Peace.
I believe my question was pretty self-explanatory. How do atheists view Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and the other prophets (peace upon them all)? Do you think they were actual people that walked this earth or are they just myths? Do you believe in the stories that surround them? Do you think that they were sent down for a message and purpose? Im just curious about the subject and would like to know.
Many thanks
I suppose the mere fact that there really is no consensus as to who, or even if, the noted characters were real or not (leaving aside the “prophet” label), is telling.
None of these tenets are unique to Christianity or Islam of course, but it's this sort of statement that sets the whole ball rolling -- if the stories and characters in the various holy books are exaggerations or stories that have been embellished over centuries, then how do you define what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected? Did Jesus rise from the dead? If yes, why is that an acceptable story but, oh, let's say, the parting of the red sea is an exaggeration? If not, then why the belief in Christianity at all, when any other religion would do, and in fact non-religious moral codes would works as well? Did Mohammed rise to heaven on a golden staircase? Did god talk to Noah and Moses? Is that an exaggeration? If yes, then why does one accept anything from a book that is part fiction and tells such tall tales?
You assume it was really they who wrote the gospels. If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark, John or that any “truths” were revealed to Mohammed. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if the accounts of the “prophets” were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements. And the tonal nature of them, and so on.
Anyway, let’s explore this. I've always enjoyed the Judeo concept of being able to haggle with god-- it's awesome, and in fact I truly wish it were still in effect, as this would be exactly what I would embrace to believe fully.
In a way I have always "envied" the prophets and messengers of the Judeo-Christian cast of characters. I mean, exactly how much faith did any of them really need? Adam? Talks to God directly. Noah? Same. Abraham? Moses? Same. Joshua? David? Same, same. Even Job. Jesus-- man he gets it all! Despite a lot of call for faith, most of the key characters in the OT don't have to bother with it much at all-- they know, don't they? And I don't mean silent messages in their heads-- these guys have actual conversations-- if not "face to face", then with a deep resonant voice. In any event, this sort of direct communication no longer occurs, nor do the miracles of the holy texts.
Beliefs and choosing sides is important, certainly, but the standards by which we come to those beliefs and choices is of paramount importance. It’s a core component in how we treat and react to both events and people. The Theistic folks, however, trample all over critical thinking by alluding to only completely mortal environments to explain something you all already admit is really beyond your capacity to understand, let alone explain. Just so: if I perceive something outside of logic, I am admitting it is illogical, and if I dismiss the rational, I am admitting it must be irrational. And given the construction of reality, the illogical and the irrational are not standards by which truth can ever be ascertained.
That's why theists clash constantly over doctrine and dogma. Even Muslims will clash badly with other Muslims, as we all know from experience on this board (Did I say "Even"? I meant "Especially").
