Bible - Fiction?

[flamingjimmy 10]

Did the ancient philosophers Socrates, Aristotle and Plato really exist?

 

Don't reply unless you have evidence please.

 

Aristotle and Plato left behind plenty of evidence, I'm not going to reproduce it here but we know far more about them than we do about Jesus, that's for sure!

 

There were accounts of both of them from contemporaries, in stark contrast to Jesus.

 

As for Socrates, maybe he didn't exist, maybe he was just a mouthpiece for Plato's ideas, but so what. It doesn't matter, it makes not one bit of difference.

 

If Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity is all nonsense, all of it, everything about sins and forgiveness, all that stuff about hell.

 

If Socrates didn't exist, then... er... nothing, Plato's dialogues still stand western philosophy comes through completely unscathed.

 

So forgive me for putting a slightly higher bar for the evidence that your zombie god avatar actually existed.

 

If you came and told me that Socrates was my lord, and I need to have a personal relationship with his eternal spirit, and maybe that I'll suffer for all of eternity if I don't, then you'd find me telling you to prove to me that he actually existed. As it is, I'm not that bothered and am happy to accept that he probably did.

Edited December 6, 2013 by flamingjimmy

[poppet2 13]

 

There were accounts of both of them from contemporaries, in stark contrast to Jesus.

.

 

But there are accounts of Jesus In the New Testament by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but you just don't wish to believe them.

Why believe Socrates dead contempories but not Jesus's?

[psynuk 10]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (if they are real) were authors of stories, There is no tangible evidence that jesus existed except their words and as said above, the quality of evidence expected when outlandish claims are made tends to be a little higher.

 

If I produced a book and proclaimed that my grandad came back from the dead to tell me he'd died for all our sins and his father was in fact the creator of all of everything..

would you take it at face value? Or would you be somewhat skeptical?

[janie48 95]

Aristotle and Plato left behind plenty of evidence, I'm not going to reproduce it here but we know far more about them than we do about Jesus, that's for sure!

 

There were accounts of both of them from contemporaries, in stark contrast to Jesus.

 

As for Socrates, maybe he didn't exist, maybe he was just a mouthpiece for Plato's ideas, but so what. It doesn't matter, it makes not one bit of difference.

 

If Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity is all nonsense, all of it, everything about sins and forgiveness, all that stuff about hell.

 

If Socrates didn't exist, then... er... nothing, Plato's dialogues still stand western philosophy comes through completely unscathed.

 

So forgive me for putting a slightly higher bar for the evidence that your zombie god avatar existed actually existed.

Don't be so sarcastic.

Unlike you I don't assume that those early followers of Christianity were all so thick they would believe anything that must have appeared so incomprehensible on first hearing?

 

I have only to think of the great accomplishments of the past, hear of the great discoveries,see the great architecture, beautiful art work- to recognise how remarkably clever people were in earlier centuries.

Then people have the nerve to presume that in this century they are more superior in intelligence to their ancestors!!

Edited December 6, 2013 by janie48

[zeke 10]

There is real evidence for the existence of Jesus - Josephus.

Whether or not Jesus was who He said He was is another matter.

[psynuk 10]

personally I'd be inclined to accept that a jesus did exist, a spreader of good will, tolerance and kindness much in the same vein as the dalai lama, Ghandi, etc. That he died and was resurrected?l not so much. Well not at all. The argument that he's the only one that has and the fact that countless millions die and not a single one has ever been resurrected since. That casts a serious amount of doubt on that aspect of the characters story.

 

No-one denies there have been clever people in the past, you'd be a fool to do so. Our knowledge and superior intelligence relies upon that founding base of knowledge and skills. But to try and imply that there were no gullible, devious and stupid people in positions of power and influence is equally as foolish.

We do have superior knowledge to our ancestors, as they did to theirs. That much is evident and they did try and deny and repress knowledge that would upset their status quo of being in a position of power which is also evident.

 

If you tried to deny the earth rotates around the sun and claim that earth is the centre of the universe in this day and age you would be looked at as an idiot. yet people were killed for stating those things because it didn't fit in with the knowledge of the time, precisely because people of that time 'those early followers of Christianity were all so thick they would believe anything that must have appeared so incomprehensible on first hearing?'

Edited December 6, 2013 by psynuk

[RootsBooster 24]

OK, let's try again from a different angle.

 

Q1 :How do you know that something is a fact/true?

It's not about you know is true, it's about what you believe is true

 

Q2 : Equally, how do you know that something is not a fact/not true?

 

Answer : you don't, except for the most basic, observable phenomena, such as the number of toes you have, or the colour of your clothing. Even then, there is an element of subjectivity.

 

So...how do you know whether the Bible is true or not? Answer : you do not and you cannot.

Again, it's not what you know isn't true, it's what you believe isn't true (or simply don't believe in)

Q3 : Is biography fact, or fiction? What about autobiography? How do you know?

Most people would make a judgement based on evidence and reason. If there's enough evidence or reason to believe it, then they will most likely believe it.

If there's no evidence or reason to believe, most won't develop such a belief, although some might.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2013 at 15:03 ----------

 

But there are accounts of Jesus In the New Testament by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but you just don't wish to believe them.

Why believe Socrates dead contempories but not Jesus's?

 

Well, for a start, Socrates' contemporaries made no unreasonable claims that he had supernatural powers, or claimed that he was the son of a god (whilst simultaneously being said god, and it's ghost).

The accounts of Socrates are all reasonable and rational, no magical claims.

Edited December 6, 2013 by RootsBooster

[Jmack 10]

Aristotle and Plato left behind plenty of evidence, I'm not going to reproduce it here but we know far more about them than we do about Jesus, that's for sure!

 

There were accounts of both of them from contemporaries, in stark contrast to Jesus.

 

As for Socrates, maybe he didn't exist, maybe he was just a mouthpiece for Plato's ideas, but so what. It doesn't matter, it makes not one bit of difference.

 

If Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity is all nonsense, all of it, everything about sins and forgiveness, all that stuff about hell.

 

If Socrates didn't exist, then... er... nothing, Plato's dialogues still stand western philosophy comes through completely unscathed.

 

So forgive me for putting a slightly higher bar for the evidence that your zombie god avatar actually existed.

 

If you came and told me that Socrates was my lord, and I need to have a personal relationship with his eternal spirit, and maybe that I'll suffer for all of eternity if I don't, then you'd find me telling you to prove to me that he actually existed. As it is, I'm not that bothered and am happy to accept that he probably did.

 

Why are you so angry?

[SnailyBoy 10]

A film, photograph?

I couldn't believe Queen Victoria actually lived until I saw the only film of her showing the 60th Jubilee Anniversary and her funeral.

Still not sure whether Henry VIII was real as no photos or films around during that period either.

 

Did you study history at school? Maybe you'll remember the lesson on what constitutes reliable evidence.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Why are you so angry?

 

I'm not angry, just disappointed.

[aliceBB 10]

It's not about you know is true, it's about what you believe is true

 

 

Most people would make a judgement based on evidence and reason. If there's enough evidence or reason to believe it, then they will most likely believe it.

If there's no evidence or reason to believe, most won't develop such a belief, although some might.

 

That doesn't really help us determine whether something is fact or fiction, though, does it? Just because someone (or even a lot of people) believe something is a fact doesn't make it one. People once believed the Earth was flat, but science has now convinced most people that it is not. Mediaeval doctors believed that bloodletting had a curative effect; it does not, it seems. Those are evidence-based 'facts', I suppose, although the first is easier to 'test/prove'' objectively than the second!

 

Conversely, not believing something doesn't make it untrue or not a fact. I agree, some kinds of evidence is better than others and reason helps us decide whether an argument may be true, but neither of them helps when it comes to ancient religious texts.

 

One of the supposedly easy questions in GCSE English examinations was designed to test whether candidates could distinguish between facts and opinions. It was used for quite a number of years, despite teachers pointing out that F/G grade candidates found such questions easy, but higher ability candidates found them impossible. That's because the more intelligent kids realised that we cannot know definitively what is a fact and what is not, especially in a piece of writing (regardless of the genre). Journalists are trained to present opinions and untruths/distortions as facts and they often do it very persuasively. But it doesn't make what they write true.

 

Which is why I asked whether people thought biography/autobiography is fact or fiction.

 

Discuss, with reasons...

Edited December 6, 2013 by aliceBB

[SnailyBoy 10]

That doesn't really help us determine whether something is fact or fiction, though, does it? Just because someone (or even a lot of people) believe something is a fact doesn't make it one. People believed the Earth was flat, once, but science has now convinced most people that it is not. Mediaeval doctors believed that bloodletting had a curative effect; it does not. Those are evidence-based 'facts', I suppose, although the first is easier to 'test'[ objectively than the second. Conversely, not believing something doesn't make it untrue or not a fact. I agree, some kinds of evidence is better than others and reason helps us decide whether an argument may be true, but neither of them helps when it comes to ancient religious texts.

 

One of the supposedly easy questions in GCSE English examinations was designed to test whether candidates could distinguish between facts and opinions. It was used for quite a number of years, despite teachers pointing out that F/G grade candidates found such questions easy, but higher ability candidates found them impossible. That's because the more intelligent kids realised that we cannot know definitively what is a fact and what is not, especially in a piece of writing (regardless of the genre).

 

Which is why I asked whether people thought biography/autobiography is fact or fiction.

 

Discuss, with reasons...

 

Which biography/autobiography?