Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[joelr]

Is it that that the evidence shows that Judaism was polytheistic, or that Jews had BECOME polytheistic due to ignorance and misbelief??

The early Israelites came from the Canaanites who were polytheistic. Yahweh was believed to have been a Canaanite God who they took but also had a consort Ashera. Sayings and figurines saying "Yahweh and his Ashera" are found in early Israelite settlements.

It says in the OT that after the return from the exile they tried to understand why Yahweh would allow the lands to be invaded. They decided they needed to focus solely on Yahweh worship and Ashera was stricken from scripture. This failed because they continued to be invaded but that is the history.
It also SAYS in the OT that Israelites were polytheistic and were punished for it (the Persian occupation). This is the start of putting the OT into a canon and revising the text.

I
Well, I believe that the Bible is based on truth, unlike you, and also have reason to believe that Arabs and Hebrews reverted to polytheism in times gone by.

Uh, it's a religious mythology? I just showed you the Proverbs taken from an Egyptian work? All the stories are taken from older tales.


Judaism - Myths

"The tendency to interpret biblical tales and legends as authentic historical records or as allegories or as the relics of solar, lunar, and astral myths is now a thing of the past."
Myths.


Legends and other tales


Legends in the Hebrew Scriptures often embellish the accounts of national heroes with standard motifs drawn from popular lore. Thus, the Genesis story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife recurs substantially (but with other characters) in an Egyptian papyrus of the 13th century BCE. The account of the infant Moses being placed in the bulrushes (in Exodus) has an earlier counterpart in a Babylonian tale about Sargon, king of Akkad (c. 2334–c. 2279 BCE), and is paralleled later in legends associated with the Persian Cyrus and with Tu-Küeh, the fabled founder of the Turkish nation. Jephthah’s rash vow (in Judges), whereby he is committed to sacrifice his daughter, recalls the Classical legend of Idomeneus of Crete, who was similarly compelled to slay his own son. The motif of the letter whereby David engineers the death in battle of Bathsheba’s husband recurs in Homer’s story of Bellerophon. The celebrated judgment of Solomon concerning the child claimed by two contending women is told, albeit with variations of detail, about Buddha, Confucius, and other sages; the story of how Jonah was swallowed by a “great fish” but was subsequently disgorged intact finds a parallel in the Indian tale of the hero Shaktideva, who endured the same experience during his quest for the Golden City. On the other hand, it should be observed that many of the parallels commonly cited from the folklore of indigenous peoples may be mere repetitions of biblical material picked up from Christian missionaries.

The Hebrew Bible also contains a few examples of fables (didactic tales in which animals or plants play human roles). Thus, the serpent in Eden talks to Eve, and Balaam’s *** not only speaks but also seeks to avoid an angel, unseen by Balaam, that is blocking the road, while trees compete for kingship in the celebrated parable of Jotham in Judges. Finally, in the Book of Job (38:31) there are allusions to star myths concerning the binding of Orion (called “the Fool”) and the “chaining” of the Pleiades.


Contemporary interpretations

I
Cause and effect .. what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
I see that you cannot prove that belief didn't wax and wane, in and out of monotheism and polytheism.
I have already explained to you that people had no formal education, and were easily misled into following polytheist gods.

They started out as polytheists. Monotheism is also a myth and equally as not real.

William Dever:

THE ISRAELITES' MANY GODS
Q: The Bible would have us think that all Israelites embraced monotheism relatively early, from Moses's time on. Is that contrary to what archeology has found?

Dever: The portrait of Israelite religion in the Hebrew Bible is the ideal, the ideal in the minds of those few who wrote the Bible—the elites, the Yahwists, the monotheists. But it's not the ideal for most people. And archeology deals with the ordinary, forgotten folk of ancient Israel who have no voice in the Bible. There is a wonderful phrase in Daniel Chapter 12: "For all those who sleep in the dust." Archeology brings them to light and allows them to speak. And most of them were not orthodox believers.

However, we should have guessed already that polytheism was the norm and not monotheism from the biblical denunciations of it. It was real and a threat as far as those who wrote the Bible were concerned. And today archeology has illuminated what we could call "folk religion" in an astonishing manner.

"The so-called folk religion even penetrated the Temple in Jerusalem."

Q: One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.

Dever: In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair.

The Israelite prophets and reformers denounce the Mother Goddess and all the other gods and goddesses of Canaan. But I think Asherah was widely venerated in ancient Israel. If you look at Second Kings 23, which describes the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century, he talks about purging the Temple of all the cult paraphernalia of Asherah. So the so-called folk religion even penetrated the Temple in Jerusalem.

Q: Is there other evidence linking Asherah to Yahweh?

Dever: In the 1970s, Israeli archeologists digging in Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai found a little desert fort of the same period, and lo and behold, we have "Yahweh and Asherah" all over the place in the Hebrew inscriptions.

Q: Are there any images of Asherah?

Dever: For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.

They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines.

Q: There aren't such representations of Yahweh, are there?

Dever: No. Now, why is it that you could model the female deity but not the male deity? Well, I think the First and Second Commandments by now were taken pretty seriously. You just don't portray Yahweh, the male deity, but the Mother Goddess is okay. But his consort is probably a lesser deity.

We found molds for making Asherah figurines, mass-producing them, in village shrines. So probably almost everybody had one of these figurines, and they surely have something to do with fertility. They were no doubt used to pray for conceiving a child and bearing the child safely and nursing it. It's interesting to me that the Israelite and Judean ones are rather more modest than the Canaanite ones, which are right in your face. The Israelite and Judean ones mostly show a nursing mother.

Q: This has been something of a lightning rod, has it not?

Dever: This is awkward for some people, the notion that Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic. But we know now that it wasn't. Monotheism was a late development. Not until the Babylonian Exile and beyond does Israelite and Judean religion—Judaism—become monotheistic.

 

[joelr]

You seem to have a fixation on science..
You do not even mention what has been "copied" from the Greeks.
Who cares?
You say copy .. I say not copy .. it is not a book of science, but you attempt to try and explain something in the Qur;an that might not have been known in that era .. by "all from the Greeks"

Dude, last year in a post a Muslim posted an apologetics video giving several science facts in the Quran that "proved" it was from God because otherwise "how else would they know". Since then I've seen others. Like -

TOTAL LIES.
"how could they have known the earth was in orbit, how could they know mountains had roots, how could they know life emerged from water, how could they know the thoughts came from the forehead (frontal cortext).
Well, all of those things were big in Greek science. Everything. The forehead comment was an actual lie because the Quran says forelock which means hair. It's talking about grabbing a man from his hair. These are lies.


80.05.11: The Origin of Life: A History of Ancient Greek Theories

Lies are not confined to believers.

which has zero impact on the point that these apologetics use lies to get new members. There is actually NO science that is new. No new anything.
And the Greeks came up with ALL this science WITHOUT THE HELP OF ANY GODS?

Pointless rhetoric .. in the depth of your mind, if you must.

Because there is no debate here. You haven't made one single point that gives reason to believing made up stories.
In the depths of my mind is.......my mind.

..you might see it as a waste .. but neither you or I know with certainty what happens after death..
I assume you are not dead already.

No but I know with certainty that wasting time believing in Mormonism or any other made up doctrine will waste time I do have, right now.

..if you say so..

Go ahead, present an argument besides, "well I believe".....any Mormon, Hindu, Scientologist, White supremacist can make the same argument. Not interested.

 

[joelr]

All historians are disbelievers, you mean?
Absurd.

For the most part, all religious historians, yes, they see the evidence and realize it's mythology.
I posted a quote from a NT historian? Oh, that's right, evidence isn't something you know about.

Us v Them eh?

Yes apologists make dishonest arguments, often lie and I demonstrated that with the lies about "this Greek science proves it must be God..." Lies.

..because the intention is the same..
..the authors want to sell their books, in order to "educate" the public how stupid believers can be.

Wrong again. Historians are presenting the historical evidence. Scholarly monographs are not opinion pieces, they are full of footnotes, every page has them.

Bully for him..
I wish him good fortune if he ever finds out he is mistaken.

You mean if he finds out he really isn't a historian? There are many lines of evidenc.........oh never mind, this isn't for you.

You really are "sold" on all this nonsense, aren't you?
You really believe that it is possible to know by historical means whether Moses/Abraham actually existed?
How arrogant ! Historians know past events better than God? .. that's what you are claiming in effect .. complete and utter nonsense.
..and proving that the Bible is not accurate has no bearing on this at all. You have to prove that a particular person did not exist thousands of years ago. Impossible!

Spoken like a fundamentalist. First you think a book from 7 CE is completely accurate.
Next you haven't demonstrated which facts are "nonsense".
Next you don't know the evidence at all, you cannot comment on any of it because this is all speculation.

Yes historians know past events better than God because God isn't real. Its words written by people.
I don't have to prove anything. Do I have to "prove" something to demonstrate Zeus isn't real? Krishna? Superman? Herecules? No, it's fictioon.
Yahweh and Alla are also fiction.

But Moses is a person mentioned in scripture. Now we knoe there is good evidence he wasn't really a person but a literary creation or a person in stories.
For one his life takes place over many different time spans and events. Christians will get around this by saying he lived to be 700.
Ok, cool, whatever.
The evidence is conflicts with known discoveries. They rode camels before camels were introduced to the area and so on.
Read the work if interested. Or continue believing fantasy tales? Whatever works.

Oh, then it can't be true .. God would not "hide" .. or maybe God is only hiding from YOU and your historian gods

No God is hiding from everyone because no one has evidence except anecdotal evidence that Muslims give for Allah, Hindu give for Krishna, Christians give for Jesus, older religions gave for Horus, Mithras, Inana.....I feel it's prescence in my heart, he answers me with feelings and guides me....blah balh....
That is your own mind sorry.

That is not its classification .. that is your assertion.

..again, that is purely your assertion.
Jesus attended a Jewish Temple and claimed to be the Jewish Messiah.
The OT is comprised of ancient texts, with their roots in Hebrew monotheism.

No it isn't "purely my assertation". It's the opinion of all historical scholars for one. Israel started out polytheistic. Jesus is a Jewish version of Greek savior demigods with some Persian myth thrown in. The Messiah thing came from the Persain occupation. The Persians were expecting a world savior, virgin born to save humanity. Then, suddenly, so did the Jewish people! They also used the end of the world myth where everyone resurrects and lives forever on earth. A Persian myth.

“Christianity is not a Jewish religion, it’s a Hellenistic religion.”


“Jesus is of Jewish ethnicity but is telling the story of a Hellenistic deity”

1:57

Carl A. P. Ruck (born December 8, 1935, Bridgeport, Connecticut), is a professor in the Classical Studies department at Boston University. He received his B.A. at Yale University, his M.A. at the University of Michigan, and a Ph.D. at Harvard University.

The Iranian Impact on Judaism

excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12



It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.



The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.



Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8



In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9



The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.



There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.



In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).



In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.



Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute of

 

[joelr]

It appears they are not fiction regardless of whether they are correct. Alchemical recipes about making gold out of aluminum are wrong, not fiction. Substituting baking soda for flour is wrong, not fiction. There is no point in disagreeing with fiction, but you disagree with theology. Your disagreement shows it isn't fiction.

Mark was written as a fictive biography a common use of writing the Greek school was practicing.

Either that or I have discovered God, but I have no proof. Your distrust of me is understandable, but it doesn't prove God to be made up.

Without evidence it is made up. I can say Superman is the creator of all reality, a revelation came to me. He then gave the comic writers the idea to make him a superhero.
It makes about equally as much sense.

I am not saying that. I am saying God cannot be disproved, not that God is real or unreal. I'm saying that the philosophical definition of God is such that it is outside the realm of proofs. Perhaps so much has been cut off of the definition of God that it has become so, which is one possibility.

So is Krishna and Zeus or any supernatural deity or entity? There is nothing special about God here? If something cannot be proven and has no evidence what is the reason for belief?

Religions are always going to adopt things like this. We see the Brahman in Hindi lands developing separately from God in the West and separately from the Tao in the East and separately from the geometric worshipers of ancient Greece. They adopt something which is philosophical and then add things to it such as political constraints, because they want to be relevant eternally and superficially. The nobility and the statesmen also do it and then try to attach to it, to something seen as eternal. "I am Mau Xaidong and want to establish an eternal China" etc. We will be seeing more mathematics in religion, someday; because the Calculus is eternal. Quantum mechanics has already spawned religious movements even though it is still being developed and may change. There will be a politician and a priest who spouts verbiage about Math and Physics, and if you are alive you will remember me and try to dig out this post. I told you so.

There already are plenty of people spreading quantum -wu as a new age philosophy. The law of attraction is one.

Like a disease but it was separate from their original concept of an eternal nation, which they got from long before that. It is evident from the symbols used in their buildings going way, way back. They used symbols for renewal long ago. The lampstand is a representation of a budding almond rod, which is a representation of renewal far more ancient than 5BCE and can be found in their buildings from long before that. The pomegranites described in their descriptions of a tent of meeting are another evidence of this, and I know (historically) that these are from before 5BCE.

Renewal is not resurrection?

I grasp what you are saying but think that you are missing the point. Jews do not accept other deities, just like atheists don't accept deities. Pagan Romans on the other hand might. I also don't see how everyone keeps saying that Paul exists in 50 if the temple falls only in 70. There wouldn't be any real need for a Jesus unless the temple was destroyed. I think the dating seems off. 70 is an actual date isn't it? We know the temple falls in 70CE, or so I am led to understand. If Paul is around in 50 preaching about Jesus then something seems off.

The Jewish religion needed updating. Savior deities were very popular and the Jews needed a new Moses who incorporated the new theology people were interested in.
Myths about a Jewish savior began spreading around. By 70 a Greek schooled historical fiction writer took a stab at combining Moses using Kings, Psalms, the Epistles, Homer, Romulus, savior resurrection and made a Jewish version.

Syncretism works slow. A religious thinker one day says" hey I think God has told me WE are also getting a messiah to bring salvation"!!!
The Persians and Greeks were there for centuries. It happens slow. As to the Persian syncretism: Cyrus was the Persian emissary in the Jewish lands
1st Persian influence on Judaism

Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and

this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.

Doctrines



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

Ah, but scholars work with models not with absolutes. They are willing to work with dates that are wrong in order to organize and categorize events and in order not to offend people who can cut off their funding. The dates can be fixed later, but for purposes of our conversation perhaps you have based too many conclusions upon dates that seem not all been coordinated, yet. How is there an apostle Paul before the temple falls?

All of the dates here fit.

Yale and Harvard began life as seminaries, institutions to send out missionaries. I don't think they can claim absolute independence, particularly considering the dates that I'm hearing. Maybe they have some purse strings still attached to old narratives. So Paul the apostle is preaching about Jesus and then twenty years later the temple is conquered by Titus? That sounds like dogma.

All of the historical data matches. The church doesn't get behind this stuff? It says Christianity is just another mythology? They hate historical work.

...and he is ten times smarter than I am, no doubt. I have complete respect for his labor, his good will, his ability to read complex and intricate documents at speed. I don't have to disrespect him to know that he is institutionally bound to only slow change. All of the scholars had to work together, which meant at least a head nod to the previous bunch and so on, back, back in time to Yale and Harvard the missionary institutions. Its a divinity school, after all. While many fundamentalists today say pooh pooh to Harvard and Yale, they are still divinity schools. They tow the line, have prayers, say 'Amen' etc. What about these dates of 50 and 70?

I don't know why you find 50 and 70 to be of importance? There was a war? We don't need to listen to Harvard scholars. Listen to P.h.D. Carrier on the construction of the Gospels:

[/QUOTE]

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no text that is 1 million years old. The OT was canonized around 500 BCE..

Agreed, but I was illustrating a point.
Another example ... 200 years ago, there were no planes in the skies and there was no internet or instant global communications.

The difference between 2,500 years ago and 1,500 years ago is similarly quite different.

The Torah is transmitted word of mouth very accurate, it's still done today by a large group of Jewish people who's wives support the family and the men just memorize.

Fine .. if you want to believe that the OT was written down precisely as revealed in 500 BCE, despite the fact that its texts are of varying ages and sources .. be my guest.

Tell this God to contact me..

Umm .. you want me to ask the creator of the universe to contact you .. one out of billions of people?

..it can be demonstrated that the stories are extremely similar to cultures who were nearby and they were in contact with..

Agreed .. and we all come to different conclusions of its significance.

"Nor was it only the Christians who absorbed Haggadic legends. The Qurʾān, the sacred book of Islam, likewise incorporates a good deal of such material in its treatment of biblical characters such as Joseph, Moses, David, and Solomon..

Is that prose written by a believer or disbeliever, I wonder?

The Quran is one text, made by one man using the Bible, Arab theology and mysticism, Greek science, morals that already existed and nothing new or proof of divinity..

An assertion that cannot be proved.
In fact, it is easier for me to believe that it is the words of God. It is too intricate and faultless to be made-up by a bedouin in an isolated oasis.

Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

demonstrate the OYT is syncretic mythology.

It does nothing of the sort.
You infer that "Enuma" and "Marduk" are people's invented gods, when you have no knowledge of that.
Language evolves, and people use words to mean all kinds of things. There is no one word for God. Language is a means of conveying a meaning to others. Meanings of words change and evolve.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No it doesn't say that..

Right .. so the idea that the gnostic "Jesus was replaced by another man on the cross" is not in the Qur'an.

Who is cherry picking? (you)

30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

That does not negate the verse that I quoted.
Righteous Jews and Christians have nothing to fear.

I don't have to, scholars will do it,.

Are you unable to think for yourself?
We can all quote "scholars" .. we are responsible for our own deeds, at the end of the day.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, you don't have anything.
Also the concept of a God who gives humans free will to choose to sin or not is also a copy from th ePersian God:
"
In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil..

..and what does that show?
You conclude that texts have been copied by others.
I conclude that "Ahura Mazda" is probably another word/phrase for God, and Zoroaster was a prophet of God.

I don't need to know all the details .. we have more recent prophets to learn from.

Angels are a creation by God in Islam. You not worshipping them is just personal theology a human put in your book. Means nothing. Fiction is fiction.

You claimed that the numerous gods that Hindus worship are identical to angels and demons in Abrahamic religion. They are not. We do not worship other than God.

Yeah the 7 levels of heaven are real. HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Did I miss something? I don't get the joke.

Life imprisonment fits the crime of murder. Eternal punishment doesn't..

I don't understand what you are trying to tell me..
Doesn't life imprisonment mean that a person is incarcerated for
"their whole life" ??

There evidence is there for all to see..

..but it isn't just about evidence, is it..
These books are sold on the pretext that the evidence shows that God is fictional. They are polemic, and the authors rely on high sales on this basis.

You create fake evidence from a myth..

I have not created any fake evidence.
I believe that the Qur'an is true, and confirms the Bible, that God created the universe.
You are free to believe what you like.

And as usual what is your evidence please?, Speculation, imagination, claims?

I have no reason to believe it is innaccurate, fraudulent or deluded.

All scholars know Noah was copied from Gilamesh..

It doesn't matter where it was "copied from", or the similarity between countries, nations, or myths.

What does matter, is the conclusions one makes about it.
You conclude it all fiction, and all made-up by fraudulent human beings, while I believe that Messengers of God are real and were sent to various nations in times gone by.

You go live in your make-believe world. There is nothing here to learn. I've learned you think claims are evidence and a religion you accepted 40 years ago but never questioned or looked into with a non-bias rational skeptical mind. Whatever works. I'm interested in truth.

I'm not sure whether you are "interested in truth" ..
I feel you are more interested in adopting a material philosophy, and branding all religion as "deluded and fraudulent".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yahweh was believed to have been a Canaanite God who they took but also had a consort Ashera. Sayings and figurines saying "Yahweh and his Ashera" are found in early Israelite settlements..

..and you make conclusions based on this limited evidence.
It is not hard to understand how "YHWH" became a word that shouldn't be spoken .. sacred.
..but it is just a Hebrew word .. it is what it stands for, and not what previous generations might have believed or not believed.

In the same way, one can argue that YHWH and Allah are different gods, as they have different histories .. da da da

It also SAYS in the OT that Israelites were polytheistic and were punished for it (the Persian occupation).

..exactly .. faith waxes and wanes as uneducated people of old reverted back to tradition and ignorance.

They started out as polytheists..

I have already said that polytheism was the norm, but you love to contradict, and come up with monotheistic civilisations.

Monotheism is also a myth and equally as not real..

UUUgh .. make your mind up.

..archeology deals with the ordinary, forgotten folk of ancient Israel who have no voice in the Bible. There is a wonderful phrase in Daniel Chapter 12: "For all those who sleep in the dust." Archeology brings them to light and allows them to speak..

It's time for me to laugh now

Dever: In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

..and he jumped to conclusions that YHWH was just "a god".
satan is cunning .. gods didn't create the universe .. there is only one God
..and it matters not what "name" one employs to describe Him
Asherah, Googaa, Honkty .. whatever

Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair.

That's it .. misbelief .. ignorance and superstition. It was rife.

Dever: This is awkward for some people, the notion that Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic. But we know now that it wasn't..

We ALL know that it wasn't.
People of old couldn't keep their faith in "One God" .. they continually reverted to tradition and polytheism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

TOTAL LIES.
"how could they have known the earth was in orbit, how could they know mountains had roots, how could they know life emerged from water, how could they know the thoughts came from the forehead (frontal cortext).
Well, all of those things were big in Greek science..

Maybe .. maybe not.
You'll have to take up that argument with them.

which has zero impact on the point that these apologetics use lies to get new members..

God is not in need of "members".

In the depths of my mind is.......my mind..

At last, something we agree upon.

 

[muhammad_isa]

For the most part, all religious historians, yes, they see the evidence and realize it's mythology.
I posted a quote from a NT historian?

You are probably right that most academic historians are atheists .. but the reason for that is debatable.
One should never forget that Jesus is reported to have said "For the rich-man to enter the Kingdom of God is like the camel passing through the eye of a needle."
i.e. money corrupts

Wrong again. Historians are presenting the historical evidence. Scholarly monographs are not opinion pieces, they are full of footnotes, every page has them..

I did not say that these books did not have references and evidence.
That is not all that they contain. A religious polemic is a religious polemic !

Spoken like a fundamentalist. First you think a book from 7 CE is completely accurate..

Do I?

Yes historians know past events better than God because God isn't real..

Wait a moment .. so history isn't real?
Past events never actually happened?
An ancient historian is aware of every event that has ever occurred?
Obviously not !
..but it is recorded .. it's just that you don't perceive

But Moses is a person mentioned in scripture. Now we knoe there is good evidence he wasn't really a person but a literary creation or a person in stories..

No we don't
That is purely a distraction to cause doubt.

For one his life takes place over many different time spans and events..

No. We cannot know for sure when Moses lived.

No God is hiding from everyone because no one has evidence .

OK

No it isn't "purely my assertation". It's the opinion of all historical scholars for one.

It is irrelevant that a few atheist scholars believe that Jesus was not who he claimed to be.

“Jesus is of Jewish ethnicity but is telling the story of a Hellenistic deity”

Jesus didn't tell it.
Christianity evolved from Judaism, amongst political turmoil in the Roman Empire.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Mark was written as a fictive biography a common use of writing the Greek school was practicing.

I have no problem with that, although for me I noticed this first in Matthew.

Without evidence it is made up. I can say Superman is the creator of all reality, a revelation came to me. He then gave the comic writers the idea to make him a superhero.
It makes about equally as much sense.

That is a reductive fallacy. Not everything is made up just because you can't get evidence for it. We didn't always know about gravity, but we knew that we stuck to the ground.

So is Krishna and Zeus or any supernatural deity or entity? There is nothing special about God here? If something cannot be proven and has no evidence what is the reason for belief?

There are reasons for believing other than proof, such as wishing for something to be true or wishing for it to become true. Like sustainable fusion power. God is not a fiction but a belief or hope. Neither would I put Krishna into that category. I don't know about Zeus, but I doubt Zeus fits into fiction either. But its a free country, and I think you prefer things to be as you perceive them and wish to declare with absolute certainty your ideas. I wouldn't try to make it illegal for you to call God fiction and just think you're trying to use improper classification to pretend that God has been universally rejected.

There already are plenty of people spreading quantum -wu as a new age philosophy. The law of attraction is one.

Yes.

Renewal is not resurrection?

Seeds. Jewish religion as I see it hopes to establish an eternal order which outlasts all others and replace the warring nations with peace everywhere. It envisions this happening through oppression and survival, recreating the nation from those who survive the next persecution. The central challenge of the Jewish visionaries is how to retain the peaceful characteristics even through so much death and persecution, and they envision the nation as a plant that regrows from a seed. They focus on having a good seed that will rebuild Judaism every time it is knocked down. The nation is a tree, and it dies but grows again from its seed: the survivors. The symbols for this are vines, trees, seeds and other cycles. Anything cyclical is analogous to it, such as the water cycle or the return of the sun in the morning. Its a nationality formed in the midst of invasions, kind of like the Lithuanian nationality. Any resurrection in Jewish canon is about the nation. When a dead prophet falls into a grave, and a corpse comes alive that is symbolic of the nation returning from the dead. The prophet's death revives the nation.

Personal resurrection is not Jewish. It is a foreign or borrowed concept, far as I can tell. Its Egyptian and Greek and Persian and whatever else. Its irrelevant.

All of the historical data matches. The church doesn't get behind this stuff? It says Christianity is just another mythology? They hate historical work.

I'm not an official representative of the Vatican. You agree the temple falls in 70CE. So then you probably must agree that Mark and the other gospels in which Jesus predicts its fall are probably written at least partially afterwards, yet you're telling me that Paul is already preaching Jesus 20 years prior. This is confusing. I can't get behind this idea of Jews deciding they need to revamp Judaism and embrace a new Moses just because times are trendy and Hellenists are all excited about messiahs. The fall of the temple gets barely any mention, but its the most heart wrenching and central event to happen. That year must be the year everything changes. On top of this you're suggesting that they are abandoning national resurrection for personal, pagan style resurrection....or the links you're pointing me to are.

Like this presenter Carrier. At minute 2:56 he is suggesting that fraternity and brotherhood and unity are being introduced into Judaism from the outside, but these are central to Judaism from ancient times. What catholicism does is attempt to extend this brotherhood among Jews to all people, but this is a very difficult ask of the Jewish brothers. They would only do it if something huge happened such as what happened in 70CE. I can't see Paul or anyone like him taking an interest before that. Before that Jews are fine without having to adopt everyone in the world, and they have a fine temple that is a shining example of peace among brothers. Anyone can go there and seek arbitration. Its a beautiful thing that the empire is probably jealous of. It really shows how shallow the empire is that it then decides to destroy this threat, a temple to peace.

I don't know why you find 50 and 70 to be of importance? There was a war? We don't need to listen to Harvard scholars. Listen to P.h.D. Carrier on the construction of the Gospels:

The problem is that it doesn't make sense for Paul to be preaching prior to 70, but you have told me that he is preaching as early as 50CE. What Jewish person would pay any attention?

But I don't disagree if you think that the afterlife has always been a powerful draw for many people. I'm not surprised that many have chosen it over the more selfless concept of renewal and that it has supplanted that and that the story has become more important than the concept.

 

[F1fan]

That is a reductive fallacy. Not everything is made up just because you can't get evidence for it. We didn't always know about gravity, but we knew that we stuck to the ground.

This is irrelevant because what is being disputed is a supernatual existing, specifically in the form of a God. Comparing two fictional characters is more valid than comparing God to gravity. I think calling gods fictional is appropriate since they are often referred to in literature as beings similar to humans (anthropomorphism) and it is an easy way to convey an authority that the masses can recognize and digest. The authority is religious leaders, and using a God as window dressing has been very effective historically.

Supernatural claims made by theists are extraordinary and at face value implausible. There is no known observed phenomenon that allows supernatural claims to function. We don;t see miracles hapven. Creation myths are assessed and shown to be false. The actions of Gods are not based on any sort of evidence. For example the indigenous of the Hawaiian Islands explain the formation of the islands as
the god Māui tricking his brothers to take him out fishing but caught his hook on the ocean floor. Does that sound credible, and should be accepted as plausibe in the absense of evidence?

There are reasons for believing other than proof, such as wishing for something to be true or wishing for it to become true.

And this is where mental disciline and reasoning skill comes into play. Those who lack the skill will be more likely to accept and adopt ideas that are not rational, and certainly have no evidence. To many accept ideas without asking for evidence, as critical thinkers do.

Like sustainable fusion power.

This process might be plausible if the science works.

God is not a fiction but a belief or hope.

Then God is a metaphor, not a real and independent phenomenon outside of human minds.

Neither would I put Krishna into that category. I don't know about Zeus, but I doubt Zeus fits into fiction either.

No god of any description, except for Gaia, corresponds at any real or actual phenomenon. It confounds me that modern people still think the gods of ancient cultures are real. This illustrates that many do not judge these ideas objectively, via evidence, and with skilled thinking. The reasons appeal to the emotions, and other motivations.

 

[rational experiences]

No man is God said by man human.

Man human argues versus man human.

Basic I think for myself no indoctrination allowed. As his story said men began science his story based on rich man's civilisation controls.

Not on science is a fact.

Man human in law is man human. First and natural present and human man conscious ownership.

Is versus theist man. Always was.

No man is God.

Hence you ask a Theist a basic question what is God in science.

He said any base one present BODY substance or BODY gas a spirit in science...any one of anything.

Pretty basic.

Why no man is God direct. As you are not mass. Nor are you a mass substance.

So then just a human man theist tries to con you into believing by his human used words and number use that he knows what formed a human.

He knows he doesn't own any answer what caused the billions of diverse differences to exist.

So we challenged him.

We said we are all born of human sex only. Baby humans.

He says no I'm talking about first ever humans.

First ever humans in maths number data gods mass are skeletal dusts only. Now. Past and present answer dusts dusts.

Exact use of data numbers past status. To think back. To look back. To theory back. To shift time.

So you say on earth time is fixed.
O 12 hours.
O 12 months around O. Two bodies.

He now says no I mean a Flat line plane.

I draw a time scale. I claim it to be creation so many billions or millions of years to create a human back in time.

He cannot say year 2020 counting time he'd be laughed at. As life created now in biology.

So he says so many millions of years ago...which is first humans are Skeletal bone dusts. Looking at things like mollusks or shell or decayed things.

The theist scientist is who pretends life was created on a time scale hence time created everything. As if time was a God.

Therefore the time where first humans were living first by human living say so only equals dusts now. Our actual why life got sacrificed by God theists...direct warning.

As natural life never owned nor wrote nor preached from any book. Ignored relevant you're just a human always first advice. Before you theory.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is irrelevant because what is being disputed is a supernatual existing, specifically in the form of a God.

We are discussing proofs and whether God is provable/disprovable, not whether God exists. In spite of the thread title the text of the OP is:

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

 

[PureX]

Whatever state existed before the Big Bang was by definition "supernatural". Whatever, if anything, exists beyond the universe as we know of it, is also by definition "supernatural". And it could even be argued that the ideals we humans derive from our study of natural experiences are "supernatural".

Ascribing these apparent states of being the characterization of some "entity" is just a common human habit. And how accurate such a characterization might be is unknown, and probably unknowable.

What is known, is that the mystery of these supernatural states of being are apparent to us. And even to science. So we can't logically dismiss the supernatural as an existential reality. Not if we're being honest, anyway.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We are discussing proofs and whether God is provable/disprovable, not whether God exists. In spite of the thread title the text of the OP is:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

Yes..

In the first point, there is no empirical proof of God .. that, imo, is because God is not a physical concept .. it is almost impossible to "define God" .. we can only describe God in terms that we can understand as humans .. such as His attributes.
eg. He is Eternal .. neither male or female .. is aware of every leaf that fell and will fall .. is Loving and Forgiving .. is the Fairest of all Judges ...

..and the second point is the so-called "problem of evil"..
The usual way of explaining this is that life does not end upon death, and that every soul will be compensated eventually for suffering through no fault of their own.

Philosophy is real .. the concepts are valid .. we are free to believe what seems good to us .. or what we have evaluated as likely being true, such as the existence of God's messengers.

Some people suggest that it is all deception .. that claims of the existence of God is mere fear-mongering and plagiarism.
Personally, I find this very difficult to believe.
I cannot believe that people's lives are without cosmic significance .. that life has no real meaning, other than seeking wealth and enjoying it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Personally, I find this very difficult to believe.
I cannot believe that people's lives are without cosmic significance .. that life has no real meaning, other than seeking wealth and enjoying it.

I am able to believe that we could be insignificant, but I still don't think that God can be disproved or proved.

He is Eternal .. neither male or female .. is aware of every leaf that fell and will fall .

Small things are significant not insignificant. We always want more, but we have trouble valuing what is. I don't believe that a leaf is insignificant or that five minutes is.

..and the second point is the so-called "problem of evil"..
The usual way of explaining this is that life does not end upon death, and that every soul will be compensated eventually for suffering through no fault of their own.

I stayed away from arguments about immortality. Personally I do not believe we are owed anything and don't think we are immortal. Evil is not a problem for that reason. I also don't think God can be harmed, offended, angered etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am able to believe that we could be insignificant..

On an individual basis, we are relatively insignificant .. but on a collective basis .. no, I can't believe that.

I don't believe that a leaf is insignificant or that five minutes is..

It's all relative, but I understand what you mean..

Personally I do not believe we are owed anything and don't think we are immortal..

Evidence of Abrahamic scripture, and its associated Messengers claim otherwise.
i.e. the nature of the soul is immortal and "belongs to God" .. "is of God" .. a spiritual, non-physical soul, that does not cease upon death.

Evil is not a problem for that reason...

I'm not with you .. can you explain?

I also don't think God can be harmed, offended, angered etc.

Well, I would agree .. comparing God's attributes with our own experiences only gives us a limited understanding .. God is far above human weakness.

 

[F1fan]

We are discussing proofs and whether God is provable/disprovable, not whether God exists.

There are claims of gods existing, and thre claims of evidence, which after analysis and assessment are shown to be flawed and inadequate. Oddly most every argument, or "proof?, exists because the conclusion has already been made: God exists. So your statement above might be separate in one sense, but the two are connected. Why would believers present their arguments and "proofs", unless they have already decided a God exists?

What "proofs" have been presented that suggest a God exists, or even likely exists?

Do you think a rational mind should assume, and then believe, a God exists when there is no adequate evidence and "proof"?

Do you understand why critical thinkers don't assume conclusions are true until there is adequate evidence?

And I take it you accept that God is a fictional charatcer given the points I made that counter your assertion they are not.

In spite of the thread title the text of the OP is:

What do you mean "im spite of" when Tb offers two points that support the title?

 

[F1fan]

Yes..

In the first point, there is no empirical proof of God .. that, imo, is because God is not a physical concept ..

No concept is physical. I think you mean that God as typically described by believers is not material. This does not help the claims by theists since believers are material, flawed mortals. How do these flawed mortals end up believing an immaterial God exists, unless it is an example of flawed thinking?

it is almost impossible to "define God" .. we can only describe God in terms that we can understand as humans ..

What exactly is being defined when it is immaterial? Could the "impossibility of defining God" be due to the many thousands of gods being imaginary?

such as His attributes.

Really, the immaterial has attributes? How would you know? What facts are available to any human about an actual, immaterial God?

eg. He is Eternal .. neither male or female .. is aware of every leaf that fell and will fall .. is Loving and Forgiving .. is the Fairest of all Judges ...

Yet God in the Abrahamic traditons is called "Him". How would a mortal know an immaterial God has a penis? Or any of these items you list?

..and the second point is the so-called "problem of evil"..
The usual way of explaining this is that life does not end upon death, and that every soul will be compensated eventually for suffering through no fault of their own.

Philosophy is real .. the concepts are valid .. we are free to believe what seems good to us .. or what we have evaluated as likely being true, such as the existence of God's messengers.

Some people suggest that it is all deception .. that claims of the existence of God is mere fear-mongering and plagiarism.
Personally, I find this very difficult to believe.
I cannot believe that people's lives are without cosmic significance .. that life has no real meaning, other than seeking wealth and enjoying it.

Evil is better explained by the social sciences as mental health issues in a unvierse that has no God as commonly believed. Let's note that evil, as characterized by many believers, includes acts by your fellow believers.

Evidence of Abrahamic scripture, and its associated Messengers claim otherwise.

Claims are not evidence.

The wording in scripture is not evidence if the meanings are so convoluted to a degree that different factions interpret it differently, as you two believers illustrate. Christians in the 17th century tortured and executed about 30,000 people for witchcraft because they interpreted the Bible that way. Citizens eventually pushed back against leadership to a degree that witchtrials ended.

i.e. the nature of the soul is immortal and "belongs to God" .. "is of God" .. a spiritual, non-physical soul, that does not cease upon death.

This is a claim, not a fact. This belief of immortality is not evidence, and does not help establish the belief that any Gods exist.