The Gospel of Mary and Quackademia

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
The Gospel of Mary and Quackademia

 I am kind of busy today and really do not have time to look up the irrationality of this, but I somehow got dragged into a silly debate about the so-called : Gospel of Mary being the most accurate of all the gospels.

This is from some self-proclaimed gnostic that seemingly just wants to act like he is on to some "secret truth".

Now granted, while I think most of this bunk type of stuff just came about from Da Vinci code/History Channel nonsense and do not buy a word of it, is there any good refutations of this ? For one, I have asked him to define what he means by "most accurate"

I am simply do not have the time to wade through all of the garbage on google this morning. Any quick refutations against all of this gnostic crap ? Truth to be told, I do not know which one annoys me more, the Bible literalists or these Quackademia types that seem to act like there is some major Catholic Conspiracy to suppress truth. I think they are both annoying actually. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Although the work is

"Although the work is popularly known as the Gospel of Mary, it is not canonical nor is it technically classed as a gospel by scholastic consensus. "

"Hollis Professor of Divinity Karen King at Harvard Divinity School suggests that the original gospel was written in Greek sometime during the time of Christ.[5][6] Most scholars disagree with her conclusion, instead dating it to the 2nd century."

- wikipedia

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Although the

Vastet wrote:
"Although the work is popularly known as the Gospel of Mary, it is not canonical nor is it technically classed as a gospel by scholastic consensus. " "Hollis Professor of Divinity Karen King at Harvard Divinity School suggests that the original gospel was written in Greek sometime during the time of Christ.[5][6] Most scholars disagree with her conclusion, instead dating it to the 2nd century." - wikipedia

 

Thanks. That is about what I thought. It is funny that a lot of these people that flock like crazy to the bunk on the History channel are the first ones to scream about the Gospels themselves being inaccurate, but in turn, will unflinchingly swallow something because it is supposedly a "hidden" gospel ? 

While it is painfully obvious that this is just switching one type of religious absolutism for another type of religious absolutism to me, they really behave as though they are on to something, really rather comical and tragic at the same time. But nothing new nor surprising. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: I am

harleysportster wrote:

 I am kind of busy today and really do not have time to look up the irrationality of this, but I somehow got dragged into a silly debate about the so-called : Gospel of Mary being the most accurate of all the gospels.

This is from some self-proclaimed gnostic that seemingly just wants to act like he is on to some "secret truth".

Now granted, while I think most of this bunk type of stuff just came about from Da Vinci code/History Channel nonsense and do not buy a word of it, is there any good refutations of this ? For one, I have asked him to define what he means by "most accurate"

I am simply do not have the time to wade through all of the garbage on google this morning. Any quick refutations against all of this gnostic crap ? Truth to be told, I do not know which one annoys me more, the Bible literalists or these Quackademia types that seem to act like there is some major Catholic Conspiracy to suppress truth. I think they are both annoying actually. 

Let me clear this up for you. Superstition is supertition, "gnostic" is merely a different flavor. Like all sects of all religions, the argument is the same "magically we got it right", and the writings I find a liking of prove it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's why noone respects

That's why noone respects you and everyone insults you all the time. Dismissing something out of hand is what theists do. Someone who's capable of critical thinking and has even a modicum of intellectual integretity will actually fucking investigate a claim before automatically dismissing it. You fucking twat waffle.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's why

Vastet wrote:
That's why noone respects you and everyone insults you all the time. Dismissing something out of hand is what theists do. Someone who's capable of critical thinking and has even a modicum of intellectual integretity will actually fucking investigate a claim before automatically dismissing it. You fucking twat waffle.

Do you have to study Ra the sun god to dismiss it? So if you study ancient Egypt that makes the sun a god? Do you have to study the orgins of Posiedon to know he doesn't make hurricanes? Do you have to study Thor to know he doesn't make lightening? I am sure you don't need to read every Harry Potter book to know little boys don't fly arround on brooms or explain scientific lift in air flight.

 

"Respect", damn, that is a different topic but since you used it.

I hate that word, it merely means "Don't bruise my ego". What if I demanded to you right now to "respect" me? I am sure as annoyed as you are you'd like to verbally bitch slap me, so that would mean you don't "respect" my post. I'm fine with that. What annoyed you is that I cut through the chase and gave everyone a "Cliff Notes" summery of why all religions exist and persist.

Gnostic, polytheism, monotheism, new and old, is no different than believing in crop circles or area 51 or JFK conspiracies. 

The post is about history, and even Sportster said in the title "Quackademia, and in the post called it "gnostic crap". So for the person he got this "crap" from do you think they would find it "respectful" for him to discribe their beliefs as such?

Quote:
I am simply do not have the time to wade through all of the garbage on google this morning

He could wade through it, but have you or anyone every stoped every single time someone arround you presented something you knew was nutty? If we did that every singe one of us would never leave our computers.

Point being he knows it is crap even before looking it up.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Dismissing something

Quote:
Dismissing something out of hand is what theists do.

I'd hate to think how much more further behind science would be if they had to stop every time some nut brought something to them. Even Newton got to a point with his pet Alchemy and said "fuck it". I don't see scientist today dwelling on his Alchemy, anymore than you still think there is a chance the sun is an actual god.

Humans make all sorts of claims every single day. You dismiss all sorts of things on all sorts of issues every day, without realizing it.

Do you watch every "Duck Dynasty" show? Do you think that is real? How about shows on "big foot" Animal Planet has a show about that. How do you know it isn't real if you haven't watched them?

I am sure you'd simply throw up your hands and say "I need to investigate this" if a nut on the streetcorner was claiming he was Napoleon. I am sure you would take lots of time making sure he was not.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Do you have to

Brian37 wrote:
Do you have to study Ra the sun god to dismiss it?

YES YOU DO YOU FUCKING MORON!
If Ra the sun god is defined by worshippers as a giant ball of gas that burns then Ra the sun god FUCKING EXISTS.
How do you know Ra the sun god isn't just a fucking ball of fire? That's right, you ACTUALLY FUCKING LEARNED WHAT RA THE SUN GOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE!!!!

Brian37 wrote:
I hate that word, it merely means "Don't bruise my ego".

No, it doesn't. At all. Not even remotely.

[MASS NOUN] a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements:
the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor

1.1 the state of being admired or respected:
his first chance in over fifteen years to regain respect in the business

1.2 (respects) a person’s polite greetings:
give my respects to their Excellencies

1.3 • informal used to express the speaker’s approval of someone or something:
respect to Hill for a truly non-superficial piece on the techno scene

2.0 due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others:
young people’s lack of respect for their parents

3.0 a particular aspect, point, or detail:
the government’s record in this respect is a mixed one

VERB

1 admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements:
she was respected by everyone she worked with
(as adjective respected) a respected academic

2 have due regard for (someone’s feelings, wishes, or rights):
I respected his views

etc.

NO-FUCKING-WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF RESPECT IS THERE ANYTHING SAID ABOUT YOUR EGO, YOU BRAINLESS SHIT STAIN.

Brian37 wrote:
He could wade through it, but have you or anyone every stoped every single time someone arround you presented something you knew was nutty? If we did that every singe one of us would never leave our computers.

I have looked into every hairbrained idea ever presented to me so I wouldn't sound like a complete fucking idiot (i.e. you) when I showed them why they were full of shit. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one. And I have spent more time away from computers than at them in the process.

Brian37 wrote:
Point being he knows it is crap even before looking it up.

No. The point being that he wants to know WHY they are crap so he doesn't sound like a dumb kid (i.e. you) when he tears the argument apart. Because sounding like a dumb kid (i.. you) is a surefire way to give theists more followers. It will certainly not turn one person away from their religion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I'd hate to

Brian37 wrote:
I'd hate to think how much more further behind science would be if they had to stop every time some nut brought something to them.

It wouldn't be ANY further behind, because that's what science IS.

Brian37 wrote:
Even Newton got to a point with his pet Alchemy and said "fuck it".

Because he tried everything he could think of and it didn't work. Which is the essence of science. You're actually fucking retarded. Even EXC is smarter than you are. You have the same understanding of science as a young earth creationist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Harley

 

I have the Gnostic Bible at home so I'll have a skim read tonight when I get home. Not sure how it will be possible to judge this as the most accurate of the gospels. 

When it comes to religion it's hard to know how the word 'accurate' could be defined, given god people insist empiricism has no big answers. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Basically (to respond to the

Basically (to respond to the original posts disregarding the others...don't think that I didn't read them and form my own opinion about them though) the question to ask is how self-proclaimed gnostic evaluated the authenticity of the gospel of Mary. Anything aside from a never before noticed uncanny resemblance to actual verified recorded history won't impress me, and shouldn't impress any atheist on this board. Of course, dismissing it outright just because the text is probably religious in origin is wrong too. However if it defies mainstream history (or adds unverified claims to it without evidence) it should be dismissed exactly that quick. 

If you can't find any corroboration for the gospel of Mary, how could anyone reasonably call it legitimate? 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Basically

Jabberwocky wrote:

Basically (to respond to the original posts disregarding the others...don't think that I didn't read them and form my own opinion about them though) the question to ask is how self-proclaimed gnostic evaluated the authenticity of the gospel of Mary. Anything aside from a never before noticed uncanny resemblance to actual verified recorded history won't impress me, and shouldn't impress any atheist on this board. Of course, dismissing it outright just because the text is probably religious in origin is wrong too. However if it defies mainstream history (or adds unverified claims to it without evidence) it should be dismissed exactly that quick. 

If you can't find any corroboration for the gospel of Mary, how could anyone reasonably call it legitimate? 

 

 

These are my exact feelings as well. Here is the reason why I asked. 

Usually these gnostic "experts" that know about all of these "suppressed documents" have seen every episode of some such drivel on the history channel and are likely to have a whole HORDE of conspiracy theory/Da Vinci code websites at their disposal. 

So in all likelihood, they will start using dates, names, and all sorts of other stuff to back up their claims. This particular dude that I am talking about is not very bright, and will generally start each point with : "WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS ? YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT DO YOU ?" 

So, this was a matter of proving that all of his "facts" were simply bullshit. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Basically

Jabberwocky wrote:

Basically (to respond to the original posts disregarding the others...don't think that I didn't read them and form my own opinion about them though) the question to ask is how self-proclaimed gnostic evaluated the authenticity of the gospel of Mary. Anything aside from a never before noticed uncanny resemblance to actual verified recorded history won't impress me, and shouldn't impress any atheist on this board. Of course, dismissing it outright just because the text is probably religious in origin is wrong too. However if it defies mainstream history (or adds unverified claims to it without evidence) it should be dismissed exactly that quick. 

If you can't find any corroboration for the gospel of Mary, how could anyone reasonably call it legitimate? 

 

Oh boy, "dismiss" in what context? "Atheist" is the complete "off" position on all god claims, so that is a dissmisal. Now, if someone proves that a person wrote something, or a place existed, that still would not constitute any type of super natural being.

If people want to take the time to wade through tradition and liturature, fine, but I am not one of those people.

There have been in human laguage and evolutionary history an infinite number of claims inside and outside the issue of religion. It makes much more sense to me when it comes to superstition, conspiracies, and god claims, that people simply gravitate to gap filling both out of a want for comfort or a sense of fear.

To me it is nothing more than human psychology that these things have been written and claimed. But when you know better with our modern knowledge of scientific reality, the only thing you can call these writtings are merely historical literature, not some cosmic bat phone to a real god.

Maybe what people here are angry about with me is like spoiling the ending to the movie. But when you know the starting point is unfounded, any formula that follows and and conclusion that is made from a naked assertion will not work. The only reality of all religious writings that can be accepted is that they were written and that humans wrote them.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Here's an example.Little

Here's an example.

Little boys fly arround on brooms=There are several Harry Potter books= Harry Potter explains lift in air flight.

The "Formula" starts out with an unfounded naked assertion, the body of the formual is merely literature, and the conlcusion is supported by nothing founded.

The only honest thing that can be said is that a series of Harry Potter books were written.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Do you have to study Ra the sun god to dismiss it?
YES YOU DO YOU FUCKING MORON! If Ra the sun god is defined by worshippers as a giant ball of gas that burns then Ra the sun god FUCKING EXISTS. How do you know Ra the sun god isn't just a fucking ball of fire? That's right, you ACTUALLY FUCKING LEARNED WHAT RA THE SUN GOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE!!!!
Brian37 wrote:
I hate that word, it merely means "Don't bruise my ego".
No, it doesn't. At all. Not even remotely. [MASS NOUN] a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements: the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor 1.1 the state of being admired or respected: his first chance in over fifteen years to regain respect in the business 1.2 (respects) a person’s polite greetings: give my respects to their Excellencies 1.3 • informal used to express the speaker’s approval of someone or something: respect to Hill for a truly non-superficial piece on the techno scene 2.0 due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others: young people’s lack of respect for their parents 3.0 a particular aspect, point, or detail: the government’s record in this respect is a mixed one VERB 1 admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements: she was respected by everyone she worked with (as adjective respected) a respected academic 2 have due regard for (someone’s feelings, wishes, or rights): I respected his views etc. NO-FUCKING-WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF RESPECT IS THERE ANYTHING SAID ABOUT YOUR EGO, YOU BRAINLESS SHIT STAIN.
Brian37 wrote:
He could wade through it, but have you or anyone every stoped every single time someone arround you presented something you knew was nutty? If we did that every singe one of us would never leave our computers.
I have looked into every hairbrained idea ever presented to me so I wouldn't sound like a complete fucking idiot (i.e. you) when I showed them why they were full of shit. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one. And I have spent more time away from computers than at them in the process.
Brian37 wrote:
Point being he knows it is crap even before looking it up.
No. The point being that he wants to know WHY they are crap so he doesn't sound like a dumb kid (i.e. you) when he tears the argument apart. Because sounding like a dumb kid (i.. you) is a surefire way to give theists more followers. It will certainly not turn one person away from their religion.

 

NO YOU DON'T DUMBASS,

You miss the context of TIME!

It was important back then to question social norms which is why humans stopped believing the absurd claim that the sun was a god. I am talking about NOW NOT THEN.

"gnostic' or mulitple armed deities, or even fucking crop circles. You can more understand human credulity when people dont have better data, I am talking about still dwelling on crap when you do have better data.

Again, just like with Newton's alchemy, you might understand him pondering it at the time, but he worked at it enough to finally say "this is crap", anyone today who is a scientist would not dwell on alchemy.

No differnt than even Santa. You can understand a kid swallowing it, you can also understand the importance of them questioning it so they grow up, but you would look fucking stupid if you are 80 years old and seriously litterally thought in reality that there was a Santa.

It is ok to throug bad claims and bad data into the trash, not only is it ok it is wise.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The only thing important

The only thing important about studying religion is that people have written these things and believe these things in the context that those things can have an affect on the rest of us, but not in any serious context that there "might be" an invisible sky hero.

Stephen Hawkins, "A god is not required". Everything about our universe from biological life to the entire universe does not indicate a magical puppeteer. It is only important to know the past with all it's traditions, god claims and superstitions, to avoid the pratfals of credulity and gullibility. But I cannot take any invisible friend claims seriously at all, my intelect and reason won't let me.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
YES YOU DO YOU FUCKING

YES YOU DO YOU FUCKING TOOL

Time is irrelevant, and has no context.

Brian37 wrote:
It was important back then to question social norms which is why humans stopped believing the absurd claim that the sun was a god. I am talking about NOW NOT THEN

You impossibly brainless shit. I'm not talking about them or then, I'm talking about you and now.

Seriously, go cut off your hands and your tongue and do the universe a favour. Bacteria use their brains more effectively than you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Again, just

Brian37 wrote:

Again, just like with Newton's alchemy, you might understand him pondering it at the time, but he worked at it enough to finally say "this is crap", anyone today who is a scientist would not dwell on alchemy.

Only tens of thousands of scientists dwell on alchemy- they are called "chemists" and their field, "chemistry" is a direct descendent of alchemy. Many also focus precisely on the main goals of alchemists. For example, turning lead into gold is not only possible, it has been achieved using nuclear transmutation. A couple of modern alchemists also managed to coax a bacteria to produce nuggets that were 99.9% pure gold. We had a thread on here awhile back about how earthquakes turned mineral rich water into gold veins and now scientists have figured out how to do the same thing and companies have been formed that specialize in it. Not really "alchemy" since the gold is already in the water, but it takes something that is worth very little and extracts value from it. Imagine if those scientists summarily dismissed the ideas of turning lead, gold chloride or water into gold, simply because alchemists failed at doing so a couple hundred years ago. 

Another major area for alchemists was to find an "elixir of youth", in other words, a way to make people live longer. Do I even need to list the number of scientific areas of research that seek to make people stay young, look young and have healthy bodies? Sure, the "elixir" is far more likely to come in the form of a pill than an elixir that you drink, but the goal is the same. While we haven't found a way to completely reverse or stop aging, there are many scientists who believe that it might be possible in the future. 

Alchemy is alive and well. Sure, it is very different from primitive alchemy, but modern evolutionary science is extremely fucking different from Darwin too. Pointing out the flaws in ancient alchemy to discredit it is about as meaningful as pointing out the flaws in Darwin's theory as a way to discredit evolution. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Again, just

dp