head I would cite prophecy, archeology, and the words of God Himself confirming it. One should compare it with other works of antiquity using the same criteria and see how it fairs. Bibliographical, internal and external evidence is how I've seen it done. Is the beggining of Luke chapter 3 the kind of external evidence your talking about?

If you want to move this discussion go ahead your more familiar with how to do it then I am. Just tell me where to go.I'm going to reply to the other response now. Thanks

Heraclitus Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I addressed your first point in the above statement.
I meant reliable as historically reliable as compared to other works of antiquity.

Don't straw man me hear I didn't commit the popularity fallacy or argumentum ad numerum (my word for the day)

When you say written over and over do you mean a copy of a copy or back to the original text? What reinterpretations are you talking about?

My dad hit me with that "Christians differ in their beliefs" the other day. I'll tell you what I told him. Fundamentaly most Christians agree that is concerning the life, death, ressurection of Christ. That He is the Son of God. That ones salvation rests upon Him. I would dare say most believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of the living God. Differing on doctrines sure. Jahovah's witness and Mormon are not Christian because they deny the deity of Christ. That is fundamental.
A lot of what you said may very well be true from person to person but it dosen't really prove anything. Couldn't we find similar symptoms in Atheism ext.
Where is your proof that "the message has been blurred to a staggering degree"?
I'm not going to bite on the "Every religious book that is written as an exposition for the Bible's meaning is a re-writing of the text itself. Shouldn't the Bible stand on its own? Why do so many books need to be written as concordances?" bit I'm not concerned about other books. Your stands on it's own statment is pretty vague but let me just say I belive the bible does stand on it's own agian I'm not sure what books your talking about. Thanks for your statments! Maybe well talk more later.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2002, 10:34 AM	#51
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I know this was a pretty simple statement but in all this "high minded" yet basicly meaningless talk would anyone like to consider it? I considered it for 45 years, does that count? My conclusion: it's an unreliable book with a nice, but unoriginal, fable about a mythical man-god that died and rose from the dead.

12-13-2002, 10:53 AM	#52
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Keith: Of course there is a we capable of forgetting haven't you ever forgotten where you placed your car keys? and if you die then that is the ultimate form of forgetting and you will forget that you have even been born in the first place let alone remembering the event of your death. And don't tell be about forgetting because you are forgetting there is no "we" before you were born in fact you could not even have a concept of what the prefix "ex" meant, so how can you could you discern the difference between an "ex-person" and a "non-person"?, or do you believe there is a great cosmic scrutineer out there to insure you can only live one possible life? If so, show me the evidence and not your circular reasoning [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

12-13-2002, 11:03 AM	#53
Skepticos Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Richardson, Texas Posts: 77	In my humble opinion, I think the phenomena of OBEs, NDEs, and mediumship is a step in the "evidence" direction that some of ya'll rely so heavily upon. - Skepticos

12-13-2002, 11:36 AM	#55
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Yes I have often stated that comparing NDE's to death is like comparing a bungee jump to a suicide jump

12-13-2002, 12:32 PM	#56
Skepticos Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Richardson, Texas Posts: 77	That's why I call it my "humble" opinion. =) Seriously, though. I have been trying to induce an OBE for a couple of weeks now, and I have set up a test to "prove" the validity of the experience. Time and practice will tell how successful I am. If I pass the test, then I will be a firm believer that all persons possess an astral body. And this is the first step for believing, and verifying for oneself, the fact that we do continue to exist after death. - Skepticos [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

12-13-2002, 02:53 PM	#57
Powerfull Voices Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Monterey, TN Posts: 25	I considered it for 45 years, does that count? My conclusion: it's an unreliable book with a nice, but unoriginal, fable about a mythical man-god that died and rose from the dead.[/QB][/QUOTE] Yes of course that counts! Thank you for responding I didn't mean to sound rude but surely this can be discussed not simply ignored. Last I heard 80% of the American population considered themselves Christians. That alone should speak(to a degree at least) of the coherence of this truth claim, right. Anyway I would be interested in hearing why you belive the Bible to be unreliable and Jesus a mear man, a mythical man at that. Do you deny the claim that the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity in existence? Come let us reason together. Jaime, this also responds to your questions.

12-13-2002, 04:54 PM	#58
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Last I heard 80% of the American population considered themselves Christians. That alone should speak(to a degree at least) of the coherence of this truth claim, right. Wrong. The logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Numerum again rears its ugly head. Anyway I would be interested in hearing why you belive the Bible to be unreliable and Jesus a mear man, a mythical man at that. This is really a discussion for BC&A or another forum, rather than the Philosophy forum. To be brief: - Much of the "history" in the bible is either unverifiable, probably false, or demonstrably false. Some important examples: starting in Genesis 1 with creation and the flood, both demonstrably false; the Exodus, for which little or no eternal corroboration has been found; Herod's massacre of young boys, for which no external corroboration has been found; the resurrection, the same; etc. Add to that many outright contradictions in the bible. I think someone probably existed from which the Jesus myth was generated. I don't think he was a god, though, or that he performed the miracles that are attributed to him, including being raised from the dead. Do you deny the claim that the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity in existence? Come let us reason together. Yes, I do deny it, and I doubt if you can prove it is. However, that's enough for this forum; this discussion belongs in BC&A or some other forum. [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

12-13-2002, 08:25 PM	#60
Powerfull Voices Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Monterey, TN Posts: 25	First off I have no idea how you make stuff bold. I tried copying and then hitting the little bold symbol and pasting but it wouldn't work. So could you please tell me how to do that. It's probably simple but I don't feel like messing with it. So I'll do my best I wasn't saying that that percentage made it true I was just using that as leverage to imply that it is worth talking about but at least I learned a new phrase today. To tell me something is demonstratably false without saying why is pointless. Why is the creation and the Flood false? Simply because Evolution is true? What's your evedence for saying that? I am wondering why we should doubt certain events simply because no external evidence has yet been found to corroborate it. It may still be true that Herod massacured the children. This may be what they call the Genetic fallacy. I would be interested in evidence of the period that contradicted these events. Otherwise at best were simply left with Agnosticism. Concerning the Ressurection. The Bible says there were 500 plus witnesses, the belief arose in hostile Jerusalem, all but one of the apostles died for this belief(wich they would have known to be a lie). Josephas wrote about it as well as a lot of other external sources, over 30 I belive, but that statment is meaningless I know. The Resurrection is a big deal so if we go into that I'll have to pull out some old books and pop in William Lane Craig vs ... video. What contradiction are you talking about? I respect your thoughts concerning the supernatural aspect though. How does one confirm them. I guess that's why the Bible needs to be outright proven to be uninspired and a lie otherwise are we not simply left with agnosticism and if that's the case I would much rather be on my side of the fence if you will. It would be neat to address the aspect of the Bibles reliability further. Off the top of my head I would cite prophecy, archeology, and the words of God Himself confirming it. One should compare it with other works of antiquity using the same criteria and see how it fairs. Bibliographical, internal and external evidence is how I've seen it done. Is the beggining of Luke chapter 3 the kind of external evidence your talking about? If you want to move this discussion go ahead your more familiar with how to do it then I am. Just tell me where to go.I'm going to reply to the other response now. Thanks Heraclitus Nietzsche -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I addressed your first point in the above statement. I meant reliable as historically reliable as compared to other works of antiquity. Don't straw man me hear I didn't commit the popularity fallacy or argumentum ad numerum (my word for the day) When you say written over and over do you mean a copy of a copy or back to the original text? What reinterpretations are you talking about? My dad hit me with that "Christians differ in their beliefs" the other day. I'll tell you what I told him. Fundamentaly most Christians agree that is concerning the life, death, ressurection of Christ. That He is the Son of God. That ones salvation rests upon Him. I would dare say most believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of the living God. Differing on doctrines sure. Jahovah's witness and Mormon are not Christian because they deny the deity of Christ. That is fundamental. A lot of what you said may very well be true from person to person but it dosen't really prove anything. Couldn't we find similar symptoms in Atheism ext. Where is your proof that "the message has been blurred to a staggering degree"? I'm not going to bite on the "Every religious book that is written as an exposition for the Bible's meaning is a re-writing of the text itself. Shouldn't the Bible stand on its own? Why do so many books need to be written as concordances?" bit I'm not concerned about other books. Your stands on it's own statment is pretty vague but let me just say I belive the bible does stand on it's own agian I'm not sure what books your talking about. Thanks for your statments! Maybe well talk more later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.