Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Rival]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

 

[RestlessSoul]

Indeed. Those atheists who pride themselves on their powers of reason, logic, critical thinking etc., seem especially quick to abandon these principles completely when it comes to the subject of Christianity; to which they will afford no credit, no benefit of any doubt, and no pretence at impartiality. In many cases this may be due to bad experiences those individuals have had with various Christian denominations, most especially perhaps, those of the evangelical variety.

Justifying prejudice on the basis of personal experience, is of course neither reasonable nor logical, which makes a mockery of the appeal to those qualities which the anti-theists frequently proclaim. Be that as it may, I try to make allowances for those people who are clearly, as @Kenny once pointed out, often coming from a position of personal pain. I have no wish to make their pain any worse, and in any case getting drawn into a clash of egos is no good to anyone. So I try to avoid engaging with the worst offenders, except occasionally to argue philosophical points in instances where it looks like discourse and disagreement might actually be conducted in a civil manner.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, ...

Could you cite a specific example?

 

[PureX]

Indeed. Those atheists who pride themselves on their powers of reason, logic, critical thinking etc., seem especially quick to abandon these principles completely when it comes to the subject of Christianity; to which they will afford no credit, no benefit of the doubt, and no pretence of impartiality.

Not only that, which I see as well, they seem to be completely blind to their own huge bias in this regard. They talk about how they love science over religion or philosophy because they think it actively works to disprove it's own assumptions, and yet these same people are NEVER willing to work to disprove their own wild assumptions. And instead, they respond to any suggestion of it with insults and attacks. Even the most adament Bible-worshipping Christian religious zealots don't usually respond with that much disgust and condescension.

In many cases this may be due to bad experiences those individuals may have had with various Christian denominations, most especially perhaps, those of the evangelical variety.

Sure, but we're all being victimized by some group or other. God knows the rich aren't letting anyone off the their hooks. And if the news is to be believed, half the population is out to destroy the other half these days. It's not like religion has a corner on the human abuse market.

Justifying prejudice on the basis of personal experience, is of course neither reasonable nor logical, which makes a mockery of the appeal to those qualities which the anti-theists frequently proclaim.

Yes, that is true. Though the resentment may be justified, it's of little practical use to anyone.

Be that as it may, I try to make allowances for those people who are clearly, as @Kenny once pointed out, often coming from a position of personal pain. I have no wish to make their pain any worse, and in any case getting drawn into a clash of egos is no good to anyone. So I try to avoid engaging with the worst offenders, except occasionally to argue philosophical points in instances where it looks like discourse and disagreement might actually be conducted in a civil manner.

That's not always so easy to do when any post related to positive theism is automatically going to be attacked by the same cadre of raging atheists.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not only that, which I see as well, they seem to be completely blind to their own huge bias in this regard. They talk about how they love science over religion or philosophy because they think it actively works to disprove it's own assumptions, and yet these same people are NEVER willing to work to disprove their own wild assumptions. And instead, they respond to any suggestion of it with insults and attacks. Even the most adament Bible-worshipping Christian religious zealots don't usually respond with that much disgust and cindescention.

Sure, but we're all being victimized by some group or other. God knows the rich aren't letting anyone off the their hooks. And if the news is to be believed, half the population is out to destroy the other half these days. It's not like religion has a corner on the human abuse market.

Yes, that is true. Though the resentment may be justified, it's of little practical use to anyone.

That's not always so easy to do when any post related to positive theism is automatically going to be attacked by the same cadre of raging atheists.

I agree the cadre - the atheist crusaders, is how I think of them - can be a little tiresome. And the complete lack of self awareness can be breath taking.

There are plenty of thoughtful, tolerant atheists here too though, it should be said.

 

[Erebus]

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

I don't really get involved in debates about the history of Christianity so I can't comment on your other points. This part definitely rings true though.

I've come across a few people who seem determined to argue that anything remotely connected to religion (especially Abrahamic religions) is inherently pointless or even actively harmful. I'd say they're in the minority but they also tend to be more noticeable.

 

[Audie]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

No reason to think all martyr stories are true,
or false.

If a person does not believe in God in follows
that Paul was not as presented.
The snake- story is implausible in the extreme,
as a kind of bonus.

The guy who did miracles did not exist.

Your assertion about double standards,intellectual
dishonesty, hypocrisy is unworthy of being uttered or
commented on.

Are you interested in Chunese folk religion?

Are you fascinated by the life cycles of arthropods?

The rules for Rhodesian stickball?

Far too many people are just not interested. : D

 

[Rival]

Could you cite a specific example?

I'm talking about stuff like this in Herodotus' Histories, for example,

Then the Hellenes set sail with all their ships, and as they were putting out to sea the barbarians immediately attacked them. The rest of the Hellenes began to back water and tried to beach their ships, but Ameinias of Pallene, an Athenian, charged and rammed a ship. When his ship became entangled and the crew could not free it, the others came to help Ameinias and joined battle. The Athenians say that the fighting at sea began this way, but the Aeginetans say that the ship which had been sent to Aegina after the sons of Aeacus was the one that started it. The story is also told that the phantom of a woman appeared to them, who cried commands loud enough for all the Hellenic fleet to hear, reproaching them first with, “Men possessed, how long will you still be backing water?”

And from Suetonius' Life of Vespasian,

Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases. About the same time, at Tegea in Arcadia, by the direction of some soothsayers, several vessels of ancient workmanship were dug out of a consecrated place, on which there was an effigy resembling Vespasian.

 

[Audie]

Indeed. Those atheists who pride themselves on their powers of reason, logic, critical thinking etc., seem especially quick to abandon these principles completely when it comes to the subject of Christianity; to which they will afford no credit, no benefit of any doubt, and no pretence at impartiality. In many cases this may be due to bad experiences those individuals have had with various Christian denominations, most especially perhaps, those of the evangelical variety.

Justifying prejudice on the basis of personal experience, is of course neither reasonable nor logical, which makes a mockery of the appeal to those qualities which the anti-theists frequently proclaim. Be that as it may, I try to make allowances for those people who are clearly, as @Kenny once pointed out, often coming from a position of personal pain. I have no wish to make their pain any worse, and in any case getting drawn into a clash of egos is no good to anyone. So I try to avoid engaging with the worst offenders, except occasionally to argue philosophical points in instances where it looks like discourse and disagreement might actually be conducted in a civil manner.

So you say, but it sounds angry and exaggerated.

And the oh so typical accusation of hypocrisy
with no examples is just tiresome.

 

[exchemist]

I agree the cadre - the atheist crusaders, is how I think of them - can be a little tiresome. And the complete lack of self awareness can be breath taking.

There are plenty of thoughtful, tolerant atheists here too though, it should be said.

I agree with this. Among the atheists here there is , as with the religious believers, a range of views. One might place them on a "Dawkins spectrum" ranging from the younger Dawkins, representing the fundamentalists, tilting at windmills and naïve strawman representations of religion, to the older Dawkins, who seems to have realised that being shrill and angry all the time is off-putting, counterproductive and actually a bit intellectually superficial.

Dawkins, of course, was - perhaps still is - one of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism: New Atheism - Wikipedia. These four have been responsible for a fair amount of the vitriol thrown in the face of religion in recent decades. Their new idea has been to mount a crusade, preaching and evangelising against religion. They even at one point went so far as to produce a video, with consciously religious overtones, designed to engage emotionally with people's natural sense of wonder about the natural world. I found it faintly nauseating. I can't recall what it was called. Your "crusaders" will be the ones that embrace the New Atheism approach.

The attitude of these New Atheists is the antithesis of that of Stephen Jay Gould's concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). While NOMA has its critics, it seems to me a far more productive way to discuss the interface between science and religion.

Sociologically, I'm not sure whether the New Atheists are a product of the so-called "culture war" or among its architects, but it seems to me they have contributed to making it worse.

 

[Audie]

Not only that, which I see as well, they seem to be completely blind to their own huge bias in this regard. They talk about how they love science over religion or philosophy because they think it actively works to disprove it's own assumptions, and yet these same people are NEVER willing to work to disprove their own wild assumptions. And instead, they respond to any suggestion of it with insults and attacks. Even the most adament Bible-worshipping Christian religious zealots don't usually respond with that much disgust and cindescention.

Sure, but we're all being victimized by some group or other. God knows the rich aren't letting anyone off the their hooks. And if the news is to be believed, half the population is out to destroy the other half these days. It's not like religion has a corner on the human abuse market.

Yes, that is true. Though the resentment may be justified, it's of little practical use to anyone.

That's not always so easy to do when any post related to positive theism is automatically going to be attacked by the same cadre of raging atheists.

And yet again the cheap hypocrisy charge.

When I was in the USA I noticed virtually all
of political posturing consistented of nothing but.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm talking about stuff like this in Herodotus' Histories, for example,

Great example.

From Wikipedia: Herodotus > Contemporary and modern critics

t is on account of the many strange stories and the folk-tales he reported that his critics have branded him "The Father of Lies".[5]: 10 [21] Even his own contemporaries found reason to scoff at his achievement. In fact, one modern scholar[6] has wondered whether Herodotus left his home in Greek Anatolia, migrating westwards to Athens and beyond, because his own countrymen had ridiculed his work, a circumstance possibly hinted at in an epitaph said to have been dedicated to Herodotus at one of his three supposed resting places, Thuria:​

​

Herodotus the son of Sphynx
lies; in Ionic history without peer;
a Dorian born, who fled from slander's brand
and made in Thuria his new native land.[5]: 13 ​

Yet it was in Athens where his most formidable contemporary critics could be found. In 425 BC, which is about the time that Herodotus is thought by many scholars to have died, the Athenian comic dramatist Aristophanes created The Acharnians, in which he blames the Peloponnesian War on the abduction of some prostitutes – a mocking reference to Herodotus, who reported the Persians' account of their wars with Greece, beginning with the rapes of the mythical heroines Io, Europa, Medea, and Helen.[22][23]​

​

Similarly, the Athenian historian Thucydides dismissed Herodotus as a "logos-writer" (story-teller).[24]: 191  Thucydides, who had been trained in rhetoric, became the model for subsequent prose-writers as an author who seeks to appear firmly in control of his material, whereas with his frequent digressions Herodotus appeared to minimize (or possibly disguise) his authorial control.[19] Moreover, Thucydides developed a historical topic more in keeping with the Greek world-view: focused on the context of the polis or city-state. The interplay of civilizations was more relevant to Greeks living in Anatolia, such as Herodotus himself, for whom life within a foreign civilization was a recent memory.[24]: 191 ​

​

Before the Persian crisis, history had been represented among the Greeks only by local or family traditions. The "Wars of Liberation" had given to Herodotus the first genuinely historical inspiration felt by a Greek. These wars showed him that there was a corporate life, higher than that of the city, of which the story might be told; and they offered to him as a subject the drama of the collision between East and West. With him, the spirit of history was born into Greece; and his work, called after the nine Muses, was indeed the first utterance of Clio.​

How fortunate that he was never the focus of criticism.

 

[Audie]

I don't really get involved in debates about the history of Christianity so I can't comment on your other points. This part definitely rings true though.

I've come across a few people who seem determined to argue that anything remotely connected to religion (especially Abrahamic religions) is inherently pointless or even actively harmful. I'd say they're in the minority but they also tend to be more noticeable.

Be sure to identify an example of one of these
black swans you guys talk about, if you ever detect one

 

[Rival]

Great example.

From Wikipedia: Herodotus > Contemporary and modern critics

t is on account of the many strange stories and the folk-tales he reported that his critics have branded him "The Father of Lies".[5]: 10 [21] Even his own contemporaries found reason to scoff at his achievement. In fact, one modern scholar[6] has wondered whether Herodotus left his home in Greek Anatolia, migrating westwards to Athens and beyond, because his own countrymen had ridiculed his work, a circumstance possibly hinted at in an epitaph said to have been dedicated to Herodotus at one of his three supposed resting places, Thuria:​

​

Yet it was in Athens where his most formidable contemporary critics could be found. In 425 BC, which is about the time that Herodotus is thought by many scholars to have died, the Athenian comic dramatist Aristophanes created The Acharnians, in which he blames the Peloponnesian War on the abduction of some prostitutes – a mocking reference to Herodotus, who reported the Persians' account of their wars with Greece, beginning with the rapes of the mythical heroines Io, Europa, Medea, and Helen.[22][23]​

​

Similarly, the Athenian historian Thucydides dismissed Herodotus as a "logos-writer" (story-teller).[24]: 191  Thucydides, who had been trained in rhetoric, became the model for subsequent prose-writers as an author who seeks to appear firmly in control of his material, whereas with his frequent digressions Herodotus appeared to minimize (or possibly disguise) his authorial control.[19] Moreover, Thucydides developed a historical topic more in keeping with the Greek world-view: focused on the context of the polis or city-state. The interplay of civilizations was more relevant to Greeks living in Anatolia, such as Herodotus himself, for whom life within a foreign civilization was a recent memory.[24]: 191 ​

​

How fortunate that he was never the focus of criticism.

Yes (and I find the Father of Lies appellation quite funny) but these authors are still used by the people whom I'm referencing who subsequently throw out the Gospels. For example, were I to cite Herodotus on RF I believe it would be given a far fairer reception than the Gospels in such instances. It's this kind of hypocrisy I am pointing out. Ancient authors often write to suit themselves and yet are bandied about with much more popular support than is generally warranted. I do not believe these authors are completely useless, just as I don't believe the Gospels are completely useless.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes (and I find the Father of Lies appellation quite funny) but these authors are still used by the people ...

As are ouija boards. Still, you might find Father of History or Father of Lies: the Reputation of Herodotus by J. A. S. Evans (The Classical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1; Oct., 1968) interesting -- or perhaps not.

The fact remains that offering Herodotus as an example of someone not subjected to significant criticism is what I find to be truly "quite funny" in that it seems to reflect an almost comic ignorance.

 

[blü 2]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

People die for their beliefs all the time, and not only in war. Dying for a cause or principle neither validates nor vitiates the cause or principle.

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

Paul was, well, odd, but he seems to have been a capable salesman of his product.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

The status of Jesus in Christianity was, for the most part, settled in the 4th century CE with the formal adoption of the Trinity doctrine. This declares that Jesus, like the Father and like the Ghost, is 100% of God. It is routinely ignored and/or denied that each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly denies he's God and never claims to be God.

Which suggests that an historical Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity, though there may have been such a person.

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

I don't think that's true of tales of magic though. If there was an historical Jesus, he was a male example of H sap sap, and he had no more power to eg raise Lazarus than anyone else. Instead it's a customary story eg in the Tanakh ─
* The woman of Endor caused Samuel to come back after his death and speak with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrection.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 4:32+).
and in the NT
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).

 

[Rival]

As are ouija boards. Still, you might find Father of History or Father of Lies: the Reputation of Herodotus by J. A. S. Evans (The Classical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1; Oct., 1968) interesting -- or perhaps not.

The fact remains that offering Herodotus as an example of someone not subjected to significant criticism is what I find to be truly "quite funny" in that it seems to reflect an almost comic ignorance.

You are talking about scholars, I am talking about people on RF who are generally not such. If I would cite Herodotus, it would be far less criticised than the Gospels. Or Suteonius. Many of these authors go unchallenged.

 

[Rival]

People die for their beliefs all the time, and not only in war. Dying for a cause or principle neither validates nor vitiates the cause or principle.

I didn't say anything about dying for a cause validating anything, I merely said that there were Christian martyrs. I saw someone on RF today throwing all martyr stories out as fabrications. Even if what they died for is nonsense, it doesn't mean they weren't martyred. So why throw out all the stories?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are talking about scholars, I am talking about people on RF who are generally not such.

I think you're tilting at windmills.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As are ouija boards. Still, you might find Father of History or Father of Lies: the Reputation of Herodotus by J. A. S. Evans (The Classical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1; Oct., 1968) interesting -- or perhaps not.

The fact remains that offering Herodotus as an example of someone not subjected to significant criticism is what I find to be truly "quite funny" in that it seems to reflect an almost comic ignorance.

There is a broader point here you seem to be missing; most of what we think we know about the ancient world in Europe and Asia Minor, comes from the likes of Herodotus, Thucydides, Suetonius, Livy, Julius Caesar etc. All are notoriously unreliable sources, but historians know how to interrogate those sources, and no one ever thinks of disregarding the entirety of ancient history as valueless myth, fable etc. No one says, for example, that the Greco-Persian wars never happened, or that Darius, Xerxes, Leonidas, Themistocles etc, didn't even exist.