Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Augustus]

wouldn't call an organization that makes a habit of suppressing dissent as heresy one that simply doesn't have the benefit of a modern worldview. Plenty of philosophers before them and during their existence saw the error in that pattern of behavior. That's not a modernist

The topic was Paul, not everything that happened in the 2000 years after his death.

Which philosophers then were promoting freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, human rights, etc?

Do you think the Stoics would have supported what the Catholic Church did to Baruch Spinoza and Giordano Bruno?

Again nothing to do with Paul, but do I think Cato and Marcus Aurelius would have persecuted perceived threats and killed to maintain institutional power?

Yes of course they would have as that’s exactly what they did.

Christians were persecuted n the time of Marcus Aurelius too.

Or perhaps we can look at Seneca:

"We put down mad dogs; we kill the wild, untamed ox; we use the knife on sick sheep to stop their infecting the flock; we destroy abnormal offspring at birth; children, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown. Yet this is not the work of anger, but of reason - to separate the sound from the worthless"

No, it's not about modern sensibilities. They were always frauds.

Unless we engage in Presentist cherry picking where we make excuses for those who we deem speciously to be “like us”, by your standards they were all frauds who held many awful views and were wrong about many things.

 

[Ella S.]

The topic was Paul, not everything that happened in the 2000 years after his death.

Which philosophers then were promoting freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, human rights, etc?




Again nothing to do with Paul, but do I think Cato and Marcus Aurelius would have persecuted perceived threats and killed to maintain institutional power?

Yes of course they would have as that’s exactly what they did.

Christians were persecuted n the time of Marcus Aurelius too.

Or perhaps we can look at Seneca:

"We put down mad dogs; we kill the wild, untamed ox; we use the knife on sick sheep to stop their infecting the flock; we destroy abnormal offspring at birth; children, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown. Yet this is not the work of anger, but of reason - to separate the sound from the worthless"

What a fascinating case of whataboutism. Do you really think you made a convincing point anywhere in this section of your post?

The point is that much of the misinformation and toxic practices regarding information were not simply due to people in the past not having "progressed" enough to modern mindsets. The fact that you're arguing against me projecting modernism onto them is a weird case of Straw Man projection on your part.

There were plenty of people during and before that time that would not have accepted those practices or that misinformation, and on valid grounds, too. You can call that cherry-picking, but you're the one acting like culture is monolithic in accordance with time periods. What a ridiculous way to do history.

Unless we engage in Presentist cherry picking where we make excuses for those who we deem speciously to be “like us”, by your standards they were all frauds who held many awful views and were wrong about many things.

We should absolutely hold past ideas to our modern standards when evaluating them for modern use, yes. That much should be obvious.

 

[Audie]

I accepted that the term can be used polemically, just not a neutral description of good faith error.

When we look at the past we can label all natural philosophers, doctors, or basically any educated person a charlatan because they certainly believed and promoted falsehoods based on perceived superior knowledge.

I don’t think that is a particularly helpful way of thinking about the past though. It is largely about congratulating ourselves for being smart enough to have been born in modern times.

But then again, most scientists today will later be found to have been wrong in numerous ways, charlatans the lot of them?

And it’s not just practitioners of alternative medicines that have problems, all GPs certainly promote false health advice at times, all GPs are charlatans?




I don’t think the study of the history of religion, cognitive science of religion etc. is best served by thinking of it as being driven by charlatanry, lies, idiocy, etc.

I don’t think that attitude constitutes “apologetics”.



I personally don’t think we should see all ancient beliefs in their historical context as “fraudulent or impudent” simply because we now have the benefits of a modern scientific rationalist worldview.

Keep telling yourself it was in
good faith, and that you know you
are right. As if. That's looking like intellectual
dishonesty. Likewise trying to get out of what the dictionary says.

And that it doesnt make a frog hair's difference
if the homeopath or astrologer is dead earnest or
the opposite

It's still a false claim of knowledge he does not have-made by a charlatan.

 

[Augustus]

Keep telling yourself it was in
good faith, and that you know you
are right. As if. That's looking like intellectual
dishonesty.

If you are so keen on intellectual honesty and the meaning of words, you could start by working out why saying "I don't see any reason to assume he was acting in bad faith" does not mean "I know he acting in good faith".

Likewise trying to get out of what the dictionary says.

Just try using it as a neutral descriptor of good faith error in real life and see if your theory holds water.

Anyone being intellectually honest can tell you how most people will react to being labelled a charlatan for making a good faith error.

 

[Augustus]

The point is that much of the misinformation and toxic practices regarding information were not simply due to people in the past not having "progressed" enough to modern mindsets.

The point is that the attitudes of the early modern church have precisely nothing to do with any point I actually made outside of your imagination.

Your personal feelings about the church are not really relevant to the question of whether or not the history of religion, cognitive science of religion etc. is best served by thinking of it as being driven by charlatanry, lies, idiocy, etc.

I don't think the study of historical medicine is best served by thinking of it as being driven by charlatanry, lies, idiocy, etc. even though it was basically all wrong and caused many harms.

You can call that cherry-picking, but you're the one acting like culture is monolithic in accordance with time periods. What a ridiculous way to do history.

Again you seem to be arguing with your own imagination here

We should absolutely hold past ideas to our modern standards when evaluating them for modern use, yes. That much should be obvious.

And again.

I agree we should evaluate things being proposed for modern use, but trying to understand why historical person X believed something in their own cultural environment has very little to do with advocating them for modern use.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Nah. I don't think that way. And neither do many atheists here.

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?

Who cares if Christian martyr stories are made up? People make sacrifices for causes they believe in. Modern day suicide bombers, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK. The list goes on. Nobody should be questioning christian martyrdom. There are fairly well-established documentation of such events. The better question is: who gives a ****? There are martyrs in a number of traditions and a plentitude of actual, fully-documented martyrs described throughout history.

My point is: what does martyrdom have to do with any truth-claim? People will die for falsehoods just as readily as they will die for what is true.

II. 'Paul was xyz.'

Agreed. This is an ad hominem when leveled at Christianity in general.

But such arguments are fair game in discussions about Paul's "authority." I mean, if someone claims that every one of Paul's words is the unblemished truth, because he was an apostle. Like, the fact that he had a cult-leader-type personality has explanatory power in describing his influence.

So, in short, I agree: Pisspoor argument against Christianity, but my objection is that these are potentially good arguments against Paul's supposed authority. And if Paul's authority itself is used as a support for Christianity itself, undermining Paul's authority is a legitimate way to question the Christian faith.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

Not every Christian cares if this is true or not. Therefore, I agree that this is not a good attack point.

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned

But other histories ARE questioned. That's what history is.

But you got one thing right: "sources that never seem to be good enough." That's a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[blü 2]

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.

There's been a thread here on what's not to like about Christianity, and my own modest contribution is >here<.

I repeat the part that says I have no objection to other people having faith and deriving comfort from it, if at the same time they treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

I am not an atheist, but this post is a shotgun approach of what non-believers believe, and it contains questionable generalizations about non-believers your insulting based on your agenda. Rants making generalizations is not a constructive way to have a dialogue.

The problems of what to believe in all the conflicting subjective beliefs in religions is also problematic. Each claiming to have some degree of exclusive claims of illusive 'Truth.'

The fact is the documentation some of the early Christian martyrs lacks eyewitness provenance. The reality is the martyrs may or may not be true. There is historical documentation of some Christian martyrs. The existence or non-existence of Christian martyrs is not at the top of the list of those that do not accept Christianity.

In reality most atheists and strong agnostics simply see no reason to believe in the 'Source' some call Gods and do not fit you trashy generalizations. Even though I do not share their beliefs they have good objections of ancient religious texts without provenance as an argument for the existence of God.

Though by far most historians believe a messianic Rabbi claimed to be the King of the Jews, reported to do miracles and was executed by crucifixion for rebellion against Rome, There are no independent eye witness records of the existence of Jesus or Joshua or the Gospel records, which lack provenance during the life of Jesus. Therefore it is a legitimate academic view not to accept the Gospels as factual history.

I believe there are too many extreme religious beliefs including problems of rejecting science, and extreme claims of manifest destiny and various claims of dominion control over the world.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Just read this and I think it is a very accurate observation.

 

[PureX]

There's been a thread here on what's not to like about Christianity, and my own modest contribution is >here<.

I repeat the part that says I have no objection to other people having faith and deriving comfort from it, if at the same time they treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense.

But you are admitting, then, that the one has nothing to do with the other.

We don't care what anyone believes regarding race so long as they don't use their beliefs to harm others. We don't care who owns a gun so long as they don't use their gun to harm others. The point here is that the former condition does not necessitate a harmful result. Yet I strongly suspect that in your mind, you presume that it does. Which is an irrational bias. And the rest of us don't care that you are irrationally biased against Christianity, so long as you don't use that bias to justify harming others.

And yet isn't the bias itself a form of harm? Slander in words and thoughts?

 

[blü 2]

But you are admitting, then, that the one has nothing to do with the other.

In my judgment, what matters is how you treat other people. Whether or not you have religion to go with that is unimportant (with the exception of the RF debate boards, of course).

We don't care what anyone believes regarding race so long as they don't use their beliefs to harm others.

Not 'not to harm others' but 'treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense'.

We don't care who owns a gun so long as they don't use their gun to harm others.

The right to bear arms is an unfortunate accident of US constitutional history.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

I’m a post Christian but Christianity is very good at declaring persecution where none exists, especially in the United States.

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it.

He has no scenes with a flesh and blood Jesus? He takes teaching about the golden rule and fixates on personal eternal bliss, ignoring the empathy point of Jesus.

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).

Comparing him to military leaders is a bit unfair. Military leaders leave lots of stuff for archaeologists to find everywhere they go.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I believe historians take into account that historical narratives are not entirely factual, but use them comparing difference references, archaeology and more reliable records to come up with a reasonably reliable history.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have come across people on this forum arguing that the whole of The Bible should be completely disregarded because of references to slavery, but I have never heard this argument made in respect of Plato's Republic. That example, I think, speaks directly to the title of this thread.

Come across?!?!? I have never seen anyone describe the Bible in this way on this forum. Please cite others specifically and accurately.

The historians do consider the Bible a compilation of narratives mostly without provenance and eyewitness accounts. The Bible does contain references to historical persons, events and places confirmed by archaeology, and other historical references as the time, but the Bible is not considered a reliable historical account of the history around it was written. This is true of many ancient texts,

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Are you interested in Chunese folk religion?

Are you fascinated by the life cycles of arthropods?

Yes lol

 

[shunyadragon]

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.)

This is not correct, historians do question and skeptical all ancient texts, and not all considered historically accurate. Comparing archaeology, other historical references that document Alexander the Great life an conquests are used. They carved his bust during in life, coins with his image, there are archaeological finds of his battles, and his enemies referenced him in their writings.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I have come across people on this forum arguing that the whole of The Bible should be completely disregarded because of references to slavery, but I have never heard this argument made in respect of Plato's Republic. That example, I think, speaks directly to the title of this thread.

Is Plato an omnimax God?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That’s an extremely circular argument, don’t you think? Anthropomorphise God, judge Him by human standards, find Him unreasonable. It’s an exercise in absurdity, which can only lead to an absurd conclusion.

Genesis anthropomorphizes God by saying we are made in His image. He was clearly anthropomorphic originally. Invisibility came later.

 

[shunyadragon]

Genesis anthropomorphizes God by saying we are made in His image. He was clearly anthropomorphic originally. Invisibility came later.

When they were no longer able to find the God(s).

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe historians take into account that historical narratives are not entirely factual, but use them comparing difference references, archaeology and more reliable records to come up with a reasonably reliable history.

Just an interesting observation on records of ancient cultures. The Chinese ancient records are considered more accurate then western ancient texts. This is Confucian standard of record keeping that goes back to the earliest writing, Confucius and/or his students traveled around the ancient kingdoms and collected the literature, poetry and records, and compiled them into an orderly series of texts preserved today. It even accurately dated and described the ancient catastrophic flood of the Yellow River ~1922 BCE was accurately recorded in !000 BCE, and confirmed by Geologic evidence. All the catastrophic floods were accurately recorded in Chinese records since.