Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[alang1216]

It wasn’t. That’s why there were people who disagreed with it when it was accepted by others.

You didn't say why slavery was illogical.

 

[alang1216]

Exodus was a watershed moment whereby everything was documented and formally established.

How are oral traditions 'documented and formally established'?

Again… their belief that they were chosen by God to establish laws was no myth.

People believe in many things, including myths, believing doesn't make something true.

 

[alang1216]

I don’t. Unless of course I had no money and was hungry. Which has never been the case.

Neither do I.

 

[ding]

You didn't say why slavery was illogical.

My bad. I read your question why was slavery logical and replied it wasn’t. You will easily understand why slavery or any evil for that matter is illogical if it is done to you. Then you will see very clearly why it is wrong and illogical. But the short answer is that it goes against nature. If you don’t accept that then I suggest you become someone’s slave to discover that.

 

[ding]

How are oral traditions 'documented and formally established'?

Passed down orally from generation to generation until it is recorded in writing which happened at the time of Exodus. Surely you don’t believe the time of Exodus was the first time they learned about their lineage to Abraham, right?

 

[ding]

People believe in many things, including myths, believing doesn't make something true.

Do you have any evidence that supports the belief that the Israelites believed their beliefs were myths?

Do you have any evidence that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Your problem is that you can’t separate the embellishments from the descriptive portray of reality that the authors were conveying. And you can’t ignore how evangelicals have elevated these accounts to the word of God rather than what they are; ancient accounts by a people who believed they were chosen to raise standards.

 

[ding]

Neither do I.

So maybe come up with a more meaningful example?

 

[alang1216]

My bad. I read your question why was slavery logical and replied it wasn’t. You will easily understand why slavery or any evil for that matter is illogical if it is done to you. Then you will see very clearly why it is wrong and illogical. But the short answer is that it goes against nature. If you don’t accept that then I suggest you become someone’s slave to discover that.

Slavery is a social construct, it may be bad for the individual slave, but it was generally beneficial for the society. What would Rome have built or ancient Greece discovered if not for their slaves? So how is it against nature and not logical?

 

[alang1216]

Passed down orally from generation to generation until it is recorded in writing which happened at the time of Exodus. Surely you don’t believe the time of Exodus was the first time they learned about their lineage to Abraham, right?

How do you know when it was written down?

 

[alang1216]

Do you have any evidence that supports the belief that the Israelites believed their beliefs were myths?

Do you have any evidence they didn't? Greeks told tales of Hercules, did all Greeks believe the tales were true?

Do you have any evidence that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

They all lead to death, other than that they obviously don't. Do you have any evidence that equal behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Your problem is that you can’t separate the embellishments from the descriptive portray of reality that the authors were conveying. And you can’t ignore how evangelicals have elevated these accounts to the word of God rather than what they are; ancient accounts by a people who believed they were chosen to raise standards.

I think you, not for the first time, misrepresent my beliefs. I think what you are saying is that the stories of the Bible communicate the wisdom of the people who owned them. I don't disagree but that brings us no closer to judging if the God of Abraham is a myth or not.

 

[ding]

Slavery is a social construct, it may be bad for the individual slave, but it was generally beneficial for the society. What would Rome have built or ancient Greece discovered if not for their slaves? So how is it against nature and not logical?

Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man. Forced slavery is not virtuous. It’s unnatural. By your logic we could enslave women force them to bear children, kill off all of the undesirable ones and as long as it produced what you perceived as an improved or stronger version of society, it would be logical and natural. What I am saying is that the end never justifies the means and that you can’t compare it to the road not taken. How do you know that if those societies had been more virtuous they wouldn’t have produced better outcomes?

 

[ding]

How do you know when it was written down?

Because the writing of Genesis was attributed to the time of Moses. So whether or not Moses was actually the author - which is in dispute - the first written accounts were attributed to that time period.

But my belief is that the first eleven chapters and the accounts of Abraham were commonly known before the time of Moses.

 

[ding]

Do you have any evidence they didn't? Greeks told tales of Hercules, did all Greeks believe the tales were true?

Sure. Just google did the Israelites believe they were chosen to establish standards. Their texts and behaviors are the evidence and still hold true to this day.

It’s really hard to believe a people that believed that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes would think that that self evident belief is a myth.

That you compare Judaism to Greek mythology is astonishing. Are their people today who believe Greek mythology is true? But let me be very clear, no matter what religion or mythology - polytheism, monotheism, primal religions or mythologies - there were always some like you that didn’t believe them.

 

[ding]

They all lead to death, other than that they obviously don't. Do you have any evidence that equal behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Every living thing is born to die. So that seems like a ridiculous argument to make that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Slightly less ridiculous is your argument that all equal behaviors should lead to the same outcomes. It’s statistical in nature. Violating moral laws of nature is not like violating physical laws of nature. There is a distribution for almost all things. So instead of trying to define the rule by exception, you need to look at the entire distribution to define the rule. And that rule is this: not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some naturally lead to better outcomes and some naturally lead to worse outcomes. The entire concept of standards is based upon this self evident truth.

 

[ding]

I think you, not for the first time, misrepresent my beliefs. I think what you are saying is that the stories of the Bible communicate the wisdom of the people who owned them. I don't disagree but that brings us no closer to judging if the God of Abraham is a myth or not.

I don’t believe I am misrepresenting your beliefs. You read these accounts to confirm your biases rather than trying to understand what the author was trying to convey. You focus on the embellishments to confirm your biases. I am basing this on numerous conversations with you.

Israelites did not believe their beliefs were myths. Their actions do not support they believed their beliefs were myths. Their texts do not support their beliefs were a myth. But if that is not enough evidence for you then I suggest you study the evidence for the miracles performed by Christ with special emphasis on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and what happened after Christ was resurrected.

 

[alang1216]

Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man.

Evidence for that? The greatest empire in history were the Mongols. Were they examples of virtue?

Forced slavery is not virtuous. It’s unnatural.

It's been common throughout human history. Sounds perfectly 'natural' (whatever that means) to me.

By your logic we could enslave women force them to bear children, kill off all of the undesirable ones and as long as it produced what you perceived as an improved or stronger version of society, it would be logical and natural.

That how most societies operated until modern times. Again, sounds perfectly 'natural' to me.

What I am saying is that the end never justifies the means and that you can’t compare it to the road not taken. How do you know that if those societies had been more virtuous they wouldn’t have produced better outcomes?

How do you determine that justification other than the survival of that society?

 

[alang1216]

Because the writing of Genesis was attributed to the time of Moses.

I'm not aware, can you cite some reference?

So whether or not Moses was actually the author - which is in dispute - the first written accounts were attributed to that time period.

I doubt Moses ever existed, I suspect he is a composite of several leaders.

But my belief is that the first eleven chapters and the accounts of Abraham were commonly known before the time of Moses.

Known maybe, written down, I don't know about that.

 

[alang1216]

Sure. Just google did the Israelites believe they were chosen to establish standards. Their texts and behaviors are the evidence and still hold true to this day.

It’s really hard to believe a people that believed that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes would think that that self evident belief is a myth.

That you compare Judaism to Greek mythology is astonishing. Are their people today who believe Greek mythology is true? But let me be very clear, no matter what religion or mythology - polytheism, monotheism, primal religions or mythologies - there were always some like you that didn’t believe them.

Judaism and Greek mythology coexisted for centuries. Greek mythology was replaced by Christian mythology.

 

[alang1216]

Every living thing is born to die. So that seems like a ridiculous argument to make that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Slightly less ridiculous is your argument that all equal behaviors should lead to the same outcomes. It’s statistical in nature. Violating moral laws of nature is not like violating physical laws of nature. There is a distribution for almost all things. So instead of trying to define the rule by exception, you need to look at the entire distribution to define the rule. And that rule is this: not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some naturally lead to better outcomes and some naturally lead to worse outcomes. The entire concept of standards is based upon this self evident truth.

Not only do you misrepresent my positions (I NEVER claimed that all equal behaviors should lead to the same outcomes) but you contradict your own positions.

 

[alang1216]

I don’t believe I am misrepresenting your beliefs. You read these accounts to confirm your biases rather than trying to understand what the author was trying to convey. You focus on the embellishments to confirm your biases. I am basing this on numerous conversations with you.

Disagree.

I suggest you study the evidence for the miracles performed by Christ with special emphasis on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and what happened after Christ was resurrected.

OK, let's look at the resurrection, the key belief of Christianity. Unsurprisingly, I don't believe it actually took place.

1. There is no independent attestation outside of the NT
2. The accounts of the event vary in the NT
3. Occam's Razor offers several, more believable explanations that don't require the supernatural:
   1. Someone was impersonating Jesus
   2. Someone thought they saw him
   3. Someone made up the story