Lord Krishna, Human Manifestation of God, 3000 years before Jesus

Hindu is the oldest religion known to man so far. It has been argued that Christianity borrowed heavily from Hinduism. Lord Krishna was the physical manifestation of one of the Gods of the Hindu Trinity who is named Vishnu. Vishnu came to earth as a Human 5000 years ago to battle evil and show people the right way to live. This is an introduction to Lord Krishna, the human manifestation of the God Vishnu.

Folklore Typologies: Similarities between Krishna and Biblical Characters
There are striking similarities between the stories in the Christian Bible and the Stories that make up the Scriptures of Hinduism. Here is a link to ReligiousTolerance.org where they discuss Similarities between Jesus and Krishna. I will explore this topic in a follow on article done in parallel with this one.

Hare, Hare, Hare! Step right up and hear about Lord Krishna!
I was exposed to the Hindu Scriptures as a Christian pre-teen living in Europe. At that time, I supposed that since Hinduism was so much older, and Israel was so far away from India, that Christianity must be a result of a misunderstanding of Hindu Scriptures and Ideas carried over from India by visitors. I was almost converted. I realized that the Jews didn't think Jesus was the messiah because he didn't qualify and it was uncharacteristic for Yahweh to diminish himself to become a human. No-where in Christian scripture does Jesus unambiguously declare that he is Yahweh in human form, however, it is a characteristic of Vishnu to appear in human form periodically. In my young mind I thought, Jesus was a strikingly different "person" than the Yahweh of the old Testament, Jesus was similar to Krishna and the teachings of Jesus were similar to Hinduism. Therefore, Christianity should be an extension of Hinduism rather than Judaism.

However, since everyone I knew, especially every adult I knew, was a Christian, I was persuaded that Hinduism was mythology, Christianity was "A Religion", Jesus was the one and only God in Human Form. As a Christian adult, I revisited the Hindu Scriptures to see what was so compelling about them, but I didn't feel the same pull towards Hinduism as I did as a child. Maybe our Psychologist Contributors Valerie or Marlene can elaborate on that phenomena.

The Bhagavata Canto 10, The Story of Lord Krishna, and The Birth of Lord Krishna
The Primary reference I used was Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 10, (Bhagavata Purana) but since then they have begun improvements to the site and the links are no longer available. They do provide an alternate site which you can reach from site above or from the links I provided below.

The Bhagavata Wiki
The Bhagavata Wiki, Canto 10-1
Be patient, it takes a while to load. Also there is a link on that page to a site that claims that Jesus Christ was an Incarnation of Vishnu. Good luck disproving that, evangelical.

The links above are a little hard to follow since it is a translation, so the references below are a little more "Layman Friendly".

Simplified Story of the Life of Lord Krishna from YouTube
Short Video
Radhekrishn.com


Longer Video of the birth of Lord Krishna


Article on the historicity of Lord Krishna
Here is an article on the Historical Krishna where the following summary is derived in part. "Search for the Historical Krishna", Prof. N.S. Rajaram

Summary taken from the article
"In summary, we may safely conclude that technical and literary evidence from several independent sources point to the traditional Kali date of 3102 BC as being close to the actual date of the Mahabharata War. We have therefore overwhelming evidence showing that Krishna was a historical figure who must have lived within a century on either side of that date, i.e., in the 3200-3000 BC period."

Summary of the story of Lord Krishna
Lord Krishna is regarded by Hindus and the incarnation of the God Vishnu. They believe that Vishnu is one of the Gods that make up the Hindu Trinity and is believed to be the lord of the universe who takes human form and is the lord of all creation, all things, all time. Through him people will know what is real, meaning comes only from god. Whenever there is too much evil in the world he takes human form to deal with it.

If you watched the video above, and you know your bible, you probably noted quite a few similarties to the stories in the Christian Bible. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the ones I noticed. The simplest explanation of how the stories can be so similar is if they are Folklore, in other words, the same story structure with the details changed to suit the audience.
- Evil king will be overthrown by a savior (The Messiah)
- The Birth of God on Earth prophesied (Various Biblical Prophesies)
- Virgin birth [depending on the Hindu "denomination"] (Mary)
- Devaki was the mother of Krishna and therefore all divinity (Mary)
- The Kings killing of the sons to attempt to kill the God-Child (Herods action)
- Escape of the central characters with the help of God (Acts 5 and 12)
- Receding of the waters during an escape (Red Sea)
- Talking Snake (Adam and Eve)
- Baby was raised by foster mother (Moses)
- Baby raised by peasants (Moses and Jesus)
Other Similarities outside the scope of the Video that are part of the Krishna Story
- Mischevious boy (Similar to Jesus going to temple as a boy and non-canonical stories of Jesus as a child)
- River associated with Holiness and cleanliness (Baptism in the river)
- Krishna wrestled a snake by the river and won (by the river Jacob wrestled an angel, God or his brother depending on how its interpreted)
- Sacrifice out of love (similar to teaching of Christ)
- Picking up a mountain (to hold over his followers as shelter to protect them from heavy rains caused by another angry God, Faith can move mountains)
- Killing a Giant Serpent (Yahweh slaying the Leviathan)
- Krishna would return when things got bad (Second Coming)
- Krishna was Pierced, killed, and taken up to Heaven (Jesus Stabbed by soldier, body disappearing, later taken up to heaven)

Any form of an argument a Christian can use to defend Christianity can be used interchangeably to defend Hinduism and Lord Krishna.
However, it is more likely that since the stories about Krishna predate Judeo-Christian scripture, then it seems that the similarities in the stories about Moses, Jesus and in Acts are pre-existing folklore structures with the details changed to suit the audience.

Below is an incomplete list of events in Lord Krishnas life with my notes as to the Chapter and verse in the Bhagavata Canto 10.
I only noted enough to make my case and leave the rest as an exercise for those interested in comparative religion studies.

Chapter 1, verses are listed above the line

1:29
- Princess Devaki got married to Vasudeva

1:30
- Her Evil Brother Prince Kamsa drove the coach on thier wedding day

1:34
- While driving the coach, a spiritual voice told Prince Kamsa that "Devaki will have eight sons and the eighth son will kill him"

1:65-66
- He put his sister Devaki and her husband Vasudeva in prison

- They had sons in jail and each one was killed by Kamsa to prevent Lord Krishna from being born.

1:69
- Prince Kamsa overthrew his father put him in prison and took the throne,

Chapter 2:8-9
- Vishnu says he will put himself in the womb of Devaki to be born.

Chapter 3:31
- One evening during thunder and lightning, the eighth child was born and they saw that it was the lord Vishnu as vishnu said he would do in Chapter 2:8-9

3:48
- Since the child was in danger of being killed, Vishnu put the guards to sleep and freed the father

3:49
- The father took the baby out into the stormy night and the great serpent accompanied them spreading its hood over them to protect the child

3:50
- As the father approached the river Jumna, it parted to let the father cross,

3:51
- The father went to a house where a woman had just given birth, and the father switched the babies, and Vishnu was raised by the family never knowing the difference.

[MISCHEVIOUS BOY: Similar to Jesus leaving his parents to go the temple]
- The boy was mischievous, he stole sweet milk and distributed it to the other people and animals in the town
[MISCHEVIOUS BOY]

[HEROD: Event similar to and event related to Herod]
- But Kamsa summoned and demons and spirits to search for the child
[HEROD]

[LEVIATHAN, HOLY RIVER: Similar to an event related to a story about Yahweh slaying Leviathan in Job, similar to the event where Jacob wrestled an Angel, God or his brother (depending on the interpretation) and similar to Jesus going into the river to be Baptized, similar to the tradition to the belief that baptism is a sort of rebirth, cleansing, new beginning or relinquishing the bad and accepting the good]
- One day, wrestling and playing by the river, they saw that the river was poisoned, so Krishna jumped in to kill the Giant Serpent that was poisoning the river.
- He danced on the serpents head and set if free, cleaning up the river making the river Holy once again.
- Kamsa saw the giant serpent and its children in the river and knew that it had been defeated by Krishna,
[LEVIATHAN, HOLY RIVER]

[HOLY RIVER]
- Krishna made the land around the Holy River beautiful. Krishna went down by the river and danced with all the women that were there.
[HOLY RIVER]

[SACRIFICE OUT OF LOVE]
- One day Krishnas surrogate father was preparing a sacrifice to Indra the rain god in order to bring rain. The people were afraid that Indra was angry at them. Krishna said that people should sacrifice out of love not fear, so the sacrifice was not appropriate and would be better spent if it were directed to worship the things they love and to sacrifice to the cows and mountains
[SACRIFICE OUT OF LOVE]

[MOVING THE MOUNTAIN]
- So they did and Indra got angry and sent a terrible storm, so Krishna lifted the mountain and used it as an umbrella for the town.
[MOVING THE MOUNTAIN]

- After the storm Krishna got the invitation and he went with his friend Bellarama.
- Krishna and Bellarama killed the combatants and ordered the guards to kill them, so Krishna killed the evil king and returned the real king to power.
- Krishna battled many evils during his lifetime

[VISHNU WOULD RETURN WHEN THINGS GOT BAD]
- Krishna vowed to return to fight evil whenever it occurs.
[HE WOULD RETURN WHEN THINGS GOT BAD]

[PIERCED, KILLED AND TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN]
- There were many other events in the life of Krishna but the last thing Krishna did was to meditate under a tree in the forest, before being shot by mistakenly by a hunter and taken up to heaven.
[PIERCED, KILLED AND TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN]

Other references, related links

Google Videos Search for the story of Lord Krishna

List of Videos about Krishna on Google

Information about the Hindu Trinity, Hindu Trinity

Video about Dwarka, City of Krishna. Hindu pilgrims go there to worship. Hindu scripture says that the original Dwarka was destroyed by the sea. Archeologists think they have discovered parts of it extending 19 miles offshore of present day Dwarka, just like scriptures described.

45 comments:

John W. Loftus said...

Lee, why does the presence of similarities lead us to think all of the events in question did not happen? That's the issue that needs to be addressed.

That there is some borrowing of similar stories in the ANE is probable. The hard work is to determine what is borrowed and what is not. If it's all borrowed then the additional question to be explained is why there was a distinctive Jewish culture with distinctive Jewish beliefs.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi John,
I'm not sure I understood what you are getting at but here goes...

well, the reciprocal is
"why does the presence of similarities lead us to think all of the events in question did happen"?
One reason to not believe them is that since three religions are involved and all think that there is only one god involved, two out of three are mutually exclusive.

A good explanation of how the similarities occurred is Syncretism between the cultures. As I've said repeatedly, these folklore typologies existed throughout the near east, but I didn't just dream it up, I got it from near east scholars.

It all rests on evidence. What was the origin of the event, a real world state or someones imagination?

Do I need to say that "just because something appears in print, or comes out of someones mouth does not mean its true"?

I hope not.

If we say they all happened, then Krishna was real and Jesus was real.
The only religion that permits that is Hinduism with Jesus being an avatar of Vishnu. This actually fits better than Jesus being a manifestation of the Jewish God Yahweh, because according to the Jews, God would not debase himself by becoming a human.

If we say jesus was real and Krishna was not, then how do we explain the pre-existence of Krishna stories?
Not a likely scenario.

If we say that Krishna was real and Jesus was not, then we have a misunderstanding of who God is and if God is interested in a relationship with us, then how can that happen unless we want to redefine the meaning of relationship?

There is nothing in what I wrote the precludes the existence of cultures that believe anything they want to on whatever evidence they want to point to.

And anthropology is full of evidence of cultures borrowing from each other, especially where religion is concerned.

No where in my article did I say that Jesus or krishna did not exist. Plenty of real people have existed that have had incorrect information applied to them over time. Teasing out the truth from the fiction is a matter of evidence and cross-checking.

When the evidence is circumstantial, and the claim is that some intelligent being exists that has the means, motive and opportunity to communicate unambiguously with us, then the burden of proof is in the court of those that make the claim.

There is a claim that Krishna was god on earth.

there is a claim that Jesus was god on earth.

were they same? show the evidence.

were they different, show the evidence, but at this point, the evidence needs to satisfy more than just atheists.

And the faithful need to realize that as long as they use the same argument forms, but different names and details, they are going to cancel each other out.

You can't prove this case with personal experience.

What will prove this case is for God to step up and handle his part of the relationship, meaning he's got to unambiguously make himself known.

I can believe that something exists and not want to follow it. I do that every election year. But in the case where my life is at stake, I would follow it if I believed it. Did I really need to state that? I hope not.

John W. Loftus said...

Lee, you asked:

If we say jesus was real and Krishna was not, then how do we explain the pre-existence of Krishna stories?

Since I affirm the antecedent let me answer the consequent in your own words:

Plenty of real people have existed that have had incorrect information applied to them over time. Teasing out the truth from the fiction is a matter of evidence and cross-checking.

Cheers.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi John,
I'm confused. I don't understand what you are getting at.

John W. Loftus said...

I deny Krishna existed but affirm Jesus did. While the stories of Krishna are fictional non-historical myths, this does not mean the stories of Jesus are all myths even if it's probable that similar mythical stories were applied to the life of Jesus.

It's this sense in which what you said was an answer to the consequent:

Plenty of real people have existed that have had incorrect information applied to them over time. Teasing out the truth from the fiction is a matter of evidence and cross-checking.

Lee Randolph said...

understood.

Evan said...

John, I'm curious what standards you can deny Krishna existed on.

Is it not probable there was a 3rd millenium BCE military leader in India who preached the acceptance of one's lot in life? We have texts that suggest that one existed, correct?

John W. Loftus said...

Well, Evan, to be sure I don't know Krishna didn't exist. I haven't done the study to know. I suppose I was taking that for granted. Maybe I shouldn't have done so.

Sabio Lantz said...

Agreeing with John, just because similarities in stories exist, does not increase or decrease the chance that either character either existed or did the things stated.

The similarity of the Bhakti side of Hinduism associated primarily with Krishna as compared to Christian devotion and love of Jesus reveals much about certain aspects of some human minds. Some Hindu teachers encourage believers to pursue a theology that matches their disposition -- so, not a one-size-fits-all mentality that you see in much of Christianity and actually in Atheism.

The Catholics accommodate the varieties of personalities of believers by allowing various orders. Protestants just form a new denomination. Atheists just throw up another website. Smile !

John W. Loftus said...

Evan, I know we've discussed this before but an overwhelming number of Biblical scholars think Jesus existed along with several important skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludemann, G.A. Wells (who reversed himself on the issue), Paul Kurtz (founder of CFI), John Shook (vice president for education and research at CFI), Tim Callahan (book editor for Skeptic magazine), Paul Tobin and myself.

In my chapter for The Christian Delusion I make a case that should lead thinking people to conclude such a person did exist and that he started the Jesus cult and that we can know a bit about what he taught.

It's about credibility for me, here on this blog, in my books and with Christians whom I seek to reach.

Corky said...

John, I don't want to go into details and make a long post of this but I agree that "Jesus" really did exist.

The thing is, his name wasn't Jesus. This became his name at his rebirth (born again or rather "born from above") when he was baptized in 6 AD (the time of the census).

Before then he was Judas the Galilean, afterward known as Jesus of Galilee.

The gospels are a rework of Judas' life in a greatly whitewashed kind of way and all the dates have been moved forward (see the Slavonic Josephus). Or better yet check out the book written by Daniel Unterbrink entitled Judas the Galilean.

I could have added more to his book as I had already researched this theory about thirty years ago but his book is most convincing.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi all,
for the record,
this article was not ever meant to be about the existence of Jesus. It was only meant as an introduction to Lord Krishna (I keep saying "lord" because there are as many krishnas as Mohammads out there) and the fact that there is another religion out there with a god that came to earth as a human.

The focus of the article was on the folklore typologies similar in Hinduism and Christianity.

I'm not interested in debating whether Jesus existed or not. I think Johns angle on Jesus is a good one and he should stick to it, but its not my cup of tea. So, I won't be participating in any dialogue about whether or not Jesus existed.

Evan said...

John, thanks for clarifying. It seems to me you would need to accept the credibility of ancient texts using similar criteria. I fail to see any obvious distinction between the validity of the texts attesting to Krishna and those attesting to Jesus.

I was wondering if you had such criteria, and of course I wasn't trying to argue whether or not either existed or not on this particular thread pace Lee.

akakiwibear said...

Hi Lee, A lot of solid work as usual - well done.

Perhaps a small point, you say One reason to not believe them is that since three religions are involved and all think that there is only one god involved, two out of three are mutually exclusive.

Why do you reject the idea that the religions are all correct? On what do base your position that they do not all acknowledge one and the same God?

Certainly they may each have a differing revelation, but the similarities abound.

The reason for similarities in the theology are certainly attributable to a single God.

The differences can be explained by the obvious need for each revelation to be relevant to the social context where it was received.

Sala Kahle - peace

Sabio Lantz said...

Technical Foul Clarification
I would imagine that all the authors here would prefer to keep discussions rational and avoid both logical fallacies and emotional rhetoric. Curious if others agree that the following phrase, used by John, though I've see it thrown around on other sites as well, is a rhetoric/fallacy foul:

"...should lead thinking people to conclude ..."

It seems to me that the phrase is simply saying "If you don't agree with me, you are stupid."

Do others agree that such rhetoric is best avoided?

Lee Randolph said...

Evan, buddy, I'm glad to see you.

No big deal, yins kin argyee Jeeysus all ye wont, jes that I aint gonna dooit.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi kiwi, I'm glad you're back as well. I missed you!

My reply is taken from above,

When the evidence is circumstantial, and the claim is that some intelligent being exists that has the means, motive and opportunity to communicate unambiguously with us, then the burden of proof is in the court of those that make the claim.

There is a claim that Krishna was god on earth.

there is a claim that Jesus was god on earth.

were they same? show the evidence.

were they different, show the evidence, but at this point, the evidence needs to satisfy more than just atheists.

And the faithful need to realize that as long as they use the same argument forms, but different names and details, they are going to cancel each other out.

You can't prove this case with personal experience.

What will prove this case is for God to step up and handle his part of the relationship, meaning he's got to unambiguously make himself known.

I can believe that something exists and not want to follow it. I do that every election year. But in the case where my life is at stake, I would follow it if I believed it. Did I really need to state that? I hope not.

Lee Randolph said...

Kiwi,
The differences can be explained by the obvious need for each revelation to be relevant to the social context where it was received.

Then why didn't he do each revelation at the same time, and why doesn't he do it here and now all at the same time.

Why isn't god alive and well and administrating some free university somewhere where we all have the option of attending or not, following or not, seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, and accepting or not?

Its not so obvious buddy. Its like you're making excuses.

If he did it once, and it didn't stick, he obviously didn't do it well enough. People latch on to things that give them a pay-off, that's just the human condition. Or do you want to deny that?

Isn't it the biggest pay off to get to heaven or nirvana? But honestly, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and all the other specious junk that's come out in the name of God undermines his credibility.

If you set up a business, and had a person work for you that was ruining your reputation to the detriment and harm of those that would benefit from your service, would you not take any action?

Is it stupid to expect god to take some action?

The fact that he doesn't and lets mankind run roughshod all over creation to the detriment of unbelievers is a testament to the fact that either he doesn't exist or he's not what everyone thinks he is.

And that brings up another point, "CONTEXT".
He has to let man dictate what information he puts out? Are you serious? He's god for gods sake. He didn't have a problem making people do all kinds of other heinous things like cutting babies out of mommies tummies or making people watch him relaxing in the sun on the cross of which you can see a model of hanging on little chains around peoples necks.

Do you realize that people walk around with little cadavers on a stick around their necks and think its a good idea?

A human sacrifice to reconcile mankind to god? Why is that a GOOD idea?

Have you ever compared the worlds religions and their Gods? You want to say that they are all aspects of the same being? Really?
You should be careful about accepting the characteristics of other people gods into your god. I'm sure you haven't thought about what that means, unless you've decided that you know other peoples gods better than they do and you only believe the "true" stuff.

Sabio Lantz said...

Hey Lee,

I like your analysis and the counter arguments you offer Kiwi (I was able to see his statement before it was deleted by policy).
I think there is one version of the argument that is a bit tougher to argue against:

Imagine a deity which was not personally intervening but was accessible to humans in such a way that some humans, by participating deeply with this divine, become virtual incarnations of many principles of the divine while they live. They aren't gods themselves accept that they are so modified by the divine and so different from normal people, that the common person can't help by liken them or equate them to the divine.

Though I don't embrace this model, I think it is a common model by more sophisticated believers in these traditions -- especially in some forms of Hinduism and in a few forms of mystical Christianity. They would agree that the common myths are indeed just myths. However, they would then also argue against you saying that it is not surprising that many myths about these individuals have overlapping characteristics especially when it comes to traits of these "incarnations".

Just trying to set up the strongest argument to be had.

Thanx for the Krisna post.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sabio,
then in that case, I'd ask those 'sophisticated' believers to give me some scope and definition.

Define the overlap. But who defines it? Who gets to decide what is included in the set of "overlap".
God won't do it, its down to people, the same people that are running roughshod over creation and can't decide which theology is correct, the source of the problem.

It don't compute.

you're welcome for the Krishna article. I've been wanting to do it for while and everything just fell into place last month. I have some residual material that I cut out of this that I plan on completing and posting sometime before the end of the month.

akakiwibear said...

Hi Lee, Thanks for your words of welcome - pity I am still unwelcome at DC. No point in responding to your well resoned reply if it will simply be deleted.

Sala kahla - peace

P.S. Is it perhpas that atheists can't ascribe to the Christian docterine of forgiveness - especially to those who challenge their thinking.

John W. Loftus said...

Akiwibear, you were banned for being a blog member on a site where the contributor's do nothing more than personally attack me. I don't mind if you deal honestly with my arguments though. And I have posted your comments here. But get your name off that blog and I'll reinstate you here. It's that simple.

John W. Loftus said...

Yes, Evan, I do have a criteria and I elaborate on it in the aforementioned chapter I mentioned. The criterion of embarrassment clearly shows there was an apocalyptic prophet who gathered together some disciples who were looking for the coming of the "Son of man." They would not create these predictions and then progressively water them down decade after decade if there was no prophet to begin with.

Sabio Lantz said...

@ Lee
I am not sure we are communicating well. Sorry it does not compute.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sabio,
Sorry, I'll try to be more clear

you said
"Imagine a deity which was not personally intervening but was accessible to humans in such a way that some humans, by participating deeply with this divine, become virtual incarnations of many principles of the divine while they live. They aren't gods themselves accept that they are so modified by the divine and so different from normal people, that the common person can't help by liken them or equate them to the divine.

"Imagine" is speculation is it not?

You said
"However, they would then also argue against you saying that it is not surprising that many myths about these individuals have overlapping characteristics especially when it comes to traits of these "incarnations".

so who defines the overlap?
Not god is it, he's not going to come down and say,
"Hi guys, all those years I told the jews they were the chosen people and led them to think they were justified in genocide in the re-taking of the promised land, I was just working my way, one by one, in different times, to tell you that I'm really the same god for everybody, and I could have done it all at the same time, and done it from the beginning in the initial recipe for man and forgone all this needless suffering and though my method looks haphazard, I really do have my reasons."

It going to have to be people making a list of characteristics of gods and finding the common characteristics and
PIECING A PICTURE TOGETHER THAT EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON,
but here's a hint,
it is hopelessly naive to think that you're going to get agreement in this world on that method of deriving a god.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi kiwi,
I don't know the details, but I know John well enough that i trust him so I'm sorry to hear that you are associated with a site that engages in defamation.

That really is a pity because you do so well on your own without that kind of thing.

Sabio Lantz said...

Hello Lee,
Yes, "imagine" is speculation.
The model I put forward is fairly classic, I think. For example, imagine (yes, speculation) 10 budding artists who go under the tutelage of a master artist. Each of the 10 is deeply affected and you can see an obvious change in their art now. But of course it would be very hard to piece together what the master artist is like from the changes in the novices. The Master Artist had no intent on communicating anything about himself or his style, he was just improving the students.

Yet, with careful observation, the students all have certain traits in common.

Yes, for this site, I know this is a bit too narrative and not propositional enough. But I was simply offering a model that perhaps lives in the heads of such believers. Whereas you model seems a bit, well, "propositional". The funny thing, when people argue, they argue with propositions but I think they believe differently. Thus the challenge of real conversation.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sabio,
As I understand it your model is an analogy. The master artist represents god, the 10 other artists represent what? yahweh, jesus, krishna, some other gods I can't think of right now?

Analogies are fine if they fit. The problem is that artists are common and I can go get my caricature done by one if i want to and in fact, they ask me as I walk by.

Gods are different. You cant find one to save your a$$ and they don't ask you how your day went let alone if they can draw your caricature. Its like, i dunno, like they're not really there, ya know?

The analogy doesn't fit, no matter how relevant it is to artists and plumbers or any other student.

Just to know, where do you stand on the god thing?

Sabio Lantz said...

@ Lee, I am going to bow out of the dialogue. I have been unsuccessful in communicating. If you want to know "where I stand on the god thing", you can see my site.
Peace, -- Sabio

John W. Loftus said...

akiwibear is no longer banned. He took his name off that ignorant Blog.

Lee Randolph said...

Sabio,
I went to your profile before I asked, but the only link I could get to work was your link about your diet. "triangulations" is broke.
This time I was able to get the "sympathetic atheist" to work.

You proposed a "classic model held by some believers", I tried to get you to confirm I understood it, I showed what I take to be a weakness in it, and now you bow out of the dialogue.

I don't get it.

sometimes when people don't understand something, it needs to be presented a couple of different ways.

sorry If I let you down.

Sabio Lantz said...

Lee,
Thank you, I fixed the link.
Although I agree with many of your criticisms, they are focused, IMHO, on a particular notion of God. I was trying to show another view of a god which would require, perhaps, a different set of objections.
This post, though not written as clearly as I'd like, along with the notes, explain that view.
I think your view and John's view on religion is based on a certain philosophy/view of mind that I don't share.
-- Sabio

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sabio,
What difference does it make what perspective a believer has on any god?

If you don't believe, that should be proof positive that there is nothing out there that matches the description, because if there was, you'd believe it.

Something like a god, should be as obvious as the ocean, or china, and there should be no disagreement over its fundamental properties, at least the perceptible ones.

So many people "experience" god, but none of them are repeatable.

I believe north vietnamese eat dog meat though I've never seen it because SO MUCH EVIDENCE CONVERGES ON THAT FACT Unlike any one version of a god.

Lee Randolph said...

I read your cat and monkey religion analogy, it was interesting, but I still say, why does it matter?

As an atheist you have a concept of your "inner" god (how that happens is beyond me) that is incomprehensible to anyone else, so how can you entertain the idea that it exists anywhere else other than in your neurons?

Sabio Lantz said...

@ Lee: few questions:

1) Do you believe that all beliefs in untrue things are harmful?

2) Do you believe all beliefs in true things are good?

3) How would you move a child from an untrue belief to a true belief?

4) Do you think you have any inconsistent beliefs?

5) Do you think there are areas of your life where your sacrifice rational thinking more than others? And why?

6) Do you feel you have any superstitious behaviors?

7) Do you ever have superstitious perceptions?

OK, that is enough for now. Hope those don't seem tedious. I am sure you see my direction.

Sabio Lantz said...

Hey Lee,
Few more points.

"What difference does it make what perspective a believer has on any god?"
Reply: This is simple. If you believe god is evil, mischievous and torturous, and still deserves respect and honor, it makes a difference over viewing your god as loving and forgiving. I think this would be obvious. Not matter if that god is real or not.


"Something like a god, should be as obvious as the ocean, or china, and there should be no disagreement over its fundamental properties, at least the perceptible ones."
Reply: This only holds for an intervening god, I would think one could not say this is true of the nurturing mystical gods which do not directly intervene. (but you wrote this before reading my Cat religion post -- maybe you see my point now).

"So many people "experience" god, but none of them are repeatable."
Reply: Subjective experiences are by nature non-repeatable, no? In research, the qualitative vs. quantitative quandary rages even in the "sciences".

So you see, the sort of deity one imagines or fashions matters both in verifiability and in affect on the believer thus society. So, it matters -- real or not. I would think, put this way, what I write in non-controversial and almost uninteresting. But perhaps it is difficult for those only steeped (positively or negatively) in theistic deities.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sabio,
thanks for the thoughtful replies. I'll respond when I have more time. Just wanted to let you know I saw your response and am thinking about it.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sabio,

I don't really see where we're headed with this, so I guess I'll just enjoy the walk with you. ;-)
If you are trying to get me to take an unsupportable position, good luck. My view is that I don't know if there is a god or not, but that doesn't mean there isn't or there is. It only means that I'm unconvinced. Much as a jew is unconvinced about christianity, or a christian about hinduism, yada, yada, yada. I will tell you that there is no god if you want, but thats just a casual oversimplification of my view point. Its a heuristic.
Conversely, those that are convinced there is a god should understand that it doesn't mean there is.

First off, you should know my perspective is that we are all constrained by bounded rationality. For as good it is, our brain is an inefficient computer for rationality. Its good for getting us as far as it has, but it could be better.
For example, most of us can't hold lists in our heads of more that seven items without some extra effort, and the same goes for thinking ahead more that three steps in situations or games. We learn or are born with over a hundred identified modes of cognitive biases which we can't overcome without some effort.

with that said, here goes.

1) Do you believe that all beliefs in untrue things are harmful?
I like to avoid the "all" trap as a principle and just say, without having knowledge of untrue beliefs that I haven't come in contact with, i'll "pencil in" a "NO".


2) Do you believe all beliefs in true things are good?
Penciling in a "yes" in most contexts, I can think of at least one situation where it wouldn't be "good" (with the disclaimer that "good" is in the eye of the beholder), such as in the case that it would diminish the quality of life of a terminal patient. Throw them into a depression that would ruin their last days, yada, yada.



3) How would you move a child from an untrue belief to a true belief?
Show them evidence that converges or all supports the fact to be established. I am quite sure that belief is an unconscious result of background processing in the brain. A result of a "feeling" of certainty that occurs at some generally unpredictable point.

4) Do you think you have any inconsistent beliefs?
I'm sure that I do due to my bounded rationality. I can't figure out all the consequences of my beliefs and how they interact with each other.



5) Do you think there are areas of your life where your sacrifice rational thinking more than others? And why?
I honestly don't know. I haven't kept track of it and I'm not sure that I could answer honestly if I wanted to due to bounded rationality. It would probably take a third party and a computer.



6) Do you feel you have any superstitious behaviors?
In my view, Superstition has a large potential for ambiguity between discussants, but I might have some 'superstitious' behavior left, with the disclaimer that I have been working for some time to get of them as I discover them.



7) Do you ever have superstitious perceptions?
I don't know, it depends on what you mean by superstitious, but by my definition, no.
Do you mean something like a "panic attack" or mood swings from something like bi-polar disorder? Or a "spooky feeling" of the type that can be brought on by infrasound super low frequencies in the 18-20 hz range?


Lee Randolph said...

and when I asked you "what difference does it make" I was talking from the perspective that we are trying to rid this type of thing from society, not what difference does it make at the moment.

I can see that a unified theology would be better than whats going on now.

R said...

Dear all,

I found this amazing story in an Indian news site about a Nuclear medicine physician who has proved that Krishna existed using astronomy from the Mahabharata epic.

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/aug/29/slide-show-1-lord-krishna-existed.htm
I quote:
Dr Manish Pandit, a nuclear medicine physician from UK has made a movie on Krishna as a historic figure. Pandit has based his movie on dates and timelines coming out of scientific based research by credible evidence based on Archeology, Astronomy and Linguistics, apart from Oral evidence from Indian tradition.

Mahabharat War started on November 22, 3067 BC. This comes out of astronomical evidence. And the astronomical juxtapositions are not arbitrary or those that could happen in any decade or such... but some of them have not happened since. They are THAT rare a phenomenon.

Saturn at Aldebaran and Mars at Antares with two eclipses - a Lunar eclipse at Kartik and Solar eclipse at Jyesth. (these are from Udyoga and Bhisma Parvan).

(1)New moon day occurs in Antares once in 19 years
(2) (1) Add Solar Eclipse in Antares : This combination together with above occurs once in 340 years.
(3) (2) PLUS Saturn at Aldebaran Add that and that occurs ONCE in 7000 years.

So, that combination of events in astronomy has NOT occured since Mahabharata battle. The date - exact one - when that would have happened is Nov 22, 3067 BC.

And 150 astronomy refernces including those spoken of by Krishna and Karna (a warrior from the battle) fit that too.

So Krishna definitely existed is what his scientific paper and now film is about.

Lee Randolph said...

Thanks R,
thats interesting stuff. Do you know where I can find any more information on evidence for Krishna, or Hinduism in general?

R said...

Yes, there is the astronomy of the Mahabharata which Dr. Pandit refers to.
We are trying to get this documentary film he has made.
There is some info on
www.ifilm.me.uk

or

www.saraswatifilms.com

Thanks
Ravi Bhagawat

Loren said...

The similarities do not stop there; both Jesus Christ and Krishna have numerous similarities with other legendary heroes: Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Oedipus, Zeus, King Arthur, Moses, you name it.

These similarities were collected by a certain Lord Raglan, and he expressed them as his Mythic Hero archetypical biography. He and others have gone on to evaluate how closely various people, well-documented and legendary, fit it.

Both Jesus Christ and Krishna score very high in it, JC about 19 and Krishna about 16, alongside those aforementioned figures.

Extending this work to present-day fantasy characters, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa, and Anakin Skywalker also score high in it.

Well-documented people seldom score very high in it, usually not much more than 6 or 7, though there are higher-scoring exceptions like Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, and Tsar Nicholas II.

I've considered this profile, and I've concluded that we ought to add prophecy fulfillment to it, especially if some people tried to thwart those fulfillments. Jesus Christ was far from alone:

Zeus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Krishna, the Buddha, King Arthur, Harry Potter, Anakin Skywalker, etc.

By contrast, with well-documented modern heroes, we find that nobody had the slightest clue of their future destinies, and nobody tried to kill them to prevent that from happening. No fundie pastors tried to kill the baby Charles Darwin, no plantation owners tried to kill the baby Abraham Lincoln, no rabbis, Jewish bankers, or Jewish Marxists got together to try to kill the baby Adolf Hitler, no psychiatrists tried to kill the baby L. Ron Hubbard, etc.

Manish said...

Dear all,

Please find attached a free online link to the successful documentary "Krishna History or Myth" which I made more than a year ago. This effectively proves the existence of the historical "Krishna"

www.saraswatifilms.org/movies.php

John W. Loftus said...

Manish, have you seen this book?