Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Its proof that it is written by someone that is recounting an event, as opposed to fabricating it."
I don't agree, but lets say for the sake of argument it is, you'd still need to demonstrate compelling objective evidence that it has been recounted accurately. Being wrong or inaccurate doesn't require intent, ignorance and superstition are a killer combination that will do it just as well.
"these are disparities you would expect to see, and do see, when people who experienced the same event retell their stories later. It has everything to do with the way memories are encoded and recalled."
In a flawed human narrative yes, not in a narrative claimed to be derived from an omniscient omnipotent deity, that was supposedly attempting to portray a message that EVERYTHING was created for.
Breezy: "Its proof that it is written by someone that is recounting an event, as opposed to fabricating it. I don't know to what extent you think things like the gospels were fabricated and written years after the event by people that weren't there, vs written by the people that were there."
Because of evidential facts. Something you are incapable of understanding. The oldest copy of the Gospel of Mark dates to circa 112 CE. 82! years after the supposed event. And the other three are even younger.
rmfr
If the oldest copy is not the original copy; so then what's the argument exactly?
Breezy: "If the oldest copy is not the original copy; so then what's the argument exactly?
Point: None of the Bible is original. It is a complete plagiarization of myths and legends FAR! older than the Bible itself. The character "Jesus" (and I still pronounce it Hey-soos) did not exist until well int othe first century CE. You may be thinking of the character "Yeshua." However, there is absolutely NO evidence that Yeshua even existed. Not until the first fictional short story attributed to "Mark" was written almost a century later, circa 112 CE. You mentioned earlier:
Since when? The Bible contains absolutely NO definitive mentioning of time and space. Until you prove this with Objective Hard Empirical Evidence, then you are doing the FAITH (Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery Hogwash) thing.
The Epic of Gilgamesh does. It mentions dates, places, and occurrences. Far more than the Noah myth plagiarized and rewritten over 1100 years later.
Yes, because the myth explicitly states such. The Noahacian Flood Myth does NOT! There is no mention of where Noah lived. There is no mention of when it happened. Nothing. Only a plagiarized myth from far older myths. Here it is: Noahacian Flood Myth written circa 450 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh written circa 1600 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Epic of Atra-Hasis written circa 1700 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Epic of Ziusudra written circa 1900 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Genesis of Eridu written circa 2000 BCE. Eridu was a neighboring city of Ur (Gilgamesh). And the Genesis of Eridu mentions "a great flood washed over." There is Objective Hard Empirical Evidence that the floodplain of the Tigris and Euphrates having suffered a catastrophic flood of "biblical" proportions circa 2900 to 3000 BCE. Sediment layers from shafts prove this. Thus, the Noah myth is nothing but a retelling of FAR! older stories.
Then why mention it. If you do not know enough about it, then shut the hell up. Don't mention it. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than proving your incompetence and propensity for lying. Breezy, you do yourself a disservice by showing how ignorant you truly are. What was it Old Man said once (paraphrased), "It is damn shame these Bible thumpers come here having never read their obsolete Bronze Age text."
rmfr
@ Arakish..
The partial text of Mark was at the earliest 150ishCE (One hundred and 20 years after the alleged events). The earliest fragment of the gospels is the Ryland fragment of John (P52) dated at the earliest to 125CE
Breezy is desperately trying to justify his beliefs in the face of facts and failing miserably.
WOW! You can walk along the street like a perfectly normal person but when you open your trench coat and expose yourself to the world, people just have to call you "NUTS"
RE: "Its proof that it is written by someone that is recounting an event, as opposed to fabricating it."
Have you lost your mind? Every post you make manages to sink to a lower and lower level of ignorance. Narration is a style of writing and NOTHING MORE. Think of all the books written in that style. You are asserting that the writers were recounting events? Really? That's just INSANE. You are allowing your OCD to run away with your brain.
Even if his claim were true, and the writers were recounting real events, they were still capable of error. Given how much of the "inerrant word of god" has turned out to be erroneous how much confidence can any rational person place in it? However as you say the writing style alone tells us nothing about the veracity of what they have written, or even the intent of the writer.
I think I mentioned that point as well. Short stories are easily memorized. I think of Aesop's Fables. The issue is time and interpretation. How did the serpent in the garden become a snake, when was it changed from female to male, why is the apple commonly regarded as the fruit eaten in the garden. These are only a few of the changes that occur over time when fables are used to teach. Meanings change over time and interpretations are certainly different than simply stating facts. I have read at lease 5 different interpretations of the Adam and Eve story. (Just using it as an example.)
I disagree that the bible was written in narrative format.
It seems more like a collection of books written by numerous different authors with different motives that was compiled at a later date.
I'm inclined to agree, and Breezy's idea sounds like a rationalisation to me. Something believers do to try and maintain belief in the bible or koran.
A message from a deity that created everything and wanted us to know should rationally be expected to be infallible and definitive, not errant and ambiguous.
Well, then give me your definition of narrative, as well as why the bible doesn't have it. Because authors and motives seem to be components of narrative.
It's not an homogeneous narrative, it's a collection of separate narratives, cobbled together. My definition of an homogeneous narrative is that it would be consistent and coherent, rather than ambiguous vague and contradictory. If it were an homogeneous narrative it would still of course be entirely human in origin, unless compelling objective evidence could be demonstrated to show otherwise.
You've created an adjective for the sake of arguing against it.
That's very silly thing to claim John, why would an atheists needs to invent words in order to disbelieve archaic myths about magic. Did you anticipate everyone rolling over and converting when you offered your opinion the bible is a narrative? It's demonstrably several narratives that have been cobbled together, many of them of them long after the events they are supposed to depict. Some of them are clearly not describing real events in any meaningful or objective way.
If you think that is the best an omniscient omnipotent deity can do, well then I remain dubious.
Which adjective was tripping you up John, I'm pretty certain homogeneous is in the dictionary, but do check it's meaning for yourself.
You made up the phrase homogeneous narrative. What's the opposite, a heterogeneous narrative? Is the bible a heterogeneous narrative according to your definition? If so, then it's still a narrative.
Bullshit. It has been used for a long time to describe the telling of stories.
Great, show me. It's that simple. It still produces a straw man that doesn't affect my claim.
Here is an example of it being used in 1857. Which leads us to the conclusions:
I'm going to go with B.
---------------------------------------
/e
The fact that you are full of shit, effects (or is it affects?) your claim. If for no other reason then we have to double and triple check everything you say because it is often wildly inaccurate. You can't seem to even get the easy stuff right.
@ Nyarlathotep
In that context, it would be "affects."
rmfr
I'll gladly concede then. I definitely prefer being "wrong" to such an obscure example, than something more pertinent
Instead of presenting something that has actual meaning to the discussion, and can actually hurt my argument. You've turned it into a competition of whose the first human to use those words in that combination. So I'll take it.
If you didn't want the conversation to go down this road, perhaps you should not have accused Sheldon of making up that phrase.
If you don't want us to nitpick the details of what you say, you shouldn't just make them up as you go along. You are your own worst enemy here.
I'm sure; but you already know I expect a certain level of common sense from others. I'm also aware that nitpicking is the best approach to take down my arguments. I wouldn't want you addressing my arguments head on, now that would be disastrous for me.
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
"I'm sure; but you already know I expect a certain level of common sense from others. I'm also aware that nitpicking is the best approach to take down my arguments. I wouldn't want you addressing my arguments head on, now that would be disastrous for me."
Your OP hinges on the presupposition that at the instant of any biblical event that there was someone documenting it on paper. Or papyrus or clay tablets. No matter, it would be a permanent record.
And I easily discern that you are attempting to steer the conversation towards topics that favor your interpretation of truth versus fancy. But the OP fails from the beginning because all of those biblical events were not put to paper until at least a hundred years later.
I did not have to nitpick because I went after the simple fact that your presupposition was incorrect.
As far as nitpicking, are we as diligent as your instructors? I can give the answer. You make any mistake, just an incorrect punctuation mark, and he will rip you a new one. In comparison, we are exceptionally forgiving and lenient.
Sorry, the old "waa waa , feel sorry for me, they are picking on me" fails.
My OP doesn't hinge on such presuppositions. I don't even care who wrote Genesis; even basic Christian tradition claims it was Moses who wrote it, which duh, is supposed to have lived hundred of years after Adam and Eve.
I'm willing to bet I'm one of the best writers on here. Yet, even if that wasn't the case, have you ever published an article? Perhaps not in science, but in a magazine somewhere? There's a reason why editors exist, its their job to worry about commas. Even prolific authors such as Steven Pinker, who writes about language, and studies its rules, doesn't fail to acknowledge his editors. He has a funny anecdote in one of his books about arguing with one of them precisely over a comma.
Common sense ought to tell you to lower your expectations if you think I should put the same level of detail in random online discussions as I do the classroom. And yet I still take the time to research and format my citations properly for the thread, which I haven't seen very many people do. Most of you just give out youtube links and ask ppl to watch them.
Again, common sense; you won't learn about that in technical manuals. (You can probably learn it through narratives however: stories like goldilocks probably teach common sense."
@ Breezy
I'm willing to bet I'm one of the best writers on here.
Now that is the funniest thing I have read from you....got dibs on your little unpolished and unpublished ass have you not? Just as well Arakish C3 is now embedded in my behaviour and no comestibles were being consumed, or, indeed within reach when I read that little gem....
*still laughing so hard it hurts*
My claim is testable.
Regardless, I do find your writing on here to be void of substances and also horribly and unoriginally written. By unoriginal I mean you've stolen Tin-Man's style.
*Cough, cough*
@ Breezy
Thanks for the compliment. If you think its 'void of substance" then it means to any rational human it has made points you cannot or will not refute due to your biblical blinkers.
As to stealing Tin Mans style...oh, that I could emulate that giant of clanking comedy....I guess I will just have to bow to your self professed superiority and throw out my Academy Award, tear up the last 15 years royalty cheques, cast my Equity Award into the trash and dote on every word that drips from your pen...Not to mention instruct the mining companies that use my texts to maintain, and operate safely, some of the biggest and nastiest machines in Australia that, in John Breezy, a student's venerated opinion they are "void of substance'. Should cause some angst in the boardrooms...
You really are a pratt sometimes...oh wait....
That just make things worse for you; so many awards but so little to show for it on the forum. The point I made was precisely to make a distinction between the type of writing that occurs within the thread, from the type of writing that occurs outside it. You don't have to put an ounce of substance into your comments, and I don't have to write for you guys as if I'm writing for academia (even though I often do).
Yet, within the confines of this thread I maintain I'm one of the best writers. So if anyone, like David, wishes to nitpick at the placements of my commas, but their writing is worse than mine, it essentially voids their nitpicking.
@ Breezy
Lets have the link to your published papers then....as you "often write for academia", unless you mean turning in your student assignments.
You should really know who you are writing to, before you shoot your mouth off. This forum is awash with better minds and better writers than you.
Your behaviour is showing a pattern Breezy... you should take some counselling.
1. Bald statement
2. Attempt to justify when errors pointed out
3. Get angry
4. Ad hominems
5. Announce your not playing anymore ...
Wow, sounds like the behaviour of a socially inept 12 year old doesn't it? Take some counselling.
What does knowing who anyone is on here matter? Your credentials are Christmas ornaments to me if they're not mine. So my only interest is in what you are able to contribute to these conversations, irrespective of credentials and awards.
I've rarely come across anything written by you here worth reading twice. That's my fault.
Pages