Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Most religions have a version of this idea...
#76

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 05:00 PM)Inkubus Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 04:46 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Very seldom do topics stay completely 'on topic' around these parts.   I've seen threads that started out discussing BBQ sauce and ended up with memes of dinosaurs doing very weird things and then they devolve into cheese sandwiches.     Chuckle

The sandwich is named after John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, an eighteenth-century English aristocrat. It is said that he ordered his valet to bring him meat tucked between two pieces of bread.



 
(08-20-2021, 05:00 PM)Inkubus Wrote: is said that he ordered his valet to bring him meat tucked between two pieces of bread.

Meat tucked between two buns, eh?    My mind, my brain.   I just.......well.......   Modest
                                                         T4618
The following 5 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Minimalist, brunumb, SYZ, Kim, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#77

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 03:26 PM)Critic Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 03:10 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 02:45 PM)Critic Wrote: Loving your neighbor, is a concept before Pitticus Mytilene.  It's first writteninthe bible in Leviticus 19:18.  The book of Leviticus was written around 1400BC.  So it's at least that old.  Just for your information.

Most Old Testament scholars date Leviticus to around 540 to 340 BC during the exile and post exilic period.

That sounds off.  Leviticus was one of the main books in the old testament times.  Later on when Israel started to have a king as a ruler, Genesis through Deuteronomy were recommended to he read, ad well as have it read during at least one of the celebration festivals that were passed on within the bible.  To say that Leviticus was written only during or after the evil period sounds like a a huge miscalculation.

Wikipedia says that it developed over a long period, but the final form we have today was finalized during the exilic or post-exilic period. Dating it as early as you have is a minority opinion.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#78

Most religions have a version of this idea...
What is missing in that evaluation is that we have nothing remotely similar to that kind of literature in Judah in the late 7th-6th century BCE.  What evidence of literacy we have is restricted to, for want of a better word, accounting records about who owned what amphorae full of olive oil.  The closest we get is a tiny amulet called the Silver Scrolls which contain two variations of a rather generic prayer which later turns up in full glory in the so-called Book of Numbers.  The fact that there are multiple versions which pre-date any written "bible"suggest that the process of editing was ongoing.

We cannot even be sure that "Hebrew" existed as a written language at that time period.  Most likely there were oral tales which would have been circulated among the priests and the commons would have done what they were told.  What we do have evidence for is that the earliest version of the Torah being written in Greek in Alexandria in the 3d century BCE.  

William Dever's "Did God Have A Wife" details the archaeological evidence for a prolonged struggle between the far more conservative countryside which clung to the ancient Canaanite religion and the central government which was trying to use this YHWH clown as a unifying force.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • SYZ, Kim, vulcanlogician
Reply
#79

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-18-2021, 05:17 PM)Critic Wrote: In general what are your thoughts on the concept of "treat others the way you want to be treated?"

I much prefer to treat other as they wish to be treated. How I wish to be treated is often irrelevant to them.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 5 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Alan V, Kim, julep, skyking, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#80

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 04:20 PM)Critic Wrote: outside sources often misrepresent any other philosophy,  is this something I'm the only one to have seen?  I can't be the only one here who's observed this phenomon.  When it comes to criticising a religion or any philosophy, an outside view can be very useful and cause both those in that philosophy and those outside of that philosophy to re examine it.  Yet I stand on the observation that I've never seen someone outside of a religion, and outside of a philosophical outlook, to accurately present the religion or philosophy they are describing.  

On another note.  You guys know how to have a conversation right?  It's not all about arguing.  If this is news to you, then I should leave.
(my bold)

You came here with the sole intent of criticizing atheism for perceived shortcomings and now you want to hide behind this shit?!? Do you even recognize the hypocrisy there?
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 7 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Szuchow, Alan V, Teddy, Dānu, Kim, Thumpalumpacus, skyking
Reply
#81

Most religions have a version of this idea...
I'm guessing he does not.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#82

Most religions have a version of this idea...
I find it difficult to think that no one conceived of the idea of holding food between slices of bread before The Earl of Sandwich (who was only named such after the "Sandwich Islands. On the other hand. I'm not sure when pre-sliced bread was first done. It would have been the greatest idea since, Um, unsliced bread .

Roujiamo is considered the Chinese equivalent to the Western hamburger and meat sandwiches. Roujiamo is considered to be one the world’s oldest types of hamburgers, since the bread or the “mo” dates back to the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) and the meat to the Zhou dynasty (1045–256 BC) and were logically combined. And not that independent discovery is invalid. Just mentioning...
I never had monsters under the bed, in the closet, or an imaginary friend.  Where did I go wrong?
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#83

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 04:20 PM)Critic Wrote: Yet I stand on the observation that I've never seen someone outside of a religion, and outside of a philosophical outlook, to accurately present the religion or philosophy they are describing.  
You are wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
Are only Kantians accurately presenting Kant?
Are only Aristotelians accurately presenting Aristotle?
Your claim is absurd on its face if you would continue this list.

This is you trying to shield your religion from criticism. The only open question to me is: Do you recognize this, aka. is it willful?

(08-20-2021, 03:40 PM)Critic Wrote: Sorry, I'll pass on atheist debunking religions as contradicting itself when seen from an atheist mindset, just as much as I would pass on any other religion debunking another philosophy or religion as being contradicting.
Please define "atheist mindset"

Also: If a religion is contradictory, then it's contradictory, regardless of who informs you of this fact, correct? Why then would you pass on anyone outside of religion A debunking religion A? It's you trying to shield your belief again from criticism.

(08-20-2021, 04:13 PM)Critic Wrote: I wasn't indoctrinated.  
How did you become a christian, if i may ask? What convinced you of the truthfulness of the claims and propositions of Christianity (god, Jesus, resurrection, flood, etc.), and what denomination/version of Christianity is it?

Last but not least:
How do you reconcile the bible mentioning the golden rule with the bible being full of stories that contradict the golden rule (repeated and countless instances of genocide, slavery, misogyny and brutality in general)?
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 7 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • Szuchow, Alan V, Kim, skyking, Thumpalumpacus, TheGentlemanBastard, brunumb
Reply
#84

Most religions have a version of this idea...
*double post*
R.I.P. Hannes
Reply
#85

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 03:40 PM)Critic Wrote: The best source to both understand and defend any religion, comes from those in that religion.

Not true.  Practising religionists—of any/all creeds—have been indoctrinated by the powers that
be within the religion's archaic, dogmatic principles.  And of course, nobody outside of a religion
is going to "defend" it.  But understanding a religion certainly is the purview of an atheist.  The
religionist has a major, innate bias, whereas an unbiassed, independent critic has none.  The whole
point of being a Christian for example is accepting in totality its dogma, without which their world
beliefs fall apart—ethics, morality, even the notion of self.

Quote:Looking at it from outside of the religion often fails to see the bigger picture with the right framework and so they weaken any of the perspectives of that religion that work with each other and give a philosophical structure to it. 

Again, not so.  Atheists or the non-religious are far better equipped to see the "bigger picture" that
defines a religion—any/all religions.  We simply don't play favourites like you do as a Christian.  You
choose to blindly have faith in one single so-called god, when billions of other people have that same
degree of faith in thousands of other gods. It's nearly impossible to determine the exact number of
religions worldwide; however, estimates say there are over 4,000.

Quote:Though looking at a religion as an outsider is a great tool to help question a religion and make sure the people or the religion is actually doing right, in order to defend a religion, any religion.

Agreed.  The "outsider" is far better equipped than the faithful to critique a religion.  Zero conflict of interest.

Quote:Sorry I'll pass on atheist debunking religions as contradicting itself when seen from an atheist mindset, just as much as I would pass on any other religion debunking another philosophy or religion as being contradicting.

So as a Christian, you'd never discredit/confute/invalidate the alternate tenets of Islam, Sikhism, or Buddhism?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • brunumb
Reply
#86

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-21-2021, 10:46 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 03:40 PM)Critic Wrote: Sorry I'll pass on atheist debunking religions as contradicting itself when seen from an atheist mindset, just as much as I would pass on any other religion debunking another philosophy or religion as being contradicting.

So as a Christian, you'd never discredit/confute/invalidate the alternate tenets of Islam, Sikhism, or Buddhism?

Critics like "Critic" have to make themselves open to criticisms as well.  Discussions can't be all one way.

He should also understand confirmation bias: "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." In other words, he's dismissing what atheists tell him as mere evidence of the biases he assumes of us.
The following 4 users Like Alan V's post:
  • SYZ, Deesse23, Thumpalumpacus, brunumb
Reply
#87

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-21-2021, 09:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 04:20 PM)Critic Wrote: Sorry, I'll pass on atheist debunking religions as contradicting itself when seen from an atheist mindset, just as much as I would pass on any other religion debunking another philosophy or religion as being contradicting.
Also: If a religion is contradictory, then it's contradictory, regardless of who informs you of this fact, correct? Why then would you pass on anyone outside of religion A debunking religion A? It's you trying to shield your belief again from criticism.

Critic may like to check out the multiple contradictions in his own holy book?

101 Contradictions in the Bible.

Critic Wrote:I wasn't indoctrinated.

You obviously cannot comprehend that you were, which is proven by your unquestioning
belief in the real-world existence of supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena.
A large part of the tasks of priests, Imams, rabbis etc is to inculcate the tenets of their
religion in the young or the gullible, or the fearful or the superstitious.  And look at the
commitment ceremonies for children 13 years or younger, such as the Bar Mitzvah,
Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San.  If that's not indoctrination—implanting religious tenets
in young naive, unworldly minds—than I dunno what is.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Szuchow, brunumb
Reply
#88

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 04:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 04:26 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The Jews sure loved the Amalekites.
<Ahem> And in Star Trek the Klingons and Romulans were invented to be the "bad guys."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amalekite

Quote:The Amalekites are unknown historically and archaeologically outside of the Bible except for traditions which themselves apparently rely on biblical accounts. In the Bible, the Amalekites are said to have descended from a common ancestor named Amalek, a grandson of Esau. In this sense they may be considered as one of the Edomite tribes. Jewish tradition sees the Amalekites as an implacable enemy of both God and Israel.

Oh yea, Esau. Shy
Regular guy. Liked nature & being physically present - in touch with his bod & emotionally human but, fairly secure. Got a lot of stick for it from his weasely manipulative, brother Jacob. Jacob cheated his own bro Esau out of some property & then, ridiculed him for being such a gullible, irresponsible dupe.

Jacob: a total asshole, favored by god over the all too human, Esau. God likes humans to be more like himself, as Jacob was - a jealous, sniveling, conniving little bastard. It's that whole "created in his image" thing.

That's why in the sequal, the Jesus character was made to be human. Jews were tired of such an asshole god. Groovy human, Jesus god appealed to the kids and a more modern & expanding world.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
________________________________________________
A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
The following 3 users Like Kim's post:
  • julep, TheGentlemanBastard, brunumb
Reply
#89

Most religions have a version of this idea...
Duplicate - for some reason.
________________________________________________
A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Reply
#90

Most religions have a version of this idea...
Um... the jews thought jesus was a schmuck.

Still do.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#91

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-21-2021, 06:14 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Um... the jews thought jesus was a schmuck.

Still do.

Yabut, that has nothing to do with the character of Jesus being a Jew who never renounced his jewishness.

I don't look at those books & stories as anything but books & stories. If I did, I might see them differently. Wink

I view them as I might view Star Wars or The Wizard of Oz.
A few interesting allegorical tales peppered with sex, violence, magic, & stupid human tricks. Shy
________________________________________________
A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
The following 1 user Likes Kim's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#92

Most religions have a version of this idea...
You might be too young to remember "All in the Family" but there was a bit where Mike said:

"Jesus was a jew."

And Archie answered.

"Only on his mother's side."
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 6 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Kim, Alan V, skyking, vulcanlogician, Thumpalumpacus, brunumb
Reply
#93

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-21-2021, 06:29 PM)Minimalist Wrote: You might be too young to remember "All in the Family" but there was a bit where Mike said:

"Jesus was a jew."

And Archie answered.

"Only on his mother's side."

Young? I'll take it. Whistling
________________________________________________
A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Reply
#94

Most religions have a version of this idea...
@Kim
Big Grin

Oh that meathead!
test signature
The following 1 user Likes skyking's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#95

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-21-2021, 06:11 PM)Kim Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 04:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
(08-20-2021, 04:26 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The Jews sure loved the Amalekites.
<Ahem> And in Star Trek the Klingons and Romulans were invented to be the "bad guys."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amalekite

Quote:The Amalekites are unknown historically and archaeologically outside of the Bible except for traditions which themselves apparently rely on biblical accounts. In the Bible, the Amalekites are said to have descended from a common ancestor named Amalek, a grandson of Esau. In this sense they may be considered as one of the Edomite tribes. Jewish tradition sees the Amalekites as an implacable enemy of both God and Israel.

Oh yea, Esau.   Shy
Regular guy.  Liked nature & being physically present - in touch with his bod & emotionally human but, fairly secure.  Got a lot of stick for it from his weasely manipulative, brother Jacob.  Jacob cheated his own bro Esau out of some property & then, ridiculed him for being such a gullible, irresponsible dupe.  

Jacob:  a total asshole, favored by god over the all too human, Esau.  God likes humans to be more like himself, as Jacob was - a jealous, sniveling, conniving little bastard.  It's that whole "created in his image" thing.  

That's why in the sequal, the Jesus character was made to be human.  Jews were tired of such an asshole god.  Groovy human, Jesus god appealed to the kids and a more modern & expanding world.  

  Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Saul and David: same. God likes scheming suck ups.
god, ugh
The following 1 user Likes julep's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#96

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-20-2021, 02:45 PM)Critic Wrote:
(08-19-2021, 05:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Islam has it's own version as well.  "Not one of you truly believe until you wish for others what you wish for yourself." 



Pitticus of Mytilene had the same idea....

[Image: quote-do-not-to-your-neighbor-what-you-w...259498.jpg]


six centuries or so before this jesus-guy was invented.

Loving your neighbor, is a concept before Pitticus Mytilene.  It's first writteninthe bible in Leviticus 19:18.  The book of Leviticus was written around 1400BC.  So it's at least that old.  Just for your information.

We do realize you are a total amateur here, but Leviticus, (even according to the Bible) was not written before the Exile.
NOT ONE reputable Biblical Scholar (which you obviously are not) dates it before the return from the Exile.
Your fundamental error is to assume that the ancient Hebrews were any different at all from those that lived in ancient Canaan. They were not.
The Ten Commandments were far predated by the Egyptian Book of the dead :

"I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone’s suffering . . . I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child’s mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage . . .
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God’s property. I have not blocked the God at his processions."

Obviously you never read the Bible. When the prophet Ezra returned from Babylon along with the king which Artaxerxes had appointed, and being allowed by the Persian Emperor to return, (not by any god, thus making the Persian Emperor responsible for the return, and the re-establishment of Israel), he and and King Nehemiah arranged a Fall Festival, as recounted in the Book of Nehemiah, (you should read the Bible some time), in the Bible, to INTRODUCE the Torah of Moses, (the first 4 books in the Bible) to the people. Leviticus had never ONCE been mentioned in human history, ANYWHERE, before that. The reason the Bible was started, was because the Persian emperor needed a law code and national story (myth) to serve as the foundation, culturally and legally for the re-establishment of the kingdom, ... the foundation which HAD BEEN the Hebrew family customs, which were disrupted by some of the elite who went to Babylon. Leviticus was redacted, edited and written in Babylon.

NOT ONE OT scholar dates Leviticus as you have it. Not only that, but in Egypt and Babylon, there were equivalent phrases/ideas which FAR predate even 1400. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Babylon) is better than "kill or be killed", and is a sort of equivalence. In Egypt the cosmic order was known as “Maat.” In Egyptian lore, this system was handed down from the gods to man and the pharaoh was the personification of Maat. The chief purpose of this system was to instill order against the chaos that otherwise permeated the universe. Rather than a code of justice, Maat was seen as a balance to be applied in order to restore harmony to society and thus to the universe. It was a combination of the sacred and the legal. The basis of the Golden Rule’s equality is summed up by a simple explanation of Maat that the Egyptians attributed to their creator: “I made every man like his fellow.”
"The earliest surviving records indicating that Maat is the norm for nature and society, in this world and the next, were recorded during the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the earliest substantial surviving examples being found in the Pyramid Texts of Unas (ca. 2375 BCE and 2345 BCE)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat

Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5, 1517 – 15th century BC).
Buddhism: “Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

Too bad, your advertising is false. Why is it religionists have to lie about history ?
You should actually study world religions. You know next to nothing about yours.
Obviously the WORST source to study your religion is you ... who knows nothing about your own history, and makes up shit as you go along.

When you want to start learning about the Bible, you should read :
"Who Wrote the Bible", Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman, and "How the Bible Became a Book, the Textualization of Ancient Israel", Dr. William M Schneidewind.
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • SYZ, brunumb
Reply
#97

Most religions have a version of this idea...
Don't forget "The Bible Unearthed," by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silbermann.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Bucky Ball, Deesse23
Reply
#98

Most religions have a version of this idea...
(08-21-2021, 11:00 AM)Alan V Wrote: Critics like "Critic" have to make themselves open to criticisms as well.  Discussions can't be all one way.

He should also understand confirmation bias: "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories."  In other words, he's dismissing what atheists tell him as mere evidence of the biases he assumes of us.

There is a new book that goes to the heart of this issue.

Julia Galef — The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t

Quote:"When it comes to what we believe, humans see what they want to see. We have what Julia Galef calls a “soldier” mindset: a drive to defend the ideas we most want to believe — and shoot down those we don’t. But if we want to get things right more often, argues Galef, we should train ourselves to have a “scout” mindset. Unlike the soldier, a scout’s goal isn’t to defend one side over the other. It’s to go out, survey the territory, and come back with as accurate a map as possible. Regardless of what they hope to be the case, above all, the scout wants to know what’s actually true. In The Scout Mindset, Galef explores why our brains deceive us and what we can do to change the way we think."


You can listen to a podcast discussion between the author and Michael Shermer here:
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-...1ba6e4a581
No gods necessary
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)