Hi there.

Following from the topic - "Did Biblical Kings David and Solomon actually exist?"

I had made the following comments -

Should the historical existence (or lack thereof) of these personages have any impact on the question of belief or non-belief in the existence of, and worship of, a universal creator?

Archaelogy is beyond fascinating. It is actually one of my keener interests. So you do not touch upon that which I sought to convey. To rephrase - let me ask if there is any worth in grounding one's atheistic or theistic worldview on the veracity or otherwise of these stories - proven or unproven.

Should the faith of a pure Buddhist be altered if he finds for instance that the Buddha never existed? I would be interested in your response to that

And PA1982, you had said -

PA1982:


Hmmm.
This thread is about the historical evidence for David and Solomon.
You have every right to speculate on worldviews an archeology, of course.

This would be the subject of a different thread.
Why go off-topic here when you can simply start a fresh thread?

To which I had responded -

I doubt very much that this subject would be topical on this board if not for the sub-text: to wit - the possibility to discredit a faith. This is why I ask if indeed a faith can or should be discreditted on such grounds.

I don't think that i'm off-topic. However I will oblige you and open a new thread with same questions.

So here's your thread. Let's discuss my question. Should the historical accuracy of the stories within the lore of a religion be of necessary relevance within the worldview of the person subscribing to the fundamental tenets of that religion? And also - should such lack of accuracy form a valid ground for adopting an atheistic worldview?

I hope you don't mind if i wade into the discussion seeing as its a derivation of a previous thread of mine. In my view faith is not generic, it is deeply seated and rooted into the tenets of a belief system. In the case of Buddha we know for a fact he existed, we know that as Gautama he was born a prince and into a life of privilege which he renounced and then began to wander the desert where it is alleged he lived on a grain of rice a day, attained a state of Niravna and transmuted into the holy Buddha. More to the point, we have his writings, foremost amongst them all which is ''Four noble truths''. If there was no historical evidence that he existed then Bhuddism simply would not exist.

Without trying to discredit anyone's belief's or religion, the simple fact remains that the central characters in the bible appear to have been ''tweaked'', from an academics point of view aside from the issues of David and Solomon per my previous thread, we see that Christ himself did not leave behind a single written word, nothing, nada, not a bean. 100% of everything we know about Christ today in the bible has come from third parties, and of these third parties roughly 95% of all the information has come from one source, Saul of Tarsus, either written by him, attributable to him or written about him. Even the gospel writers do not agree on Christ he was born, we are also told Joseph and Mary had to travel with the baby Christ due to a Roman census, but we know historically the Romans required citizens to remain where they were to be numerated. Contemporary Historical evidence is even less, we have the writings of Josephus who makes a passing reference, which in itself has been heavily compromised (probably by the church Father Eusebius dubbed the father of lies) and various other snippets of references to a ''Christ' by other historians.

Contract this to the likes of Prophet Muhammad, or even Buddha, my point being, it matters not whether the lore of the great flood of Noah's Ark or even that of Jonah and the fish are accurate per se and i do not advocate discrediting a religion on such a basis, however, the central characters of any religion must hold true.

I feel so flattered.
A thread named in my honour!

Ansel1:

More to the point, we have his writings, foremost amongst them all which is ''Four noble truths''. If there was no historical evidence that he existed then Bhuddism simply would not exist.

It seems to me that you have missed the point or trajectory of my question. Judaism does exist. Christianity does exist. And yet there is at least some debate that some of the key characters supposedly involved in setting up those systems never actually existed. If such suppositions were true, it would simply mean that the lore on which those systems are based, was developed by other people.

As such, if the Buddha never existed, then it would simply mean that the Four noble truths were utterred or created by someone else. By the way, I do not set out to dispute the existence of Sidharta Gautama. What I proffer, is a suppositive question. An "IF" question.

Irrespective, these religions exist today. Regardless of whether they were set up by the names so claimed, or other persons.

Thus the question I ask you is this - Let's assume that the original names claimed never existed: and that other persons wrote and created the lore. Would the truth of those faith based systems fade away on that account? That is the pith of my question.

Now it bothers me that you answer my question with a statement that the Buddha actually existed. That is a most tiresome response, if you would forgive my statement sir. It is most tiresome when "IF" questions are answered in that way. "IF" questions are directed at an assumption - namely - "IF" x or y was the case, then what? It does not help to simply answer by saying - "well, x or y is not the case". That misses the discussion because the question ab initio was seeking an answer to an assumed situation.

To be concise, I might put it thus -

"Would the Four Noble Truths be any less true if the Buddha never existed? Would they be rendered false only on account that they were written by some else in reality?"

"Would the ten commandments lose their value if it is found that Moses never existed?"

Would the Beatitudes become worthless even as advise, if it is found that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?"

Would all of these pieces of spiritual injunction be vitiated in terms of truth simply if we find that they were originated by someone else than that claimed?

Sir: I say to you - behold the message, and not the messenger.

PA1982:

I feel so flattered.
A thread named in my honour!

I had rather hoped for a little more than this, given that this thread was initiated at your instance.

And just by the way, Ansel1, the Buddha did not actually write any of the things you claimed. Those were attributed to him and passed down by oral tradition and[b] only committed to writing more than 4 centuries later. [/b]

See excerpts -

Gautama, also known as Śākyamuni ("Sage of the Śākyas", is the primary figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

Some scholars believe that some portions of the Pali Canon and the Āgamas contain the actual substance of the historical teachings (and possibly even the words) of the Buddha.[42][43] This is not the case for the later Mahāyāna sūtras.[44] The scriptural works of Early Buddhism precede the Mahayana works chronologically, and are treated by many Western scholars as the main credible source for information regarding the actual historical teachings of Gautama Buddha. However, some scholars do not think that the texts report on historical events.[45][46][47]


Some of the fundamentals of the teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha are:

The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an ingrained part of existence; that the origin of suffering is craving for sensuality, acquisition of identity, and annihilation; that suffering can be ended; and that following the Noble Eightfold Path is the means to accomplish this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

Deep Sight:

It seems to me that you have missed the point or trajectory of my question. Judaism does exist. Christianity does exist. And yet there is at least some debate that some of the key characters supposedly involved in setting up those systems never actually existed. If such suppositions were true, it would simply mean that the lore on which those systems are based, was developed by other people.

As such, if the Buddha never existed, then it would simply mean that the Four noble truths were utterred or created by someone else. By the way, I do not set out to dispute the existence of Sidharta Gautama. What I proffer, is a suppositive question. An "IF" question.

Irrespective, these religions exist today. Regardless of whether they were set up by the names so claimed, or other persons.

Thus the question I ask you is this - Let's assume that the original names claimed never existed: and that other persons wrote and created the lore. Would the truth of those faith based systems fade away on that account? That is the pith of my question.

Now it bothers me that you answer my question with a statement that the Buddha actually existed. That is a most tiresome response, if you would forgive my statement sir. It is most tiresome when "IF" questions are answered in that way. "IF" questions are directed at an assumption - namely - "IF" x or y was the case, then what? It does not help to simply answer by saying - "well, x or y is not the case". That misses the discussion because the question ab initio was seeking an answer to an assumed situation.

To be concise, I might put it thus -

"Would the Four Noble Truths be any less true if the Buddha never existed? Would they be rendered false only on account that they were written by some else in reality?"

"Would the ten commandments lose their value if it is found that Moses never existed?"

Would the Beatitudes become worthless even as advise, if it is found that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?"

Would all of these pieces of spiritual injunction be vitiated in terms of truth simply if we find that they were originated by someone else than that claimed?

Sir: I say to you - behold the message, and not the messenger.

Clearly a truth remains a truth irrespective of the progenitor, whether it be the Ten Commandments which likely drew its inspiration from the Hammurabi Codes or the Beatitudes for which comparable teachings abound in sanskrit texts. Therefore to answer your question '' would the belief system fade away on account that other persons wrote and created bible lore ? ''My answer is the belief system will have to evolve (as i believe it will ) in the light of new information or simply become redundant, the only constants being universal truths. The Bible is almost alone in having to justify its historicity, due mostly to the fact that it has attributed to itself the status of works inviolate where clearly it is not. Already we see Rabbinical Jews in the US amending the Torah stating explicitly that various aspects of the Old Testament may be inaccurate, for instance there being no evidence whatsoever of the Israelites sojourn in Egypt or of their travails in the desert e.t.c, we know now that Deutero-Isaiah are not the works of the prophet Isaiah himself, amongst others, my position is that positive historical amendments to the bible for instance does not detract from the religion but rather enriches it.

Deep Sight:

And just by the way, Ansel1, the Buddha did not actually write any of the things you claimed. Those were attributed to him and passed down by oral tradition and[b] only committed to writing more than 4 centuries later. [/b]

See excerpts -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

Surely you dissemble, Historians date his lifetime somewhere between 563 - 483BCE, the Tripitaka having been handed down orally was written down in the 3rd century (not 400 years later) The contents were determined by the Buddhist council shortly after his death which comprised of 500 of his disciples who, led by Buddha's successor recited his entire teachings. Yes i concede Buddha did not write them down. As far as ''the Four noble truths' go, saying it is ''attributable' to Buddha  is akin to saying the koran is attributable to Muhammad. The Four noble truths are the very core essence of Buddhism, everything in Buddhism springs from these precepts.

It is my belief the philosophical underpinings of most religions are much more valuable , sturdy and durable than the actual beliefs associated with such religions.
I have strong doubts about the existence of jesus and the most of the stories associated with him, but I do find myself, many times, quoting from the teachings attributed to Jesus.Whether they came from actual an Jesus or not, to love thy neighbor as yourself,and others are universal ethos.
However, as Ansel tried to pointed out, Christianity is unique in that it is a religion whose enormous edifice , power and wealth over past two millenia have been built on the strenght of fantastic claims. Claims, that today, appear to  many as fairy tales due to the glaring absence of historical and acheaological foothprints.
Speaking for myself, as early as 14yrs of age, I began to view the judeo-christian narrative with great suspicion and by 18yrs of age, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was a contrived religion. By the time I entered University to study, Chemistry, Biology and Physics at  higher levels, it became very easy for me to jetisoned all prior beliefs I held regarding creation,heaven and hell ,and eventually the existence of god alltogether.

So, to answer your question , Yes, lack of accuracy(or the presence of deliberate inaccuracy)formed the valid basis for suspicion and eventual rejection of the tenets of my former religion and adopting an athiestic worldview.

^^^
I applaud your decision to follow your own conscious in your religious beliefs.

Deep Sight:


I had rather hoped for a little more than this, given that this thread was initiated at your instance.

An odd reply.
You asked an off-topic question on another thread and I recommended you start a fresh thread if you wanted to discuss a subject which didn't pertain to the historical evidence of the Kings David and Solomon.

I only saw this thread when I was logging off yesterday and so couldn't give it more than a quick reply.

Today is 11 September, a date graven in many people's mind as a memorial to the worst sort of instance of religious fanaticism taken to a tragic conclusion.
And on consideration, my answer is this, deep sight-

People have the right to nourish their own beliefs irrespective of historical truths.
I work with people of many beliefs, among them Odinism, agnosticism, Catholocism, Pentecostal Charismatic, B'hai Buddhist and Muslim.

I see no reason why plurality is not a desirable thing, which is why the radically fanatic attitudes I've encountered here at Nairaland have astonished me.
I've posted and responded, as is my right in a public forum.
Now someone starts a thread whose topic's declared purpose is to 'smoke out' my opinions about Buddhism?
Deep Sight, think about what this thread says about you.

Let's discuss my question. Should the historical accuracy of the stories within the lore of a religion be of necessary relevance within the worldview of the person subscribing to the fundamental tenets of that religion? And also - should such lack of accuracy form a valid ground for adopting an atheistic worldview?

First question-
Of course. Facts should not be suppressed by any religion.
People can't be expected to make up their own minds on any subject and especially about religion if facts aren't available to them.
For example, there are religious sects which deny the reality of a helio-centric solar system.
Would their beliefs remain once they understood the mechanics of the solar sytem?
I don't know nor care.
What IS important is that the peoples of that sect have free access to that information.

Second question-
Sorry?
Do you really think one has to choose between religious fundamentalism, that is, unquestioning acceptance of a determined faith and atheism?

I  work with people of many beliefs, among them Odinism, agnosticism, Catholocism, Pentecostal Charismatic, B'hai Buddhist and Muslim.

I see no reason why plurality is not a desirable thing, which is why the radically fanatic attitudes I've encountered here at Nairaland have astonished me.
I've posted and responded, as is my right in a public forum.

Ah okay you are a pluralist, which is another name for confusion .

Surely logic and reason will tell you that having a thousand religions means that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

Surely they can't all be right.

Dancing to the tune of all and sundry shows you stand for nothing which in my opinion is quite a state to be in.

Regarding radicalism we all agree that violent religion is the problem, but true religion in itself is not a bad thing and obviously by religion I am talking about true Christianity.

Stop confusing yourself , try and be humble and learn and stop increasing in ignorance in your quest for a higher academic status.

Have you heard that saying in the bible, 'professing to be wise , they became fools ' ?

frosbel:

Ah okay you are a pluralist, which is another name for confusion .

Surely logic and reason will tell you that having a thousand religions means that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

Surely they can't all be right.

Dancing to the tune of all and sundry shows you stand for nothing which in my opinion is quite a state to be in.

Regarding radicalism we all agree that violent religion is the problem, but true religion in itself is not a bad thing and obviously by religion I am talking about true Christianity.

Stop confusing yourself , try and be humble and learn and stop increasing in ignorance in your quest for a higher academic status.

Have you heard that saying in the bible, 'professing to be wise , they became fools ' ?

I wondered how long it would take frosbel to follow me here.
frosbel, why is it so difficult for you to understand people have the right not to agree with you?
You haven't a clue what my academic status is- I'm not sure why it interests you.
Please stay on the topic of the thread.

Interesting thread. No surprising responses yet, which is not surprising considering the topic. Good points, Ancel.

PA1982:

I've posted and responded, as is my right in a public forum.
Now someone starts a thread whose topic's declared purpose is to 'smoke out' my opinions about Buddhism?

Lol.

Op's an important question, I think.

PA1982:
What IS important is that the peoples of that sect have free access to that information.

Was trying to convey this point to a man of religion in another thread using god-knows-how-many words. You put it so well here.

Double post

globexl:

It is my belief the philosophical underpinings of most religions are much more valuable , sturdy and durable than the actual beliefs associated with such religions.
I have strong doubts about the existence of jesus and the most of the stories associated with him, but I do find myself, many times, quoting from the teachings attributed to Jesus.Whether they came from actual an Jesus or not, to love thy neighbor as yourself,and others are universal ethos.
However, as Ansel tried to pointed out, Christianity is unique in that it is a religion whose enormous edifice , power and wealth over past two millenia have been built on the strenght of fantastic claims. Claims, that today, appear to  many as fairy tales due to the glaring absence of historical and acheaological foothprints.
Speaking for myself, as early as 14yrs of age, I began to view the judeo-christian narrative with great suspicion and by 18yrs of age, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was a contrived religion. By the time I entered University to study, Chemistry, Biology and Physics at  higher levels, it became very easy for me to jetisoned all prior beliefs I held regarding creation,heaven and hell ,and eventually the existence of god alltogether.

So, to answer your question , Yes, lack of accuracy(or the presence of deliberate inaccuracy)formed the valid basis for suspicion and eventual rejection of the tenets of my former religion and adopting an athiestic worldview.

Points made. For me however the issue of whether Christ existed or not not is largely irrelevant at this stage. Christianity itself as a religion is fundamentally and deeply flawed, I will explain why i say so. Isaiah 44:6 gives us the first clear advent of Monotheism in Hebrew scriptures ''I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God'. Everything goes swimmingly well, that is untill we hit Daniel 7, we all know the scenario but its doubtful if the context is clear. A key verse (13) , One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven Christians have been very quick to lay claim that this is Christ since '' son of man was indeed Christ's favourite title for himself whilst he lived, we are told. But therein lies the problem. The parallel between Daniel 7 and the Ugarit/Baal cycle is uncanny as to leave no doubt whatsoever, i.e the description of the Ugarit ''Aged God'' described as the ''ancient of Days'' in the scriptures bestowing kingship on the god Baal, rider of the clouds, contrast with YHWH bestowing Kingship ''upon the son of man who rides the clouds, '' and the implications are clear to all but the most blinkered. The Baal Cycle then goes on ''Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier, his rule is everlasting'' Daniel 7 states '' The son of Man is given everlasting dominion over nations. He rules at the right hand of God''

We know that Christ was fulfilling the scriptures, the question is , who's scriptures' ?

Good points. I have read it before that the ancient Hebrew Rabbi's believed that That Yahweh was the father,Baal the son, Asherah the wife and consort of Yahweh and Lilith was the daughter and the Queen of heaven refered to in the bible, whom the ancient Isrealites also worshipped.
We see that it was during the time of Prophet Elija that the priests of Yahweh moved to stamp out the worship of Baal and Ashera by the mass killings of the priests of Baal and Ashera and burning their sacred places(a celebrated case of religious intolerance).

Only if the adherent of the religion declares that the holy book(s) containing the individual(s) is entirely factual, and a single error is an indication that the deity of the religion doesn't exist. Otherwise, no, it shouldn't matter. I personally believe David, Solomon and the Buddha existed as historical figures, but their non-existence shouldn't matter to anyone but the strict literalist.

KAG:

Only if the adherent of the religion declares that the holy book(s) containing the individual(s) is entirely factual, and a single error is an indication that the deity of the religion doesn't exist. Otherwise, no, it shouldn't matter. I personally believe David, Solomon and the Buddha existed as historical figures, but their non-existence shouldn't matter to anyone but the strict literalist.

I do not agree. How do you argue a priori it shouldn't matter ? where do you draw the line ? David, Solomon, Moses, Abraham, perhaps Christ ? In the case of Buddhism who will shed any tears if it turns out Buddha was a figment of collective imagination ? Buddhism is presented as the Teachings of an enlightened character, not so Christianity of which we are told the writings are the ''word of God''. If for instance David and Solomon did not exist what then do we make of the supposed royal bloodline of Christ, attendant with lineaology ? One does not ask that scriptures are entirely factual accounts of history, we know they are not but surely it is not over-reaching to establish facts or debunk myths in the light of modern day information.

PA1982:

An odd reply.
You asked an off-topic question on another thread and I recommended you start a fresh thread if you wanted to discuss a subject which didn't pertain to the historical evidence of the Kings David and Solomon.

Now someone starts a thread whose topic's declared purpose is to 'smoke out' my opinions about Buddhism?
Deep Sight, think about what this thread says about you.

My dear, in all earnestness, there seems to be a somewhat combative tone in your words above. Let me warmly assure you that there is no need for such: you appear to have stated that I opened this thread "to smoke out your opinions about Buddhism". That certainly is not the case in the least. You have also asked me to think about "what that says about me". Now, now, now, let us settle down. This thread has nothing whatever to do with "smoking out your opinions or perceptions of Buddhism - not in the least.

Indeed, the allusion in my OP to Buddhism has only to do with setting an example to elucidate the question I was asking. I am sure I needn’t rehash the OP all over again to convey this. For the simple question, if I may restate it – is, and remains – to what extent is the account regarding a messenger, to be regarded as important as the actual message?

Thus I said: behold the message, and not the messenger.
So my dear do calm down, no one is trying to smoke any one out in the least. If you can take a minute to have a look at the previous thread, you will see that I did not agree that my queries were off-topic. I did tell you that the questions as to the existence of David and Solomon would have no pith, if not within the context of the possibility to discredit a faith. And hence my query as to whether indeed a faith can or should be discredited on such grounds. As we go forward, I will also urge you not to make assumptions on my own faith or perspective; for I do not subscribe to any religion; I am not a religious person.  

People can't be expected to make up their own minds on any subject and especially about religion if facts aren't available to them.

I do beg to disagree. People can and do make up their own minds all the time whether with or without “facts” – especially on matters of spiritual unction. There are seeds that rest within the conscience of every man, I believe, which, independent of any “facts” which we may read in any lore, serve to guide and direct the spiritual footprint of the earnest man.

What IS important is that the peoples of that sect have free access to that information.

I do agree that it is apt that people do have access to information. In today’s world however, this is not a problem because we live in the information age. Anyone who cares can access a galaxy of information at the touch of a button. The problem is not hat people do not have access to information. The problem rather is that people fear information because they imagine that it might corrupt their faith or belief systems. This is a mindset that I find regrettable.

Second question-
Sorry?
Do you really think one has to choose between religious fundamentalism, that is, unquestioning acceptance of a determined faith and atheism?

I still do not understand how the non-existence of David, Solomon or even Jesus could rationally lead to atheism. Can you enlighten me on that thought-line please?

KAG:

Only if the adherent of the religion declares that the holy book(s) containing the individual(s) is entirely factual, and a single error is an indication that the deity of the religion doesn't exist. Otherwise, no, it shouldn't matter. I personally believe David, Solomon and the Buddha existed as historical figures, but their non-existence shouldn't matter to anyone but the strict literalist.

Excellent surmise, and incisive too.

I certainly hope that time will permit me as the thread progresses to elucidate further on this point to my dears Ancel1 and PA1982.

Iverily believe that your reference to "anyone but the strict literalist" should be most instructive and thought provoking to our friends.

Deep Sight:

Excellent surmise, and incisive too.

I certainly hope that time will permit me as the thread progresses to elucidate further on this point to my dears Ancel1 and PA1982.

Iverily believe that your reference to "anyone but the strict literalist" should be most instructive and thought provoking to our friends.

Yes, looking forward to further elucidation from you, i'm sure.

This is turning into an intersting thread, thanks to those who have contributed to it.
Deep sight-

Deep Sight:
Anyone who cares can access a galaxy of information at the touch of a button. The problem is not hat people do not have access to information. The problem rather is that people fear information because they imagine that it might corrupt their faith or belief systems. This is a mindset that I find regrettable.

My point as well.
More information, less opinions.

Deep Sight:

I still do not understand how the non-existence of David, Solomon or even Jesus could rationally lead to atheism. Can you enlighten me on that thought-line please?

I don't understand why you think I'm an atheist.

PA1982:

This is turning into an intersting thread, thanks to those who have contributed to it.
Deep sight-
My point as well.
More information, less opinions.

The point I am trying to convey to you is that I don't really think that spirituality is or should be about "information" per se. Information (that is, information of the kind that we discuss here - i.e: religious lore) may be useful in arriving at logical or illogical positions on certain matters of religion, but in my humble view, such religious lore is altogether an insufficient premise for -

1. Determining a belief in a creator

2. Sustaining the essential ethos of a faith

Regarding (1) above, i would rather say that perception of the world and universe about one, common sense and intuition, should rather take the lead in grounding one's atheistic or theistic worldview. Not religious lore. The truth or falsity of any religious lore should have no bearing on this matter. That is what I seek to convey.

Regarding (2) above, my view is further that the inaccuracy of religious lore does not necessarily discredit the essential ethos of a faith. And this is why i gave the Buddha example and titled this thread as such: to wit - the four noble truths would not be less poignant if in fact derived from common culture in a scenario where it was found that the Buddha in fact did not exist. Such a discovery, i dare say, would do nothing to vitiate the essential truths and ethos of the Buddhist faith, would it? And in the same way, i imagine the the non-existence of David or Solomon are probably neither here nor there in terms of sustaining the essential ethos of the christian faith.

Mind you, if you would care to do some light research on my previous posts and views on christianity on this forum, you will find that I have been a notorious critic of the religion as a whole (save that which I regard as its core - the teaching of love) - and I say this simply to assure you that I am not here seeking to justify any faith. I am only here seeking to say that there are certain factors, which even if proved true, would not be sufficient to dismiss a faith. The non-existence of the Buddha, would not be sufficient, in my mind, to dismiss the Buddhist faith. Same for the non-existence of Solomon or David. I would even be so bold as to say that the non-existence of Christ himself, should not necessarily vitiate the christian faith - so long as it is viewed from the point of view of his supposed teachings on love, humility, etc. If it is viewed from the doctrines of his redemptive sacrifice, and other such ritual, aha, that might perhaps be a problem. But we will come to that later.

I don't understand why you think I'm an atheist.

I don't believe I have suggested you are an atheist: I am rather asking if you believe that the inaccuracy of religious lore should form some ground for atheism?

Deep Sight, your question was:

Quote from: Deep Sight on Yesterday at 06:22:43 PM
I still do not understand how the non-existence of David, Solomon or even Jesus could rationally lead to atheism. Can you enlighten me on that thought-line please?

Who said it did?

PA1982:

Deep Sight, your question was:

Who said it did?

Well you will recall that I had indicated that the previous thread on the existence of David or Solomon would actually have no pith, and certainly little business in the Religion Section, if not for the unstated possibility of discreditting a faith. This is about the fourth time I am repeating this to you, and it seems that you have not taken cognisance of the import of this.

There are two things. The originator of that thread (Ancel1) must have had at least some direction towards discretting one or more faiths by the information he presented therein. This is something that he has confirmed via his posts on this thread (which posts I am yet to address, but will do so shortly). Contrarily, it is my view that these are not sufficient grounds to discredit any faith. Hence my example re: Sidtharta Guatama, the Buddha.

Secondly, there are different types of atheists. I have described them previously thus -

1. The Anti-religionist Atheist. This Atheist is entirely focused on the absurdity of the Religious Theist's Ontology of God. He finds the construct of God as delivered through Religion to be ludicruous and as such rejects them in its entirety. He does not pause to think about God outside the precept of religion.

2. The Pure Atheist - This Atheist is entirely set against the idea of God. The objection of this Atheist is not so much the internally inconsistent ontology of the Religious Ideas of God, but more the fact that a non-material God cannot be proved. This Atheist is often a strict materialist and rejects notions such as an immaterial soul, life after death, etc. This Atheist will beleive only in that which can be physically and scientifically verified, and as such rejects the notion of God since in his mind, God cannot be physically or scientifically verified.

3. The Fvck- All Atheist - This Atheist simply doesn't give a Poo, anyhow.

My concern is with reference to the first definition. There are persons who are declared atheists only on account of the absurdity or falsity of religion. I think that that is a lazy approach.

Deep Sight:

Well you will recall that I had indicated that the previous thread on the existence of David or Solomon would actually have no pith, and certainly little business in the Religion Section, if not for the unstated possibility of discreditting a faith. This is about the fourth time I am repeating this to you, and it seems that you have not taken cognisance of the import of this.

I've addressed this point several times.
The location of the thread had nothing to do with me, as you'll understand.
I think it's a subject you should take up with the OP, rather than a contributer to that particular thread.

Deep Sight:

There are two things. The originator of that thread (Ancel1) must have had at least some direction towards discretting one or more faiths by the information he presented therein. This is something that he has confirmed via his posts on this thread (which posts I am yet to address, but will do so shortly). Contrarily, it is my view that these are not sufficient grounds to discredit any faith. Hence my example re: Sidtharta Guatama, the Buddha.

Again, that's something to take up with the OP, not a contributer to that thread.
Do you have a problem with that?


[quote author=Deep Sight link=topic=756494.msg9128910#msg9128910 date=1315821103Secondly, there are different types of atheists. I have described them previously thus -

My concern is with reference to the first definition. There are persons who are declared atheists only on account of the absurdity or falsity of religion. I think that that is a lazy approach. [quote][/quote]

And?

PA1982:

I've addressed this point several times.
The location of the thread had nothing to do with me, as you'll understand.
I think it's a subject you should take up with the OP, rather than a contributer to that particular thread.

Again, that's something to take up with the OP, not a contributer to that thread.
Do you have a problem with that?

And?

Alright then. At this point, I guess I will restrict my discourse to Ancel1 - as you have suggested. I guess it was an error to have supposed your suggestion to open another thread indicated an interest in taking up the discussion. My sincere apologies.

I'll adjust the thread title, and take up the discussion with him.

Cheers.

@Deep Sight. On a previous thread i raised the question of the possibility that biblical Kings David and Solomon may not have existed as portrayed in the scriptures. I have enumerated the reasons why i made those assertions, I had fully expected to be innundated with reasoned thoughts as to why i was wrong, facts, figures and opinions, rather, as with the subject of that thread the silence is deafening.

I find it rather curious that rather than address the subject matter you are more interested in examining my motives and have simply concluded that it is my intention to discredit a faith belief system. Far better biblical scholars than I are posing far more harder questions about Christianity than i am without accusations of their being atheists, you have no right to make such an assupmtion how you have established that correlation is beyond me. In any event Christianity does not need my assistance to discredit it, i believe you will agree with me that a myriad of snazzilly dressed silver tongued pastors do that happily week in -week out.

I have stated that my intention is not to discredit any religion, in my opinion there are glaring inconsistencies within the Hebrew scriptures, historically and theologically that have come to light as we learn more and more. It is my opinion that Christianity as a religion would benefit greatly by addressing them in a forthright manner as opposed to trying to convince a skeptical audience that they don't exist, and anyone who questions the[i] schema[/i] is a heretic.

@topic

if buddha, christ, mohammed didnt exist will i still lose my faith? Not really.
the mind is a beautiful thing, i can vouch that christians who became atheists still have in the core of their personality christian truths/teachings of Jesus about life that they will unconsciously follow, forgeting about the rituals. The particles of that faith still remains or evolves even if you come to the point that Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed never existed, the universal truth in your previous beliefs will still remain with you.

Ansel1:

@Deep Sight. On a previous thread i raised the question of the possibility that biblical Kings David and Solomon may not have existed as portrayed in the scriptures. I have enumerated the reasons why i made those assertions, I had fully expected to be innundated with reasoned thoughts as to why i was wrong, facts, figures and opinions, rather, as with the subject of that thread the silence is deafening.

Dear Ansel1, I am not concerned with the existence of David or Solomon. I am not a christian: indeed, I am not religious: I do not subscribe to any religion. If you had been on this forum prior, who would have known that contrarily, I have been a vehement and much despised critic of the Judeo-Christian lore, myths, history and dogma.

So please dear friend, do not misunderstand me.

I find it rather curious that rather than address the subject matter you are more interested in examining my motives and have simply concluded that it is my intention to discredit a faith belief system.

To be sincere, if there was a History ar Archaelogy section on this forum, would you have rather raised this topic in those sections? I think not. And the reason no doubt is that you regard these factual inconsistencies to perhaps be fatal to a faith or belief system? I may be wrong in reaching that assumption, but if that is indeed your view, then all i seek to state is that factual inconsistencies of that nature are not necessaily sufficient to diminish a faith or belief system. Hence my example of a question regarding the Buddha.

I had felt that you had already appreciated this when you wrote -

Ansel1:

Clearly a truth remains a truth irrespective of the progenitor, whether it be the Ten Commandments which likely drew its inspiration from the Hammurabi Codes or the Beatitudes for which comparable teachings abound in sanskrit texts.

And for me, the foregoing from you neatly sums up that which I am seeking to convey.

There is no doubt that there has been a galaxy of crossed myths and legends involved in the development of most religious systems, if not all. What I believe is that these myths and legends do not vitiate the core ethos of these belief systems - to the extent that such devolves around the principal ethos of such a faith. Now, let me be very clear on one point: and this is the point that KAG mentioned which i thought very apt - namely - that in this, I do not speak of the strict literalist. The strict literalist is a fantasist who I cannot be bothered to take seriously in a discussion of this nature. Now, whereever such strict literalism results in a fanatical adherence to bizzare ritual, etc, I must carefully note that i do not refer to such when i speak about the core ethos of a faith.

Far better biblical scholars than I are posing far more harder questions about Christianity than i am without accusations of their being atheists, you have no right to make such an assupmtion how you have established that correlation is beyond me. In any event Christianity does not need my assistance to discredit it, i believe you will agree with me that a myriad of snazzilly dressed silver tongued pastors do that happily week in -week out.

Indeed, and I have not called you an atheist, have I? I have simply asked if you think that these innacuracies serve to discredit a faith, and in some measure you responded in both the negative and the positive.

I have stated that my intention is not to discredit any religion, in my opinion there are glaring inconsistencies within the Hebrew scriptures, historically and theologically that have come to light as we learn more and more. It is my opinion that Christianity as a religion would benefit greatly by addressing them in a forthright manner as opposed to trying to convince a skeptical audience that they don't exist, and anyone who questions the[i] schema[/i] is a heretic.

This is beyond cavil: no doubts here. Spot on. We may point out these discrepancies, but what I seek to convey to you is for example as follows. . . Hinduism has hundreds of gods and goddesses. . . prove to a hindi man that many of them do not exist, and that may still take nothing away from the overall - superstructure of his faith.

LoveKing:

@topic

if buddha, christ, mohammed didnt exist will i still lose my faith? Not really.
the mind is a beautiful thing, i can vouch that christians who became atheists still have in the core of their personality christian truths/teachings of Jesus about life that they will unconsciously follow, forgeting about the rituals. The particles of that faith still remains or evolves even if you come to the point that Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed never existed, the universal truth in your previous beliefs will still remain with you.

Most wisely and beautifully articulated, I must say.

You have made many references to Buddha and Buddism.There are two main types of religion: The custodial and non-custodial religions.This is a world of diffeerence bewteen The judeo christian religions and the oriental religions such as Budhism , shintosm, taosm , confucionism etc. The judeo-christian religions are custodian religions.That is: the entire system of faith is based on the belief of a custodian(god), who created, overseas, grants favours , judges and punishes the his creation. This type of religion relies on the belief in epic tales, historical dramas, and myths to anchor and sustain itself in the hearts and minds of the believer.In the this type, the fear of the Custodian(god) is an essential requirement for blessings and salvation.
Non-custodial religions like Budhism, on the other hand, are more like philosophical schools where the core ethos are more important than the lores of the religion. there are no asumptions or claims.Therefore, it would be easier for a Budhist to remain faithful to the core ethos of his faith irrespective of whether Budha's existence is fact or fiction.
All of us in Africa are raised from infancy to accept the judeo-christian concepts of divinity, so our religious and spiritual viewpoints are shaped from the lores of these religions. In the case of christianity, the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles,his death and resurrection and his anticipated return are the cornerstones of the faith, far outweighing even the teachings of the Jesus. Martin Luther, the reformer ,postulated that faith alone was the only requirement for salvation, and many christians today strongly accept that.
Now if the essential underpinnings of those lores are found to be inaccurate or even fraudulent, should such a faith be able to hold and sustain itself? I say no way.
As a anti-religion -athiest, I remain open to the possiblility of the realization of god , but from independently deduced path, rather than from the lingering residues of my previous faith.

NB: I want to note that religious faith and spirituality are not one and the same and therefore can be mutaully exlusive.