Atheistic perspectives of the prophets?

There is an obvious question that arises in atheists analyzing the lives of prophets and such, namely, why, if there existence or worldly power of God is highly unlikely or not present and thus it is more probable than not that God had nothing to do with these people and their religious proselytizing, why did they do so? Why did Muhammad risk everything he had to found a new community and a particular set of values? Why did Jesus sacrifice himself in attempting to teach others to live what he believed was a more ethical purpose? Why did Joseph Smith claim such a radical discovery in founding Mormonism?

The obvious answer would be "they're all liars and cheats", but I dont think that is valid, and flies in the face of most other the experiences and actions of the prophets of most religions. Each one of them, including almost all the others not mentioned here that I can think of, made serious, selfless, sacrifices to pursue their aims and in each case there does indeed seem to be a noble pursuit of greater social conditions and outcomes for others.

So my question to atheistic minded people here is, what do you think has been the course, source of inspiration, or feature that has made these people become prophets?
Obviously each case may warrant a different conclusion. You might think Muhammad was a swindler, and Jesus a schizophrenic. I do personally believe that, based on some very intriguing medical analysis, that mental ailments may have greatly contributed to most of these individuals thinking they were divinely mandated, but I'm curios what other believe.

I guess religious folk can comment also, but I wanted to avoid asking them because they generally tend to be biased based on their own desire to defend their particular creed. When I was religious, I felt most prophets were perhaps all assisted or inspired by God to some extent, but its a view I find is quite rare, despite the fact I believe organizations like the RCC said God may indeed work through other religions to achieve good ends. I'm more interested in an atheistic explanation however - one that does not use supernatural forces to explain the actions of prophetic religious leaders.

 

They are who they are. I find them to be people who just believed something, and over time people followed them.

 

This is an interesting thread for someone who is not atheist to create ... one would think claiming an alternate perspective would be better?

 

What do you mean?

 

I guess my question is why were they who they were?

 

Jesus was fiction. Muhammad had a condition and may have been borderline insane. Joe Smith was a BSer like Hubbard.

 

Dont you think at least some person of Jesus' description existed? Certainly the story might have been added to along the way, but it seems most probable that someone of his description, character and history did exist.

Could you elaborate?

What makes you say that?

 

Since his story follows the solar hero model, including the miraculous birth and all that, I'm inclined to simply treat him as yet another solar allegorical mythological figure. The similarities his character bears to other such figures (Mithra, Osiris, ...), including his teachings, inform me that he was an invention. Then the lack of records for a man who is supposed to have been executed by Roman authorities further cinches it for me that he was not a real historical figure.

Then there is the modern example of Cargo Cults and their own supernatural messiah, John Frum. That's 20th century mythology from South Pacific islanders, a supposed US airman, yet no one can determine whether he ever actually lived. The military would certainly have a record of such a man. This demonstrates the principle, and provides a glimpse into how religions begin and develop. They don't need to be based on reality - they just need gullible followers to listen and repeat, dream and preach and write, etc.

It's been suggested that Muhammad had epilepsy, which is known to at least give sufferers a feeling of divine rapture. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his mind was addled rather than say he was a simple conman. I think he probably said at least a portion of what he did earnestly.

Smith took portions of an older English translation of the Bible and plagiarised them. He claimed to have found large golden plates in a non-existent language after being visited by an angel and led to them by that angel. I seem to recall that he had also had a history of making up stories before he decided to invent a religion.

Hubbard stated outright that he thought creating a religion would be worthwhile for making good money. He was also a science fiction author and the religion he invented is essentially science fiction.

 

The lack of records and similarities to other heroes make his story look dodgy, but not necessary false in its entirety. There were in fact many prophets at this time with a similar story, but they probably existed as well to some extent. I'm curious about your claim of a similarity in teachings. Could you elaborate on this?

Sure, I agree, but I think the presence of a Christian following, and the presence of some form of independent reference to his existence as well as the presence of what appears to be rather original teaching seems to indicate some guy did exist. Whether he was the Jesus we know today is certainly debatable but it does seem possible, and indeed likely he did exist.

Yes, I think he may have had epilepsy myself. I considered the conman aspect, but it doesnt really stack up. He was certainly, which a man of his time, but he was quite clever and progressive in leadership. If he were a conman, he would not have made the social extensions to greater equity and care for others that he promoted, which were quite altruistic and radical at times. He also seems to have had an obsession with hygiene, having children and with dreams - all of which are the likely qualities of someone with such an ailment as epilepsy - cleanliness due to body odor (he adored the presence of rich scents around his person apparently), and in seeking children he acquired many wives, which makes sense because he had many offspring, but only one, Fatima, survived. Dreams are an extension of fits and seizures. Of course, the last point would then mean most other Abrahamic prophets had a similar ailment, since their notions of visions were similar experiences. Also, the first two traits could be explained by the desire for hygiene being a fad of his and many wives because he was an active man - the deaths of his children could simply mean he wasn't a guy capable of having offspring. One would also have to contend with the fact he was healthy enough to fight effectively in battles - though it could be argued, he just toughed it out. There is a book by one Maxime Robinson on Muhammad's life that I intend to acquire as it apparently gives a descent analysis of his life from an atheistic perspective.

Do you have a link for that? I'm curious to read about that.

Yes, it does seem to me that Smith does come close to being a liar, but I have heard of a number of medical books arguing he had mental illness, which is certainly possible given the outlandish nature of his claims and adherence to them despite persecution.

I have not put much faith in the sincerity of Scientology at all. Hubbard's story is just a little too ridiculous to be seen as anything but a self-serving scheme. But its possible he was also sincere and just a little challenged.

 

They know religion is generally the way to promote social change. Tell everyone that some angel or god told you the stuff you want to convince people of, and you generally appear more legitimate. Maybe not at first, but it catches on and eventually picks up speed because of these ideas being attached to religion. And who's to say these famous "prophets" did everything they're claimed to have done? I mean, the stories about Jesus really have no validity. The Gospels were written decades after he was dead and gone - not written by any eye witnesses, and a lot of it was copied from another source, and then, passed down through who knows how many different transcriptions.

Muhammad was a child molester and Joesph Smith WAS a con, same goes for Hubbard.

 

Jesus didn't really teach anything. What he did say only a handful of people actually follow. His myth is greater than the reality. On top of that few people have a clue as to what he ever said about anything.

 

As a ferinstance, http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod04.htm
Later in the XVIIIth, or early in the XIXth dynasty, we find Osiris called "the king of eternity, the lord of everlastingness, who traverseth millions of years in the duration of his life, the firstborn son of the womb of Nut, begotten of Seb, the prince of gods and men, the god of gods, the king of kings, the lord of lords, the prince of princes, the governor of the world, from the womb of Nut, whose existence is for everlasting, Unnefer of many forms and of many attributes, Tmu in Annu, the lord of Akert, the only one, the lord of the land on each side of the celestial Nile."

n the XXVIth dynasty and later there grew up a class of literature represented by such works as "The Book of Respirations," "The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys," "The Festival Songs of Isis and Nephthys," "The Litanies of Seker," and the like, the hymns and prayers of which are addressed to Osiris rather as the god of the dead and type of the resurrection than as the successor of the great cosmic god Tmu-Ra. He is called "the soul that liveth again," "the being who becometh a child again," "the firstborn son of unformed matter, the lord of multitudes of aspects and forms, the lord of time and bestower of years, the lord of life for all eternity." He is the "giver of life from the beginning;" "life springs up to us from his destruction," and the germ which proceeds from him engenders life in both the dead and the living.

Truth be told, these old Christian parallels from that part of the world are something I'd like to look into more deeply myself. I've read/heard second-hand descriptions of the similarities, e.g. in the movie Zeitgeist, but aside from this Book of the Dead extract here, I haven't seen much in the way of primary or scholarly sources so far. There are a lot of really (*)(*)(*)(*)ing similarities, though, from what I've seen so far. Just look up Christ parallels via Google sometime.

I dunno, it depends on the characters who got this religious ball rolling, on the circumstances of the time and place, etc. I think men who were aware of Mithraic and Egyptian mythologies, and possibly others, concocted something for Israel. It may even have been more zeal than deception that produced this stuff.

You've studied this fellow a lot more than I have

Nothing off-hand, but it shouldn't be hard to dig something up...

Here: http://www.mrm.org/origins-of-the-book-of-mormon
Of course, it is obvious that Smith knew how to plagiarize because about a fifth of the Book of Mormon is copied straight out of the King James Version Bible, including the errors made by the English translators. Anyone who is honest would have to admit that Smith really didn't translate these words from the Book of Mormon "plates."

I can't express to you enough how much I do not want the most powerful person in my country to be a follower of this nonsense.

That is interesting - I hadn't encountered that claim before.

True, I suppose there is always that possibility. Still, his "church" was set up as a money-making machine and a very cultish cult, so to speak. I think that lends credence to what I consider the most likely scenario, which is pure old-fashioned conning.

 

How about turn the other cheek and all that jazz?

I agree. But is irrelevant.

 

It is possible they used religion to make their ventures more effective. Still in some cases it seems a little hard to accept given the massive sacrifice entailed by pursuing such a line of action.

If you're referring to Aisha, its most likely he did not rape, let alone have sex with her at a young age. She was most likely married to him as a child, but consumption most definitely, imo, occurred after she herself was ready. She had to consent herself, dont forget. Also, as I said, it is possible Smith had mental problems. But thanks for the contribution.

 

I already know about the divinity story similarities. My question was directed at the claim there was nothing original about Jesus' teachings that you made.

I tend to agree. My friend is an archeologist and I'm always fascinated to here his explanation for how Judaism borrowed vast quantities of its religious teachings, values and stories from the Egyptians and surrounding tribes.

He's quite a fascinating character, especially in today's political climate, that's for sure.

LOL That doesnt do much good for describing Smith's character. As for Romney, believing in a stupid concept or two doesnt necessarily make one a bad politician - they can often have nothing to do with each other. But what form what I've seen of him I share your concern.

Its a little harder to stand by after hearing he copied from a Bible. LOL

I agree. That is one sharp difference between him and other religious creeds. Most old school religions have at least some serious inclination to redistribute wealth that generally flies right in the face of money-making cult structures.

 

I'm not sure I made such a strong claim, actually. There may have been original elements to the teachings attributed to Christ, but it seems a lot was borrowed as well.

I wouldn't argue against saying that Jesus had some good reputed teachings that have stood the tests of time and social development.

 

I'd argue they provide a valid enough basis to say some guy existed, around which the Jesus tale has developed - its accuracy being highly debatable.

 

If I had to take a guess, I would assume people like Jesus and Mohammed were extraordinarily charismatic. Prophet figures appear periodically throughout history, and the ones that are better documented all seem to share this trait.

It also helps if they happen to have a position of prominence. Mohammed, for example, was born into a powerful tribe.

 

They just had the skills necessary, in a time when things made it possible for them to do it.

 

Yes, but that's irrelevant to my question. My question is not how they could do what they did, my question is why did they decide to do it in the first place?

 

Why? The ideas did not have to come from one man. This may have been a strange way of updating the local culture with then-new ideas from elsewhere, and so they came in the guise of solar hero whose allegorical nature the little people wouldn't even have understood, same as people today still don't understand it, though for somewhat different reasons.

 

That's possible, but then so is Jesus' existence, or something close to it.

 

Sorry, thought you were saying something else.

And that leads me to my first post. They believed something, and they got followers. It's no differnt then people following economist, promising wealth. They're no differnt then politicans, claiming they're the right person for the job.

 

Children can't give consent. There was nothing noble about that kiddy diddler.

Mental problems. He was a known criminal.

 

She still had to give consent before the marriage was fulfilled via consummation. Aisha was most likely in her mid to late teens when this occurred. Nothing pedophilic about that.

Could you provide a reference?