The Ark of the Covenant

[QED]

I have commented many times on how the bible reveals the limited technical knowledge of its authors in ways that lead me to believe the key elements to be entirely man-made. But this lack of knowledge does not imply a lack of intellect, indeed I am making the point that the authors were not lacking in ingenuity when it came to drafting the stories in a fashion which would keep people glued to them for so long.

But let me relate what I see as typical of the sort of deceit that is employed in maintaining the entire edifice of religion, a particular example that I came across quite recently:

It was a TV documentary in which an anthropologist travels from the Holy land to Ethiopia where Solomons son is thought to have taken the Ark of the Covenant. Eventually the chap shows up at a small compound guarded by men brandishing AK47 rifles, where he asks for permission to see the Holy relic. His request is refused on the basis that the power of the relic is so strong that it will turn him to dust.

This example is one in which an extraordinary claim could actually be tested (not withstanding the AK47's) unlike most of the extraordinary claims in the old testament. But despite the fierce defense of biblical fundamentalists, symbols of covenant such as rainbows are not the same mystery now that they were 2000 years ago.

In the case of the Ark in Ethiopia, it is protected by a trick which effectively puts pay to any rational enquiry - leaving us either to take it on faith it or leave it. This type of trick seems to be pulled time and time again by presenting propositions carefully constructed to create an impasse to investigation and validation. If it wasn't for the critical mass due to the sheer numbers of followers, elaborate rituals and impressive machinery of all the major religions conducting such exercises who, I ask, would really take any of it seriously?

[cnorman18]

I have commented many times on how the bible reveals the limited technical knowledge of its authors in ways that lead me to believe the key elements to be entirely man-made. But this lack of knowledge does not imply a lack of intellect, indeed I am making the point that the authors were not lacking in ingenuity when it came to drafting the stories in a fashion which would keep people glued to them for so long.

But let me relate what I see as typical of the sort of deceit that is employed in maintaining the entire edifice of religion, a particular example that I came across quite recently:

It was a TV documentary in which an anthropologist travels from the Holy land to Ethiopia where Solomons son is thought to have taken the Ark of the Covenant. Eventually the chap shows up at a small compound guarded by men brandishing AK47 rifles, where he asks for permission to see the Holy relic. His request is refused on the basis that the power of the relic is so strong that it will turn him to dust.

This example is one in which an extraordinary claim could actually be tested (not withstanding the AK47's) unlike most of the extraordinary claims in the old testament. But despite the fierce defense of biblical fundamentalists, symbols of covenant such as rainbows are not the same mystery now that they were 2000 years ago.

In the case of the Ark in Ethiopia, it is protected by a trick which effectively puts pay to any rational enquiry - leaving us either to take it on faith it or leave it. This type of trick seems to be pulled time and time again by presenting propositions carefully constructed to create an impasse to investigation and validation. If it wasn't for the critical mass due to the sheer numbers of followers, elaborate rituals and impressive machinery of all the major religions conducting such exercises who, I ask, would really take any of it seriously?

I have read Graham Hancock's book, The Sign and the Seal, which first brought the theory of the Ark's fetching up in Ethiopia to prominence, and I have some pertinent remarks on the subject; but before I respond, I would like to know: is it your contention that the Hebrew Bible, and the Torah in particular, is an example of deliberate, conscious fabrication? That "religion in general" is a knowing falsehood and a conscious deceit on the part of its leaders, if not everyone involved?

That seems to me to be a truly extraordinary assertion. Most atheists seem willing to concede that mainstream religious folk, including religious leaders, are at least sincere in their beliefs, even if they are also ignorant, irrational, and/or simply too dumb to know better.

Do you really believe, as you seem to indicate here, that all religion is a vast, conscious conspiracy of knowing lies, and has been from the very beginning?

[Furrowed Brow]

Do you really believe, as you seem to indicate here, that all religion is a vast, conscious conspiracy of knowing lies, and has been from the very beginning?

How about some religions were a small conspiracy whose long dead progenitors told vast lies that are still widely believed. Belief systems that require some skill with circular logic and dodgy semantics to continue their perpetuation.

[cnorman18]

Do you really believe, as you seem to indicate here, that all religion is a vast, conscious conspiracy of knowing lies, and has been from the very beginning?

How about some religions were a small conspiracy whose long dead progenitors told vast lies that are still widely believed. Belief systems that require some skill with circular logic and dodgy semantics to continue their perpetuation.

Got any "long dead progenitors" in mind? Are we talking Peter and Paul, Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, or just everybody?

What would be the motivation for founding a phony religion? L Ron Hubbard made millions, but most of those guys came to bad ends.

The idea that all religions are false is not strange to me. That they all might be deliberate falsehoods is. Even that Heaven's Gate guy really believed what he was saying.

[samuelbb7]

First in any discussion a person a priori assumptions play a part. So when you tell me I use circular reasoning then you need to point out on what basis.

Second people of both sides of the religious issue often use false or circular reasoning. That is a fault not so much of the discussion but of the debater. For instance a person who says that gods cannot exist therefore there is no evidence of the existence of gods that they can see has already defined the point in a tautology.

We religious people can and often do the same thing.

In a book by the Amazing Randi which I read some time back and enjoyed he pointed out Scientists can do the same thing as well as some of the fake Psychics he exposed. My favorite was having His Gardner act as a new age guru.

Now L. Ron Hubbard did make up his own religion to get rich. So if a person wants to state that the Bible was made up by liars. I cannot argue against that. But that is an assumption that evidence does not prove or disprove at this point in time.

I have studied the evidence and taken what I believe to be the best bet I can. But I can be wrong.

[Goat]

First in any discussion a person a priori assumptions play a part. So when you tell me I use circular reasoning then you need to point out on what basis.

Second people of both sides of the religious issue often use false or circular reasoning. That is a fault not so much of the discussion but of the debater. For instance a person who says that gods cannot exist therefore there is no evidence of the existence of gods that they can see has already defined the point in a tautology.

We religious people can and often do the same thing.

In a book by the Amazing Randi which I read some time back and enjoyed he pointed out Scientists can do the same thing as well as some of the fake Psychics he exposed. My favorite was having His Gardner act as a new age guru.

Now L. Ron Hubbard did make up his own religion to get rich. So if a person wants to state that the Bible was made up by liars. I cannot argue against that. But that is an assumption that evidence does not prove or disprove at this point in time.

I have studied the evidence and taken what I believe to be the best bet I can. But I can be wrong.

I don't think the bible was written by LIARS. I don't think modern christians understand the midrashim, which I think a lot of the NT is. A lot of the Tanakh is too, but many modern christians take it literally, not as a learning story.

I do think that there are many people who have gotten very rich off of the faith of Christians, and appealing to their charity. I consider those people liars.

[Furrowed Brow]

First in any discussion a person a priori assumptions play a part. So when you tell me I use circular reasoning then you need to point out on what basis.

If I spot you doing it Samuelb. I’ll not be shy.

Second people of both sides of the religious issue often use false or circular reasoning. That is a fault not so much of the discussion but of the debater.

For instance a person who says that gods cannot exist

That’s me!

therefore there is no evidence of the existence of gods

Well I like to say stiff like that when I’m feeling all contrary. But I think the atheist argument really goes: there is no god and there is no evidence for any god. The logic is conjunction not conditional. As a conjunction the argument rests on two independent propositions conjoined - so it is not a circular argument. If you catch anyone using the conditional argument please be sure to point out to them they should be arguing with a conjunction.

We religious people can and often do the same thing.

O boy do they!

Now L. Ron Hubbard did make up his own religion to get rich. So if a person wants to state that the Bible was made up by liars. I cannot argue against that. But that is an assumption that evidence does not prove or disprove at this point in time.

Certainly not in any mathemical sense of proof. But the two sides are not evenly matched. To claim that miracles occurred is a claim, it is evidence that there is a claim, but it is not evidence of a miracle; in much the same way as if you asked me what I was doing last Saturday night and I replied ‘watching a guy walking on water!’. I can claim it, but there is no evidence for it. If you want to take my claims as evidence, it is most likely evidence that I am liar. Same goes for claims of JC walking on water.

I have studied the evidence and taken what I believe to be the best bet I can. But I can be wrong.

And I have absolutely no doubt of your sincerely and integrity on that point Samuelb (and I am not be sarcastic). However the only “evidence” you’ve got is a few documents written by a limited number of individuals that says JC walked on water, rose people from the dead, was resurrected etc. If that is evidence then the claim “FB watched a guy walk on water last Saturday” is evidence that last Saturday a guy walked on water……or someone is lying…….or as goat points out these stories are not supposed to be taken literally.