Battle of the New Atheism

[kumquatq3]

Sure. I can.

 

 

The story of Exodus is a metaphor about the transition of humans (the Hebrews) moving from a pantheon to a single God. The Hebrew God being one that is not confined to a geography (like Poseidon was God of the Water) or events (Poseidon was God of Storms); the Hebrew god can move through a desert as a burning bush.

 

Sure, if you throw out 99% of the story, that is what you get. You also throw out the "faith" requirement of these stories. It's not a miracle, it's just a metaphor. If you don't have a faith or supernatural requirement, then you just have a story about people walking through the desert with no facts to back it up. Or worse, a metaphor that is nothing more than simple morality tale.

 

 

See? metaphor

n noun a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable. ⇒a thing regarded as symbolic of something else.

 

 

DERIVATIVES

metaphoric adjective

metaphorical adjective

metaphorically adverb

 

ORIGIN

C15: from French m

Edited October 28, 2006 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

So you assume Hercules existed.

 

However, you are incorrect, the stories resembling the reality of the person is VERY important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To whom?

 

To apparently everyone in this thread but you. As it is part of what we are debating.

 

If Hercules is half God, don't you think you're worshiping the wrong Gods?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said I was worshipping any gods?

 

Or lack of worship. If Hercules was half God, I'd want to know.

[S_W_LeGenD]

If angels do exist where is the physical evidence?  There is physical evidence of dinosaurs yet nothing on angels.  One cannot disprove existence till existence is proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some people say that they have encountered Angels. Now it depends upon you that you believe them or not.

 

The closest example I can provide is that of "Supernatural phenomenon".

 

Their are two types of phenomenon:

 

1) Natural

2) Supernatural

 

- "Natural phenomenon" is that we can clearly witness and interact with.

 

- "Supernatural phenomenon" is that we cannot clearly witness or properly interact with except in certain or special circumstances.

 

Now! their is no proper physical evidence for existance of "Supernatural" beings as well and yet many people believe in Ghosts and such things because their are tales of large number of encounters with such beings!

 

Thus! we can also say that physical evidence is restricted to our capability of interactivity with objects and thus it cannot explain all things.

Edited October 28, 2006 by S_W_LeGenD

[metadigital]

Sure. I can.

 

 

The story of Exodus is a metaphor about the transition of humans (the Hebrews) moving from a pantheon to a single God. The Hebrew God being one that is not confined to a geography (like Poseidon was God of the Water) or events (Poseidon was God of Storms); the Hebrew god can move through a desert as a burning bush.

Sure, if you throw out 99% of the story, that is what you get. You also throw out the "faith" requirement of these stories. It's not a miracle, it's just a metaphor. If you don't have a faith or supernatural requirement, then you just have a story about people walking through the desert with no facts to back it up. Or worse, a metaphor that is nothing more than simple morality tale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are you telling me what I should or should not believe?

 

Why can't it be a "simple morality tale"?

[kumquatq3]

Sure. I can.

 

 

The story of Exodus is a metaphor about the transition of humans (the Hebrews) moving from a pantheon to a single God. The Hebrew God being one that is not confined to a geography (like Poseidon was God of the Water) or events (Poseidon was God of Storms); the Hebrew god can move through a desert as a burning bush.

Sure, if you throw out 99% of the story, that is what you get. You also throw out the "faith" requirement of these stories. It's not a miracle, it's just a metaphor. If you don't have a faith or supernatural requirement, then you just have a story about people walking through the desert with no facts to back it up. Or worse, a metaphor that is nothing more than simple morality tale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are you telling me what I should or should not believe?

 

Why can't it be a "simple morality tale"?

 

You mean like you telling Hurlshot that the story is only a metaphor?

 

However, I highly doubt anyone will take my comments as me telling them what to think.

 

Please refrain from flaming in a thread about a sensitive topic or I will notify Fio. I will NOT have a "mod" derail a topic after 11 pages.

Edited October 28, 2006 by kumquatq3

[metadigital]

So you assume Hercules existed.

 

However, you are incorrect, the stories resembling the reality of the person is VERY important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To whom?

To apparently everyone in this thread but you. As it is part of what we are debating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you posted an article about the validity of faith in God.

 

Then, you asked a question about whether certain famous borderline historical/mythical figures existed.

 

I posted a response explaining that it was highly proably that they did, but that the myths were decidedly improbable.

 

Now you seem to be telling me that I have to either get in the faith boat and believe that in all of the mythical accoutrements, or jump out of the boat and not believe in the characters. I don't see why.

[kumquatq3]

No, you posted an article about the validity of faith in God.

 

Then, you asked a question about whether certain famous borderline historical/mythical figures existed.

 

I posted a response explaining that it was highly proably that they did, but that the myths were decidedly improbable.

 

Now you seem to be telling me that I have to either get in the faith boat and believe that in all of the mythical accoutrements, or jump out of the boat and not believe in the characters. I don't see why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I posted an article about "new atheism" and the people behind it.

 

Then Pidesco asked a question about whether certain famous borderline historical/mythical figures existed.

 

You posted a response explaining that you thought that they did, but that the myths were decidedly improbable.

 

Now I'm telling the people in this thread if you remove the faith requirements of the stories, what do you have left? As Dark Moth understood. I'm not sure where you got off track (or why your acting now), but I'd like you to stop.

[metadigital]

Sure. I can.

 

 

The story of Exodus is a metaphor about the transition of humans (the Hebrews) moving from a pantheon to a single God. The Hebrew God being one that is not confined to a geography (like Poseidon was God of the Water) or events (Poseidon was God of Storms); the Hebrew god can move through a desert as a burning bush.

Sure, if you throw out 99% of the story, that is what you get. You also throw out the "faith" requirement of these stories. It's not a miracle, it's just a metaphor. If you don't have a faith or supernatural requirement, then you just have a story about people walking through the desert with no facts to back it up. Or worse, a metaphor that is nothing more than simple morality tale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are you telling me what I should or should not believe?

 

Why can't it be a "simple morality tale"?

You mean like you telling Hurlshot that the story is only a metaphor?

 

However, I highly doubt anyone will take my comments as me telling them what to think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were taking issue with my stated beliefs; so I AM taking your comments as a direction that my beliefs are unacceptable.

Please refrain from flaming in a thread about a sensitive topic or I will notify Fio.  I will NOT have a "mod" derail a topic after 11 pages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Flaming?

 

There is no evidence for the Exodus. Period. In fact, there is evidence that it did not happen: the lack of any remains of hundreds of thousands of people leaving Egypt. We can trace the movements of small groups of people, even individuals, over thousands of years because of the lack of weathering and erosion etc.

 

But I see you are having trouble expressing yourself, so I think I'll close the thread, myself.

[Pidesco]

Sure, there is a chance that Odysseus is a completely fabricated character, but fiction usually reflects the truth.  We can prove the Trojan wars happened, so it's not outrageous to think that famous generals arose.

 

 

We can't prove the Trojan War happened.

[Hurlshort]

Sure, there is a chance that Odysseus is a completely fabricated character, but fiction usually reflects the truth.  We can prove the Trojan wars happened, so it's not outrageous to think that famous generals arose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We can't prove the Trojan War happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are right, I looked it up. But honestly, we've gotten a bit off track.

 

What is it about humans that makes faith so important? Why has religion and spirituality been a major part of every civilization that we know of?

[kumquatq3]

What is it about humans that makes faith so important?  Why has religion and spirituality been a major part of every civilization that we know of?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe there's a god. Maybe it's the best way to deal with the unknown. Hard to say. Ideas? I have no specific argument here.

[Pidesco]

Faith and religion are not the same thing. Lots of people have faith in something but aren't religious. One can have faith in himself; one can have faith in the basic goodness of humanity; One can have faith in lots of things and not be religious about it. Also, I think faith is essential to a person's wellbeing and his/her ability to accomplish anything.

 

On the subject of religion, personally I think that it's appearance in human societies is derived from two things: One is the desire to explain the unknown, and the other is a need to establish universal rules and laws that the whole society can follow so that it can be kept together. Now, explaining the unknown is, I feel, no longer a part of religion in modern societies. And of course laws and rules are already provided by about every society in the world. All this I feel makes religion kind of pointless in the world today. Except of course, that the word of God brings with it a certain moral authority, that governments simply don't have.

 

Finally, it's perfectly possible to argue that the only reason religion has been a part of every civilization so far, is a reflection of humanity's primitivity as a species.

[Pop]

What is it about humans that makes faith so important? Why has religion and spirituality been a major part of every civilization that we know of?

For one, God is a scorekeeper. If I can murder somebody and assuredy never get caught, is it wrong? What's to stop me?

 

Gods keep a record of deeds, such that when I die, I would be judged. Thus I can never really get away with any misdeeds. Thus I have good reason to live a good life, even if I have the opportunity to go happily through life murdering and raping without consequence. If there's really a big great void at the end of life, and there's no supernatural, what's the point of living right? Why can't I go out and rape? When I turn 80, I could become the Unabomber out of boredom. Any punishments against me would be inconsequential. I'd be prepping up to shuffle off this mortal coil anyway. So there's really no reason why I shouldn't wantonly murder, lie, cheat and steal. I'm not going to be held accountable. Humanistic morality would have no teeth against me if I didn't care whether I was right or wrong.

 

Of course, forgiveness puts a wrench in the supernatural judgement. Constantine used to baptize his soldiers en masse after a battle to absolve them of the terrible sins they committed on the battlefield.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Pop

[Hurlshort]

Finally, it's perfectly possible to argue that the only reason religion has been a part of every civilization so far, is a reflection of humanity's primitivity as a species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Primitivity? Are there other beings on earth with a more complex thought process than us? Animals have feelings, emotions, and instincts, but they don't build temples or have elaborate burial ceremonies for their dead.

[Pidesco]

Yes. My point is that, perhaps, some years from now (100, 500, 5000?), we won't need religion because we've gone beyond it. It's just an idea, I'm not saying it's true.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Pidesco

[WITHTEETH]

Finally, it's perfectly possible to argue that the only reason religion has been a part of every civilization so far, is a reflection of humanity's primitivity as a species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Primitivity? Are there other beings on earth with a more complex thought process than us? Animals have feelings, emotions, and instincts, but they don't build temples or have elaborate burial ceremonies for their dead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meatadigital had an awesome article on this from the new scientists, here it is.

 

Religions Beggining

 

Beyond Belief

 

Whether or not you call yourself religious there are things you believe in. The notion that humans are essentially benevolent, perhaps

[WITHTEETH]

Yes. My point is that, perhaps, some years from now (100, 500, 5000?), we won't need religion because we've gone beyond it. It's just an idea, I'm not saying it's true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I reccomend a book called Thus Spoke Zarathustra by F. Nietszche. heres a reaction paper i did on it.

 

Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher, wrote a book called Thus Spoke Zarathustra. This book discusses Zarathustra, a traveler who talks to the people about man conquering himself, and becoming overman.

Zarathustra comes to a town on the edge of the forest and enters the town.  In the town, at the market square, he finds people gathered together. They have come to see a traveling tightrope-walker. Since the tightrope walker has not turned up yet, Zarathustra, seizing the moment decides to speak to them. To the audience, Zarathustra says,

[Pidesco]

I'm familiar with Nietzsche's work.

 

Do you think I post these things blindly?

Edited October 28, 2006 by Pidesco

[WITHTEETH]

I'm familiar with Nietzsche's work.

 

Do you think I post these things blindly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all. I'm just a fan of his work.

[Pidesco]

I'm not complaining. I'm actually glad someone saw where I was coming from.

[Darque]

All myths have some basis in fact.

 

Carry on. :D

[Pidesco]

Yes, like Narcissus are an actual flower, but really have bugger all to do with the Narcissus myth.

[Dark Moth]

Finally, it's perfectly possible to argue that the only reason religion has been a part of every civilization so far, is a reflection of humanity's primitiveness as a species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could be possible, but you have to be careful because there are many cases of the opposite being true. For instance, in history some of the more advanced civilizations have been religious while many primitive ones have not. For example, the Aztecs, one of the most advanced races in the Western hemisphere, were religious. However, the Huns, a civilization of primitive nomads, were not.

 

Yes. My point is that, perhaps, some years from now (100, 500, 5000?), we won't need religion because we've gone beyond it. It's just an idea, I'm not saying it's true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion has been with humans for thousands of years. To say that it would disappear in 100, or even 500 years is a big stretch. 5000 maybe, but not 500.

[Pidesco]

To the best of my knowledge the Huns were religious. And they were not that primitive.

 

Also, don't forget that progress is exponential.

[Dark Moth]

To the best of my knowledge the Huns were religious. And they were not that primitive.

 

Also, don't forget that progress is exponential.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not believe they were. But I could be thinking of the wrong tribe. As for primitive, compared with Romans, the Aztecs, the Turks, yes they were. Point is though, religion and progress are not always connected.

 

As for progress, what you're saying is nothing new. Take the Age of Reason, for instance. Many believed that religion's time was over, but over two hundred years later, it's still a strong force in the world. I could be wrong, but I think to say that something as influential as religion going away in 100 years is a very big stretch.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Dark Moth