Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[joelr]

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.

In this case with the Quran and OT both were transmitted orally and both are equally reliable or not reliable. Both are syncretic, make supernatural claims that have no evidence and contain, science, wisdom, ethics, theology and ideas about what a deity would say exactly in line with what people knew and thought at the time. Nothing unusual. All religions are stories made up to give nations a mythology to follow and unite.

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.

It was canonized around 500 BCE and written down then. It didn't change much from that era.

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

Ha, exactly!
No, you want people to believe one out of millions DID get contact from an invisible God. Except this time he strangely favored the people getting the revelations and changed OT facts to suit the Arab culture norms.
It's exactly as unlikely as me getting contact. You know it's not happening. Yet some guy writes a work clearly based on the OT, Greek science and Arab mysticism and you find that believable. And again, zero actual evidence or any real knowledge was given to provide proof. And the God of reality is super angry and can't stop saying "painful doom" and talking about how terrible HIS PEOPLE are????? Yet for an infinitely powerful being he cannot just go to Christians and Jews (who he mentions many times in unfavorable angry light) and set them straight. He tells ANOTHER separate group and wants them to give the news to Christians and Jews, with no actual proof, no demonstration of supernatural powers???????????? And you think that is real?????????

As if the entire Church at that time was going to be like "oh wow, really? Revelations? With no proof and it just sounds like an angry Arab man who dislikes Christians wrote it? Yeah, great we'll all convert!" All that happened is tons of holy wars? Now you have the same with the Bahai religion. "New revelations" from the same God. Are you running to convert? No. A God of all reality, the best he can do is exactly what the Bahai are now doing?
This is all people.

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

No, all historians who understand how to properly analyze writings and have actual techniques to compare literature are all in agreement. The stories are copied.

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

Belief doesn't matter. What matters is is it a scholar who specializes in the works and can read the original. You seem to think belief trumps facts

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.

What cannot be proven is the supernatural claims made by anyone, including Muhammad. It's known he was taking random parts from the Bible and changing what he felt like. He had access to religious material and it's known he studied spiritual material.
It's faultless because you say it is? He gets Biblical narratives wrong? The moon splitting in half? Clearly you are having some confirmation bias if you find this faultless? Then there is the matter of no evidence for any God ever?
He wasn't isolated? He had many wives, slaves and fought battles?
"
The Christian minister Archdeacon Humphrey Prideaux gave the following description of Muhammad's visions:[135]

He pretended to receive all his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, and that he was sent from God of purpose to deliver them unto him. And whereas he was subject to the falling-sickness, whenever the fit was upon him, he pretended it to be a Trance, and that the Angel Gabriel comes from God with some Revelations unto him."

The Christian minister is being hypocritical because he also believes Paul did have revelations of Jesus. All these religious folks think their magic is the true version and everyone else is a lie.

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.

That is your worst argument yet. None help your case but this is the worst.
Gods made up by ancient people are made up Gods. You do not get to infer a God could be real unless it is demonstrated that any God ever can be real. You do not get to introduce mysteries and answer them with unproven, untested supernatural wu-wu crank.
Enuma and Marduk are part of a polytheism which you argue against anyways.
You can assume some ancient Gods may have been real. But you have lost any credibility or logic in your argument and I am not interested in completely illogical points.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Is being poor a qualification in historical studies?

Obviously not..
A polemic is more than "historical studies" as I've already pointed out.

I also believe 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 interpret this to mean that those who are more wealthy than average, are likely distracted by their wealth, and it affects them spiritually .. I would not personally trust their judgment on issues of faith.

You, of course, can trust whoever you like .. Ex-President Trump or Elon Musk .. whoever.

 

[joelr]

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

I don't care what is in the Quran, it's a myth. Prove it's true first.

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

Yes if they convert. Otherwise it's a "painful doom". That's "Gods" solution, tell another nation that the Jews and Christians are wrong? Don't think so.

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.

Now word games? This is such a waste of time? You don't even raise points, just word games, "no sa", "that's your belief", nothing of substance?
Now you are using weird tactics used in high school relationship arguments where you jumble the meaning of what is being said just to have something to say?

You claimed I would - "you will claim they are all copy-cats, and deny that they are based on truth, and Divinely inspired through God's messengers."

And I said I don't have to because people who study these text and comparative text for a living, in the original languages, have already done it far better than I could and demonstrate they are syncretic and have evidence of being common knowledge and theology popular at the time. And they all agree.
Your answer is a misdirect and a suggestion that I should override the field, learn Hebrew, Mesopotamian languages, and many many other skills and make my own conclusion.
YET, if I said I studied the text and made my own conclusion you would say I am not an expert. Although I have seen many examples anyways.
Then you try to double down and point out how we are all responsible for our own deeds, as if this says anything? Yes I am responsible for following scholarship and educating myself of this syncretism.
Just like I am responsible for wasting my time to answer and explain nonsense replies that waste time.

You have no arguments. You cannot demonstrate any of these things are true


We are not done with this manipulative mess of an answer. So then you accuse me of ....."Are you unable to think for yourself?" yet your arguments are based on a literal and strict reading of a complete mythology complete with supernatural claims of total wu-wu, revelations not even from God but from an ANGEL????? You follow apologetics that can easily be debunked in 10 minutes and no nothing about counter arguments, counter apologetics, showing you don't even try to make sure the arguments for these beliefs are solid? You blindly follow claims and decide to believe them as truth and have the incredible hypocracy to claim someone else, who takes time to listen to all sides can't think for themselves???

Finally you use some theology that if you looked you would see it's not original to your religion. You just assume it is.

"
Freewill, choice

the basic Zoroastrian doctrine of the existence of free-will, and the power of each individual to shape his own destiny through the exercise of choice.



"
Good vs evil and freewill



Harsh experience had evidently convinced the prophet that wisdom, justice and goodness were utterly separate by nature from wickedness and cruelty; and in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the 'Hostile Spirit', Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign. These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: 'Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word and act they are two, the good and the bad .... And when these two Spirits first encountered, they created life and not-life, and that at the end the worst existence shall be for the followers of falsehood (drug), but the best dwelling for those who possess righteousness (asha). Of the two Spirits, the one who follows falsehood chose doing the worst things, the Holiest Spirit, who is clad in the hardest stone [i.e. the sky] chose righteousness, and (so shall they all) who will satisfy Ahura Mazda continually '----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5). essential element in this revelation is that the two primal Beings each made a deliberate choice (although each, it seems, according to his own proper nature) between good and evil, an act which prefigures the identical choice which every man must make for himself in this life . The exercise of choice changed the inherent antagonism between the two Spirits into an active one, which expressed itself, at a decision taken by Ahura Mazda, in creation and counter-creation, or, as the prophet put it, in the making of 'life' and 'not-life' (that is, death); for Ahura Mazda knew in his wisdom that if he became Creator and fashioned this world, then the Hostile Spirit would attack it, because it was good, and it would become a battleground for their two forces, and in the end he, God, would win the great struggle there and be able to destroy evil, and so achieve a universe which would be wholly good forever.

 

[joelr]

..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.

It shows where late Judaism and Christianity got the idea from, and also where the Quran got the idea from. The Persian religion is not real. It's not a "prophet" and is made up mythology. made by humans.
If you are going to claim all religions are prophets than you now need to convert to Bahai because they also claim a new prophet, same God.
If not then you are just allowing for prophets when they support your argument and saying they are fake when they don't. Totally dishonest.

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

Like the Bahai prophet, who you should convert to if you maintain that prophets are real.

.
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.

So Hindus decided to worship other divine beings? Catholics do this as well with saints. The Hindu pantheon with one God and lesser divine beings is the same as your system of Gods.

You also mentioned Persian myth as having a prophet as well as the Mesopotamian Gods. Well guess what, both of those also worshipped lesser divine beings. Yet you said they may have had prophets? You are so inconsistent with these beliefs it's out of control.

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

Yes, seven levels of heaven is total fiction. Which the Quran supports. Because it was written by people who believed in religious fiction.

.
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" ??

a human lifetime isn't "eternity"

.
..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.

No, this is far more true with apologetics books and pro-Islam books by non-historians. Same with Christians.
The evidence doesn't show any Gods are fictional, it shows what is true. The religions are syncretic and influenced by each other. It gives evidence for what the evidence in history is.
They are for people interested in history and where did beliefs come from. Its about evidence.

Not just books, journal papers are far more in number.

.
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.

Yes and Mormons believe their scripture and Joe smith revelations are true and confirms the Bible. Doesn't make it true. Myths are not evidence. The Quran isn't evidence. Your beliefs are not evidence.
I haven't once said my beliefs prove anything. The Quran is in conflict with the Bible first. It claims Jesus is not a savior deity and a divine being or an aspect of God.

Your beliefs still haven't demonstrated this "God".


I h

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

Right so your evidence is you believe it's true. So you have no evidence.

.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.[/QUOTE]

1st, your beliefs do not make things real. Evidence can demonstrate what is real. There is no evidence for any God. There is no evidence for any supernatural claiks in the Quran are true. No evidence for revelations, the moon splitting in half or any other claims.

2nd since you believe in revelations, God has sent another more recent messenger in the Bahai religion. He claims it's the same God as Islam and is an update, progressive revelations, and updates Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.
So if you believe in revelations than join the next updates.

3rd, conclusions bout religious data can be shown to be wrong. 1/3 of all religious believers conclude Jesus is God and will never come back or give revelations until the final battle. This means no Islam, that is fake to their beliefs. Conclusions without evidence are meaningless fantasy. Has no relation to what is real. The Christians who believe that may be wrong but so are you.

4th, I don't conclude anything in the sense you mean it. I go by what the evidence shows. NO evidence for any God, book, revelation, miracle, supernatural, soul, afterlife. Strong evidence for people making up claims, making up miracle stories, borrowing older theology.,

.
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".

Maybe you can't? You may have become so deluded by indoctrination that you don't have the tools to understand what being actually interested in truth looks like. You actually think just hearing stories and hearing other people tell you something is true is a reliable method for truth. You may actually not understand empiricism, rational skepticism or even the scientific method.
You probably are fine when it's used to debunk Roswell alien crashes, Area 51, Big Foot, alien abductions, 911 conspiracy theories, flat Earth and so on but don't understand it's also used with mythology. That isn't taught in churches and communities and is why so many people believe things that are not true.

I'm interested in what is true. Every line of evidence so far points to religion being deluded and fraudulent in some way at least. More of a cognitive and confirmation bias because I don't think it's just fraud. But because that is what evidence shows, that isn't my fault and does not mean I'm interested in branding anything in any way. I am actually dissapointed the soul and therefore the afterlife are complete nonsense.

 

[joelr]

..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.

Limited evidence? What are you talking about? We have thousands of years of writings of older Gods who soound exactly like Yahweh. Those are myths. So is Yahweh.
Also the origins of Yahweh are more complicated, touched on here:
Yahweh - Wikipedia

you can see through the Bronze and Iron age it's total mythology. Made up.

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

Yes and they are both made up. Also there is NO EVIDENCE for any theism at all.

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

No, you were saying they were not polytheistic. They started out that way, monotheism was the minority. After several defeats they were occupied by the Persians who were monotheistic and had a religion that was basically Christianity. They saw this and were inspired to also do this. The OT talks about this.

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

Because there were monotheistic nations like the Persians.

UUUgh .. make your mind up.

Polytheism, momotheism, monolatriasm (which Christianity and Islam are) are all fictional mythologies.

Monolatriasm is a supreme God with lower divinities. You have an angel, which is a lower divinity.

It's time for me to laugh now

You are laughing at the top Biblical archaeologist William Dever. As usual you cannot explain why.

..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

No, you just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Yahweh is just a God. A mythical character. There is no theistic God. That is also a myth. Why would a scholar assume a fictional character is anything but? If he found a figure of a wizard or a dragon or a farie is it unwarranted to consider it just another dragon? It's a fictional creation until it's proven wizards are real. You continue to pretend like these supernatural beliefs have any standing or evidence in reality?

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

And it still is? Belief in one God is no less fiction than a pair or a trinity. That isn't real. Angels are also even more ridiculous?

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.

Again, both are made up. There is no evidence for two deities or one deity. Just because other people tell you stories from a book doesn't mean they are true. There is clearly no Gods anywhere in this reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In this case with the Quran and OT both were transmitted orally and both are equally reliable..

You have not commented on what I wrote, you are just repeating your assertion.
You are saying that there is no difference between an ancient text and a more modern one in its reliability to be accurate.
Obvious nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

It was canonized around 500 BCE and written down then. It didn't change much from that era.

What was canonised? Texts of various authors, age, and unknown source?

No, you want people to believe one out of millions DID get contact from an invisible God. Except this time he strangely favored the people getting the revelations and changed OT facts to suit the Arab culture norms..

Very little changed, apart from the Sabbath and a few other details.

Yet some guy writes a work clearly based on the OT, Greek science and Arab mysticism and you find that believable..

You are the one in the minority here .. yes, I find it highly believable! It confirms the truth in the Bible.

And again, zero actual evidence or any real knowledge was given to provide proof. And the God of reality is super angry and can't stop saying "painful doom" and talking about how terrible HIS PEOPLE are?????

'painful doom' yes .. it is a clear warning, that those that don't judge by what God has revealed are in serious danger of ruining their own souls.

Yet for an infinitely powerful being he cannot just go to Christians and Jews (who he mentions many times in unfavorable angry light) and set them straight. He tells ANOTHER separate group and wants them to give the news to Christians and Jews, with no actual proof, no demonstration of supernatural powers???????????? And you think that is real?????????

John the Baptist was killed, followed by a serious attempt of killing Jesus. Romans then persecuted Jews and Christians, eventually persecuting any other creed than "the official creed" of Empire .. and you think God should have sent a messenger to Jerusalem again?
It was bad enough in Macca, probably the most isolated and poorest in the whole world, at the time.
..but as we know, they failed to kill Muhammad, and He established Islam in Medina .. God is Great.
The truth MUST be available. If not, then God sends a chosen Messenger.
Arians were persecuted and annihilated by the Romans [as were the Jews], for believing that Jesus was a created being sent by God.
Do you think that God is unable to deal with that??

No, all historians who understand how to properly analyze writings and have actual techniques to compare literature are all in agreement. The stories are copied..

Don't be ridiculous .. historians are not able to know whether God exists or not. It is not the job of an historian to make such judgments. It is the job of the devil.

What cannot be proven is the supernatural claims made by anyone, including Muhammad..

Nobody is asking you to believe it .. if you think your relatively wealthy historians can make that judgment for you, then carry on as you are.

He pretended to receive all his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, and that he was sent from God of purpose to deliver them unto him..

OK .. you think he was fraudulent. I happen to agree with the Arabs .. I have visited the Holy sites in Saudia Arabia .. and Wow .. it blew me away.

The Christian minister is being hypocritical because he also believes Paul did have revelations of Jesus. All these religious folks think their magic is the true version and everyone else is a lie..

I don't think that the Christian minister was being hypocritical..
We all know what we know, and God knows who is sincere and who is not. It is not for me to judge others, unless I have a good reason to believe that a person is insincere, and wishes evil upon others.

Gods made up by ancient people are made up Gods..

Of course..

You do not get to infer a God could be real unless it is demonstrated that any God ever can be real..

Well you would say that .. "show me God"
I can't "show you" something that is non-physical, other than what I am already doing i.e. His manifestations

 

[joelr]

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

No, I don't care, we already have a reasonable explanation. They used Greek text. We know the actual scholars who brought them to Arab lands. That is enough. Invoking the supernatural when we have a real explanation isn't how logical sound thinking works. You don't invoke a supernatural answer that isn't proven or even evidenced in any way when you already have a reasonable explanation. Unless you don't care about what is actually true.

God is not in need of "members". .

And yet there are dozens of apologetics videos saying the Quran must be true because the science it knew. Which are lies.
Also "God" isn't real so he needs no members.

Show evidence if you want to use God in an explanation. Or it remains fantasy.

At last, something we agree upon.

Yes my mind is in my mind. Like God is only in peoples minds.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes if they convert. Otherwise it's a "painful doom"..

That is not true. Jews and Christians are not obliged to convert.
They can, if they like .. and God is aware of their reasons why they do or don't.

And I said I don't have to because people who study these text and comparative text for a living..

Dang!

I am always suspicious of people who comment on religion "for a living".

Finally you use some theology that if you looked you would see it's not original to your religion. You just assume it is.

"
Freewill, choice

the basic Zoroastrian doctrine of the existence of free-will, and the power of each individual to shape his own destiny through the exercise of choice

..and this proves what, exactly??
If Zoroaster was a prophet of God, why would he not know about free-will?

 

[joelr]

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

No it isn't debateable. They say why. Some were fundamentalists and then went to school and saw the evidence and realized it's mythology.

Only a few scholars release books. Most write papers for journals and don't make money on them. Zero. They are in the field for love of history and finding about what is true.
The fact that you even have to suggest a conspiracy theory to justify their non-belief shows your beliefs are on very shaky foundation.

"Oh they don't believe my myth? Well then it must be a money making scam.....?" You are so far removed from actual truth, I see why you have certain beliefs.

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 !

Well that takes that cake right there. You haven't demonstrated a single thing anyways but this just ruined you.

A polemic, - piece of writing expressing a strongly critical attack on or controversial opinion about someone or something.


It's hard to see such ignorance and to see someones thoughts turned in such a wrong direction but that is the world I guess?

I have read dozens of historical works. They are the farthest thing from attacks, controversial or opinion. Half of each page is footnotes directing one to the original papers, all peer-reviewed they are sourcing. It's a rigorus academic study of a topic using constant sources to sort through facts. Any theories are backed up by massive evidence. You have already admitted to not ever reading any such thing but yet still form such an uneducated and perverse opinion? Based on what? Things you just made up? Angry Islamic apologists yelling stuff? What even inspired that?

Anyway, you are wrong and not interesting to debate at all. You haven't challenged one thing yet, just floated beliefs around.

I'm erasing the rest. When you learn how to do something besides state random beliefs and find some real evidence for a God, angels or revelations try again.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It shows where late Judaism and Christianity got the idea from, and also where the Quran got the idea from..

It does nothing of the sort.
It shows that Zoroaster was likely a prophet of God.

a human lifetime isn't "eternity"

What exactly is eternity, then?
Surely, the only reason that you know the universe exists, is because you are aware .. are conscious.
If you are dead, and not aware, how can you assume anything?
It is possible that everybody would be dead, but you wouldn't even know .. how could you?
..unless you were aware somehow, after you died.

1st, your beliefs do not make things real. Evidence can demonstrate what is real. There is no evidence for any God..

..except that there is, and people believe the testimony in scripture is true.
If you believe that all Biblical prophets are fake or fraudulent, that's your opinion and conclusion.

2nd since you believe in revelations, God has sent another more recent messenger in the Bahai religion..

Has He?
I don't believe that.
There are scores of people claiming to be prophets in prisons and mental asylums .. I don't personally find it credible .. I stick to the core .. to the mainstream .. to the Orthodox .. it's much safer.

3rd, conclusions bout religious data can be shown to be wrong. 1/3 of all religious believers conclude Jesus is God..

So what?
If we study in order to find out why, we can see that early on in Christianity's evolution, there were Arians and Trinitarians.
[Arian: The same belief about Jesus as in Islam .. Jesus is a created being ]

The Trintarians persecuted Jews and Arians, and deemed such belief "heresy", fighting their Christian brothers until death.

You are "the historian" .. please show that I'm mistaken.

I'm interested in what is true..

Many people are..

 

[joelr]

.


You are the one in the minority here .. yes, I find it highly believable! It confirms the truth in the Bible.

You finding something believable doesn't make it true. Gods don't exist. Neither do angels.
The Bible is a collection of re-worked Mesopotamian myths and them Persian myths. The NT is all Persian and Greek. But they used the theology for Jesus. Clear proof it's a made-up mythology.

So if the Quran says the Bible is true then it's definitely wrong.

.
'painful doom' yes .. it is a clear warning, that those that don't judge by what God has revealed are in serious danger of ruining their own souls.

Same thing Mormons say. And Bahai. Neither are actually revelations. Neither is the Quran.

.
John the Baptist was killed, followed by a serious attempt of killing Jesus. Romans then persecuted Jews and Christians, eventually persecuting any other creed than "the official creed" of Empire .. and you think God should have sent a messenger to Jerusalem again?
It was bad enough in Macca, probably the most isolated and poorest in the whole world, at the time.
..but as we know, they failed to kill Muhammad, and He established Islam in Medina .. God is Great.
The truth MUST be available. If not, then God sends a chosen Messenger.
Arians were persecuted and annihilated by the Romans [as were the Jews], for believing that Jesus was a created being sent by God.
Do you think that God is unable to deal with that??

Of course he should? In the 3rd century and after Christianity was the official religion. Instead a God tells a foreign nation that they now have the "new" version, setting off centuries of war and hatred? What an evil God?

It's made up by people however.


D

.on't be ridiculous .. historians are not able to know whether God exists or not. It is not the job of an historian to make such judgments. It is the job of the devil.

Who said historians say if God exists? I keep saying over and over they demonstrtae historical facts. So we can see the clear syncretism of Christianity and the Bible. It's made up from older mythology and has no evidence anyways. None of the supernatural events are recorded by historians of the time. None. No other culture like Egyptians or Canaanites say Yahweh helped the Israelites like they claim. It's just another myth. So the Quran is also a myth based on the Bible. The wisdom and cultural rules may work in some regard. The Gods are not real.

 

[joelr]

That is not true. Jews and Christians are not obliged to convert.
They can, if they like .. and God is aware of their reasons why they do or don't.

God isn't real. I'm erasing any God questions until you can prove any God actually exists.

I am always suspicious of people who comment on religion "for a living".

So don't listen to Islamic apologists or anyone who speaks about Islam. Historians however just go over historical evidence. But your suspicion reeks of 16th century "burn the astronomer Bruno at th estake because he has science knowledge that we say is wrong" vibes.

..and this proves what, exactly??
If Zoroaster was a prophet of God, why would he not know about free-will?

Zoroaster, like Yahweh and Allah are mythical creations. YAhweh didn't know about freewill until the Persians invaded. Then suddenly they start having that in doctrine. Evidence of syncretism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Limited evidence? What are you talking about? We have thousands of years of writings of older Gods who soound exactly like Yahweh..

You'll have to be more precise .. that says nothing.

No, you just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Yahweh is just a God. A mythical character. There is no theistic God..

You don't know that .. my conclusions are no more "unwarranted" than yours.

Belief in one God is no less fiction than a pair or a trinity. That isn't real..

That is not so .. there cannot be more than One ultimate authority .. experience shows that one must be subordinate to the other .. or just does not exist.

 

[joelr]

It does nothing of the sort.
It shows that Zoroaster was likely a prophet of God.

One more.

You haven't shown evidence of any God. Nothing. Except a mis-guided belief.
So what's likely is it's a syncretic myth. There is no God to be a prophet of.

What exactly is eternity, then?
Surely, the only reason that you know the universe exists, is because you are aware .. are conscious.
If you are dead, and not aware, how can you assume anything?
It is possible that everybody would be dead, but you wouldn't even know .. how could you?
..unless you were aware somehow, after you died.

That is correct. No awareness after death. Just like before you were born. Nothing.

..except that there is, and people believe the testimony in scripture is true.
If you believe that all Biblical prophets are fake or fraudulent, that's your opinion and conclusion.

And people also believe Inana is a real God and they believe Jesus is GoD and the Bahai revelations are the latest truth.
Yet there is no evidence and belief doesn't make it real.
The testimony in Bahai scripture isn't evidence. Or else you would join. So neither is any scripture.

I don't care about prophets. I care about evidence. They produce no evidence a human could not possibly write down (like the Islamic apologetic lies say), no evidence of any God anywhere, theism is a wash, no evidence.

Beliefs do not make something true.

Has He?
I don't believe that.
There are scores of people claiming to be prophets in prisons and mental asylums .. I don't personally find it credible .. I stick to the core .. to the mainstream .. to the Orthodox .. it's much safer.

No he is not in a mental asylum and the Bahai religion is now pretty mainstream. Sorry the revelations are as legit as yours. He wrote much more than the Quran revelations as well. He addressed many world leaders and the religion has many followers, millions at this point.
It's a revelation, you claimed to believe in revelations. There you go. HA HA HA

The Baháʼí Faith is a relatively new religion[a] teaching the essential worth of all religions and the unity of all people.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_Faith#cite_note-14 Established by Baháʼu'lláh in the 19th century, it initially developed in Iran and parts of the Middle East, where it has faced ongoing persecution since its inception.[13] The religion is estimated to have 5–8 million adherents, known as Baháʼís, spread throughout most of the world's countries and territories.


According to Baháʼí teachings, religion is revealed in an orderly and progressive way by a single God through Manifestations of God, who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad are noted as the most recent of these before the Báb and Baháʼu'lláh. Baháʼís regard the world's major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. The Baháʼí Faith stresses the unity of all people, explicitly rejecting racism, sexism, and nationalism. At the heart of Baháʼí teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes.[14][15]

Letters which were written by Baháʼu'lláh and sent to various people, including some heads of state, have been collected and assembled into a canon of Baháʼí scripture. This collection of scripture includes works by his son ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, and the Báb, who is regarded as Baháʼu'lláh's forerunner. Prominent among the works of Baháʼí literature are the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Kitáb-i-Íqán, Some Answered Questions, and The Dawn-Breakers.

So what?
If we study in order to find out why, we can see that early on in Christianity's evolution, there were Arians and Trinitarians.
[Arian: The same belief about Jesus as in Islam .. Jesus is a created being ]

The Trintarians persecuted Jews and Arians, and deemed such belief "heresy", fighting their Christian brothers until death.

You are "the historian" .. please show that I'm mistaken.

Doesn't matter if your beliefs on Jesus match. Christians do not believe the Quran is real in any way. Beliefs are not the path to truth. Just delusion.

Many people are..

Yes, historians, critical thinkers, people who require evidence before believing something is true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A polemic, - piece of writing expressing a strongly critical attack on or controversial opinion about someone or something..

Exactly .. it expresses an "informed opinion" on the matter of whether God is fictional, in this case.

It's a rigorus academic study of a topic using constant sources to sort through facts..

I am not saying otherwise, but as you have already said, these "historians" have more or less proved that God is a fictional god ..
THAT IS A CONTROVERSIAL OPINION .. it cannot be proved .. it is one narrative of possibility, with the author of the book knowing his narrative of disbelief before pen reaches paper.

I'm erasing the rest. When you learn how to do something besides state random beliefs and find some real evidence for a God, angels or revelations try again.

Good day.

 

[joelr]

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

Matthew copied Mark and added his spin on being Jewish first.

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..

I'm talking about myth not science.

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..

We have evidence fusion exists. There is no evidence any God exists. I didn't say anything about God being illegal. I didn't say God is universally rejected. God is rejected by people who use rational skepticism because they don't hold unwarranted beliefs. There is no evidence for a God to sustain a belief. Faith is a terrible path to truth.

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..[/QUOTE]

Right but the prophet was first the messianic figure, predicted in the OT. That was taken from Persian legends. Then during the last century before the NT "divinity" meant what the Greek version meant. That is what David Litwa's new book is about. Lesus Deus.

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..

Yes Paul is writing in the 50's. Keep in mind many Jews did not support Jesus and did not think he was the messiah. They knew it was a Greek myth. Or pagan they would say. But this new model gives everyone personal salvation. This was an apocalyptic cult, Paul was saying it's better to not get married because they were expecting the 2nd coming to happen in their lifetime. Also a Persian myth. So the idea was the world is going to end, Revelation is going to happen this generation, Jesus says this several times. So people were expecting to die and be resurrected in new bodies on Earth. The NT ends with this story.

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.

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..

Cosmopolitanism was part of Hellenism, a brotherhood that extended to all people. But Jesus was replacing the Temple, Passover and Yom-Kippur. The Jesus sacrifice replaces the need for the annual temple ceremony where sin was removed. Savior blood is the most magic and lasts forever. Hebrews 9 explains this.

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?.

They were introduced to the Persian myths in 500 BCE and Hellenism in 320 BCE I think. Savior deities who died and resurrected were popular prior to Jesus. He was the last version. A Jewish version. He replaced Moses and brought the Hellenistic/Persian stories to Judaism. I guess a myth started around 30 CE OR a rabbi was teaching Hilellite Judaism and was somewhat revolutionary and the myths were placed on him? I don't know?
Jesus - Joseph means Lords savior so that is suspicious.
Other savior myths had the death/resurrection take place in the celestial realm and were sometimes euhemerized. Paul isn't clear at all (or he was and they removed that)

 

[joelr]

You'll have to be more precise .. that says nothing.

The things writers have Yahweh say and do are just like what Inana is said to have said and done thousands of years earlier.

Professor Fransesca Stravopolou's new book gets into this.

You don't know that .. my conclusions are no more "unwarranted" than yours.

100% unwarranted.

You need evidence if you make a claim. If I say Superman is real I have to prove it.

Then there is evidence against God. No evidence in any scripture of information a human could not have known at the time. No historical records from any historian, Pliny, Tacitus, whomever of miracles, moons splitting.

No evidence of prayer being answered or any change in natural probabilities. No Gods talking to people. No evidence whatsoever. Evolution provides an explanation for life.
God being the most fundamental part of reality, nonsense. Consciousness is a very complex phenomenon. No evidence it can just exist at the start of reality. Or just exist infinitely.
And if it is infinite then we cannot get to "now". Christian apologists like to use this against the universe being infinite. Except it works just as well for an infinite God.

Sean Caroll physicist/philosopher has an entire video going over all of the philosophical debunkings of cosmological arguments for God. None of them work.
It's a dead concept. The concept of a soul is even worse. Neurologists say no soul. Doesn't make sense with brain injuries and multiple personalities as well as diminished personalities. No evidence for a soul outside of that.
When people go under for surgery the vast majority see or remember nothing. You just immediately wake up. You are gone.
No evidence anywhere for God or a soul.
Just words in a book that sound like a man.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is correct. No awareness after death. Just like before you were born. Nothing.

Exactly .. that is what you believe .. so what is eternity then?
How is life imprisonment any different than imprisonment for eternity, according to your belief?

 

[joelr]

Exactly .. it expresses an "informed opinion" on the matter of whether God is fictional, in this case.

Doubling down on wrong = still wrong.

They demonstrate historical knowledge.

I am not saying otherwise, but as you have already said, these "historians" have more or less proved that God is a fictional god ..

No, the evidence has shown the religions are syncretic and extremely likely or definitely likely to be re-working myths. That the evidence looks that way is 100% fact.

THAT IS A CONTROVERSIAL OPINION .. it cannot be proved .. it is one narrative of possibility, with the author of the book knowing his narrative of disbelief before pen reaches paper.

The facts they show are 100%. You can still say God is real. But now he's rehashing myths. You can try to work around and say the other religions had prophets also. Except the Israelites said Yahweh said they were wrong, idol worshippers and should be killed. Why would prophets get names of Gods all wrong, details different? Why would they even be prophets? You have to show a prophet is possible? You can't. All prophets only have information a human could have. NEVER do they have something new like E=Mc2 or the world is made of atoms or you live in a galaxy and there are billions or the big bang, quantum mechanics, pi is 3.14159265, anything. NEVER.

The Israelites started by copying Mesopotamian myths. Then 500 years later the Persians move in and then they suddenly get the same myths as the Persians? Then when the Greeks move in they get the Greek stuff?????

No chance. This is religious syncretism. This is one line of evidence. Next, no God. Nowhere. It isn't controversial either. Most scientists don't believe in religious myth.

It is 100% fact that probabilities play out as expected. No deity changing fate. Every religion has people who say God speaks to them through feeling or emotion. Yet every religion isn't correct so this is clearly confirmation bias in the mind of the believer. There is no line of evidence that favors a theism, nothing. Historians just show history supports religion being shared and made-up myth.

 

[joelr]

Exactly .. that is what you believe .. so what is eternity then?
How is life imprisonment any different than imprisonment for eternity, according to your belief?

In rational beliefs there is no hell or afterlife.
The point is the myths that call for hell are immoral and the Gods who send people to hell (if they had souls) is an immoral thug who creates imperfect beings, who make imperfect choices and then sends them to eternal punishment for things like, belief in the wrong religion even though though they all look like myth and believers tend to stay in the religion they were brought up in. So fate? Or hell for being gay, which is natural, animals in nature are sometimes gay, and a gay person should be able to enjoy love and a relationship like all people. Hell is a ridiculous fiction.
But it's not real and neither is heaven. Even Yahweh didn't know about heaven for people. Not until the Greeks moved in and their beliefs about souls getting redemption and going to heaven was used by the Christians.

Again, more syncretism. Evidence.