Just curious. Why, when we read or discuss religion (either amongst ourselves or more often with those crazy excitable zealots) do we all consistently focus on debunking the Abrahamics based on the numerous logical flaws contained between the covers of the Torah, Gospels, and Quran rather than show the obvious and direct plagiarism from early Mesopotamian/Egyptian ideas? I personally see no more compelling argument against the Jesus/God combo than the fact that this storyline has been ripped off, dressed up and reused time and time again.
I think the best argument is simply that there is at least one fallacy committed when one accepts any belief in a god thing. But the reason we discuss all that other stuff is because that stuff is what is commonly brought up in discussions. So we can either discuss those things or not participate.
Good point. Might even encourage them to study a bit on comparative religions, which most don't know a thing about.
There is a problem with focusing on logical arguments when their beliefs are not based on logical arguments. I don't know how far the plagiarism thing would go though, but there is one problem when trying to involve histories of religions - they can deny any and all evidence that they don't like altogether whereas if people change the way they fundamentally think, that's more difficult to change (for the worse) and has better chances of leading somewhere.
But people will deny the evidence regardless of origin. Rather than show why a flood is a flawed concept, it could be more beneficial to show that the flood was a recurring theme. But then again, I guess futility is still futility.
You know, this has actually been something of a curiosity to me as well. Without getting cynical about it, I suppose someone could argue that the Ark boats are actually meant to be the same "historical" boat, the name changes are owed to the story translation from one culture and language to another.
Of course, there are so many other parallels as well between other mythologies and the Biblical story's narrative that I can't imagine trying to reconcile the curious consistency with the biographies of several part divine/part human individuals. I once joked with a Christian friend that the Star Wars galaxy got a raw deal with their messiah, at which point he proceeded to correct me gently and condescendingly to the effect that SW was more derived from secular mythologies: Perseus and other similar characters. I didn't argue the point with him, but the similarity of story elements was screaming around inside my head! How could he use that to debunk my offhand comment, yet not find the similarities odd enough to beg for deeper inquiry. I long admired and respected this friend, but I was very disappointed at seeing him willfully ignore something right under his nose.
xSilverPhinx, what you say makes sense to me. The thing is, religious apologetics always seem to attack a problem with logic based arguments. To a certain extent, they make a good show of it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that there always seems to be something hovering on the periphery that is waving "Hi, isn't this still odd, though?"
I am curious as to what Cforcerunner and AnimatedDirt make of these recurring story elements; hopefully they'll weigh in with some thoughts here.
That's a good point also, Jay. They very well may seek to align and excuse the similarities as mistranslation of a (un)known event. But then it could also backfire in that it would dismiss the validity of the current "unfallible" texts, considering "my bible is correct and accurate and inspired by God" (especially amongst the YEC crowd), even though this story was originally "inspired" by someone else's God, a God that I so gleefully regard as bologna. Do you believe in Amen-Ra? Horus? Attis? Dionysus? "Nope." Do you believe that they could be the same God as yours? "Nope." But you believe the stories attributed to them are evidence of the Bible's validity? "Yep." How? *Drools and mumbles incoherently*
Quote from: Tristan Jay on September 13, 2011, 06:23:57 PM
xSilverPhinx, what you say makes sense to me. The thing is, religious apologetics always seem to attack a problem with logic based arguments. To a certain extent, they make a good show of it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that there always seems to be something hovering on the periphery that is waving "Hi, isn't this still odd, though?"
Yeah, they're basing arguments about knowledge (in their minds, they know their version of god created everything) without the justified knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification) to back them up. That's why they
need to make a leap of faith, because logically, the premises just don't follow. And since they're making assertions, in their mind, that are not based on ignorance but on justified knowledge (which it is not), that's why if you're already not a believer in their brand of religion, the whole apologetics just seems odd.
I think Too Few Lions is going to like this thread...
It's not an unused argument; I've seen it here and other places numerous times. But you answered your own question, fyv0h. They disregard the evidence the same as they disregard all the other evidence.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 13, 2011, 07:40:51 PM
I think Too Few Lions is going to like this thread...
:D
this is totally my kind of thing. I think religion can definitely be intellectually attacked on both fronts, science can show the illogicality of religious beliefs, and mythography / comparative religion can show where the myths derive from, and also often explain the myths.
Of course most Christians / believers are unaware of the myths their myths derive from, otherwise they probably wouldn't be believers. I doubt many Christians who still believe in the flood have ever read about Deucalion or Utnapishtim, or know that Zeus had a taste for virgins and fathered several sons by them.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 14, 2011, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 13, 2011, 07:40:51 PM
I think Too Few Lions is going to like this thread...
:D
this is totally my kind of thing. I think religion can definitely be intellectually attacked on both fronts, science can show the illogicality of religious beliefs, and mythography / comparative religion can show where the myths derive from, and also often explain the myths.
Of course most Christians / believers are unaware of the myths their myths derive from, otherwise they probably wouldn't be believers. I doubt many Christians who still believe in the flood have ever read about Deucalion or Utnapishtim, or know that Zeus had a taste for virgins and fathered several sons by them.
You're my kind of gunslinging chimp.
Two things I love: All things Greek and Anything Gilgamesh.
Quote from: fyv0h on September 14, 2011, 03:50:56 PM
You're my kind of gunslinging chimp.
Two things I love: All things Greek and Anything Gilgamesh.
:D me too *randomly shooting off guns in a celebratory salvo like a Mexican gunslinging chimp drunk on tequila*
I do think it's a shame that the more famous modern atheist opponents of religion haven't gone down the road of comparative mythology, but I guess they're often scientists and come at things from that angle. I did think 'you've not told me anything that isn't blindingly obvious or that I didn't already know' at the end of reading
The God Delusion .
I think part of the problem is that you can't study mythology academically anywhere so there aren't really any academic mythographers to bash the Bible. Religion is generally studied apart from mythology, and often universities date from a time when Christianity was still pretty sacrosanct and religious studies departments often evolved from theology and biblical studies departments. The university I work at has a department of 'theology and religious studies'. To me, theology seems diametrically opposed to a scientific(ish) atheistic approach to the study of religions.
I did my masters in comparative religion, and was rather perplexed by the way Christianity and Judaism seemed to be studied totally apart from Greek and Roman religion, as if they were separate and unique entities and not just products of their time influenced by all the pagan religions around them.
I think I also read somewhere that the whole flood story was based on Babylonian mythology incorporated by the Jews when they were enslaved there?
I think there's one fundamental problem with using mythology to try and debunk mythology, they're both on the same level in terms of evidence. I'd risk guessing that most Christians (or theists in general) will dismiss that sort of argument just as quickly and easily as we dismiss theirs for their particular religion. Also, it's too easy for them to simply adapt their beliefs to it and still be the christian/person they always were.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 14, 2011, 05:44:43 PM
I think there's one fundamental problem with using mythology to try and debunk mythology, they're both on the same level in terms of evidence. I'd risk guessing that most Christians (or theists in general) will dismiss that sort of argument just as quickly and easily as we dismiss theirs for their particular religion. Also, it's too easy for them to simply adapt their beliefs to it and still be the christian/person they always were.
Though I think it shows their religion is just mythology, and not divinely revealed truth, which is a strong argument to wave in their faces. Personally I'd go one step further, and say you can also strongly suggest that figures such as Jesus and Moses are as mythical as Adam and Eve
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 14, 2011, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 14, 2011, 05:44:43 PM
I think there's one fundamental problem with using mythology to try and debunk mythology, they're both on the same level in terms of evidence. I'd risk guessing that most Christians (or theists in general) will dismiss that sort of argument just as quickly and easily as we dismiss theirs for their particular religion. Also, it's too easy for them to simply adapt their beliefs to it and still be the christian/person they always were.
Though I think it shows their religion is just mythology, and not divinely revealed truth, which is a strong argument to wave in their faces. Personally I'd go one step further, and say you can also strongly suggest that figures such as Jesus and Moses are as mythical as Adam and Eve
It could, if people already see the bible as symbolic and not literal. People would certainly know more about the origins of their beliefs, but I don't know how far a debate on comparative mytholgies (with theirs being among them) would go in changing their beliefs and them. Do you have any experience debating these topics with a Christian? If so, what was their reaction?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 14, 2011, 05:44:43 PM
I think I also read somewhere that the whole flood story was based on Babylonian mythology incorporated by the Jews when they were enslaved there?
I definitely know of the Babylonian flood story, my reference of it is a bit low-key and probably got lost in the shuffle of the rest of my earlier post; and yeah, the flood story coming from an earlier source than the Bible is a huge question mark. I'm not up on my history, so I wasn't familiar with the context where the flood story was collected by Jews.
QuoteOf course most Christians / believers are unaware of the myths their myths derive from, otherwise they probably wouldn't be believers. I doubt many Christians who still believe in the flood have ever read about Deucalion or Utnapishtim, or know that Zeus had a taste for virgins and fathered several sons by them.
I don't know how many have been exposed to knowledge of other myth cycles, and shown how closely the earlier story-patterns could have been prototype source material for the Bible narrative. I remember sitting in a classroom and being introduced to Utnapishtim's boat and flood story, and the fact that it was chronicled earlier in human history than the biblical text; but I couldn't get a reading of my classmates' reaction to what it challenged. My old friend was familiar with the Greek myth cycle, and clearly recognized that there was a pattern of a heroic/tragic character born of a human but partly divine. He was too preoccupied with making sure that I compared Anakin Skywalker to Perseus rather than to Jesus, and missed or willfully ignored the glaring red question mark; I don't know which was going on in his mind.
QuoteI think part of the problem is that you can't study mythology academically anywhere so there aren't really any academic mythographers to bash the Bible.
From what I've read of Joseph Campbell's work, I think he tried. He examined myth cycles, and he measured stories associate with historical/divine circumstances and persons at the core of religious beliefs; and he seemed to give both equal weight to a certain extent. The stories contained within the context of religious belief were fair game to examine from the standpoint of how they might have evolved from earlier stories, legends, practices and myth cycles. To a certain extent, he did write with a tone of derision about the stories that came from religious traditions, but mainly to the extent that those stories were cultivated under the banner of religion as historic truth. He treated the stories with academic interest, yet was hostile if they were placed within a religious-construct, and his hostility seemed mainly targeted on the religious-construct rather than the story itself. That's my impression of his work, anyway.
This has all gotten me wondering just how much of it is direct plagiarism and how much are more of optimal "meme conditions" for such myths and mythical characters to happen.
Some people tend to be magical thinkers, which could go a long way in causing myths.
The actual stories in the scripture are pointless filler.
People believe that god is good, perfect, all powerful, we are in his image, if we are good we go to heaven, if we are bad or worse, don't believe, then we get tortured in hell.
People don't read the book, they interprete it so it fits their own assertions on what/who god is.
It could have been filled with the life works of Hitler and people would read through it and come out the other end in awe on how wonderful their god is.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 14, 2011, 06:00:52 PM
It could, if people already see the bible as symbolic and not literal. People would certainly know more about the origins of their beliefs, but I don't know how far a debate on comparative mytholgies (with theirs being among them) would go in changing their beliefs and them. Do you have any experience debating these topics with a Christian? If so, what was their reaction?
my experience has been they often get quite angry and rude, at which point I politely tell them they should just turn the other cheek ;D
people who are that wrapped up in their religion just tend to think that all the other gods and saviours and religious stories are myths, but somehow theirs are true! But it's still good fun to point out to them where their myths derive from, and maybe drive a bit more doubt into their minds
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 14, 2011, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 14, 2011, 06:00:52 PM
It could, if people already see the bible as symbolic and not literal. People would certainly know more about the origins of their beliefs, but I don't know how far a debate on comparative mytholgies (with theirs being among them) would go in changing their beliefs and them. Do you have any experience debating these topics with a Christian? If so, what was their reaction?
my experience has been they often get quite angry and rude, at which point I politely tell them they should just turn the other cheek ;D
people who are that wrapped up in their religion just tend to think that all the other gods and saviours and religious stories are myths, but somehow theirs are true! But it's still good fun to point out to them where their myths derive from, and maybe drive a bit more doubt into their minds
Funny, I've always gotten the response that the other mythologies were all copying Christianity. Sounds reasonable. The chronology might be a wee bit off, but who cares?
That's what I mean, they dismiss mythological evidence just as quickly as we dismiss their myths religious theologies.
It's like trying to disprove the koran using the bible. Odds are it won't even dent their beliefs even though Islam comes from the Abrahamic faith.
the other classic reply (I think iSok might use this one!) is that their god gave a preempting of the truth to the heathens, a little taster of the real truth that was to follow. I remember reading a book years ago that I got from the uni library on Greek / Roman mystery religions published by a reputable publisher (Thames and Hudson).
The author was trying to explain how Christianity shared so much in common with Mithraism, its great (and older) rival in late antiquity. These include a cave birth witnessed by three shepherds on 25th December, miracles, a last supper, eucharist, baptism, and a promise to return as saviour at a final judgement. Rather than suggest the obvious explanation that Christianity either borrowed these elements from Mithraism or they both obtained them from the same source, the author wrote,
'It is my suspicion, which, unfortunately, cannot be bolstered by scholarly evidence - that Roman Mithraism was born of some clairvoyant sense of the coming of Christ, seen through the perspective of Zoroastrian dualism' :o :o :o
I mean seriously he thought that and Thames and Hudson published it! This book was published in 1981, which really wasn't all that long ago, and shows what a problem there's been with looking at Christianity or Judaism as mythology. I also remember that my large encyclopedia of world mythology I had as a teenager stated that 'the Israelites have little mythology' ::)
How could Christian mythology ever be copied? Never! It's not like Egyptian beliefs existed years and years before hand... Oh wait.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 15, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
the other classic reply (I think iSok might use this one!) is that their god gave a preempting of the truth to the heathens, a little taster of the real truth that was to follow. I remember reading a book years ago that I got from the uni library on Greek / Roman mystery religions published by a reputable publisher (Thames and Hudson).
The author was trying to explain how Christianity shared so much in common with Mithraism, its great (and older) rival in late antiquity. These include a cave birth witnessed by three shepherds on 25th December, miracles, a last supper, eucharist, baptism, and a promise to return as saviour at a final judgement. Rather than suggest the obvious explanation that Christianity either borrowed these elements from Mithraism or they both obtained them from the same source, the author wrote,
'It is my suspicion, which, unfortunately, cannot be bolstered by scholarly evidence - that Roman Mithraism was born of some clairvoyant sense of the coming of Christ, seen through the perspective of Zoroastrian dualism' :o :o :o
I mean seriously he thought that and Thames and Hudson published it! This book was published in 1981, which really wasn't all that long ago, and shows what a problem there's been with looking at Christianity or Judaism as mythology. I also remember that my large encyclopedia of world mythology I had as a teenager stated that 'the Israelites have little mythology' ::)
Amazing ::)
it really is futile to try and counter a myth with a myth...they (all theists) already presuppose that theirs is true and take it from there.
"It is my suspicion, which, unfortunately, cannot be bolstered by scholarly evidence - that Roman Mithraism was born of some clairvoyant sense of the coming of Christ, seen through the perspective of Zoroastrian dualism"
A perfect example of theistic mentality hindsight bias, if there ever was one. ::)