Sunday, September 20, 2009

Atehist Fear of the Ancinet world.

Photobucket



I've seen a tendency of atheists lately to mock and ridicule ancient world people and by extension to condemn religion becuase ancient people believed it. We know atheists have always believed such things, but in the last month I've gotten a dozen or so comments to the effect "why would you want to be link ancient Bronze age people?" They specifically target the bronze age. why? it's illogical. Here are two examples form the same post on CARM. By a guy named "Too."

Are bronze age men worthy of absolute trust?
Christians beliefs depend almost entirely on trusting the words of bronze age men. ( and later 'editors etc)

So why are these bronze age guys so trustworthy? It surely can't be because they, themselves say they are.

Is there evidence that men back in the bronze age where above reproach. They all were without sin?Any of them were?

Yet I hear their translated words echoed here time and time again as if they were known to be absolute truths.

Would you trust your life to their word alone at a trial? Why?

I fail to see any evidence that bronze age men were in any way free of the many imperfections that all humans have today.
__________________



and then this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Too View Post
Then you have absolute faith in them. Perhaps in god , IF THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUE FACTS, but as we know humans are never without fault.

Faith in the word of bronze age men is what Christianity is based on.

Jesus, the Christian god, everything you think you know about god originated from the mouths and pens of bronze age men (and early more primitive men). This is an undeniable fact.

First of all you show your true ignorance of history here. Waht youa re saying is just manifest crap. You are leaving out a little thing called SOCIAL EVOLUTION! what you are saying would be like arguing that the Mustang mock 1 circa 1971 was crappy car because it was directly related to the model T and that the 1998 Torus was a crappy car becuase it's just another direct extension of the model T.

The ethical standard Jesus put down anticipate Kant. The views of the NT, especially Paul are clearly evolved way beyond anything Bronze age people thought about. If you follow that track from the Ice man and his mushrooms you follow it far enough you come the development of modern scinece. It's silly beyond compare to condemn human ancestry becuase it's nothing less than the bedrock of who are today.

Obviously an evolution in thinking. this evolution opens up the reality to timeless truth. Timeless truth was true in Bronze age and it's true today and it will be true a million years form now. We view timeless truth from different perspectives but it never goes away just because it's old, that's why it's timeless. The develop of perspective is evolution that's what atheists embrace but that's what you ignore here: religious belief has evolved it has kept pace with human understanding.


It amuses me to no end how atheists can be so unthinking. I mean come on, it's one thing to try and mock and ridicule the hated target group, all hate groups do that, but to pick one out that died off thousands of years ago and sit there going "I am so much better than the ice man! see how stupid he was, he fore to death because they was ni the mountains I'm so much better than him." LOL how silly can you get?

what is this need atheists have to hate ancient world people? It must be the latest tangent, becuase even though I've seen atheists say these kinds of things for years, just int he last month I've seen about a dozen statements such as "how can you be like ancient Bronze age people?" They are so scandalized by the idea that our ancinet ancestors lived a lot time ago and believed pre scientific notions. That's so shocking, how will I ever live that down?

When archaeologists dig up pot shards they don't do "O look at this stupid pot, it broke to pieces." they learn from the artifacts. Why should we look at our ancient ancestors, the basic material from which we evolved and made fun of them for the time lived in? This is some sick mentality that can only approach life through ridicule of others. You must have some brittle self esteem.

If we are going to avoid everything that Bronze age people did because being ancient they were stupid and everything they thought was bad then here's a list of things we have to give up:

Mushrooms as medicine
the idea that natural herbs can help with sickness.
the idea of seeking new solutions through trial and error
Loving our children
loving our parents
loving our mates
Loving our selves
understanding ourselves as part of group
goup loyalty
understanding ourselves as distinct from the group
making fire
making the wheel
riding horses.
making clothes


there are probably more things but this is off the top of my head.


why must we think that ancinet people who so incredibly stupid? Anthropologists no longer understand the origins of religion as primitive failed scinece. They now understand that it was the dawning of mystical consciousness that created the notion of religion. Since we know that this sort of consciousness is real good for us and changes our lives for the better (as demonstrated over and over again by the hundreds of empirical scientific studies that prove it) we really should conclude that Bronze age people were not so dumb, that they actually discovered a timeless truth or two that are still good today.

I should have used this as another reason in my debate why atheism is bankrupt.


No movement that thrives ont he sick ego warping drive to put yourself up by putting others down can survive for long.
__________________

13 comments:

dmcderm said...

Good grief, Metacrock, when are you going to learn some basic reading comprehension skills? No one said that ancient people were stupid or didn't contribute anything positive to human development. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.

The question is why do some Christians act as if ancient people never told lies. Or exaggerated. Or made up stories. Or slanted things to make their point of view look better. Look at your post before this one, where you quote Paul unquestioningly and at length as if he were some kind of saint or something (oh, wait, I suppose the Catholic church thinks he is).

Thing is, Metacrock, you've got to tighten up your criticisms. When a relevant question is asked, and you avoid the question as obviously as you do here, it makes you look bad.

Jayman said...

Note this person could not even get the facts straight. The Bronze Age ended around 1200 BC. Most of the events in the Bible happened after the Bronze Age.

J.L. Hinman said...

good job Jay, good points

J.L. Hinman said...

Good grief, Metacrock, when are you going to learn some basic reading comprehension skills? No one said that ancient people were stupid or didn't contribute anything positive to human development. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.

>>>that is exactly what they are saying. Odd you can't figure that out.

The question is why do some Christians act as if ancient people never told lies. Or exaggerated. Or made up stories. Or slanted things to make their point of view look better.

>>>they don't. christian acceptance of the bible ha nothing do with the bronze age. If the Bible was written in 1840 Christians would be saying it's the word of God, and atheists would be saying "people were so primitive in 1840." So it really has nothing to do with that--accept atheists think they can make a cheap score by bad mouthing primitive people. But it's really the genetic fallacy.


Look at your post before this one, where you quote Paul unquestioningly and at length as if he were some kind of saint or something (oh, wait, I suppose the Catholic church thinks he is).

ahahahaahahhaha as if he where some kidn of aint O quote Paul as if he were some kind of saint ahahaha. thanks man. I was looking for a new stupid atheist tricks.

Thing is, Metacrock, you've got to tighten up your criticisms. When a relevant question is asked, and you avoid the question as obviously as you do here, it makes you look bad.

J.L. Hinman said...

i have not avoided any question.

why would expect me to view Paul in a negative way> you act like it's a foregone conclusion and like you don't what saints are.

dmcderm said...

Ah, Metacrock, just can't seem to find the point if someone thrust it through your heart.

We are making a point that Christians take the writers of the New Testaments and turn them into paragons of virtues that they weren't. Regardless what the Catholic Church has to say about, Paul was a human being with all the foibles that humans have. That the Church developed a propaganda program that turned the imperfect saintly is irrelevant. How convenient for you (that you have trouble understanding irony).

In this naive view, the gospel writers wouldn't put in tall tales or exaggerations. They couldn't written the fabrications that were added in later to give the
story some jazz, all to help grind that ax of theirs.

So, somehow you seem to believe that people promoting their 2000 years ago religious views wouldn't tell even the smallest of lies. You sound awfully fundamental Yet us moderns lie, exaggeration,and make stuff up all the time. Were the ancients so much better? Reading the story of David ought to quash that notion.

Can't have it both ways, Metacrock. Either we all tend to embellish, even the apostles, or we are all truth-tellers. Since the latter is obviously false, it would appear the New Testament writers can't be trusted to tell the truth. Not saying all of it is false, and most scholars agree that much of it is.

So stop avoiding the question, Metacrock. Pointing to irrelevancies isn't going to save your argument. Not when it is this badly flawed.

And, also, if your going to accuse people of claiming that the ancients were stupid, you really should provide some evidence to back it up. What you've provided is simply bad inferences. Criticizing ancients does not imply they were stupid. It implies that they didn't know as much as we do today. Just as my daughter asking me for help with her algebra doesn't mean she's stupid.

But I know this: finding inferences that do not exist in another's writing is either a sign of stupidity or hubris. And it really makes you look bad.

J.L. Hinman said...

Ah, Metacrock, just can't seem to find the point if someone thrust it through your heart.

We are making a point that Christians take the writers of the New Testaments and turn them into paragons of virtues that they weren't. Regardless what the Catholic Church has to say about, Paul was a human being with all the foibles that humans have.

Meta:>>>> The issue has nothing at all to do with the nature of individual writers. Almost all Christian scholars agree that Biblical authors were flawed. That's a reining endorsement for the Bible; we are all sinners saved by grace.

the failure of atheists to understand this speaks volumes. And btw Paul was not bronze age, do you not understand that? The issue is how atheists make a point of degrading and mocking the fact of ancinet people. Ancient people were stupid and the fact that they were ancinet seems to be a big deal to them.




That the Church developed a propaganda program that turned the imperfect saintly is irrelevant. How convenient for you (that you have trouble understanding irony).


Meta:>>> I am not Catholic so I really don't know exactly what the line on sainthood is. I can only speak for myself as a Protestant, and you don't understand Protestantism. The point is not that Paul was perfect, it's that he had he authority. HE was also a little thing called an "Apostles" which id kind of like a saint, the guy said "a saint or something."

In this naive view, the gospel writers wouldn't put in tall tales or exaggerations. They couldn't written the fabrications that were added in later to give the
story some jazz, all to help grind that ax of theirs.


Meta:>>>that's totally irrelevant. when have I ever denied that the text could be embellished, that is not any kind of proof of out and out lies. That is something you must prove, that is not something you can just assert.

So, somehow you seem to believe that people promoting their 2000 years ago religious views wouldn't tell even the smallest of lies. You sound awfully fundamental Yet us moderns lie, exaggeration,and make stuff up all the time. Were the ancients so much better? Reading the story of David ought to quash that notion.

Meta:>>> You didn't read my comments did you? You are so confused you just reaffirmed what I said about atheist chronocentrism and yet by the end of this comment you will be questioning the phenomenon as though there's no proof for it, even though you just gave me some more proof of it.

Can't have it both ways, Metacrock. Either we all tend to embellish, even the apostles, or we are all truth-tellers. Since the latter is obviously false, it would appear the New Testament writers can't be trusted to tell the truth. Not saying all of it is false, and most scholars agree that much of it is.

Meta:>>> typical atheist logic, since everyone embellishes then they Apostles must have lied. O that's brilliant. Typical atheist inability to reason.

So stop avoiding the question, Metacrock. Pointing to irrelevancies isn't going to save your argument. Not when it is this badly flawed.


Meta:>>>that never was the question you don't know what the piece was about.

And, also, if your going to accuse people of claiming that the ancients were stupid, you really should provide some evidence to back it up.


Meta:>>>>You mean like their words? mabye?hummm? Ok how about these:


"So, somehow you seem to believe that people promoting their 2000 years ago religious views wouldn't tell even the smallest of lies. You sound awfully fundamental Yet us moderns lie, exaggeration,and make stuff up all the time. Were the ancients so much better? Reading the story of David ought to quash that notion."

J.L. Hinman said...

Criticizing ancients does not imply they were stupid. It implies that they didn't know as much as we do today. Just as my daughter asking me for help with her algebra doesn't mean she's stupid.


Meta:>>>It's obviously more than that because some atheists have said "you want to be like them." It's a clear disdain for them because they were pre scietnific. that's basically been stated to me any number of ways.

They didn'thave to know things about areas that are not realted to revelation. how much did they have to know to get a revelation from God? God revealed thigns to whom he will, why do they have to know about computers and modern science.

little unsophisticated illliterate atheists can only value things like that. They have no concept of art or literature. So there's the Bible, one of the greatest literary collections of all time and they have no better sense to to mock and ridicule it because of some stupid straw man argument that they taut because they are too stupid, uneducated and unread to understand the value of ancinet literature.

atheism = scientism. Whoever said that the nature of atheism is the absence of a belief was a liar. Atheism is a religion it's god is its own half backed made up er zots version of science.


atheists don't know anything about scinece but they worship what they think is scinece.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I really need to hack into your computer, Joe, and block your access to CARM. ;-)

J.L. Hinman said...

It's already blocked. Those over sensitive atheists just couldn't stand being called sacks of ****. I don't know why. (that's a joke I didn't really call them that).

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

No, I mean make it so you can't even view CARM. Just think how much better your blood pressure would be. ;-)

J.L. Hinman said...

my bp is great because I eat Yogurt and drink V8.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Touché