THE UNSKEPTICAL SKEPTIC - PART 1

As is apparent I took the liberty of merging this thread with another.

Lets keep this discussion a clean one

Just which authority did I irritate this time? Is the answer that you no longer want me posting hear - then say so. I attempt to make interesting and informative threads and I get severly criticized.

By no means am I criticizing you to whit, note I took the liberty of taking your title over my own.

Which by the way was not easy

Any thoughts?

I believe that my thesis about the unskeptical skeptic may have upset some of the posters on this board - previously I have been severly criticized about entering links in my thread and was told not to do it again. My thesis was not dealing with plagiarism in Christianity - it was dealing with my contention that so-called skeptical community has developed its own religion with prophets, articles of faith, etc. The thesis states that these people accept beliefs and tenets without reservation and without logical reason, mainly because their new prophets have said so. Apparently there are people on this forum who fell uncomfortable with me presenting this thesis and are making efforts to prevent any further presentation of this theory. It seems that it is all right to start a thread with bashes Christianity, but when someone posts a thread which puts the skeptics in a bad light, it is a matter to be buried.

Jagdflieger I know of no effort to treat what you post as irrelevant (in any way) my advise is that you continue with what in your heart seems correct.

As far as what other people think well all other are entitled to an opinion, just like anything else its something we all have.

Sincerely would like to hear more

In my original topic, I presented a thesis - that skeptics have and are developing their own mythology with tenets they accept without question. That there exists now what might be called the prophets of the skeptics, authors who write articles which the skeptics accept as being a "gospel" truth. However, a little research on their part would put most of the ides presented by their new prophets into question. I used the example of the "copy cat religion" thesis to illustrate my point. My intention was to start a thread which examines and dicusses the thesis I presented (the unskeptical skeptic). I DID NOT INTEND for my posting to be included in a thread or as a defense for the thesis of plagiarism in Christianity. I intended to initiate a thread dealing with the issue presented. However I must interpret the moving of my posting as an attempt to prevent discussion of my original thesis. Since I have only received one comment concerning my original post (other than the comments concerning moving it), then I must conclude that the intention of closing down commentary on the subject of the "unskeptical skeptic" thesis has succeeded.

Atheist and Pagans have refuted the Son of God, Jesus Christ even while he was alive on Earth. This is nothing knew. I think the sure uncertantiy of not having a historical truth to believe in is a scarier notion.

I do not think Christaians need to prove Jesus to anyone. If you have faith, this is enough.

Paganism and all of it's many forms were incorporated by the early catholic church i.e., those who promoted the papal rulership of the body of Christ(church), in the days after Jesus's ascension to build the church's numbers-hence power to the newly crowned Popes.

Voodoo is a prime example of Pagan ideas being instituted into the Catholic mass.

It is the other way around. The "church" that Jesus came to establish was not Pagan since He was not such. What became of this is evident now.

...concerning the topic/thread move...it does give the appearance Toltec, that when you moved Jagd's thread it was basically re-written as a whole other topic.

Besides, it just seemed alittle rude to arbitrarily make that decision with out understanding his point, as your move clearly reflects in your post.

Any thoughts?

To be very honest and sincere I read the content carefully and with respect to the policies and manner this site operates.

Jags comments did seem related to the topic of how alternative systems of belief have presented similar orientations as the Basis for the Christian system.

The fact he was arguing against it is not the issue, the content of his post was related.

That some semantic difference existed which somehow differentiated this post/thread in a way which went beyond the content, agues that the function of this site is to address semantics.

Nonetheless I simply merged the threads because they were inherently similar, no other motivations existed or was contemplated.

This I swear in all I believe in.

As far as his opinion with respect to my motivations my only response is that he does have the right to think what he thinks.

It honestly had nothing to do with any motivation on my part.



[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Toltec]

The concept of "many crucified saviors" was started by a book
called the "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" written by
a man named Kersey Graves in 1875. Most of what can be found
on skeptic web sites concerning the subject are either direct
quotes of Graves or are heavily based on his book. Even the
author known as Acharya S bases much of her writings on the
conclusions of Kersey Graves. Kersey Graves book is to say
the least highly suspect and has been dismissed as useless by
even atheist scholars. In fact it appears that all of his
conclusions about Sakya Buddha and Krishna were generated
without ever talking to either a Buddhist or a Hindu or even
reading any of their respective scriptures. Now the current
set of authors (Acharya S) are repeating the very same kind of
errors that Graves committed, they are making assumptions and
assertions about Sakya Buddha and Krishna without consulting
either a Buddhist or Hindu or even reading any appropriate
literature on the subject. This is an unconscionable action
on their part, Buddhism and Hinduism are practiced throughout
the world today. Yet these authors make assertions on what
Buddhists and Hindus believe and have believed without even
consulting one of their respective scriptures. (Acharya S
seems to have the attitude, "Don't bother me with what 300
million Buddhists and 600 million Hindus believed or have
believed, Sakya Buddha and Krishna were crucified." Their
authority for Krishna are men with names like Doane, my
authority for Krishna is A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,
founder of the Hare Krishna Movement. Now who do you think
knows more about Krishna?

As far as ancient gods who no longer have a following, then
again one can be liable to make errors based upon their
preconceptions. Without a written record, it becomes very
hard to determine what the worshipers of these ancient deities
believed about their gods. Many times written records are
scanty (or nonexistent) and your thesis about what the ancient
worshipers of these deities believed rely primarily on visual
depictions. Such is the case of Mithra who was covered in
a previous posting. Even David Ulansey a current scholar of
Mithra would admit that his thesis about the beliefs in Mithra
while compelling is still a theory extrapolated without much
of any actual writings by Mithra believers. How you interpret
visual images can be swayed by your preconceptions. As a good
example, one this forum there is a thread called "Was Jesus an
Alien". Find it and go to the web site referenced in the
topic posting and look at the images. Where the authors of
that web site see aliens and UFO's, I see shamans, ancient
priests, and depictions of demons.

As far as what many atheists think about Kelsey Graves work,
the following link is to an atheist web site. Now if even an
atheist dismisses Graves, that should tell you something
about Graves's scholarship. Also note that Richard Carrier is
even being gentle about Graves's scholarship, some of Graves's
harsher critics have claimed that Graves quoted material and
sources which he knew did not even exist.

www.infidels.org...

For some of the current writings of the subject, here is a
link to another site. The link is to the web site home page,
but you can easily follow the icons to the pages which deal
with Krishna crucified, etc. Look at what is being written
and then reply with what you think:

www.truthbeknown.com...

I look forward to anyone's comments.