|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2011 : 23:01:32 [Permalink]
|
KD8, Hercules , other hysterical characters.....
Aside from possibly ressurecting the ghost of Joseph Campbell, what in the hell are you Biblical obscessionists arguing about? The cut-and-paste has reached truly mythical proportions, and I'm damned if I can even get a whiff of the gist of it! There is some question that the Christus is a myth? |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2011 : 03:48:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by marfknox
The only real problem I have with the detailed description of the "Mythicist position" as a unique option is that Acharya S misrepresents atheism. The Mythicist position as described by her IS an atheist position. Just because it seeks to understand more fully the origins and meanings of various religious figures, doesn't mean it considers them to be any more real than an atheist considers them. Atheists don't have literal beliefs in the supernatural. Neither do Mythicists. So how are Mythicists not a type of atheist? Really the Mythicist position is just atheism plus a particular interest into origins of Biblical characters and how they might connect with other myths. I don't really see why this topic needs its own special grand label.
|
I'm with you marfknox,
Seems to me someone just wanted a fancy name.
myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]
-noun
a person who views various figures of antiquity, including both pagan gods and major biblical characters, as mythical.
|
Wow, what a revelation.....
|
For close to 1.5 thousand years mythicists were called heretics, infidels, pagans and satanists.
Maybe they thought it was time to give themselves a name besides one that was a derogatory term?
|
Whoa there cowboy, dont pretend that all atheists from history are now officially part of your ideals club. We come in many flavors, most of which could care less about the "mythicists" position. How exactly does a sun worshipping pagan's beliefs in any way intersect yours?
Also it's a dumb name, not on the level with "brights", but you could do better. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 05:24:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by marfknox
The only real problem I have with the detailed description of the "Mythicist position" as a unique option is that Acharya S misrepresents atheism. The Mythicist position as described by her IS an atheist position. Just because it seeks to understand more fully the origins and meanings of various religious figures, doesn't mean it considers them to be any more real than an atheist considers them. Atheists don't have literal beliefs in the supernatural. Neither do Mythicists. So how are Mythicists not a type of atheist? Really the Mythicist position is just atheism plus a particular interest into origins of Biblical characters and how they might connect with other myths. I don't really see why this topic needs its own special grand label.
|
I'm with you marfknox,
Seems to me someone just wanted a fancy name.
myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]
-noun
a person who views various figures of antiquity, including both pagan gods and major biblical characters, as mythical.
|
Wow, what a revelation.....
|
For close to 1.5 thousand years mythicists were called heretics, infidels, pagans and satanists.
Maybe they thought it was time to give themselves a name besides one that was a derogatory term?
|
My point being that it is unnecessary to come up with some whole new name for something that happens pretty much by default. I'm pretty sure that most atheists fully realize that all of these stories are myths.
I am an atheist with an interest in anthropology. I am not an anthropologist. I think I will call myself "anthropolicist" |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 06:35:48 [Permalink]
|
I'm pretty sure the term "Mythicist", as used by the likes of Robert Price or Bart Ehrman, applies only to the contention that Jesus was never flesh-and-blood, but is a mythical construct. And as such its a valid term since Jesus could have been real, or based partly on someone real. A Mythicist, in that sense, would be someone who thinks Jesus is entirely made up.
I think what THESE guys are saying is that a Mythicist is someone who thinks the characters in the bible are based on astronomical signs and the like. This would be a specific subset of atheists, but I don't think "Mythicist" is a good term to use. Its too general, IMHO, and conflicts with another commonly used definition. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 06:44:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by marfknox
The only real problem I have with the detailed description of the "Mythicist position" as a unique option is that Acharya S misrepresents atheism. The Mythicist position as described by her IS an atheist position. Just because it seeks to understand more fully the origins and meanings of various religious figures, doesn't mean it considers them to be any more real than an atheist considers them. Atheists don't have literal beliefs in the supernatural. Neither do Mythicists. So how are Mythicists not a type of atheist? Really the Mythicist position is just atheism plus a particular interest into origins of Biblical characters and how they might connect with other myths. I don't really see why this topic needs its own special grand label.
|
I'm with you marfknox,
Seems to me someone just wanted a fancy name.
myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]
-noun
a person who views various figures of antiquity, including both pagan gods and major biblical characters, as mythical.
|
Wow, what a revelation.....
|
For close to 1.5 thousand years mythicists were called heretics, infidels, pagans and satanists.
Maybe they thought it was time to give themselves a name besides one that was a derogatory term?
|
Whoa there cowboy, dont pretend that all atheists from history are now officially part of your ideals club. We come in many flavors, most of which could care less about the "mythicists" position. How exactly does a sun worshipping pagan's beliefs in any way intersect yours?
Also it's a dumb name, not on the level with "brights", but you could do better.
|
Whoa there papasmurf, I am not pretending anything and I am not pretending that I am in some club because if you noticed, I said THEY.
I am also not lumping them all together into a mythicist position, but there might be some mythicists from each or any of those groups.
I do not worship anything.
Whether it is a dumb name or not, it wasn't me who made it up, so if you have a problem with it, you might want to confront the person that did make it up.
Thanks! |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 06:58:39 [Permalink]
|
changingmyself For close to 1.5 thousand years mythicists were called heretics, infidels, pagans and satanists.
Maybe they thought it was time to give themselves a name besides one that was a derogatory term? |
Oh give me a break! This is true of all skeptics and atheists. And their persecutors didn't give a shit if they thought Jesus was an entirely mythical creation based on earlier mythical figures or if he was just some real regular guy. If you openly claimed he wasn't God, you put yourself out their for persecution. There is no reason to specifically group together the ones who specifically claimed the former to the exclusion of the latter. And the larger group of such people already has a couple good labels: skeptics, freethinkers.
Again, I got a problem with the video claiming that the mythicist position is separate from atheism. It isn't separate from atheism. It is a very specific position about a particular set of religious claims within the larger atheist stance.
leoofno wrote: | I don't think "Mythicist" is a good term to use. Its too general, IMHO, and conflicts with another commonly used definition. |
Yes, this bugs me, too. The ideas put forth by Mythicism are interesting, and the whole label and identity crab just distracts from them. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 07:00:34 [Permalink]
|
teched246 wrote: That's about the lamest answer ever to give on a skeptic forum. I agree with Dave, who responded with: | Please go ahead and start another thread on this subject. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 07:17:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
changingmyself For close to 1.5 thousand years mythicists were called heretics, infidels, pagans and satanists.
Maybe they thought it was time to give themselves a name besides one that was a derogatory term? |
Oh give me a break! This is true of all skeptics and atheists. And their persecutors didn't give a shit if they thought Jesus was an entirely mythical creation based on earlier mythical figures or if he was just some real regular guy. If you openly claimed he wasn't God, you put yourself out their for persecution. There is no reason to specifically group together the ones who specifically claimed the former to the exclusion of the latter. And the larger group of such people already has a couple good labels: skeptics, freethinkers.
Again, I got a problem with the video claiming that the mythicist position is separate from atheism. It isn't separate from atheism. It is a very specific position about a particular set of religious claims within the larger atheist stance.
leoofno wrote: | I don't think "Mythicist" is a good term to use. Its too general, IMHO, and conflicts with another commonly used definition. |
Yes, this bugs me, too. The ideas put forth by Mythicism are interesting, and the whole label and identity crab just distracts from them.
|
I agree, it is true of all skeptics and atheists and I agree that mythicist is not the best name for it, but again, I didn't make it up. I do think Jesus was a myth and that a lot of the bible is astrology but I don't hold all of the mythicist beliefs and don't consider myself a mythicist.
From what I have read, some mythicists feel as if the bible is some cosmic story that has been repeated for some great purpose. although not all believe this.
I think it was one deity assimilated the characteristics of another deity when their cults combined. I consider Christianity one of those cults of assimilation just as Judaism was. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 07:28:17 [Permalink]
|
Strange thread. We're talking about Christ myth theory, right? You can be a "Jesus Myther" without being an atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
| Edited by - Baxter on 05/25/2011 07:30:42 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 07:35:17 [Permalink]
|
OK, lets not get sidetracked on this label debate. Can we all agree that Mythicist is an imperfect label for this subset of atheists, and just grin and bare it? I don't like it either, but I'm more interested in the rest of the debate.
Edited to add: Of course you can be a Jesus mythicist and not be an atheist. Noone has said otherwise. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - leoofno on 05/25/2011 07:38:51 |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 08:11:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
teched246 wrote: [quote]That's about the lamest answer ever to give on a skeptic forum. |
Riiight, because arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were versed in particle physics was necessary to make my point.(?) 
My point was that the Ancient Egyptians were knowledgable enough (very knowledgable) to know what went on outside of thier skies and landscape, this being the purpose of the pyramid reference. For what reason would I entertain some jackass' irrelevant comment about particle physics in Ancient Egypt?
"That's the lamest answer to ever give on a skeptic forum"
New Flash: Im not a "skeptic". Although, im skeptical about many things, I passed on the whole sub-culture of pseudo-skepticism, which, apparently, now just goes under the heading, "skepticism"...makes is sound more dignified. I give it 1 hour before many of you start barking like chimps for that comment alone
Arguing purely for the sake arguing and arguing in the genuine spirit of Truth (with a capital t) are not the same; the difference being wisdom. The former is a dead end path of irrelevance for big kids to play pedant all they want.
|
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
| Edited by - teched246 on 05/25/2011 08:13:49 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 08:43:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
OK, lets not get sidetracked on this label debate. Can we all agree that Mythicist is an imperfect label for this subset of atheists, and just grin and bare it? I don't like it either, but I'm more interested in the rest of the debate.
Edited to add: Of course you can be a Jesus mythicist and not be an atheist. Noone has said otherwise.
|
I've got a bug up my ass when it comes to naming genres. People get so caught up in it. It stems from me being a Heavy Metal guy and becoming annoyed with the 50,000 different genres of music that I see people arguing about all the time.
I must be a anthro-hetero-caucazoid-guitarologist-atheist. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 08:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Originally posted by marfknox
teched246 wrote: [quote]That's about the lamest answer ever to give on a skeptic forum. |
Riiight, because arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were versed in particle physics was necessary to make my point.(?)
My point was that the Ancient Egyptians were knowledgable enough (very knowledgable) to know what went on outside of thier skies and landscape, this being the purpose of the pyramid reference. For what reason would I entertain some jackass' irrelevant comment about particle physics in Ancient Egypt?
"That's the lamest answer to ever give on a skeptic forum"
New Flash: Im not a "skeptic". Although, im skeptical about many things, I passed on the whole sub-culture of pseudo-skepticism, which, apparently, now just goes under the heading, "skepticism"...makes is sound more dignified. I give it 1 hour before many of you start barking like chimps for that comment alone
Arguing purely for the sake arguing and arguing in the genuine spirit of Truth (with a capital t) are not the same; the difference being wisdom. The former is a dead end path of irrelevance for big kids to play pedant all they want.
|
The plot thickens.
And dang, you caught us! Yeah, that whole pseudo-skepticism label that we put on ourselves wasn't really working for us. So after lots of marketing research, we dropped the "pseudo" part. You have no idea how much more respect we get now...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 09:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Originally posted by marfknox
teched246 wrote: [quote]That's about the lamest answer ever to give on a skeptic forum. |
Riiight, because arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were versed in particle physics was necessary to make my point.(?)
My point was that the Ancient Egyptians were knowledgable enough (very knowledgable) to know what went on outside of thier skies and landscape, this being the purpose of the pyramid reference. For what reason would I entertain some jackass' irrelevant comment about particle physics in Ancient Egypt?
"That's the lamest answer to ever give on a skeptic forum"
New Flash: Im not a "skeptic". Although, im skeptical about many things, I passed on the whole sub-culture of pseudo-skepticism, which, apparently, now just goes under the heading, "skepticism"...makes is sound more dignified. I give it 1 hour before many of you start barking like chimps for that comment alone
Arguing purely for the sake arguing and arguing in the genuine spirit of Truth (with a capital t) are not the same; the difference being wisdom. The former is a dead end path of irrelevance for big kids to play pedant all they want.
|
Hey, YOU brought up, and I quote, "how advanced the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were in astronomy, with knowledge surpassing even ours' today." Thats quite a claim. You were asked to back it up (perhaps Dude could have asked more politely, but your statement was a bit over-the-top as well) and instead made a lame reply and got called on it. Now you respond with insults. Really? Way to make your case.
"Knowledge Surpassing Ours" needs to be substantiated. It is NOT the same as them knowing more than we realize. If you got carried away with the rhetoric then you should have just said "Sorry, I got carried away there." Would have been no big deal.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 09:42:54 [Permalink]
|
You know, most of the regulars here are with you on the idea of religion as myth. I don't know why you have decided to go with the hostile approach, but whatever, I'm pretty good at that game too.
teched246 said:
| For what reason would I entertain some jackass' irrelevant comment about particle physics in Ancient Egypt? |
Because if you really think that Sumerians and Egyptians had more advanced astronomy than we do currently, then nothing you have to say is going to be worth any one's time. It was difficult enough to take you seriously when you were just talking nonsense about (T)ruth(tm) and going with what "feels right". Add this to the list, and you become little more than just one more retard in a massively long line of retards who can't think clearly enough to to realize how badly they are embarrassing themselves.
Also, for the record, cosmic background radiation isn't particle physics.
| Not that it matters in light of how advanced the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were in astronomy, with knowledge surpassing even ours' today. |
Since you don't seem to have any idea what astronomy is, how about we go with something easier? Show me the Sumerian or Egyptian data on the moons of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Maybe their data on Oort cloud objects. Pluto? Show me their mathematics and explain how they surpass ours for modeling and predicting planetary motion.
Start a new thread and make your case. I think you are wrong, self evidently and ridiculously so, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea that I might learn something new. So if you really think any past civilization had better astronomy than we do now, you should start that thread.
| Arguing purely for the sake arguing and arguing in the genuine spirit of Truth (with a capital t) are not the same; the difference being wisdom. The former is a dead end path of irrelevance for big kids to play pedant all they want. |
I'll grant you your (T)ruth for a moment here. How can you justify your claims, in the "genuine spirit of (T)ruth", when your facts are obviously (F)alse? This isn't arguing for the sake of arguing, you are in here with the intent to make a case for mythical jesus. You are using the astronomy and astrological ideas of ancient civilizations as part of your case. How can you be taken seriously when you suddenly decide to make wild and unfounded claims about one of the very things that is the foundation of your primary argument?
How is your pursuit of (T)ruth helped by you making false claims? How does it enhance your credibility?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
