@mr.macabre
I wondered the same thing; at least until it soaked into my brain that this was just copy/paste spam. Then I realized the poster probably doesn’t know either.
Ok, groovy. Your evidence?
Argument from incredulity fallacy
Mkay. Evidence?
In their book “The Bible Unearthed” Finkelstein and Siberman have found evidence showing that the Exodus probably didn’t happen and that Moses is probably a mythical figure
Straw man. I didn’t claim he was.
As for volcanoes. Accepted that there were probably volcanoes in the middle east at sometime. That a religion with certain aspects began around the same time is certainly a correlation. That’s not the same as causation. If that’s all you have, the volcano argument may be dismissed pending more compelling evidence…
((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
1 Like
Exactly:
- If the story was good; presumably it would be evidence for god.
- If the story is…bad; would be evidence for god (according to the quote from ZealotX above).
That also forms a tautology.
1 Like
Dianetics and the writings of L. Ron Hubbard are really bad stories, thus it should by ZealotX’s argumentation be hard to believe the foundations of Scientology are completely made up.
On the other hand, the Iliad and the Odyssey are very well-written stories that have stood their time; after 2500+ years being told and retold, copied and copied again, and still in print, they are still highly readable. Would this mean they cannot be based on/spun around real events?
I can make neither head nor tail of ZealotX’s argument.
4 Likes
I’d speculate:
That is because it was designed to convince someone who already believes. The author already believes, so it seemed like a good argument to them. You and I don’t already believe, so it is much easier for us to see how foolish it is.
3 Likes
Yes, he is, without actually saying it, alluding to the “eyewitness” apologetics used by the religious. They try and draw a comparison between eyewitness accounts of commonplace events like a traffic accident and extraordinary events that (according to their tests) “changed the world”. This of course is meant to prove the accuracy and veracity of their favorite texts.
It is complete bollocks of course. Comparative eyewitness testimony in a criminal court MUST be correlated with other eyewitness statements and forensic evidence and in the case of multiple eyewitnesses the defence will have a field day exploiting differences. The graver the crime the greater the correlation of evidence is necessary for a conviction.
It blows a Titanic sized hole in the “eyewitness” defence of their texts presented by amateur, Youtube educated theologians who find this kind of apologetic shite convincing.
The forensics and absence of evidence for the Exodus stories, and a single recorded “eyewitness” of dubious accuracy and neutrality results in a verdict “Improbable” .
The story can be disregarded in its entirety except as a study tool of the rise of the Hebrews and their mythology.
2 Likes
I go with age. The more ancient, the more truthful the account…stands to reason 
I’m Sumerian tablets all the way. Original (they were baked after written) and the story is captured from before their time (a retelling, which always works in holy texts).
Watch the eyes people - watch the eyes… 
I’m afraid I’m smidge more conservative. I lean towards Ancient Egypt. IMO the Isis, Osiris, Seth Horus story is far too fantastic to have been made up–and that’s before you even get started on the pantheon of greater and lesser gods. I’ve always been fond of Bastet, the cat goddess.
Next thing will be the crackpot fringe dwellers arguing a causal connection between Akhnaten (a real person) and Moses.( a probably made up person)
My beloved sister is obsessed with cats and Egypt. Best of all is combining the two. Her home resembles a small museum cum op shop. She also has a surly 14 yr old black Tom cat.
Me? I quite like cats. I don’t have one because I’m not willing to spend the money or have the inconvenience of building an enclosed run. Domestic cats are a big problem in Australia. They kill native birds and small native animals. Here in South Australia cats must be micro chipped. I won’t be happy until cats must be registered, with large fines if they are captured at large.
PS: as rule of thumb, I think Wikipedia is far more reliable than Britannica ever was. A moot point I guess. As far as I’m aware, neither is accepted as a scholarly reference. God place to start because of references usually listed.
This the logical fallacy I’ve probably fallen foul of the most. I have to keep a weathered eye out all the time, to make sure I don’t fall for this one.
I tend to go there because of the references, and it provides a good summary basis if I wish to research further into something more specific.
Like a more expanded dictionary - except ideas.
While I agree that “bad” doesn’t equal true, thankfully, this isn’t what I’m trying to argue. L. Ron Hubbard only had to avoid contradicting one person.
L. Ron Hubbard.
There was no legacy or puzzle already in place for his whacky ideas to fit into. He had a blank canvas on which to paint a galaxy’s worth of foolishness. And that is also why people fell for it.
On the other hand when I say “bad” in a biblical sense, I’m talking about how what they’re actually saying/doing works against their own claims. How often did Hubbard say “But hey, I’m an idiot so what do I know?” There’s no need to insert things like this that might cause one to doubt the messenger.
The written version of the OT came later. What came first were oral traditions.
If I said “Hey, God talks to me and he told me to murder half of you” that just seems “bad” to me. Why would I write that if I could avoid it? The people murmuring against Moses, worshiping other gods, etc. If I was trying to convince everyone with something purely written in hindsight that was 100% made up, why would I make THAT up as well? Seems like it’d be better to… I dunno… maybe not tell people that you failed to convince the people and so they had wander the desert for 40 years? I mean… that’s just not particularly attractive to me for a new religion. Maybe that’s just me.
But that’s what I mean by “bad”. I’m not talking about poorly written. I’m talking about the inclusion of things better left unsaid. After all, do Christian churches include in their Sunday sermons, how terrible the dark ages were for them and all the people they brutally tortured and killed? If they say it at all it is said so far under their breath they might as well be mimes.
And yet, that happened so it cannot be unwritten from history. The church was also involved in slavery. Did I hear about this from the church? Of course not. Marketing 101. Don’t tell people how much evil you’ve done in the name of your religion. People will always weigh pros against cons. Moses clearly used fear, not love, in order to lead. So if everything people were afraid of was just a story then who were the first to accept that story? And what was their motivation? I mean for them, the first time hearing it would have been like the first time people heard L. Ron Hubbard. Why would they be afraid if there was never anything to corroborate any part of the story?
But… if most people heard other tales about this major volcanic eruption (that they didn’t know was a volcano) then that would corroborate aspects of the story; enough to cause many people to believe in spite of the “bad” …honest dishonesty? Or dishonest honesty? In other words, if I said “yeah God talks to me and oh by the way, I have an evil genius super laser” then there’s at least something to be afraid of. But if it’s just a story… I dunno. I can’t see why anyone would take it seriously enough to kill people over it. I mean L. Ron Hubbard never asked anyone to kill for him. That MIGHT have changed things.
I’m a cat person, so I would give Bastet a pass.
Obviously Joseph Smith and Reformed Egyptian make the most sense. After all, God spoke to the ancient Sumerian’s in Sumerian and that has had to be translated into English. Much was lost during the translations.
For example, you hear nothing about Jesus and Satan being brothers in the ancient texts. There is no mention of having your own planet full of wives that you will use to populate the place. I think you can only trust the most modern versions of the Bible and that would be the Book of Mormon. After all, that is the only book that was given to us by God in the English language. That is the book we should all be using.
3 Likes
One could go so far as to say that it was delivered via golden tablets. Gold. Annunaki. Trump. Trump has been anointed “spiritually” and is the heaven’s choice of president. Even now, Trump is the President. One could say these things…
Indeed. I didn’t know that. Is that in the book of Mormon? (I have been unable to wade through the whole thing.)
However, some time ago I discovered there is a great difference between the christian and jewish concept of the devil. To the christian the devil is the enemy of god. To the jew the devil is god’s servant. The jews ask rhetorically " How could it be otherwise". Perhaps worth asking a christian how could something as evil as the devil exits with an omnipotent god without that god’s consent?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%7%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Writing this opened an old memory about a favourite writer in the 70’s; Frank Yerby. Specifically " Judas, My Brother"
Yerby was a brilliant and fascinating man. An African American who wrote a lot of books set in the Southern US***. His books give a different view of the south.
Yerby was an atheist. Hence his books in religious settings give a sceptical view. A good read, recommended.
***the dust covers of his books never had a photo of the author. I suspect they might now
The Jehovah’s Witness theology would say that Satan was created perfect and chose to oppose Jehovah exercising free will. The “struggle” has been allowed so that Jehovah may once and for all settle the question “Does Jehovah have the right to set laws/govern/rule His creation?; and in conjunction with this prove his rulership is the best for mankind.” Simple acceptance of this is also joined with… Jehovah allowing mankind to rule “itself” without interference from God, to again prove mankind need’s Jehovah’s rulership.
hmmmm - no interference nor sabotage from God…
Evades the problem of evil and suffering. Especially the suffering of children and animals. Christianity has no answer to those questions.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
3 Likes
… within their own teaching… “no interference from god”
- worldwide flood
- limiting man’s lifespan
- disrupting language
This is just the first few chapters of Genesis.