| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2007 05:35:38 PM · #76 |
The first written texts of which I'm aware are cuniform tablets from Babylonia (now Iraq), and mainly concern grain inventories and tax levies.
I'm pretty sure these predate the Dead Sea Scrolls by some substantial time. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:51:58 PM · #77 |
The Jewish Torah is commonly ascribed to have been written by the 6th century BC. The events described happened much earlier. The hittites, for example, famous bad guys of the Old Testament were on the scene as early as 1750 BC. Abraham probably lived around this time or earlier. So I only got you 4,000 years. Sorry.
The problem with your statement is you are getting your terms all mixed up. It makes no sense to point to "texts" in "prehistoric" cultures. The dictionary defines "prehistoric" as "Of, relating to, or belonging to the era before recorded history."
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 17:55:22.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 05:53:27 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The first written texts of which I'm aware are cuniform tablets from Babylonia (now Iraq), and mainly concern grain inventories and tax levies. |
That may indeed be among the earliest examples of text (as opposed to pictographs or heiroglyphs). The point though, is that the earliest written references to monotheism appeared well after older polytheistic references from Greece, Egypt, India, South America, etc. If history started with one God that people later "forgot" or turned away from, then you might reasonably expect the opposite to be true: early monotheistic writing followed by later idol worship of multiple gods. Perhaps older monotheistic religion predated writing itself, but I don't think we have any evidence of that even among cave paintings or other artifacts. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:14:03 PM · #79 |
It seems like we are completely down a different rabbit hole at this point.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:14:08 PM · #80 |
Since you requested Wikipedia refereces Doc, here's a couple:
Historically, monotheism emerges in the Late Bronze Age in a gradual process comprising henotheistic and panentheistic notions.
many critical Bible scholars claim that certain verses in the Torah imply that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods, while viewing their God as the sole Creator... it was only by the Hellenic period that most Jews came to believe that their God was the only God (and thus, the God of everyone)...
Indeed "prehistoric" may not be an entirely accurate term, but with few useful records of history before 1000 B.C., it's still a reasonable description of the early civilizations I was referring to. Substitute "ancient" if you prefer. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:21:53 PM · #81 |
Well, I guess I'd have to know how many the dude who wrote that considers "many critical Bible scholars" is. Isn't that a common thing to write when you are trying to sound authoritative when the answer, in truth, is one that they know of and maybe nobody?
I wonder, however, if you did the math, if in the whole history of "man" (whatever you are going to count that as), there are not more monotheists than polytheists since there are so many more people in each generation currently than 5,000 years ago. Who knows. It doesn't really matter. The ultimate question for you now, since Matthew has chosen to ignore it, is how you would have things unfold historically so that the idea of God makes sense.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:25:56 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Jewish Torah is commonly ascribed to have been written by the 6th century BC. The events described happened much earlier. |
Didn't we go through something like this before? A text written in the 6th century B.C. claiming that something happened 1,000 years earlier is NOT proof of the earlier event. Even if you assume that Jews generally believed in monotheism at the time the Torah was written, that only demonstrates a belief to the 6th century B.C. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 06:58:17 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
how you would have things unfold historically so that the idea of God makes sense. |
You're making a huge assumption that it can, but that isn't necessarily the issue for me anyway. It's more blind faith in the Bible itself that I have a problem with. This is an ancient volume of text written by human beings 1000+ years ago, translated and re-interpreted many times since, that is too often claimed to be the infallible Word of God despite obvious factual errors, logical impossibilities, multiple versions and moral dilemmas such as the OP discussed here.
It makes total sense to me if it was written as a moral guide or for the purpose of securing influence for the authors and their followers (similar to Kings or Pharoahs who claimed to have inside knowledge of a higher authority). That may sound far-fetched considering how long it had stood the test of time and how "advanced" we think we are, but think about how long Greek, Egyptian or Inca cultures lasted with their beliefs! |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:13:44 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
how you would have things unfold historically so that the idea of God makes sense. |
You're making a huge assumption that it can, but that isn't necessarily the issue for me anyway. It's more blind faith in the Bible itself that I have a problem with. This is an ancient volume of text written by human beings 1000+ years ago, translated and re-interpreted many times since, that is too often claimed to be the infallible Word of God despite obvious factual errors, logical impossibilities, multiple versions and moral dilemmas such as the OP discussed here.
It makes total sense to me if it was written as a moral guide or for the purpose of securing influence for the authors and their followers (similar to Kings or Pharoahs who claimed to have inside knowledge of a higher authority). That may sound far-fetched considering how long it had stood the test of time and how "advanced" we think we are, but think about how long Greek, Egyptian or Inca cultures lasted with their beliefs! |
hmmm...that was so perfectly articulated....nothing else needs to be said :-) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:33:42 PM · #85 |
So maybe I asked the question wrong. What would The Bible look like in your possible worldview that would include God? I find it is much easier to sit back and take potshots at someone else's worldview than to support your own.
I don't think your ideas about The Bible are completely without merit. They seem reasonable, but I don't subscribe to them. I don't subscribe to them because to me, atheism, and all that goes with it, is even more absurd (to allude to the quote about absurdity above).
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 19:34:18.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:42:06 PM · #86 |
I thought you all might be hungry...
:D |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:42:37 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So maybe I asked the question wrong. What would The Bible look like in your possible worldview that would include God? I find it is much easier to sit back and take potshots at someone else's worldview than to support your own.
I don't think your ideas about The Bible are completely without merit. They seem reasonable, but I don't subscribe to them. I don't subscribe to them because to me, atheism, and all that goes with it, is even more absurd (to allude to the quote about absurdity above). |
You seem to imply that your only two choices are (a) a blind faith in The Bible, and (b) atheism. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:47:52 PM · #88 |
Naw, I don't imply that at all. I don't even consider myself to have a blind faith in the Bible (your words, not mine). In this conversation, however, I'm not arguing with Hindus.
The Hindu accepts that his precepts are taken in on faith. The Buddist accepts this. So does the Jew. Only the atheist claims to stand on top of an insurmountable hill of logic and reason. I find that his fortress is not nearly as impregnable as he thinks.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:52:30 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I thought you all might be hungry...
:D |
Loaves and fishes! My favourite! |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 07:58:30 PM · #90 |
I'll leave you with two quotes from CS Lewis. They sum up my biggest issue with atheism. They also get at Keith's original "what's up with this passage in the bible?" question and what can really lie behind asking it (if anything).
______
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis
Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:04:39 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Hindu accepts that his precepts are taken in on faith. The Buddist accepts this. So does the Jew. Only the atheist claims to stand on top of an insurmountable hill of logic and reason. I find that his fortress is not nearly as impregnable as he thinks. |
I always thought that Buddhism was a non-theistic religion. So is closer to athiesm in matters of 'faith' |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:16:55 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. |
I totally agree that the universe does have meaning, but that does not mean that there is a God, and it certainly does not make Christianity the one True religion.
Edit to add: I'm sure you didn't mean to imply by your argument that Christianity is the one True religion.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 20:22:33. |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:24:10 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll leave you with two quotes from CS Lewis. They sum up my biggest issue with atheism. They also get at Keith's original "what's up with this passage in the bible?" question and what can really lie behind asking it (if anything).
______
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis
Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis |
Not meaning to butt in, but I have been following this discussion closely because I love religion and this has been a very good discussion! I had to speak up, however, because these quotes attributed to C.S. Lewis struct me as profoundly... wrong. Not in the moral sense, but in mistaken sense. Assuming that a fish doesn't feel wet is a fairly baseless supposition. So, too, is the assumption that the universe has some meaning and that is the reason why we thought to wonder about it, leading to the idea that if it had no meaning we would have never wondered.
It only takes one person's authoritative and mistaken idea to plant wrong ideas in the minds of thousands - that's one of the reasons the earth was flat for as long as it was.
To speak again out of turn, I don't know many Aetheists who rage against God (though there may be some out there), but, instead, rage at the 'blind' faith in contradictory materials they're often presented with when (and it happens far too often) conversion attempts are made.
Oh, and the Celts need some ancient religion love, too.
-- C, ES |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:34:52 PM · #94 |
I knew someone was going to attack the "fish" part and assume that negated the whole rest of the quote. I thought it was a fairly poor analogy as well, but I wasn't going to remove it.
You'll have to read the quote more carefully. It does not talk about "meaning". He says his main argument (one brought up in this very thread) while he was an atheist was that the world seemed too broken to be attributed to God. He then points out the logical fallacy of such an argument. If there is no God, there should be no idea of broken. The argument then implodes.
I'd be happy to hear another refutation of the quote.
Keith, I'd be interesting in knowing what you think the meaning of the universe is. And, yes, I agree this does not prove Christianity is the One True Religion. I'm too busy banging up the atheist's fort to worry about Christianity at the moment.
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 20:37:18.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:51:13 PM · #95 |
In all fairness, I wasn't going to mention the fish part, either, but since it tied directly to his no meaning vs. meaning bit (mentioned last), I thought it better to remain cohesive.
That the world is too broken to be attributed to God IS a fallacy. But it's more because there isn't a basis for determining broken, operating properly, or simply user error. We haven't got any other inhabited worlds (assuming uninhabited worlds don't have the proper attributes for comparison) to compare to in order to determine whether or not ours is broken. The idea of the world being too broken to have come from God seems to come more from the idea that God is a just and kind being and able to interfere and control things to keep them operating the way it pleases Him, which we assume the current state doesn't. We can have an idea of broken simply by having an ideal without having a God because we have other things we can compare to (like tools).
Once again, this is an excellent discussion, and thanks for letting me participate here.
-- C, ES |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 08:59:32 PM · #96 |
I think you are actually agreeing with Lewis more than you are disagreeing. He would also agree that the argument that the world is too broken (and thus God must not exist) is fallacious. (I think you were saying that.) Your reasoning is the same, although you use different words. I believe you are both saying that because there is no standard of measure, the idea of "broken" makes no sense. I totally agree with this, yet nearly every atheist I come across brings this argument up. (it certainly came up here.) I'm just pointing out the argument doesn't really work as well as one thinks it does.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 09:03:15 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Hindu accepts that his precepts are taken in on faith. The Buddist accepts this. So does the Jew. |
Do they have a choice? When a concept can't be supported by physical evidence, faith is all that remains.
Regarding your question on the meaning of the universe, why must there be one? Ask yourself this: what is the meaning of life for a gorilla? It would be the pinnacle of arrogance to think that all animals were merely put here to serve humans, particularly when we can drive them to extinction while being "good" Christians (or Muslims or whatever). If they're not here for us, do they have a purpose or their own responsibility for proper moral behavior? After all, it has been shown that social chimpanzees have a sense of "self" and understand the concept of fairness, yet they can also exhibit "evil" behavior, including cannibalism. If their purpose is simply to exist and propogate their species, perhaps evolving to future lifeforms or serving as food for others, would it not also be arrogant to assume that humans are any better? |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 09:27:21 PM · #98 |
So Shannon, give me the old 100 word, "I, Shannon Calvert, am an atheist because..." I'd be interested.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2007 09:33:53 PM · #99 |
| Who needs 100 words? "...because the alternatives defy both common sense and proven fact." ;-) |
|
|
|
01/02/2007 09:39:32 PM · #100 |
Which is what I thought. I'm afraid I view this as the "couch potato" of philosophy. It isn't that you "believe in nothing" but rather you refuse to "believe in anything". To start, your position, like most other atheists is Weak Atheism. Nothing really wrong with that, but it's already a few steps down the mountain of philosophical rigor. At least the Strong Atheist accepts their precept by faith and sticks to it.
To turn a famous quote in it's head..."Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God."
EDIT: Actually that last quote was sorta in a mean spirit. I'll leave you with another that may one day be your creedo...
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." -Isaac Asimov
Message edited by author 2007-01-02 21:42:49.
|
|
