# Some dumb Bible question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318 "2018-05-16T23:58:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/101 "2018-05-22T20:24:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s because you selectively alter your God story to try to fit it in the gaps. Changing one’s viewpoint based on evidence is a good thing and should be applauded, not criticized. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/102 "2018-05-22T20:30:52Z")
Theists claim without evidence that God exists. Atheists claim without evidence that God doesn’t exist. Both are making claims without evidence. And for anyone who wants to argue that atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, I refer you to posts 72, 78, 80, 85, and 96 in this very thread, all of which contain that very claim. Why is it reasonable for **begbert2** , **Voyager** , and **DavidwithanR** to claim that God doesn’t exist, but not reasonable for theists to claim that he does? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/103 "2018-05-22T20:33:54Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Changing one’s viewpoint based on evidence is a good thing and should be applauded, not criticized. If the viewpoint actually changes, sure. Suppose, for a second, that science and history knocks the pillars out from under, oh, let’s say every single story that describes God creating the world. And the chosen response to this is to say that all the creation stories are just stories - meaningless parables, similes, morality tales, whatever. Things that have no factual significance whatsoever. Does the person then stop claiming that God created the universe? Do they stop referencing Adam and Eve like real people? Moses? Nope. They move the goalpost to ‘mythical’ long enough to evade being crushed in argument, and then move it right back long enough to keep balancing their beliefs on top of them. People who _actually_ start thinking of God as a fictional character become atheists, at least regarding that God. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/104 "2018-05-22T20:40:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Theists claim without evidence that God exists. Atheists claim without evidence that God doesn’t exist. Both are making claims without evidence. > > And for anyone who wants to argue that atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, I refer you to posts 72, 78, 80, 85, and 96 in this very thread, all of which contain that very claim. > > Why is it reasonable for **begbert2** , **Voyager** , and **DavidwithanR** to claim that God doesn’t exist, but not reasonable for theists to claim that he does? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can confidently say that God (that is, the christian god Yahweh/El) doesn’t exist because he’s fictional. Literally _everything I’ve ever seen or heard in my entire life_ supports the idea that he’s fictional. Everything I’ve ever seen or heard suggests that humans don’t have a pipeline to some extraphysical source of information - they _think_ they do, but they’re wrong. And _because_ they’re wrong, I can be absolutely confident that the nifty fairy tales they’ve invented are not based in fact - they’re based in the foibles of human imagination, psychology, and/or duplicity. But either way in humans, and only in humans. Now, does that mean that there are no gods anywhere, hiding in corners away from the light or floating around outside some plane of reality? Nope! I have no idea what’s outside of human observation and experience. There might even be a deity out there that superficially resembles the christian god. But if there is any resemblance is coincidental, because _humans can’t detect it_. It’s not in their power. Regardless of their oft-recorded tendency toward wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/105 "2018-05-22T20:53:46Z")
I think that what is happening is that you’re placing your preconceptions on the text rather than actually taking time to do comparative analysis of the text. The New Testament doesn’t read anything at all like mythic literature. It just doesn’t. As an example, the opening of the Aeneid which was written close to the New Testament using John Dryden’s translation which was written shortly after the King James Version begins thusly: _Arms, and the man I sing, who, forc’d by fate, And haughty Juno’s unrelenting hate, Expell’d and exil’d, left the Trojan shore. Long labours, both by sea and land, he bore, And in the doubtful war, before he won The Latian realm, and built the destin’d town; His banish’d gods restor’d to rites divine, And settled sure succession in his line, From whence the race of Alban fathers come, And the long glories of majestic Rome. O Muse! the causes and the crimes relate; What goddess was provok’d, and whence her hate;_ Compare this to Mark: _The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan._ These are obviously extremely different types of texts. They’re not even close to each other. I think instead if we compare Josephus’s ‘War of the Jews’ we get a much more comparable type of text. _At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months._ The text of the New Testament does not read like a mythology of the time period at all. It reads very similarly to a history of the era. Yes, exaggerations exist and authors using opinion as fact, but that is normal for histories written at the time. Your problem is that you find that particular history to be unbelievable and therefore you say it is mythology. That’s OK. Someone might find the exploits of Alexander the Great to be unbelievable and that the nearest sources written about him are second hand and 100 years after his death, but that isn’t evidence of his nonexistence. Nor does it confine Alexander the Great to the realm of mythology. The texts regarding Alexander are clearly meant to be taken as histories and don’t compare in style or substance to contemporary mythological works. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/106 "2018-05-22T20:53:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If the viewpoint actually changes, sure. > > Suppose, for a second, that science and history knocks the pillars out from under, oh, let’s say every single story that describes God creating the world. And the chosen response to this is to say that all the creation stories are just stories - meaningless parables, similes, morality tales, whatever. Things that have no factual significance whatsoever. > > Does the person then stop claiming that God created the universe? Do they stop referencing Adam and Eve like real people? Moses? > > Nope. They move the goalpost to ‘mythical’ long enough to evade being crushed in argument, and then move it right back long enough to keep balancing their beliefs on top of them. > > People who _actually_ start thinking of God as a fictional character become atheists, at least regarding that God. You seem to be operating under the belief that Christian belief in God is based solely on a literalist interpretation of the Bible. While there may be some sects that do so, most do not. For example, United Methodists’ faith is based on [“Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason”](http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/theological-guidelines). I’m sure other denominations are similar, with differences in the importance of various details. And scripture is definitely not interpreted literally. So evidence that some part of the Bible is not literally correct is met with shrugs, because you’re agreeing with what is already understood. Also, I find it strange that you consider “just stories - meaningless parables, similes, morality tales” to be unimportant. For me, stories are extremely important–it’s the stories that humans tell each other that makes us human. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/107 "2018-05-22T21:02:13Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > You seem to be operating under the belief that Christian belief in God is based solely on a literalist interpretation of the Bible. While there may be some sects that do so, most do not. For example, United Methodists’ faith is based on [“Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason”](http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/theological-guidelines). I’m sure other denominations are similar, with differences in the importance of various details. And scripture is definitely not interpreted literally. So evidence that some part of the Bible is not literally correct is met with shrugs, because you’re agreeing with what is already understood. I’m of the opinion that the vast, vast, _vast_ majority of belief in the christian god (presuming you could distill it, filter it by source, and measure the buckets) comes from people being told it’s true and then put in psychologically appealing environments, with “being told its true” _without_ the psychologically appealing environments taking second place. Which, as you’ll note, isn’t really objective evidence of anything. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Also, I find it strange that you consider “just stories - meaningless parables, similes, morality tales” to be unimportant. For me, stories are extremely important–it’s the stories that humans tell each other that makes us human. Humans telling stories is nifty, but it doesn’t make Sauron real. Or Frodo, or Twilight Sparkle, or Hodor… ETA: Oh, and “it’s not in the same style as epic poetry, thus it must be factually true!” is not compelling argument. As least not to me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/108 "2018-05-22T21:09:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This would be an example of creating a straw man argument. > > I made no claim that a fundy atheist would call for making religious belief illegal. I only noted that such a person would wish to impose their views on the world. The law is hardly the only way in which to do that. (See, for example, post 80 following your response to me.) I also made no claim that fundy atheism was prevalent or widespread, only that it existed. I specifically noted that it was not a common belief. Well, anyone who votes or writes an oped column or a letter to an editor is in some sense trying to impose their views on the world. Since you brought up this imposition as a bad thing, I assumed you were talking about something stronger than an opinion or sending a kid to Sunday school. > [@](#): > > Taking a materialist view of the world and arguing against the existence of a being for which there is no physical evidence is one legitimate expression of atheism. It is probably the most prevalent sort. Claiming that there is no possibility of a non-physical entity or that all religion is created for the sole purpose of fleecing naive believers or (particularly) that all religious belief has a malevolent aspect in which all believers are deliberately choosing to express a lie for the purpose of subjecting others to their will, (all ideas that have been expressed on this board at one time or another), parallels the expressions of fundy religious types that anyone who does not share a particular religious belief is willfully choosing to “disobey God.” I don’t recall anyone claiming to know the motivations of religion inventors from thousands of years ago. More recent religions do seem to be based on some demonstrable lies. But since the very first priest probably didn’t really talk to the volcano god, it might be true under our current understanding of what a lie is, but it might not be a lie from their understanding. As for being 100% certain that there is no god, we’d have to wait until some evidence comes in that convincingly demonstrates the existence of a god. If God started writing today’s NY Times headline in the stars I know some people said they’d still doubt it, and they have every right to be skeptical, but I suspect they might come around once it passes something like a Randi test. Fundamentalism means many things, but one seems to be believing in writings despite the lack of evidence for them or evidence against them. No one calls a Christian a fundamentalist because he believes Jerusalem existed at the time of Jesus. Or that Jesus existed. Adam and Eve and the Flood, different story. By that token, I don’t get how atheists are fundamentalists. Strident, forceful, loud yes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/109 "2018-05-22T21:11:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Theists claim without evidence that God exists. Atheists claim without evidence that God doesn’t exist. Both are making claims without evidence. > > And for anyone who wants to argue that atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, I refer you to posts 72, 78, 80, 85, and 96 in this very thread, all of which contain that very claim. > > Why is it reasonable for **begbert2** , **Voyager** , and **DavidwithanR** to claim that God doesn’t exist, but not reasonable for theists to claim that he does? Which god? I admit to making a claim that some gods don’t exist, but not a claim that no gods exist. I may believe that, but I do not claim that I know it to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/110 "2018-05-22T21:22:30Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > The text of the New Testament does not read like a mythology of the time period at all. It reads very similarly to a history of the era. Yes, exaggerations exist and authors using opinion as fact, but that is normal for histories written at the time. Your problem is that you find that particular history to be unbelievable and therefore you say it is mythology. That’s OK. Someone might find the exploits of Alexander the Great to be unbelievable and that the nearest sources written about him are second hand and 100 years after his death, but that isn’t evidence of his nonexistence. Nor does it confine Alexander the Great to the realm of mythology. The texts regarding Alexander are clearly meant to be taken as histories and don’t compare in style or substance to contemporary mythological works. Yeah the NT (and even the Tanakh, does not sound like epic poetry. And it is written to be convincing, unlike the Iliad and Aeneid which was written for people believing in the existence of the gods. That does not make it not mythology. Would you consider **American Gods** mythology? Alexander the Great was convinced that he was descended from gods, and some of the contemporary histories of him had fabulist elements. So even for secular historical figures you need to filter out some myths. One might be able to rewrite the story of Jesus without the miracles. Some miracles could be dropped without disturbing many Christians. I don’t think the Vatican would tremble if we proved that the walking on water episode was made up, after all. That is an indication that what we have now is to some extent myth. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/111 "2018-05-22T21:29:16Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Yeah the NT (and even the Tanakh, does not sound like epic poetry. And it is written to be convincing, unlike the Iliad and Aeneid which was written for people believing in the existence of the gods. That does not make it not mythology. Would you consider **American Gods** mythology? > Alexander the Great was convinced that he was descended from gods, and some of the contemporary histories of him had fabulist elements. So even for secular historical figures you need to filter out some myths. One might be able to rewrite the story of Jesus without the miracles. Some miracles could be dropped without disturbing many Christians. I don’t think the Vatican would tremble if we proved that the walking on water episode was made up, after all. That is an indication that what we have now is to some extent myth. What definition of “myth(ology)” are you using? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/112 "2018-05-22T21:34:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Which god? I admit to making a claim that some gods don’t exist, but not a claim that no gods exist. I may believe that, but I do not claim that I know it to be true. After some consideration I decided that whenever the term is given as a capitalized proper noun, like a name, I would assume that the person is referring to some variant of Yahweh/El unless there’s evidence otherwise. This may come of living in America, but it seems reasonably safe. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/113 "2018-05-22T21:34:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Why is it reasonable for **begbert2** , **Voyager** , and **DavidwithanR** to claim that God doesn’t exist, but not reasonable for theists to claim that he does? Maybe they, like me, are polyatheists. There’s a whole cornucopia of gods we just won’t believe in. More seriously though, false equivalence. The claim that any god exists is way more extraordinary than the inverse ; and as such requires much more support. No, the book isn’t support. The Universe as understood and described by science requires fuck all supernatural or extraordinary claims (inasmuch as “you are made of star stuff !” isn’t in and of itself quite extraordinary, but I’m being all poetic and shit) and is 100% internally coherent as long as you don’t look at the weird micro margins because subatomic particles are weird. In comparison, “God did it by waving his hand” requires massive suspension of disbelief and special argumentation and raises a million further questions. I’m absolutely willing to respect religion as Bronze Age’s temp solution to mankind’s overactive pattern recognition meatware, be it “Yeah so God just poofed the planet into existence, go back to farming asshole” or “Thor’s a massive Anvil fan, that’s why lightning”. But if you want me to actually put faith and credence into your BC myths that have been historically debunked and comparatively analyzed w/ other similar myths (wot you don’t subscribe to because c’mon, who believes in Osiris ? #falsegod, amirite ?) you’re going to have to work at it to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/114 "2018-05-22T21:39:05Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > That’s not evidence against the existence of God, but rather the existence of the Exodus which are two completely different things (of course, you’re also confusing archaeological and historical evidence and you’re also making a logical mistake that ‘absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.’) It does mean that if we should be able to see the evidence. Say someone claims that a flying saucer landed in AT&T Park in the middle of a Giant’s game. I don’t see what evidence would disprove it, but the absence of evidence in the sense of the appearance of the saucer on the TV coverage and lack of statements about the saucer from witnesses would be evidence of absence. Closer to Christianity, supposedly saints rose from their graves and there was an Earthquake during the crucifixion or resurrection. However there is no evidence that anyone noted these interesting events. Do you accept that this is evidence for their absence? Any such thing is only going to be evidence against certain types of gods. The Flood is evidence against the Fundamentalist class of god, not the Catholic class. > [@](#): > > To get back to our Julius Caesar example, Plutarch paints Brutus and Cassius as the leaders of the plot to kill Caesar. In popular culture, thanks to Shakespeare, we have largely followed that lead. Other historical evidence particularly from Nicolaus of Damascus and letters between Decimus and Cicero suggest that it was actually Decimus that led the plot to kill Caesar. All this is simply to say just because the historical evidence falls against Plutarch’s specific account, it does not then provide evidence that Caesar didn’t exist or that Plutarch is completely untrustworthy in regards to most of what he wrote. First order, they all support the existence of Caesar. Second order, the details of his life and death have to be extracted from existing writing, compared, and the various sources examined for credibility. That is what historians do. If the writers didn’t agree on the most fundamental parts of Caesar’s life, we’d wonder. One might say he was fat, one thin. One might say he conquered Gaul, the other Germany. That no one agrees on even the basics of a god is good evidence, I think, that all the gods were generated locally. In the Christian view God created the entire universe but couldn’t show up in the Americas until Columbus did. Or as Captain Kirk might say, “why does God need a sailing ship?” Judaism has this settled. The reason God didn’t show up to anyone else is because he only wants to talk to us. Or because he likes seeing us suffer. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/115 "2018-05-22T21:40:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Maybe they, like me, are polyatheists. There’s a whole cornucopia of gods we just won’t believe in. Oh, there are whole scores of gods I don’t believe in. Just like you can line up thousands of fictional characters in front of me and I’ll perform the amazing feat of thinking they’re all fictional _at once!_ (I should sell tickets!) (As an atheist I did seriously shoot myself in the foot once by looking at a styrofoam cup sitting on my desk and declaring that it was a god. In that instant I technically stopped being an atheist, because damn it all I still can’t honestly say the cup didn’t exist. That lingering fact continues to make me lingeringly uncomfortable about declaring my atheism to this very day.) (Oh, and I’ve also declared that _I’m_ a god, apropos of nothing and completely without evidence, but I can work about that by entertaining an inverse-solipsistic theory: Other things exist but I don’t. But that cup, man. I just can’t deny the cup.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/116 "2018-05-22T21:42:12Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > What definition of “myth(ology)” are you using? Anything having to do with gods or godlike beings. I could add made up gods but since I think they are all made up I don’t need to. But a Fundamentalist Christian thinks the Flood in Gilgamesh is mythology but the similar Flood in Genesis is history. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/117 "2018-05-22T21:45:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Alexander the Great was convinced that he was descended from gods Oversimplification. Yes, he (along with a great many Ancient political figures) publicly traced his lineage back to this or that god and his public PR strategy hinged in part on that. That’s a far cry from claiming he believed his own bullshit. When he conquered Egypt and naturally faced local opposition, he made a special trip to the oasis of Siwa (which happened to be sacred to the locals), had a closed doors session with the priests and came out with a confirmation from the Oracle herself that he was the son of Amun - an Egyptian, rather than Macedonian, god. You don’t have to be particularly cynical to grok that this was all socio-political theater rather than genuine belief. Before that he’d made a point to paint himself as an Achilean figure when landing in Turkey, going out of his way to behave according to the Iliad and gathering “godly” artefacts like the Aegis (in real life version, some votive shield left in the local temple of Athena which nobody was allowed to take away. He did, wasn’t smitten by the gods on the spot, there you go, anointed one !). Religion has _always_ been the opium of the masses. Also brain spiders. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/118 "2018-05-22T21:46:37Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > More seriously though, false equivalence. The claim that any god exists is way more extraordinary than the inverse ; and as such requires much more support. No, the book isn’t support. You don’t even need to include extraordinary. The null hypothesis is the nonexistence of any god, since there is no reason to choose among the many possible ones. (That your parents believe in one is not a reason.) So we need good evidence that some god hypothesis is true - and it had better not be evidence that also supports many other god hypotheses. That the universe is not eternal fails in that respect. It is pretty easy to think of some evidence that would do. Stuff clearly written in a Holy Book about the nature of the universe that would be impossible for the people who wrote it to know would be one. (Not proof - aliens might have dictated it - but evidence.) We don’t got any. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/119 "2018-05-22T21:51:12Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Oversimplification. Yes, he (along with a great many Ancient political figures) publicly traced his lineage back to this or that god and his public PR strategy hinged in part on that. That’s a far cry from claiming he believed his own bullshit. When he conquered Egypt and naturally faced local opposition, he made a special trip to the oasis of Siwa (which happened to be sacred to the locals), had a closed doors session with the priests and came out with a confirmation from the Oracle herself that he was the son of Amun - an Egyptian, rather than Macedonian, god. You don’t have to be particularly cynical to grok that this was all socio-political theater rather than genuine belief. > > Before that he’d made a point to paint himself as an Achilean figure when landing in Turkey, going out of his way to behave according to the Iliad and gathering “godly” artefacts like the Aegis (in real life version, some votive shield left in the local temple of Athena which nobody was allowed to take away. He did, wasn’t smitten by the gods on the spot, there you go, anointed one !). > > Religion has _always_ been the opium of the masses. Also brain spiders. I’ve seen some writing saying that he did believe it, which does not in any way say that he wouldn’t do the stuff you mention. He also married a Persian princess in a ceremony based around her religion. he might have done it believing that all sets of gods existed or only out of political expediency. A lot more pluralism back then. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/120 "2018-05-22T21:55:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve seen some writing saying that he did believe it, which does not in any way say that he wouldn’t do the stuff you mention. He also married a Persian princess in a ceremony based around her religion. he might have done it believing that all sets of gods existed or only out of political expediency. A lot more pluralism back then. Which reminds me, I still have to read _Did the Greek believe in their myths ?_ by Veyne. On the other hand, I also still have _so many_ Civilization V achievements to earn… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318.md?page=7)