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

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
#1

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
Bart Ehrman is a famous "agnostic atheist," who is an academic in the Dept. of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was asked a question about what he thought about Moses’ literacy?”  Ehrman responded:

Quote:Let’s find out a bit more about Moses. As you may have noticed, on a number of occasions I get asked questions that I simply can’t answer.  I received one such question this week, about the history of the Hebrew language.  Here is how the questioner phrased it:

"What is our earliest evidence for Hebrew as a written language? I’ve been to apologetic seminars where they say it’s long been said by atheists that the Hebrew Bible can’t be trusted because the Hebrews didn’t have a written language until well after the stories in the OT would’ve taken place. . . ."

It’s actually amazing how many topics I’m not familiar with at all!  So, not knowing the answer, I asked a colleague of mine who is an expert in Hebrew philology, [who provided Ehrman with a nuanced explanation of evolving language, similar to my own beliefs: “It depends on what you define as Hebrew,” etc.] . . .


Ehrman then asked his friend a “follow-up” question:

Quote:The questioner was not a scholar, but an interested lay person, who was especially interested in the question of whether, if there was a Moses living in say the 13th c BCE, he would have been able to write.  Do you have an opinion?  (I myself  don’t think there *was* a Moses, but still,  assuming there was…) (“Could Moses Write Hebrew & What Language Could Moses Speak?,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, 8-25-17)


So there you have it: a present-day, widely-known atheist NT scholar, who denies that Moses existed, but thinks that if he did, he himself — remember, a widely published religious studies professor — can’t figure out whether he would have been able to read or write, or whether any form of “Hebrew” existed in his time.


Then Ehrman cited his friend across the hall: Joseph Lam, who is Associate Professor in the Dept. of Religious Studies at the same college (see his curriculum vitae):

Quote:The texts of the Pentateuch, whoever wrote them, are NOT in the 13th-century language; they are in classical 1st millennium Hebrew. Whatever a hypothetical 13th century Moses wrote, whether, in Egyptian or Canaanite or something else, that’s NOT what we have preserved in the Pentateuch.


This
 gets to the crux of the issue! We can sensibly, constructively discuss this serious issue, whatever our own beliefs are: how do we get to the classic Hebrew text of the Torah that we have, and explain the process by which Moses supposedly wrote the initial text, which was revised over time to a type of Hebrew that developed long after his death?” There is a way to preserve Mosaic authorship, while acknowledging an editorial and linguistic development. Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen sums up this position:

Quote:The recently invented West Semitic alphabet [was] a vehicle deigned by and for Semitic speakers (and writers). The oldest known examples have been the Lachish dagger epigraph from a seventeenth-century tomb and the Tell Nagila sherd (Middle/Late Bronze, ca. 1600); we now have also the Wadi Hol graffiti in Egypt from northwest of Thebes, about the seventeenth century. . . . To these must be added the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions of disputed date—circa 1800 or circa 1500. This system of not more than thirty simple, semipictographic letters would have been very easy to use in writing up (on papyrus) a “first written edition” of the patriarchal traditions from Abraham to Jacob, to which a Joseph account could be added. This set of basic narratives could then be recopied from circa 1600 to the thirteenth century, then given a “late Canaanite” editing in that phase of the script, eventuating into early standard Hebrew language and script from the united monarchy [c. 1000 B.C.] onward. . . . This straightforward view is at least consistent with all the factual data that we currently possess, and keeps theorizing to a minimum. (On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003], 370-371)

From the fourteenth/thirteenth century onward, the [Canaanite] alphabet could be freely used for any form of communication. The contemporary north Semitic texts found at Ugarit in north Phoenicia illustrate this to perfection. . . . The Amarna evidence [c. 1360-1332 B.C.] and handful of pottery finds prove clearly that Canaanite was the dominant local tongue and could be readily expressed in alphabetic writing. . . . During the two centuries that followed, circa 1200-1000, standard Hebrew evolved out of this form of Canaanite, probably being fully formed by David’s time. Copies of older works such as Deuteronomy or Joshua would be recopied, modernizing outdated grammatical forms and spellings, . . . (Ibid., 304-305)
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#2

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
Correction on Bart Ehrman.

He claims to be agnostic, not an atheist.
He is also not anti theist. He was previously an evangelical Christian and his wife still is one. He just thinks they’re wrong but does not have a problem with believers. He just tends to write stuff they don’t like.
The following 2 users Like pattylt's post:
  • rocinantexyz, Aliza
Reply
#3

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
I don't care at all if Moses really existed, I'm certain for all intents and purposes he didn't perform any miracles though. Got credible evidence he did perform miracles? If not, then the biblical Moses is at least largely fictional.
Reply
#4

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 04:14 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: Bart Ehrman

Thoughts and prayers to you for when Minimalist finds this thread.
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]

The following 5 users Like Aegon's post:
  • pattylt, brewerb, Aliza, Deesse23, adey67
Reply
#5

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
I don't consider this a 'serious' issue but enjoy the discussion.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#6

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 06:37 PM)Aegon Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 04:14 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: Bart Ehrman

Thoughts and prayers to you for when Minimalist finds this thread.

Nothing of substance there. He's long since become mere comic relief and good for a belly laugh.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#7

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 06:24 PM)pattylt Wrote: Correction on Bart Ehrman.

He claims to be agnostic, not an atheist.
He is also not anti theist.  He was previously an evangelical Christian and his wife still is one.  He just thinks they’re wrong but does not have a problem with believers.  He just tends to write stuff they don’t like.

I looked it up and he says he is both simultaneously:


Quote:Being an Agnostic – Bart Ehrman’s Take

My view on all this changed radically, not too long after I had started calling myself agnostic. I now think that in fact agnosticism and atheism are not two degrees of the same thing, but two different kinds of things.  And because of this new view, I think it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. And that’s how I understand myself.

So, in this newer view of mine, agnosticism is a statement about epistemology – that is, about what a person knows.   Do I know whether there is a God in the multiverse?  Nope.  I really don’t.  How could I know?  I’m just a peon on a very big planet, circling around a very big star, which is one of some 100 billion stars in this galaxy, which is only one of anywhere from 100 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in this universe, which may be only one of trillions (infinite number?) of universes.  So, well, I don’t have a broad perspective on the question.  So I don’t know.  I’m agnostic.

Atheism, Bart Ehrman

Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief.  Do I *believe* that there is a God?  No, I don’t.  I especially do not believe in the biblical God, or in the traditional God of Jews and Christians (and Muslims and so on).  I simply do not believe that there is a God who created this world (it is the result of forces beyond my comprehension, but it goes back to the Big Bang, and we are here because of evolution, and I exist only because of some pretty amazingly remote chances/circumstances…); I don’t think there is a divine being who is sovereign over this world who interacts with it and the people in it, who answers prayer, who brings good out of evil.  I don’t believe it.  So I’m an atheist.

Bart D Ehrman Agnostic Atheist

So I’m an agnostic atheist.  Or an atheistic agnostic.  Take your pick!  I don’t know if there’s one (or very, very many) greater, superhuman intelligence in the multiverse; but I really, really doubt it and simply don’t believe it.

https://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist/ 

So I'll go call him that in my post and link to this article so folks will know what the hell he is talking about.  Sadcryface 

"Anti-theist" in my usage has nothing to do with feelings or what he thinks personally of theists or Christian morals, etc. It means one who spends a great deal of time critiquing a theism and/or Christianity that he or she doesn't believe in (often, they used to). Other atheists have no interest in that, so I would never use this title for them.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
The following 1 user Likes Dave Armstrong's post:
  • isbelldl
Reply
#8

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 06:36 PM)Dexta Wrote: I don't care at all if Moses really existed, I'm certain for all intents and purposes he didn't perform any miracles though. Got credible evidence he did perform miracles? If not, then the biblical Moses is at least largely fictional.

I have evidence that several things he reportedly did may have a plausible natural explanation. I believe as a Christian that he could have performed miracles (if God wanted him to), but that not all the events that are usually taken to be miracles were necessarily miracles.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#9

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 07:10 PM)brewerb Wrote: I don't consider this a 'serious' issue but enjoy the discussion.

Maybe you will by the time I'm done presenting multitudinous non-biblical scientific and historiographical and anthropological evidences.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#10

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
Quote:He just thinks they’re wrong but does not have a problem with believers.

Whereas I have a big problem with "believers."  Especially ones who insist on shoving their bullshit up every the asshole of everyone they see.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#11

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
This crowd is not going to accept any evidence other than the invention of a time machine so they can witness the parting of the reed sea for themselves. 

And if you're inventing a time machine, may I suggest a Delorian, circa 1985. Be sure to pack enough plutonium.
Reply
#12

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 07:49 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 06:36 PM)Dexta Wrote: I don't care at all if Moses really existed, I'm certain for all intents and purposes he didn't perform any miracles though. Got credible evidence he did perform miracles? If not, then the biblical Moses is at least largely fictional.

I have evidence that several things he reportedly did may have a plausible natural explanation. I believe as a Christian that he could have performed miracles (if God wanted him to), but that not all the events that are usually taken to be miracles were necessarily miracles.

They know all of your explanations. Trust me. They know your moves before YOU know your moves.
The following 2 users Like Aliza's post:
  • Minimalist, adey67
Reply
#13

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 07:51 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 07:10 PM)brewerb Wrote: I don't consider this a 'serious' issue but enjoy the discussion.

Maybe you will by the time I'm done presenting multitudinous non-biblical scientific and historiographical and anthropological evidences.

Maybe................ but doubtful, we'll see.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#14

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 07:40 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 06:24 PM)pattylt Wrote: Correction on Bart Ehrman.

He claims to be agnostic, not an atheist.
He is also not anti theist.  He was previously an evangelical Christian and his wife still is one.  He just thinks they’re wrong but does not have a problem with believers.  He just tends to write stuff they don’t like.

I looked it up and he says he is both simultaneously:


Quote:Being an Agnostic – Bart Ehrman’s Take

My view on all this changed radically, not too long after I had started calling myself agnostic. I now think that in fact agnosticism and atheism are not two degrees of the same thing, but two different kinds of things.  And because of this new view, I think it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. And that’s how I understand myself.

So, in this newer view of mine, agnosticism is a statement about epistemology – that is, about what a person knows.   Do I know whether there is a God in the multiverse?  Nope.  I really don’t.  How could I know?  I’m just a peon on a very big planet, circling around a very big star, which is one of some 100 billion stars in this galaxy, which is only one of anywhere from 100 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in this universe, which may be only one of trillions (infinite number?) of universes.  So, well, I don’t have a broad perspective on the question.  So I don’t know.  I’m agnostic.

Atheism, Bart Ehrman

Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief.  Do I *believe* that there is a God?  No, I don’t.  I especially do not believe in the biblical God, or in the traditional God of Jews and Christians (and Muslims and so on).  I simply do not believe that there is a God who created this world (it is the result of forces beyond my comprehension, but it goes back to the Big Bang, and we are here because of evolution, and I exist only because of some pretty amazingly remote chances/circumstances…); I don’t think there is a divine being who is sovereign over this world who interacts with it and the people in it, who answers prayer, who brings good out of evil.  I don’t believe it.  So I’m an atheist.

Bart D Ehrman Agnostic Atheist

So I’m an agnostic atheist.  Or an atheistic agnostic.  Take your pick!  I don’t know if there’s one (or very, very many) greater, superhuman intelligence in the multiverse; but I really, really doubt it and simply don’t believe it.

https://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist/ 

So I'll go call him that in my post and link to this article so folks will know what the hell he is talking about.  Sadcryface 

"Anti-theist" in my usage has nothing to do with feelings or what he thinks personally of theists or Christian morals, etc. It means one who spends a great deal of time critiquing a theism and/or Christianity that he or she doesn't believe in (often, they used to). Other atheists have no interest in that, so I would never use this title for them.
I agree with Ehrman's thoughts on agnosticism and atheism and also consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I think properly speaking it's wrong to term a person anti-anything if they simply critique it. In common usage it implies that one wishes for the negation and end of the thing. An anti-theist believes theism to be inherently harmful (usually with some nuance, since particular individual theists can be quite harmless). Simply saying for instance things like, "believers should not jump to this conclusion" or "believers should not be so controlling, in or out of their in-group", or "believers should live up to their own moral standards better than they do" is not in my view anti-theism. These are things that a theist might well say about his own in-group. Heck, I have heard those sorts of things preached to congregations at times.

My own position is that I do not think society is ready for an end to religion, so while I think ultimately a gradual end of same (taking a very long view here, on the order of a millennium) would be best, I think if I had a magic button I could press to make religion and all memory of it vanish instantly, I would be very hesitant to push it; it would be rather like expecting someone still recovering from surgery to run a marathon.

Also, I am not really certain that humanity as a species is even capable of irreligion as some sort of default. We unbelievers may delude ourselves to think it's even possible. Religion exists and succeeds because of powerful tendencies like agency inference, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. I have come to the belief that humans are so given over to these things that it's difficult if not impossible to transmit understanding of rational thought and logical fallacies from generation to generation (only a tiny minority of people in my experience are born with excellent bullshit filters, it has to be developed usually by an expensive and time consuming process of making and learning from mistakes that doesn't always or even often take place), therefore, it may be impossible for the species as a whole to raise itself out of the easy defaults that keep it metaphorically returning to its own vomit.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • pattylt, isbelldl
Reply
#15

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
One of the problems with Ehrman is that he has been writing for a very long time.  Unlike religitards who can't let go of anything he freely admits that his thinking has changed as he learned more and more.

So here is an excerpt from one of his blog posts on 12/4/2022.

https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-exodus-a-myth/

Quote:I might add that there is no archaeological evidence for anything like the exodus having occurred.  Hundreds of chariots cannot be found at the bottom of any of the bodies of water that would be candidates for the Sea of Reeds; there are no Egyptian remains to indicate a massive exodus of two million or more people; and there are no archaeological traces in the wilderness area in any of the possible routes into and out of the Sinai.

As was the case with the stories of Genesis, then, here too we appear to be dealing with legend.  The exodus tradition was hugely important, as it became a kind of “founding legend” for the nation of Israel.  It does not appear to be actual history.


BTW, if this jewish horseshit goes out the window so does all your jesus freak horseshit which was tacked on to it!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Szuchow, isbelldl
Reply
#16

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 08:59 PM)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, if this jewish horseshit goes out the window so does all your jesus freak horseshit which was tacked on to it!
Yeah and it's Ehrman himself who documented how important it was to found Christianity as an evolution of Judaism rather than as a totally new thing under the sun. The ancients tended to discard new religions out of hand on the basis that if it were true we would already know about it. Claiming to be the fulfillment and fleshing out of a much older ideology made more sense and got more traction, as, e.g., Marcion found out to his chagrin. Marcion went pretty much in the opposite direction, rejecting Jehovah as an inferior deity, and Judaism along with it. It gave his followers something to push against I guess, but in the end it all fizzled out because an identity based on being loud and proud about being novel just did not fly in that environment. To some extent the same problem would exist today; ancientness and vastness seem more "truthy" and "godly", plus you can have all the campfire stories about miracles safely in the distant / ancient past where they don't bump into the pesky reality that miracles simply do not happen anywhere that people could actually observe them.

In my fundamentalist daze, I just had the idea that the ancient world was fundamentally different and played by different rules because we taught that "miracles are not for today".

Anyway, all this is ironic to me because Christianity pretty quickly outgrew any dependence on Judaism or some notion that it would remain a sect within Judaism. But they needed something from which to bootstrap.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • Minimalist, pattylt
Reply
#17

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
Hey look guys, one time, there was this one guy, who said some stuff, and so, god exists.
The following 1 user Likes no one's post:
  • Aliza
Reply
#18

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 09:07 PM)mordant Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 08:59 PM)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, if this jewish horseshit goes out the window so does all your jesus freak horseshit which was tacked on to it!
Yeah and it's Ehrman himself who documented how important it was to found Christianity as an evolution of Judaism rather than as a totally new thing under the sun. The ancients tended to discard new religions out of hand on the basis that if it were true we would already know about it. Claiming to be the fulfillment and fleshing out of a much older ideology made more sense and got more traction, as, e.g., Marcion found out to his chagrin. Marcion went pretty much in the opposite direction, rejecting Jehovah as an inferior deity, and Judaism along with it. It gave his followers something to push against I guess, but in the end it all fizzled out because an identity based on being loud and proud about being novel just did not fly in that environment. To some extent the same problem would exist today; ancientness and vastness seem more "truthy" and "godly", plus you can have all the campfire stories about miracles safely in the distant / ancient past where they don't bump into the pesky reality that miracles simply do not happen anywhere that people could actually observe them.

In my fundamentalist daze, I just had the idea that the ancient world was fundamentally different and played by different rules because we taught that "miracles are not for today".

Anyway, all this is ironic to me because Christianity pretty quickly outgrew any dependence on Judaism or some notion that it would remain a sect within Judaism. But they needed something from which to bootstrap.

Interesting observation, Mord.  I have to think about that one.  The timing of the xtian tale of Marcion - which is all we have - always bothered me a lot.  They place it around 144 in Rome but we have no indication that xtianity was any big deal in Rome in the mid second century.  If Marcion had wanted to find xtians he was already in Asia Minor and it was the East where that particular branch of religious silliness began.  

Also, one part of the story is that Marcion supposedly made a large donation to the "church" in Rome but we have no evidence of a church in Rome and that they "returned the donation" when they declared him a heretic.  Now, honestly, when was the last time the church ever returned money?  That doesn't sound like catholicks at all!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#19

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 07:40 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 06:24 PM)pattylt Wrote: Correction on Bart Ehrman.

He claims to be agnostic, not an atheist.
He is also not anti theist.  He was previously an evangelical Christian and his wife still is one.  He just thinks they’re wrong but does not have a problem with believers.  He just tends to write stuff they don’t like.

I looked it up and he says he is both simultaneously:


Quote:Being an Agnostic – Bart Ehrman’s Take

My view on all this changed radically, not too long after I had started calling myself agnostic. I now think that in fact agnosticism and atheism are not two degrees of the same thing, but two different kinds of things.  And because of this new view, I think it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. And that’s how I understand myself.

So, in this newer view of mine, agnosticism is a statement about epistemology – that is, about what a person knows.   Do I know whether there is a God in the multiverse?  Nope.  I really don’t.  How could I know?  I’m just a peon on a very big planet, circling around a very big star, which is one of some 100 billion stars in this galaxy, which is only one of anywhere from 100 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in this universe, which may be only one of trillions (infinite number?) of universes.  So, well, I don’t have a broad perspective on the question.  So I don’t know.  I’m agnostic.

Atheism, Bart Ehrman

Atheism, on the other hand, (in my way of thinking) is not about knowledge but about belief.  Do I *believe* that there is a God?  No, I don’t.  I especially do not believe in the biblical God, or in the traditional God of Jews and Christians (and Muslims and so on).  I simply do not believe that there is a God who created this world (it is the result of forces beyond my comprehension, but it goes back to the Big Bang, and we are here because of evolution, and I exist only because of some pretty amazingly remote chances/circumstances…); I don’t think there is a divine being who is sovereign over this world who interacts with it and the people in it, who answers prayer, who brings good out of evil.  I don’t believe it.  So I’m an atheist.

Bart D Ehrman Agnostic Atheist

So I’m an agnostic atheist.  Or an atheistic agnostic.  Take your pick!  I don’t know if there’s one (or very, very many) greater, superhuman intelligence in the multiverse; but I really, really doubt it and simply don’t believe it.

https://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist/ 

So I'll go call him that in my post and link to this article so folks will know what the hell he is talking about.  Sadcryface 

"Anti-theist" in my usage has nothing to do with feelings or what he thinks personally of theists or Christian morals, etc. It means one who spends a great deal of time critiquing a theism and/or Christianity that he or she doesn't believe in (often, they used to). Other atheists have no interest in that, so I would never use this title for them.

You’re correct…I forgot that he updated his stand.  I’m not sure I agree completely with your definition of anti theist as regards to Bart.  He is mostly concerned with how anyone misreads the Bible and what it actually says compared to history…and how it’s been changed and molded by later transcriptionists.
The following 1 user Likes pattylt's post:
  • isbelldl
Reply
#20

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 11:55 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Also, one part of the story is that Marcion supposedly made a large donation to the "church" in Rome but we have no evidence of a church in Rome and that they "returned the donation" when they declared him a heretic.  Now, honestly, when was the last time the church ever returned money?  That doesn't sound like catholicks at all!
That does sound a little bit too tidy not to be a story planted to discredit Marcion. This rich guy gives a tempting gift under false pretenses, but once his teaching is revealed he is ejected ... and yeah the part where he leaves WITH his money does seem off.

AFAIK though his teachings and his subsequent but short-lived success in making converts to his alternative dogma are not in dispute.
Reply
#21

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 11:33 PM)no one Wrote: Hey look guys, one time, there was this one guy, who said some stuff, and so, god exists.

Well now ya got your work cut out for you.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#22

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 08:15 PM)Aliza Wrote: This crowd is not going to accept any evidence other than the invention of a time machine so they can witness the parting of the reed sea for themselves. 

And if you're inventing a time machine, may I suggest a Delorian, circa 1985. Be sure to pack enough plutonium.

I'd love to go in a time machine! Back to the time before Minimalist was born! A lot less hot air in the world then . . .
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#23

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 08:16 PM)Aliza Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 07:49 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: I have evidence that several things he reportedly did may have a plausible natural explanation. I believe as a Christian that he could have performed miracles (if God wanted him to), but that not all the events that are usually taken to be miracles were necessarily miracles.

They know all of your explanations. Trust me. They know your moves before YOU know your moves.

I don't think so. Some of 'em, sure, but not all.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#24

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-03-2024, 02:30 AM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 08:16 PM)Aliza Wrote: They know all of your explanations. Trust me. They know your moves before YOU know your moves.

I don't think so. Some of 'em, sure, but not all.

Popcorn
Reply
#25

"Moses Didn't Exist" File #1
(01-02-2024, 11:58 PM)pattylt Wrote: You’re correct…I forgot that he updated his stand.  I’m not sure I agree completely with your definition of anti theist as regards to Bart.  He is mostly concerned with how anyone misreads the Bible and what it actually says compared to history…and how it’s been changed and molded by later transcriptionists.

The article "Antitheism" in Wikipedia is interesting and lines up well with my definition:


Quote:Etymology[edit]

The word antitheism (or hyphenated anti-theism) has been recorded in English since 1788.[3] The etymological roots of the word are the Greek anti and theos.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god". The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833.[4][2] The term was likely coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[5]


Opposition to theism[edit]


Antitheism
 has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. Christopher Hitchens (2001)[6] wrote:


"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[6] . . . 

Other, similar terms[edit]

Opposition to the existence of a god or gods is frequently referred to as nontheism, or dystheism, or misotheism.
  • Dystheism would actually mean "belief in a deity that is not benevolent".

  • Misotheism, strictly speaking, means "hatred of God".

Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to the existence of a god or gods include some forms of Atheistic Satanism and maltheism.


Opposition to the idea of God[edit]


Other definitions of antitheism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God".
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
The following 1 user Likes Dave Armstrong's post:
  • isbelldl
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)