That's like comparing apples with oranges..
Most people were illiterate, back in the day..
What are you talking about? You said - "If there were no evidence at all, then why would anybody be a Christian or Muslim?"
I said for the same reason as any other religion like Inanna, Mithras, and so on.
Your answer about literacy makes no sense?
First, Inanna has poems written about her by Edheduanna and Mithras was the deity of the Roman army, who had writing?
So they were literate. But the answer is the same, they were told a story and bought into it, emotionalized the belief and use confirmation bias to only accept information that confirms their belief. No difference.
No thanks .. it is enough to know, that history is subjective, and often depends on
who narrates it.
Ancient history is particularly problematic.
Again, not really, evidence is evidence and is generally agreed upon by experts.
So you cannot present a historian with a different view because you don't know of one. BUT, you are now saying since history is subjective that is enough for you. (there is the confirmation bias on that topic).
NO, it's not subjective, there are facts, historians from the time writing history, other nations writing, there is archaeological evidence. We can draw a picture of what happened. In some cases better than others.
Israelite history is mostly agreed upon by historians. We are sure Genesis is carrying on a tradition of myths that originated earlier in Mesopotamia.
Nor do I .. I'm more interested in finding the truth, as far as possible.
Conclusions about religion, based on examining historical accounts, are subject to error.
I prefer to make my own conclusions, whether about "scientific facts" or religion.
You are not being honest. You don't know this at all. You say you prefer to make you own conclusions OVER people who read all original documents, study archaeology of all the temple finds, read historians at the time, look at all the religious stories around that nation, and you are going to skip all that and "make your own conclusion".
Yeah, no, you do not care about what is actually true. I'm guessing you want to read the Quran, take whatever it says about OT times, and consider that facts. You truly don't care about what's actually true.
Are you multilingual?
Don't need to be multilingual, the best works have been translated into English.
Your 'divide & rule' tactics are wasted on me..
So that is how you employ confirmation bias to the fact that your evidence and weight of evidence is no different than Mormons or Scientology.
You pretend they are "divide and rule" tactics. When actually it's a fact, none of you have good evidence.
When you have a method it has to have a way of rising above other methods that are flawed. Your response is to ignore facts like that. Ok.
I do not think in binary terms. i.e. right/wrong
Right so Mormonism isn't right or wrong. The Quran isn't right or wrong.
Like I said, you don't care about what is actually true.
Deviation .. stick to the topic..
Comparing them to a 'Creator of the universe' is childish.
What's childish, is pretending like a book is the creator of the universe.
I am not comparing Big Foot and aliens to the creator of the universe. You haven't demonstrated any creators of any universe.
You demonstrated a belief in a creator, based on ancient folk tales. About the same as aliens or Big Foot.
Why?
Just because you say so?
No because it's basic logic and if you care about believing true things you don't believe something without sufficient evidence.
I see evidence of G-d, and you don't .. or you dismiss it as improbable.
You do not. You see the universe which you incorrectly label as a creation. You have no other universes to compare it to. The universe functions with natural forces just fine, which may be the case for all reality.
Then every group with a different God sees the universe as the creation of this God. Hmmm, serious flaw in that method it seems, you cannot even demonstrate a method that shows which God. YOu can't show God, you cannot show a God is needed for a universe, you cannot show your God is the creator.
It doesn't MAKE it true .. it is either true or false .. and we both believe differently.
Yes, I follow what the evidence shows and base beliefs on that. YOu seem to be starting with a story and trying to make it fit what you see.
Yes, it can .. but strangely enough, people who believe in the concept of G-d, do not just believe in "anything at all".
Because in every other area of their life they know faith is stupid and they need evidence.
Using faith to justify any belief is flawed because faith is not reliable. You find a belief you want to be true and say "just have faith it's true".
That isn't how reality works. Even if you are correct, there are 2/3 of all other religious believers in the wrong belief system using faith.
So it's a terrible system, even with God. But there is no evidence you are correct.
No, it isn't. Experience is part of the equation, too.
Yes and in religion Christians, Mormons and Hindu all claim personal experience as the method they use to verify that their God is real and they are the only correct group of all of them. God tells them through personal experience.
Now that is even worse than faith.
Some things we can understand from reading a book, but context is also important,
as it contains a lot of history.
If we do not practice, we will also view many things in a different light.
Each human being is unique.
I don't know what that has to do with demonstrating something is true. I listen to many deconverted Muslims who speak the original language.
Well, if they did, what sense would it have made to anybody?
They knew math. They would understand a description of atoms, light speed, relativity, expanding universe, big bag, age of universe, and many other things. Uh....germs. Fruit cures scurvy. Wash surgical tools first.....?
What?
You say that the Qur'an is probably not the original .. but do not say what meanings have been changed..
..and then you say that the OT is accurate "according to scholars"??
..sounds like double-standards, to me.
Because you are not listening at all or having a conversation.
The Quran is not likely the original, a
palimpsest has been found and shows there were likely earlier versions. It isn't about changed meanings, it shows it wasn't dictated from an angel but put together over time by humans.
The OT also was done this way but once they got a final copy they transmitted it orally and written consistently. But neither are dictations from a deity, they are created documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls show the OT is fairly accurate. Some parts are added centuries later and forgery. Both are made by men, give laws and wisdom that was available at the time.
Both were books written with many drafts.
Exactly .. the OT consists of rewritten scrolls of various age and source.
Well Genesis is reworked mythology yes. But there is no "actual story" to be told, they made it up based on older stories.
All very interesting .. yet conclusions cannot be made definitively, other than what I have already agreed to.
i.e. the OT is based on scrolls of various age and source
I don't care how ignorant of historical evidence you want to be? we know for a fact that Genesis is using older myths to create a myth for the Israelites when they were a fairly new people. Exodus (all 5 versions) are a foundation myth and not actually how they came to be, but it gave them an identity.
We know a lot from archaeology as well and we can see there was no actual battle with Canaan and the kingdom of Solomon was small scale. The stories enlarged them. Then in the 2nd Temple Period ideas about souls returning to Heaven was 100% taken from Greek Platonic myth.
This is also the consensus in history.
James Tabor does a lot of work on this:
Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul?
Dr James Tabor
5:40 1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth,
7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment.
Genesis says you will return to dust.
9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this.
10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas.
Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar.
13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven.
14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body.
Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”
15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”.
Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc…
47:15 Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology
Material world/body is a prison of the soul
Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world
Death sets the soul free
No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth
Immortality is inherent for all humans
Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul
Humans are fallen and misplaced
Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free
Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed
Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul
49:35 Genesis view
Creation/body very good, procreation good
Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth
Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”
Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation
Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation
Humans belong on earth
Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body
Death is an enemy
Physical life and sensory pleasures are good