Won’t someone think of the insane!!!
You’d have to be crazy not to be a little insane.
The most useful function for religion in day to day life imo is the networking and social functions and sense of community. It makes perfect sense to attend church events even if you think it’s all hogwash.
I was actually writing a response to a previous post of yours last night, where I used the Book of Mormon as a further example, but about half-way through I realized that I didn’t care enough about your point to continue.
But holy crap, I would have continued if I had known you would say something like this.
Other than safety in numbers, exactly how is it different for me to say that the book of Matthew is a deliberate hoax, than for you to say that the Book of Mormon is a deliberate hoax?
Actually, I think there’s a lot more evidence for Matthew being a hoax than the BOM. It is impossible to believe that secular historians would not have recorded some of the events that only Matthew writes about, and he directly contradicts the birth narrative of Luke (which has its own problems). I don’t know much about the BOM, but I doubt that it has same the kind of glaring internal contradictions as the Gospels, and it’s no mystery why secular historians missed the events it describes as occurring in pre-Columbian America.
So why do you believe that an angel appeared to Joseph the husband of Mary, but not to Joseph Smith?
Um, correct. That’s why I switched to the Iliad.
You’d have to be crazy to believe either…
I never made that claim. What I said was that the Iliad was vindicated as historically accurate in exactly the same way that that Bible thumpers claim vindication whenever somebody digs up something that indicates that some city or king mentioned in the Bible existed.
In other words, I don’t consider either work reliable, but I do grant that they are both based on oral traditions that were not completely fabricated. In particular, I don’t consider the discovery of the site of Troy to be evidence that Ares and Athena participated in whatever battles were fought there, just as I don’t consider some inscription that mentions the House of David evidence that Yahweh took any part in the affairs of the ancient Israelites.
As long as the arguments on the atheist side take the same thing into account, if you don’t mind (i.e. that “religious” and “Abrahamic monotheism” are not synonymous, and that arguments that the events described in the scriptures of Abrahamic monotheism are not literally historical are not arguments in favour of the insanity of any religious belief).
If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I was NOT saying that historians generally accept the accounts of Exodus. Rather, I went out of my way to emphasize that Exodus only accounts for a small part of the entire Bible. Historians tend to give greater weight to certain portions of the Bible (the New Testament accounts, for example) and less to others (e.g. the more ancient accounts, such as Genesis and Exodus).
This is a perfect example of what I’ve been complaining about. You folks have such a mad on against religion that you’re not making any serious attempt to understand the things you criticize.
Obviously, there is a spectrum of religiosity. And my experience agrees with yours, i.e. I acknowledge that most people (at least in the US) who call themselves Christians know next to nothing about the Bible, or the doctrine of their denomination, and many know very little about science. So there is really no conflict to resolve in their beliefs. They are not crazy, they are just some combination of ignorant and intellectually lazy.
And on the other end of the spectrum are people who fly planes into buildings in the name of religion. I think most people would agree they are crazy.
So I guess my real question, which would not have fit into the subject line anyway, is “how far along in this spectrum of religiosity is the line between mere ignorance, and insanity?”
Your comment demonstrates that you are making NO attempt to understand the things that you criticize. As I said, you are starting from your desired conclusion and arguing backwards.
I repeatedly and explicitly emphasized that one does NOT have to accept the entirety of the Bible in order to recognize that scholars do treat it as a source of history. As I repeatedly emphasize, scholars may disagree on the extent to which it should be trusted, but they do not reject it as a work of fiction on a par with the Iliad.
Consider the historical Jesus, for example. Not all historians accept that the Bible is God’s Word, but they generally agree on certain major details – his death and crucifiixion, for example. That’s because they don’t just throw up their hands and say, “Oh, it’s a work of fiction written for insane people.” Rather, they evaluate it using the criterion of embarassment, accord with known history regarding the times and culture, degree of attestation, and so forth. (For a more detailed discussion of how secular historians evaluate history, I will once again recommend Justifying Historical Descriptions by philosopher-historian C. Behan McCullagh.)
Do you have a problem with that? Then take it up with Wikipedia. The sources for its discussion of the historical Jesus are extensively recorded.
No, they don’t. I said that historians accept certain parts of the Bible, but not necessarily all parts. This is abundantly clear, and your rebuttal is without substance.
If they’re not comparable, then your “linked proof” is worthless. In point of fact, your link merely states that the Iliad might be more than remotely based on actual historical events. A decidedly weak claim that does not support your point in any way.
Oh, please. When I said that historians do treat the Bible as an historical source to varying degrees, you responded with a quote from Cecil regarding the Book of Exodus. If this was not meant to be representative of the Bible as a whole, they your response has no merit – ESPECIALLY since I repeatedly emphasized that historians tend to accept some parts and reject others.
But religion does not answer those questions. Instead it offers empty promises and BS. Science can’t answer everything but its track record is far better. Science has made life better, religion has largely brought suffering and pain and hollow hope.
Oh, the irony here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Which secular historians are you referring to, and how do you know that it would be “impossible” for them to not have recorded some of the events that only Matthew refers to?
Generally I think they’re excellent people. They’re not so hateful that they have to spend a large portion of their life telling others how much they hate everyone else, but instead loving enough to spend their life trying to uplift other human beings. They’re not so small-minded that they have to call everyone who disagrees with them crazy, but instead open-minded enough that they can acknowledge the possibly of people disagreeing. They’re not so dishonest that they have to make false accusations against Christians or anyone else, but instead honest enough to actually have a debate where they deal with what the other side has to say. They’re not so arrogant that they claim responsibility for every good thing that’s ever happened, but humble enough to acknowledge that many people and many groups have done good things. They’re not so nasty that they have to accuse everyone who disagrees with them of bringing suffering and pain and hollow hope, but confident enough that they can acknowledge positive contributions by people who they disagree with. I hope that answers your question.
How the hell many polytheistic friends do you have? Good Lord(s).
Indeed, the religious are delusional. I think anyone who considers the situation objectively would have to agree.
If one is incapable of being objective about God (or unwilling to be) they need only ask themselves whether a honest belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (for which there is the same amount of evidence as there is for “God”) is delusional. If they are honest, they would certainly have to say that it was.
My question is: Does suffering from a significant delusion mean that a person is insane, mentally ill, or crazy?
AFAIK, the answer is yes. I don’t believe that just because 10, or 1000, or 3,000,000,000 other people suffer from a similar delusion means you get a pass on the diagnosis.
Similarly, just because a person with mental disease can hold down a good job, raise a family, and speak five languages, etc., doesn’t mean that they aren’t mentally ill.
You could call it purposely ignorant, I would also call it delusional.
I wouldn’t consider the ancients you allude to as “delusional” because, as you point out, Gods were the only idea that existed at the time that could explain mysterious phenomena. It was the best explanation they had. Fair enough.
But now we understand the natural causes of many natural phenomena, so where does that leave people who still stubbornly reject modern scientific explanations and insist that “God did it”?
It leaves them as people who are suffering from delusions. People who continue to claim that the world is 6000 years old when they have seen the evidence that this cannot be true are delusional. They are mentally ill. Maybe not stark raving gibbering lunatics, but mentally ill all the same.
Moving from a belief in a MULTITUDE of mythical beings, to a belief in just ONE mythical being—well that’s progress, I guess.
But once we finally take the next and final logical step to a belief in ZERO mythical beings… it’ll be: “WOW! *now *we’re cooking with gas!”
Unfortunately, It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought.
Wow, I’m glad I saw this before I wasted any time on your previous post. And you might want to check that “false accusations” thing.
Please, most of the Bible is either historically inaccurate or just bullshit. Here, I’ll do part of your job for ya. Of the 66 books (your choice to pick 66, not mine), I’ve quickly dismissed 36 of 'em. As either BULLSHIT (no proof of Moses or Jesus ever existing and seriously, Revaltion? C’mon. ) or DISMISSED (since their narrative is irrelevant). I’ve gone through over half of the books and have found no historical accuracy to their claims. So, over half of the book is fiction, just like the Iliad. If you have a book that is half fiction, would you still claim it to be non-fiction? I’d put it on the shelf next to Dan Brown. Or Harry Potter.
Written by Moses BULLSHIT
- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus
- Numbers
- Deuteronomy
OT Narratives
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Ruth
9. 1 Samuel
10. 2 Samuel
11. 1 Kings
12. 2 Kings
13. 1 Chronicles
14. 2 Chronicles
15. Ezra
16. Nehemiah
17. Esther
Wisdom Literature-IRREVELENT
18. Job
19. Psalms
20. Proverbs
21. Ecclesiastes
22. Song of Songs
Major Prophets
23. Isaiah
24. Jeremiah
25. Lamentations
26. Ezekiel
27. Daniel
Minor Prophets
28. Hosea
29. Joel
30. Amos
31. Obadiah
32. Jonah
33. Micah
34. Nahum
35. Habakkuk
36. Zephaniah
37. Haggai
38. Zechariah
39. Malachi
NT Narratives ** BULLSHIT**
40. Matthew
41. Mark
42. Luke
43. John
44. Acts
Epistles by Paul ** BULLSHIT**
45. Romans
46. 1 Corinthians
47. 2 Corinthians
48. Galatians
49. Ephesians
50. Philippians
51. Colossians
52. 1 Thessalonians
53. 2 Thessalonians
54. 1 Timothy
55. 2 Timothy
56. Titus
57. Philemon
General Epistles ** BULLSHIT**
58. Hebrews
59. James
60. 1 Peter
61. 2 Peter
62. 1 John
63. 2 John
64. 3 John
65. Jude
Apocalyptic Epistle by John-** BULLSHIT**
66. Revelation