Dawkin's God Delusion

[Macy]

Praise be the rooster!
He's not the rooster. He's a very naughty duck...

[Macy]

Praise be the rooster!
He's not the rooster. He's a very naughty duck...

[Schumi]

Welease the wooster.

[John83]

I don't think there are a few hundred versions of the story.
There are about 20 gospels known, though we don't have complete copies of them all. I think there are a few which we don't have any surviving copy of - the church had a nasty habit of burning the less canonical of them.

The canonical ones were only picked ~400AD I think.


On a related topic, I see James Cameron is now claiming he's found Jesus' tomb (http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=world-qqqm=world-qqqa=world-qqqid=26490-qqqx=1.asp). It was on the front page of the Examiner today. No idea how he's worked that out, but there you go.
That's not all he's claiming.


He's not the rooster. He's a very naughty duck...
Careful now, or we'll have to declare a jihad on you.

[BohsPartisan]

The Library in UCD has a few copies of the Nag Hammadi Library (Heretical gospels)

[dahamsta]

Via (http://www.badscience.net/?p=367).

rd3laVISXLA

[BohsPartisan]

http://www.anytimecostumes.com/Merchant2/graphics/mascots/021522057.jpg

Praise be the Rooster.

[finlma]

Again though, you're ignoring the stock in oral word, learning by rote, etc, etc.

So there was some guy standing beside the cross telling everyone to learn by rote what happens and not to embelish the story. It would be naiive in the extreme to think that the story did not change and grow arms and legs. It happens every day in our culture even with proper recording equipment.

On another note the New Testement is full of contractictions about when and where Jesus was born. Thomas, whose stories were not included in the Bible but are well respected, wrote many accounts of Jesus playing tricks on his friends and using his powers to fire cups, spoons and the like around a room.

[pineapple stu]

There are about 20 gospels known, though we don't have complete copies of them all. The canonical ones were only picked ~400AD I think.
I'm aware of that. It's still not the "hundreds" that were claimed, nor anything close to it.


That's not all he's claiming.
I'm aware of that. I put it up purely for general interest, seeing as it was linked to the thread. For what it's worth, I think it's highly unlikely he's right, if only for the reason that Jesus' tomb must be one of the most sought-after items of the past 2000 years, and the chances are someone else has found it/robbed from it in the meantime. The Holy Cross was allegedly found in 300AD, and the Magi are allegedly interred in Koln, for example, which shows the interest in the search. Still, good luck to him. I can see the book coming out in a few years. And obviously the film is on the way. Or am I just cynical? :)


So there was some guy standing beside the cross telling everyone to learn by rote what happens and not to embelish the story. It would be naiive in the extreme to think that the story did not change and grow arms and legs. It happens every day in our culture even with proper recording equipment.
Again, you're completely ignoring my point.

You compare to our modern culture - I've said you can't do that.

You say there was someone telling everyone to remember what was going on by rote - that's not my point either. What I am saying is that people, when recording stories of note and gravity, they would be almost indoctrinated to passing the story largely unchanged down through the (2) generations. Totally different thing.

[BohsPartisan]

Are you suggesting the Fenian Cycle and the Ulster cycle weren't embellished by story tellers?

[pineapple stu]

I'm suggesting I wouldn't dismiss them purely becuse they were written after the event, having come down through a couple of generations by word of mouth.

In addition, the Irish mentality of the time would have been a warrior mentality, prone to showing how great their achievements were. The Jews of the time were rather a boring-sounding people, who believed they would be damned if thy walked more than a mile on the Sabbath, let alone make up stories about a Saviour, and so there isn't an exact correlation which can be drawn between the two.

But hey, maybe they are all rotting in a non-existing hell. :)

[Poor Student]

The Jews of the time were rather a boring-sounding people, who believed they would be damned if thy walked more than a mile on the Sabbath, let alone make up stories about a Saviour, and so there isn't an exact correlation which can be drawn between the two.


That's a pretty reductionist description of 8 million or so people with a big diversity in theological thought and level of devoutness.

[BohsPartisan]

In addition, the Irish mentality of the time would have been a warrior mentality, prone to showing how great their achievements were. The Jews of the time were rather a boring-sounding people,

Hang on, have you not read the old testament? Smiting, rape, pillage and incest right left and centre. Sounds more like your average week in Brookside.


Via (http://www.badscience.net/?p=367).

Feckin hell thats scary stuff.

[pineapple stu]

That's a pretty reductionist description of 8 million or so people with a big diversity in theological thought and level of devoutness.
Maybe. I don't pretend to be an expert on the issue, although I've read a couple of general books on it, and the general impression I picked up was as noted above. It's a generalisation, granted, but I think an acceptable one in the context I used it, which was to show that, by and large, the Jews weren't a warrior race who would typically exaggerate stories in the manner BohsPartisan is suggesting.

[finlma]

Hang on, have you not read the old testament? Smiting, rape, pillage and incest right left and centre. Sounds more like your average week in Brookside.


And don't forget a small dashing of homophobia along with a serving of racism. Sure isn't God a lovely fella.

[BohsPartisan]

the Jews weren't a warrior race
Read the old testament, particularly the book of Judges. 10,000 infidels smited in the first paragraph.

[jebus]

So what are we arguing about at the moment? That God is a racist, homophobic rapist? Or that the writers of the Testaments made a mess of it?

[Poor Student]

Maybe. I don't pretend to be an expert on the issue, although I've read a couple of general books on it, and the general impression I picked up was as noted above. It's a generalisation, granted, but I think an acceptable one in the context I used it, which was to show that, by and large, the Jews weren't a warrior race who would typically exaggerate stories in the manner BohsPartisan is suggesting.

It's not a good argument at all. The Maccabee Revolt, the subsequent aggressive expansion of the Jewish kingdom under the Hasmonaeans and forcible conversion of Gentiles and massacre of Hellenists, the strife under the Herodians, the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD and the viscous massacre of Greeks. What exactly do you define as warrior-like if not all that? You don't have to be a "warrior race" to embellish things anyway. Greek and Roman historians made embellishments all the time. Josephus, a Jew, did so himself. Christianity had spread to Hellenized Jews and gentiles by the time the New Testament material was being composed. St Paul was a Jew from Asia Minor. You can't just build an argument on one sentence saying no Jew would be likely to change the truth based on some loose generalisation.

[dahamsta]

How can you make a mess of fiction?

[jebus]

How can you make a mess of fiction?

If you try presenting it as fact and a moral guideline, and you end up making your hero into a monster in very unbelievable stories

[BohsPartisan]

So what are we arguing about at the moment? That God is a racist, homophobic rapist? Or that the writers of the Testaments made a mess of it?

No, just that Pineapple Stu's arguement of the Jews not being warlike in biblical times doesn't hold water.

[pineapple stu]

Read the old testament, particularly the book of Judges. 10,000 infidels smited in the first paragraph.
The Old Testament was a thousand years and more before the time of Jesus. I don't think it's entirely relevant in this context, no more than is our culture.


You don't have to be a "warrior race" to embellish things anyway. Greek and Roman historians made embellishments all the time.
Are you seriously saying the the Greeks and Romans weren't to some extent a warrior race?! The Romans who conquered half of Europe and who gave us gladiator fights, and the Greeks whose warriors were world-renowned (or as much of the world as was known then), to the extent that they gave us the word Spartan?

I'm not trying to argue that the ancient Jews didn't embellish stuff, don't forget. I am trying to say that you can't argue they made stuff up on the basis of a conversation in work or on the basis of a couple of warrior sagas, as BohsPartisan is trying to do. It's perfectly possible to have an ancient story which hasn't been greatly embellished, which people seem to be denying here.

For an example, again delving back into our own culture, take the story of St Brendan. We have the manuscript Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis, which tells of his voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to America in a small leather curragh in about the 6th century AD. Along the way, he encountered monsters throwing fiery rocks at him, landed on an island which mysteriously sunk and narrated many other rather bizarre experiences. The implausibility of the stories and of his boat caused most people to dismiss the possibility that he had actually made the trip, and the voyage was commonly held to be fiction, or at worst a gross embellishment. In the 1970s, Tim Severin set out to follow in Brendan's footsteps and not only confounded the critics by making it successfully across the Atlantic, he also found rational explanations for most of Brendan's sightings (a volcano and a whale, in the examples above). Obviously, Brendan had to describe things as best he could as he didn't know what a volcano was, but it's now largely accepted that the story did take place roughly as narrated. Brendan obviously wouldn't have been your more warriorly of people, which again fits in with what I was saying about warriors being more likely than pious religious people to exaggerate their stories.

I'm not trying to argue that the Bible happened exactly as described, but just that BohsPartisan and others are wrong to dismiss it based on their experiences in work or some warrior sagas.

Going back onto the original topic, incidentally, is it me or does Dawkins sound like a Michael Moore-type writer? I agree with a lot of what Moore has to say, but even then, he's an incredibly irritating writer, the more so on the occasions I disagree with him. That's the impression I'm getting of Dawkins too.

[BohsPartisan]

Are you seriously saying the the Greeks and Romans weren't to some extent a warrior race?!

No more than the Jews were.

[pineapple stu]

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time e're talking about.

[John83]

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time e're talking about.The part of Poor Student's last post you so selectively quoted made rather a good case for it.

[BohsPartisan]

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time we're talking about.

They were no longer renown as warriors because they had been subjugated by the romans but there were resistance movements and they would have seen themselves very much in the context of their warrior heritage. In fact if you read the gospel of Thomas in the Nag Hammadi Library Jesus comes accross a bit like a classical Jewish version of Mao.

[micls]

The writers of the Gospels were trying to sell Christianity so of course they embellished stuff. They wrote for different people and classes in different places and based their version to suit the needs of that group.

The contradictions alone show that the stories were not completely accurately oral passed on from the time of Jesus.

[pineapple stu]

And I'm getting criticised for making sweeping statements. ;)

[Poor Student]

Are you seriously saying the the Greeks and Romans weren't to some extent a warrior race?! The Romans who conquered half of Europe and who gave us gladiator fights, and the Greeks whose warriors were world-renowned (or as much of the world as was known then), to the extent that they gave us the word Spartan?

BP got my point. They're as little or as much a warrior race as the Greeks or Romans.


Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time e're talking about.

As John pointed out, I outlined a good load of contemporary incidents that highlighted their own bellicose nature. The period between Greek and Roman rule was quite impressive. Hasmonaen rule's violent expansive policies created the biggest ever Jewish kingdom, bigger than modern day Israel, and subjugated many different peoples and forcibly converted a lot of them. This was actually quite an impressive feat and Rome felt the need to halt this possible threatning expansion. You don't know your history of the area.


I'm not trying to argue that the ancient Jews didn't embellish stuff, don't forget. I am trying to say that you can't argue they made stuff up on the basis of a conversation in work or on the basis of a couple of warrior sagas, as BohsPartisan is trying to do. It's perfectly possible to have an ancient story which hasn't been greatly embellished, which people seem to be denying here.

You're not doing a great job of refuting his argument when your argument has historical holes like that. Your argument was: They didn't embellish it like the Ulster and Fenian cycles because they're not warriors, they're dull people afraid to do anything. In fact they were perfectly capable of waging war, massacring, and expanding their territory right up to New Testament times. You were also trying to insinuate that they wouldn't veer off the truth due to fear of being sinful as if there was no such thing as a secular Jew.

[John83]

And I'm getting criticised for making sweeping statements. ;)
My Biblical scholarship is a bit thin on the ground, but let's try this one: when did Jesus kick the traders out of the temple? Support your argument with all four gospels.

[BohsPartisan]

From WIKI:

The first intervention of Rome in the region dates from 63 BC, following the end of the Third Mithridatic War, when Rome made a province of Syria. After the defeat of Mithridates VI of Pontus, general Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) remained there to secure the area.

Judea at the time was not a peaceful place. Queen Salome Alexandra had recently died and her sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, divided against each other in a civil war. In 63 BC, Aristobulus was besieged in Jerusalem by his brother's armies. He sent an envoy to Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, Pompey's representative in the area. Aristobulus offered a massive bribe to be rescued, which Pompey promptly accepted. Afterwards, Aristobulus accused Scaurus of extortion. Since Scaurus was Pompey's brother in law and protégée, the general retaliated by putting Hyrcanus in charge of the kingdom as Prince and High Priest.

[Lionel Ritchie]

His claim appeared clear enough. He said it "wasn't at all uncommon" to survive crucifixion, and used this as the basis for a theory on the resurrection (i.e. that he was around for 40 days afterwards because he never died on the cross in the first place). This appears to be groundless in the absence of any more evidence of people not dying on the cross.

However, I agree we should wait for his answer. That's my context anyway.

Sorry -my language was strong. I shouldn't have said "wasn't at all uncommon" as it's virtually impossible to back such a statement up* I'd have been better saying "wasn't unheard of" or something similar.
There is some archaeological evidence of a case mentioned earlier of a person who survived crucifixion where there was evidence of growth tissue on the bones puntures post crucifixion.
There is also -pertinent to the chap we're discussing -in Kashmiri folklore a grave of a Judean holy man called Iosa who arrived in Kashmir in his teens, hung around there for some time doing whatever before returning to Judea/Palestine years later as an adult. Story goes he came back to Kashmir as a fugitive having survived crucifixion. He married, had a family, lived to a grand old age and is buried in kashmir. Trouble is theirs now a Muslim holy man buried on top of his grave. I didn't open TOMB OF JESUS link but I'm fairly certain this is the story it'll point to.

*It's difficult to find hard and fast evidence of crucifixion survivors for a few reasons. For starters there is very little archaelogical evidence of any person who underwent crucifixion -survivor or not -as they were frequently left up on the crosses, T's, X's, Trees and whatever else was handy to nail/tie them upon to be scavenged.

There's also the fact that if someone rescued you and you recovered it's not something you'd boast about unless the political climate changed such as to render it safe for you to be out in the open. You'd still be a fugitive -no more likely to brag about surviving than you would be to mouth off about escaping prison having been put away for 20 to life. There's also the fact that anyone within an asses roar of you would end on the cross next to you if you were re-apprehended.

So why would I think it possible that people survived crucifixion? Well -opportunity. Crucifixion was as much a spectator sport and an advertisment for the rule of law as a punishment. The idea wasn't to just kill you -but kill you as slowly and painfully as possible. You could live for days up on one of those things ...and the romans or whoever is guarding you have to sleep sometime (or lose interest more likely ...the romans used their preferred methods of execution -beheading on anyone who fell asleep on duty) which presents one opportunity for a rescuer to have a go.

You needn't even be under guard. If you're up for some time it'll be assumed you're dead. Now if they're thorough they'll break your legs or spear you to make sure before going off duty -but they probably weren't always thorough.

They used break the victims legs to stop them supporting themselves and thus induce suffocation. That wikipedia article is incorrect when it refers to a footrest to take the weight off the arms. The slanted block of wood was a seat not a footrest. As you suffocated you could push your ass back up the seat for a bit of temporary relief from dying -and prolong your tormentors enjoyment at the same time.

So they'd break your legs when they decided you'd had enough ...but I don't doubt that sometimes they didn't break legs -out of malice rather than mercy -and said " ah let the fcuker clock out at his own pace".

[jebus]

That said had Jesus been crucified as 'the King of the Jews' he probably would have been subjected to the scourging that is talked about in the Bible, and anyone of human flesh, mortal or Son of God, would have very, very little chance of surviving that and a crucifixtion.

On another point I laughed at James Cameron stating he had found the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdelene, simply because he had found a tomb with Mary known as the Master and Jesus, son of Joseph on it. Fair enough saying it might be, but saying that it is is as ridiculous as the Turin Shroud if you ask me

[John83]

On another point I laughed at James Cameron stating he had found the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdelene, simply because he had found a tomb with Mary known as the Master and Jesus, son of Joseph on it. Fair enough saying it might be, but saying that it is is as ridiculous as the Turin Shroud if you ask me
He stated his reasons for believing them. I'm not about to accept them uncritically, but they aren't obviously wrong:


...statistical analysis shows the odds are at the 600-1 in favour of the tomb being that of Jesus’s family...

...The Lost Tomb of Jesus argued that although the names inscribed in Hebrew and Greek were common in the 1st century, one thought to represent Mary Magdalene is the clincher that sets them apart as a group.
It reads “Mariamene e Mara”, an unusual Greek version of the name which can be translated as “Mary known as the Master”.
The film cites recent scholarly research revealing that Mariamene was the particular variation used by Mary Magdalene.
Finding that name along with the others was the equivalent of discovering a grave marked Ringo alongside a John, Paul and George, Cameron said...

Now, maybe you can argue with the statistics of how uncommon that combination is, or with some of the research attributing that name to Magdalene, but I really doubt you even read that far.

[strangeirish]

Anyone ever had a word with this crew (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ckh1rRtFdBE) on Grafton St on a Friday night? Testimonies start about 2.09 into it.

[finlma]

Anyone ever had a word with this crew (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ckh1rRtFdBE) on Grafton St on a Friday night? Testimonies start about 2.09 into it.

I found it hard not to laugh. "The Lord made me go to Tralee." :rolleyes:

[strangeirish]

I found it hard not to laugh. "The Lord made me go to Tralee." :rolleyes:
I've been putting up with this type of stuff in the US for the last twenty odd years. Is it more prevalent in Ireland nowadays? The only thing I remember at home was some auld one on O'Connell Street, dressed in black, holding a cross and bible aloft, with a sign saying "The end is nigh".

As for the crew in the video, I think they are trying to predict our next home defeat. Nice yellow T-Shirts with John, 3:7 ;)

[Raheny Red]

Got this essay today :D

Offer a critical assessment of Richard Dawkin's rejection of theist truth claims.

[sonofstan]

Got this essay today :D

Offer a critical assessment of Richard Dawkin's rejection of theist truth claims.

Cut and paste this thread and tell us what mark you get!

[jebus]

Anyone read about Dawkins attacking Peter Kay for referring to God in one of his sketches in the Guardian yesterday, he came across as being terribly petty to be honest, as my flatmate (who has no interest in God or Dawkins) said

'What the **** does it matter to Dawkins if Peter Kay does or does not believe in God?'

[BohsPartisan]

I don't believe in Peter Kay

[Jerry The Saint]

He's a taste sensation! :)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2007/03/dawkins_attack_on_peter_kay_is.html

Is it common for authors to engage in negative campaigning for silly book awards, as if it was an election or something:confused: :D

Dawkins' reaction to his portrayal on South Park (mentioned further upthread) does not reflect particularly well on him either



Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite . I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it.

http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal#11

Very defensive about the gay thing - you'd think he wouldn't be particularly bothered...

[Lionel Ritchie]

Dawkins' reaction to his portrayal on South Park (mentioned further upthread) does not reflect particularly well on him either

Very defensive about the gay thing - you'd think he wouldn't be particularly bothered...


Haven't seen that South Park. Sounds good :D

[Raheny Red]

Apologies to bring posts from a weeks back but I was just reading back through the thread ;) and a couple caught my eye!


Exactly. If I ever have kids I don't want religion anywhere near them, which is another reason this subject is so important to me.

So, I take it you wouldn't get them baptised:confused: If you decided not to get them baptised and they came home one day, they said they wanted to get baptised (considering they have come to the age to be able to reason) what would your reaction be?

I read that Dawkins goes as far as saying that giving your child a religion is a form of child abuse. I feel that is a bit extreme but I'd agree with him if a parent was 'forcing' a religion on their child! Afterall, parents tell their kids about Santa Claus, the toothfairy and the Easter Bunny as it brings them happiness just as God bring joy and hope to certain people. Dawkins states that if you believe in something then you should be able to back up that belief with scientific evidence, but in saying that, he gave his daughter the joy of Santa Claus, so why not teach her about God or who/whatever if it makes her happy?!


I doubt there's consensus, but I've read a number of people suggest that he did exist, was a reformist jewish religious figure and was later misrepresented by people who'd never even met him (like St Paul and the gospel writers).

Josephus, a historian from the first century, also wrote about him.

[BohsPartisan]

So, I take it you wouldn't get them baptised:confused: If you decided not to get them baptised and they came home one day, they said they wanted to get baptised (considering they have come to the age to be able to reason) what would your reaction be?


When they are old enough they'll be free to make their own decision.

[Raheny Red]

When they are old enough they'll be free to make their own decision.

Would you tell them about Santa Claus, and the others I mentioned above?

[dahamsta]

At some point people will stop asking the same questions over and over again. Google "dawkins claus -kindergarten" for Dawkins' opinions on the critical Santa Claus question.

[BohsPartisan]

Would you tell them about Santa Claus, and the others I mentioned above?

Yeah but I'll also tell them Santa doesn't exist some day. Anyway, theres a big difference in Santa Claus and God.

[osarusan]

When they are old enough they'll be free to make their own decision.
But will you have given them enough information, or taught them that other opinions exist, to the point where they will be able to decide for themselves, or simply choose the option you've given them?

[jebus]

Yeah but I'll also tell them Santa doesn't exist some day. Anyway, theres a big difference in Santa Claus and God.

What if they found out he's also called St.Nicholas? And they want to know about the Saints at an early age, and hence they want to know about Christianity at an early age? Will you teach them open mindedly and allow them to come to their own conclusions, or teach them what you want them to believe