If the Bible is so primitive, why can't Historians come up with their own Bible?

[sayak83]

The closest Philosopher who attempted to write a Bible is Nietzsche with his Thus Spake Zarathustra. Good luck living by it.

But since the Bible was written hundreds of thousands of years ago, no one ancient or modern has ever been able to duplicate the interaction of History, Art, Literature, Religion and Spirituality like the Bible. Well, we can be honest and look to Herodotus The Histories or Maybe Thucydides the Pelopenesian War, but really having read them in college neither gets close. Nietzche was the closest in his cynical way.

So, why can't Atheists, Scientists and Historians write a History Book like the Bible? You may write, "because the Bible is untrue," well wouldn't it make sense, if that is your argument, to turn recorded events into teachable moments? There is nothing a Historian ever written that is as universal and insightful as the Bible.

So, discuss. Atheists, where are your great minds that they cannot achieve such a simple goal? (sarcasm and irony noted)

With all due respect Mahabharata is better than the Bible.
The other book that comes close : War and Peace.
Pretty sure the Chinese 5 classics also count.
You have Aeneid as well. And Kalevala. And King Gesar of course.

But, its clearly subjective. You saying Bible is the best is like a Muslim saying Quran is the best. Atheists will go for Lucretius.

 

[sayak83]

Show not tell, cite them. The Bible is by far the number 1 selling book. I don't see people put their hand over Nietzsche, Herodotus, Thucydides, being sworn in to high offices. Nor do I see any other book put in so many Hotel rooms and Hospitals. If that book existed it would have resonated by now. It hasn't.

You may say I have confirmation bias to psychoanalzy me but in reality confirmation bias is a myth. Please, keep pop psychology to a minimum. Let's discuss.

So, cite them.

Who buys Bibles? Most printed and distributed does not imply most sold?

 

[sayak83]

Mathematicians have come up with notable classic texts by the way. Look at Flatlands, Alice in Wonderland, Descarte, Spinoza, Pascale, Leibnitz and others. There was a time when to be a Mathematician meant to do much more than math. Also, when you get to pure a lot of it is writing.

As for the Gita, I have read it and it is a sacred text much like the Upanishads. The Mahayana Sutras are sacred texts as well. But does it rise to the level of Bible though? I'm not so certain that is debatable.

Its far better. Both the Buddhist Sutras and the Mahabharata of which Gita is just one chapter.

 

[SomeRandom]

I love your reference to McDonald’s. Perfect!

Well Micky Ds is always a good reference

 

[SomeRandom]

With all due respect Mahabharata is better than the Bible.
The other book that comes close : War and Peace.
Pretty sure the Chinese 5 classics also count.
You have Aeneid as well. And Kalevala. And King Gesar of course.

But, its clearly subjective. You saying Bible is the best is like a Muslim saying Quran is the best. Atheists will go for Lucretius.

Oh the Aneid. Proof that fanfic can be fantastic!!

 

[Windwalker]

Besides that, one very clear evidence of the authenticity of the Bible, is the fact that it was written by more than three dozen men, of very different walks of life, who lived over vast time periods, some stretching for hundred of years, over a period of sixteen centuries, yet there is complete harmony on [[[[ a universal purpose as given by the God they worshiped. ]]]]
How can that be possible, unless the Bible was in fact authored by one God?
I don't see how.

Here's how. It's a very simple principle. First, the "master story" you believe you see, or what others have taught you it is, is an "after the fact" pattern recognition that they superimposed upon it. They created this story from trying to see a pattern in the various writings, trying to find the "meaning" of them together as a whole. And then once that pattern becomes set into the minds of the priests who control the books, they then begin to choose which to include and which to exclude, and that becomes a matter of selective editing to fit the story they wanted to you to see, the one that fits how they saw it or learned to see it themselves.

The easiest analogy of this is that of looking up at the night sky where you see random dots of light littering the sky. Now, enter the human being looking up at it and he sees patterns emerge. He sees the dots can be connected in certain ways and you end up with a Dragon, a Scorpion, Orion the Hunter, Leo the Lion, and so on and so forth. Now that pattern has been pointed out to you, when you look up, there it is "in plain view", or "the plain reading of scripture", as you've heard before. You are seeing a reflection of the human mind now on the night sky, or on the pages of scripture. Same thing.

Pattern recognition, and then imprinting that on your brain through training the mind to see it. Then it becomes a matter of conditioned response, laying that idea on top of whatever you read as its precondition. It colorizes all subsequent thinking about what you are seeing. Think of this as a "patina" that changes the true color of the metals, if you will. That's how. The "master story" is a reflection of the human mind imposing itself in patterns upon the vast sea of stars of the night sky.

 

[exchemist]

The closest Philosopher who attempted to write a Bible is Nietzsche with his Thus Spake Zarathustra. Good luck living by it.

But since the Bible was written hundreds of thousands of years ago, no one ancient or modern has ever been able to duplicate the interaction of History, Art, Literature, Religion and Spirituality like the Bible. Well, we can be honest and look to Herodotus The Histories or Maybe Thucydides the Pelopenesian War, but really having read them in college neither gets close. Nietzche was the closest in his cynical way.

So, why can't Atheists, Scientists and Historians write a History Book like the Bible? You may write, "because the Bible is untrue," well wouldn't it make sense, if that is your argument, to turn recorded events into teachable moments? There is nothing a Historian ever written that is as universal and insightful as the Bible.

So, discuss. Atheists, where are your great minds that they cannot achieve such a simple goal? (sarcasm and irony noted)

This strikes me as as question-begging. Does anyone say the bible is "primitive"? I have never seen it so described. Ancient, yes. But "primitive"?

Does anyone describe Homer as "primitive"? Not really. The Iliad and Odyssey are thought great texts of European civilisation, are they not? Is not the bible thought of in a similar way?

Secondly, why on earth would "atheists, scientists and historians" set out to "duplicate" a literary text full of myth and legend like the bible? That is not what they do and what would be the point? (The nearest I can think of is Tolkien possibly writing his - rather tedious - Lord of the Rings as a sort of emulation of Beowulf and similar epic narratives. But he wasn't a historian and he was just playing around really.)

 

[exchemist]

I doubt the Bible's hundreds of thousands of years old. I'm thinking more like 2000 years at best.

Quite. The earliest known human writing seems to be from the Neolithic era, about 6,000 yrs ago: Writing - Wikipedia

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Really weird question.

What criteria beyond confirmation bias are you using to determine other classical texts don't 'get close' to the Bible?

It could have something to do with the fact things don't add up. Lemme put it this way.

They mentioned History, Art, Literature, Religion and Spirituality.

Let's start with art.

What about literature? Well, offhand, the only literature I can think of from the secular world that's half-decent is Cthulhu Mythos and even it is incredibly depressing and dark, or His Dark Materials which becomes increasingly clear that rather than proving any kind of atheism the extended parts about the Magisterium wind up sounding like a rant against the church. Other than that, most of what you get it bland "science" textbooks, some of which aren't real science. A theologian takes apart this in about a half-hour (literally, I skipped to the 30 minute mark, and he was saying "any questions?").

"William Crane? He's stupid." Uhhh, you actually sat down and listened to what he is saying, or just dismissed him without evidence?

What about history? Well, the Bible has its own history, but it is largely mythical (as in, it is from the myth perspective of the Jews). However, as a result of Judeo-Christian influence, classical western history developed. What about history under secular ideology? Revisionism. All of this re-interpretation of past events, however, fails to address the fact that only 6.98% of all wars are religious. It also fails to address attrocities addressed by secularism, such as the pogroms waged against religious people (particularly Jews), or the fallout of big secular states (Russia under communism, for instance, wound up killing tons of people because they didn't go along with things). To say nothing of the death of animals and humans throughout tech advances.

Religion and Spirituality is pretty much the last one. In order to make their own Bible, atheism/secularism would need a viable worldview and belief system. But it doesn't even claim to be a belief. That's a poor start. Worse yet, the worldview or value system, while looking at the surface, secular values seem to be okay. Only...
Well, to start with, atheism has a real suicide problem.
In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates
Atheism Has a Suicide Problem | HuffPost
Atheism Has A Suicide Problem - Dangerous Talk (Yes, I know it has the same title but it's a different article)
Not only that, there is a real difference between moralism for its own sake and having specific values subject to a unifying theme (a religion). Moralism for its own sake simply makes people work hard, but there's no sense of payoff. And there are other problems.
Is "Secular Morality" an Oxymoron? - The Imaginative Conservative
Sartre’s Views on Morality: Not Convincing – Michael Robert Caditz – Medium
In short, until atheism hashes those out and provides a working model for how to live, it cannot and should not write a Bible of sorts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is, you think I have a problem.

Actually I can demonstrate it. Something that you do not appear to be able to do.

What I do find interesting is that the burden of proof always lies with the Christian, but it never is on the atheist, even when he makes flat out statement like
He knows, but the Christian,,, what does he know... he believes the Bible, how could he possibly know anything.

It depends upon what one is claiming. I can explain why we know why some of the stories in the Bible are myth. I would bet the farm that you can't defend those myths. If you want to claim that something is real then you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Atheists simply say to most theist beliefs "prove it". If a Hindu can't show evidence for why Brahma exists why believe in him? Do you believe in Brahma? I don't. Your reasons are hopefully very similar to mine. Do you believe in Zeus? Odin? Thor? (Oh wait, Thor is pretty cool, let's reserve judgment for now). You probably don't believe in any of them for essentially the same reasons that I don't believe in them. And for the same reason I don't believe in your myth.

That you are uncomfortable with the burden of proof tells us that you have some doubts about your own beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Actually I can demonstrate it. Something that you do not appear to be able to do.



It depends upon what one is claiming. I can explain why we know why some of the stories in the Bible are myth. I would bet the farm that you can't defend those myths. If you want to claim that something is real then you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Atheists simply say to most theist beliefs "prove it". If a Hindu can't show evidence for why Brahma exists why believe in him? Do you believe in Brahma? I don't. Your reasons are hopefully very similar to mine. Do you believe in Zeus? Odin? Thor? (Oh wait, Thor is pretty cool, let's reserve judgment for now). You probably don't believe in any of them for essentially the same reasons that I don't believe in them. And for the same reason I don't believe in your myth.

That you are uncomfortable with the burden of proof tells us that you have some doubts about your own beliefs.

Prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove it.

Prove what? I can prove there was no worldwide flood with just one picture, though you probably would not understand the picture. Are you willing to learn honestly? Then I will gladly prove my claims. I have yet to meet an honest literalist yet. One simply can't be honest about one's beliefs, if one believes the myths of Genesis, and be honest when faced with the evidence that tells us that they are wrong.

 

[nPeace]

Prove what? I can prove there was no worldwide flood with just one picture, though you probably would not understand the picture. Are you willing to learn honestly? Then I will gladly prove my claims. I have yet to meet an honest literalist yet. One simply can't be honest about one's beliefs, if one believes the myths of Genesis, and be honest when faced with the evidence that tells us that they are wrong.

Are you the same person that keeps saying that you know people can't prove anything. Why do you just keep talking. Talking doesn't prove anything. If you really have proof... why do you just keep talking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you the same person that keeps saying that you know people can't prove anything. Why do you just keep talking. Talking doesn't prove anything. If you really have proof... why do you just keep talking?

Please don't fail the honesty test so early. When creationists often demand "proof" they mistakenly mean something on the order of a mathematical proof. When I prove something it is more on the standard of a legal proof. If you ever accept that someone has been proven guilty of a crime then by the same standard you would have to accept the findings of science. Also since your science education is probably sorely lacking what good would it do if I laid out the evidence if you were unable to understand it?

The first question you need to answer is can you be honest? This may seem to be insulting, but very few theists can be honest when their beliefs are shown to be wrong. Can you admit that you might be wrong about the existence of your "God"?

 

[Etritonakin]

This very over the top interpretation of ancient scripture that is over loaded in conjecture and speculation. With a heavy imagination any ancient scripture of the world can be fertile ground for hypothetical speculation.

Extremely futuristic?!?!!??!???!? All I see here is science fiction and X files speculation.

What many would consider futuristic -just commenting on what is written -not speculating -not interpreting.

Individual prophecies my be thought to be coincidental, but not all considered together.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is, you think I have a problem.
What I do find interesting is that the burden of proof always lies with the Christian, but it never is on the atheist, even when he makes flat out statement like
He knows, but the Christian,,, what does he know... he believes the Bible, how could he possibly know anything.

The claim that large parts of the Pentateuch are based on mythology is not an atheist claim as such.It is based on the actual evidence of the relationship between the Pentateuch text can be traced to older Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarite text, and the actual text of the Pentateuch in Hebrew can only be dated to ~700 BCE, and with a stretch ~1000 BCE with the oldest known Canaanite/Hebrew script.

There is absolutely no objective evidence that the Creation accounts and the flood are remotely actual events, and related to older mythology.

 

[nPeace]

Please don't fail the honesty test so early. When creationists often demand "proof" they mistakenly mean something on the order of a mathematical proof. When I prove something it is more on the standard of a legal proof. If you ever accept that someone has been proven guilty of a crime then by the same standard you would have to accept the findings of science. Also since your science education is probably sorely lacking what good would it do if I laid out the evidence if you were unable to understand it?

The first question you need to answer is can you be honest? This may seem to be insulting, but very few theists can be honest when their beliefs are shown to be wrong. Can you admit that you might be wrong about the existence of your "God"?

Wow. A man that says he knows, and he has proof, and when he is asked to present it, he tries to patch up his bucket so full of holes, to try to make sure when he fills it, it doesn't leak.
I'll wait one more post. When you are ready.
To quote you

That you are uncomfortable with the burden of proof tells us that you have some doubts about your own beliefs.

Oh, and you have Bob the Unbeliever to thank for this.

 

[shunyadragon]

What many would consider futuristic -just commenting on what is written -not speculating -not interpreting.

Individual prophecies my be thought to be coincidental, but not all considered together.

Interpreting the texts as futuristic references to UFOs or other advanced technology(?) is indeed highly speculative and unreal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. A man that says he knows, and he has proof, and when he is asked to presented, he tries to patch up his bucket so full of holes, to try to make sure when he fills it, it doesn't leak.
I'll wait one more post. When you are ready.

Oh, and you have Bob the Unbeliever to thank for this.

I know because I can demonstrate that my claims are correct. Something that theists cannot do. And I was very clear about the standard of "proof". You are already demonstrating that when it comes to your mythological beliefs that you can't be honest. Trying to take words out of context is a dishonest debating technique. And you are also demonstrating fear by not debating the issue at hand And then to make it worse you tell a falsehood. You have not been able to find any holes in my reasoning. You are merely attacking because your own beliefs have been shown to be full of holes.

When you can admit that you will try to be honest I will begin. Up to this point you have already failed.

 

[nPeace]

I know because I can demonstrate that my claims are correct. Something that theists cannot do. And I was very clear about the standard of "proof". You are already demonstrating that when it comes to your mythological beliefs that you can't be honest. Trying to take words out of context is a dishonest debating technique. And you are also demonstrating fear by not debating the issue at hand And then to make it worse you tell a falsehood. You have not been able to find any holes in my reasoning. You are merely attacking because your own beliefs have been shown to be full of holes.

When you can admit that you will try to be honest I will begin. Up to this point you have already failed.

Have a good day. Bye.