A case for religion, and against AA.

[Exophase]

Red-herring.

Authorship is a totally different discussion (and one I'm really not willing to have right now) and doesn't address my point. My point is that that sort of honestly is uncommon.

Wasn't your point that David wouldn't lie if it made him look bad? Why would that have the same weight if it was someone else making David look bad? You said they were very candid about their own personal failures, that's a false statement if the authors weren't writing about themselves. Why would a different author mind using these characters as an object lesson?

I believe God inspired the book, and He wanted those details written down. If that was completely a man's book, that sort of honesty, period, wouldn't be in there...in my opinion.

Why would you hold that conclusion?

Do you think that other works of mythology only praise the people they wrote about? How about works of history? Greek mythology for instance has many examples where people are punished by the gods (Tantalus for example)

But why would God (granted, if real) allow his people to dabble into things he knows aren't true? That, to me anyway, is evidence that were protected from things we know aren't true today by someone who discerned the falsness of said beliefs thousands of years ago.

Being internally consistent (in this particular regard) doesn't qualify as evidence. A monotheistic god wouldn't want people to dabble in false religions. Nor would a theocracy using claims of a monotheistic god to get people to behave a certain way.

Here's another question - how do you dabble in things that aren't true, as opposed to just making empty gestures? And why was God so concerned about what those people believed but doesn't do anything about what we believe? Why should they be his people anymore than anyone else to begin with?

If it was superstitious, so be it. It seems you are really gunning for that.

I know what superstitious means. I was speaking in context of the Biblical record of Israel.

Could you describe where the word is coming from in this case? Was it used that way in the Bible? If so, what do you think the people who translated it that way were trying to get across?

 

[sandorski]

I know. And neither of us will change our position, but I have found this an enlightening thread and helps me better understand some at least of the atheist's tenets.

Then you clearly do not understand what Atheism is.

 

[dphantom]

Thanks for the honest answer. Without seeing any miraculous occur, why do you think it is that your faith is so strong? Just learned at a young age?

Not really. I went to a Presbyterian church for a few years in my pre teens. Afterwords, never set foot in a Church except for weddings until a few years ago - a separation of 40+ years.

In between I had read the Bible a couple times, portions of the Koran and Talmud and some other religious texts. Otherwise was not particularly active.

So what brought me back? I would say without getting into deep personal details, it was a deep dissatisfaction with my life, a feeling I was missing something and when I started going back to a Reformed Church found what I was missing. The sense of peace, fulfillment, love, compassion has been nothing that I have ever experienced. It was profound, moving.

I will leave it at that, I guess the rest of my story you will have to take on...Faith.

 

[sandorski]

Re David was punished: This is a dubious claim. Why do I claim that? Simply because his "punishment" consisted of being forbidden to construct the Temple and the loss of his First-Born from the woman he had acquired by immoral means.

This is punishment?

 

[dphantom]

Then you clearly do not understand what Atheism is.

are you serious....

 

[sandorski]

are you serious....

Yes, there are no tenets of Atheism. It is only 1 thing. That is non-Belief in deities. That is it.

 

[Exophase]

Re David was punished: This is a dubious claim. Why do I claim that? Simply because his "punishment" consisted of being forbidden to construct the Temple and the loss of his First-Born from the woman he had acquired by immoral means.

This is punishment?

Sure. Maybe not an especially strong punishment. But the temple was a pretty big deal, much like it was a big deal that Moses was forbidden to cross the Jordan river.

It's easy to think that losing his and Bathsheba's child was no more a punishment than giving back something you stole, but I think it's safe to say that it was a big emotional hit that David would have avoided otherwise.

Great for its implications on pro-life too, apparently God has no problem killing a fetus to punish someone else. Which might imply that there's nothing wrong with killing fetuses, if God didn't already have a track record of killing innocent people and animals to punish others >_>

 

[Atomic Playboy]

are you serious....

He has a point. Atheism's "tenet" is simply "God doesn't exist." If you want to expand that to agnostic atheism, it's "there is insufficient evidence to prove God exists so I choose not to believe." There's literally nothing else that ties atheists together, unlike tenets of actual religions (which is why atheism is not a religion).

 

[Agent11]

Yes, there are no tenets of Atheism. It is only 1 thing. That is non-Belief in deities. That is it.

That is why any atheist that gives a damn enough to ponder the matter has to reference other philosophy for his/her beliefs, and probably has differing opinions regarding specific topics within them. A well read atheist has tomes of material to go through in order to construct a worldview.

Discussions can be lively.

 

[sandorski]

Sure. Maybe not an especially strong punishment. But the temple was a pretty big deal, much like it was a big deal that Moses was forbidden to cross the Jordan river.

It's easy to think that losing his and Bathsheba's child was no more a punishment than giving back something you stole, but I think it's safe to say that it was a big emotional hit that David would have avoided otherwise.

Great for its implications on pro-life too, apparently God has no problem killing a fetus to punish someone else. Which might imply that there's nothing wrong with killing fetuses, if God didn't already have a track record of killing innocent people and animals to punish others >_>

On that subject, Jews believed that Life began when a baby took their first breath. There is also an induced Abortion used as a Test of a Womans' fidelity in the Old Testament. The Pro-Lifes' religious claims on the subject are hardly Biblical.

 

[sandorski]

That is why any atheist that gives a damn enough to ponder the matter has to reference other philosophy for his/her beliefs, and probably has differing opinions regarding specific topics within them. A well read atheist has tomes of material to go through in order to construct a worldview.

Discussions can be lively.

Pretty much. That said, a Worldview really doesn't require as much work as implied. I think most people, even Theists, share a few basic principles that cover most of what the average person ever needs. Things like cooperation, fairness, and work are examples of simple ideas(for the most part) that construct World Views and by themselves don't require much material.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It begs the question, then...why do you and other atheists spend much of your time in threads like these arguing about something that doesn't exist?

Why do religious fundamentalists let their religion influence their voting and judgments about what makes acceptable government policy? No one with a unicorn fetish is trying to keep gays from marrying. There isn't a collective of leprechaun enthusiasts seeking to ban abortion. No one is petitioning a school board to get dragons and magic spells taught alongside evolution. Speaking as an agnostic atheist, I really couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not; I've met some truly wonderful religious people and some truly awful atheists. But when fundamentalists attempt to control public policy to institutionalize scientific ignorance or a strict religious definition of morality, that's something we need to respond to.

 

[Agent11]

From the little I have discussed philosophy with Cerpin I know it would be arduous.

 

[Retro Rob]

Wasn't your point that David wouldn't lie if it made him look bad? Why would that have the same weight if it was someone else making David look bad? You said they were very candid about their own personal failures, that's a false statement if the authors weren't writing about themselves. Why would a different author mind using these characters as an object lesson?

I misspoke about David, but that doesn't at all defeat the point that unflattering things are recorded in the Bible, which is what I wanted to really point out.

If we hold that Moses wrote what we think he wrote (and I noticed how you wanted to discredit that), then that's a personal admission. Moses wrote of an ultimate failure he committed (Numbers 20:7-13) Matthew wrote how he abandned Jesus as one of disciples (Matt 26:25).

Oh, but tell me how they didn't write those either.

Why would you hold that conclusion?

I explained why

Do you think that other works of mythology only praise the people they wrote about? How about works of history? Greek mythology for instance has many examples where people are punished by the gods (Tantalus for example)

So what? How does that disprove anything I said? Better still, can it?

Being internally consistent (in this particular regard) doesn't qualify as evidence.

Tell me about it.

A monotheistic god wouldn't want people to dabble in false religions. Nor would a theocracy using claims of a monotheistic god to get people to behave a certain way.

You're not addressing my point. You're basically saying, since "A" is this way, then "B" must be that way too.

This is a fallacy of association.

Here's another question - how do you dabble in things that aren't true, as opposed to just making empty gestures? And why was God so concerned about what those people believed but doesn't do anything about what we believe? Why should they be his people anymore than anyone else to begin with?

I don't know.

Could you describe where the word is coming from in this case? Was it used that way in the Bible? If so, what do you think the people who translated it that way were trying to get across?

Look, dude...I don't know where you're getting at. Please explain yourself.

 

[sandorski]

Why do religious fundamentalists let their religion influence their voting and judgments about what makes acceptable government policy? No one with a unicorn fetish is trying to keep gays from marrying. There isn't a collective of leprechaun enthusiasts seeking to ban abortion. No one is petitioning a school board to get dragons and magic spells taught alongside evolution. Speaking as an agnostic atheist, I really couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not; I've met some truly wonderful religious people and some truly awful atheists. But when fundamentalists attempt to control public policy to institutionalize scientific ignorance or a strict religious definition of morality, that's something we need to respond to.

Indeed. I and others have also made this point to him in the past(probably even in this thread).

Right now, there are Bills in Idaho and Kansas proposing to give Religious people Rights to refuse to do anything for Homosexuals. I suspect they won't be passed, but the mere fact that these ideas can even be proposed should alarm everyone to just how close to the Westboro Baptist worldview many Theists are. I don't think any of the theists in this thread would necessarily agree with these Laws, but even they should be alarmed regardless of their position on Homosexuality.

This is but one more example as to why we speak out against it. Theism is being used to impose theocratic law upon everyone.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do religious fundamentalists let their religion influence their voting and judgments about what makes acceptable government policy? No one with a unicorn fetish is trying to keep gays from marrying. There isn't a collective of leprechaun enthusiasts seeking to ban abortion. No one is petitioning a school board to get dragons and magic spells taught alongside evolution. Speaking as an agnostic atheist, I really couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not; I've met some truly wonderful religious people and some truly awful atheists. But when fundamentalists attempt to control public policy to institutionalize scientific ignorance or a strict religious definition of morality, that's something we need to respond to.

???

I guess the reason why I don't understand why you're asking me this is because I am no fundamentalist and I sure in hell don't try to influence public policy...shucks, I don't even have a political stripe (R or D), and prefer to distance myself from the issues you mentioned, politically speaking.

I cannot answer your questions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So where is some evidence of transition?

I'm going to keep asking this question until you understand its significance or supply an answer:

What part of "there are no organisms that are not 'transitional'" confuses you?

 

[jhbball]

Not really. I went to a Presbyterian church for a few years in my pre teens. Afterwords, never set foot in a Church except for weddings until a few years ago - a separation of 40+ years.

In between I had read the Bible a couple times, portions of the Koran and Talmud and some other religious texts. Otherwise was not particularly active.

So what brought me back? I would say without getting into deep personal details, it was a deep dissatisfaction with my life, a feeling I was missing something and when I started going back to a Reformed Church found what I was missing. The sense of peace, fulfillment, love, compassion has been nothing that I have ever experienced. It was profound, moving.

I will leave it at that, I guess the rest of my story you will have to take on...Faith.

Thanks for the honest reply. It's not uncommon to see the others turn to Christianity in though times (prisoners, alcoholics for example) with positive results. Would you say it's the positive feelings alone that cemented your faith ?

Follow-up question: (without knowing the details) do you think you would have arrived at the same conclusions if you led had a more satisfactory life in the past?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

???

I guess the reason why I don't understand why you're asking me this is because I am no fundamentalist and I sure in hell don't try to influence public policy...shucks, I don't even have a political stripe (R or D), and prefer to distance myself from the issues you mentioned, politically speaking.

I cannot answer your questions.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. But to answer your question - why do atheists feel the need to talk about something they consider make believe - it is necessary to point out that regardless of how atheists feel about God or religion, religion is a driving political force in our country. Many times when discussions of God come up, it is directly related to religious-backed political proposals such as teaching intelligent design as science. How are atheists supposed to respond to that discussion; ignore it because it contains an idea about God?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

???

I guess the reason why I don't understand why you're asking me this is because I am no fundamentalist and I sure in hell don't try to influence public policy...shucks, I don't even have a political stripe (R or D), and prefer to distance myself from the issues you mentioned, politically speaking.

I cannot answer your questions.

Personally, I don't have anything against god-belief per se. I have a strong ideological opposition to errors of fact and bad reasoning, however.

The difference is this: if you tell me you believe in God because of personal, private reasons, I will have nothing to say to you in rebuttal. However, if you tell me you believe in God because the universe appears to be designed, I'm going to take issue, because it is an error of fact.

 

[Retro Rob]

I didn't mean to imply that you were. But to answer your question - why do atheists feel the need to talk about something they consider make believe - it is necessary to point out that regardless of how atheists feel about God or religion, religion is a driving political force in our country. Many times when discussions of God come up, it is directly related to religious-backed political proposals such as teaching intelligent design as science. How are atheists supposed to respond to that discussion; ignore it because it contains an idea about God?

This discussion had nothing to do with that. If we are just discussing the veracity of whatever religion we are part of, how can you feel threatened that this particular discourse could somehow end up being relevant to publicly policy?


I do get your drift, but I see that as a convenient excuse to bag on people who hold different beliefs.

This isn't the correct forum to address that issue. Run for office, teach, whatever -- that's how you affect change.

 

[Exophase]

I misspoke about David, but that doesn't at all defeat the point that unflattering things are recorded in the Bible, which is what I wanted to really point out.

If we hold that Moses wrote what we think he wrote (and I noticed how you wanted to discredit that), then that's a personal admission. Moses wrote of an ultimate failure he committed (Numbers 20:7-13) Matthew wrote how he abandned Jesus as one of disciples (Matt 26:25).

Oh, but tell me how they didn't write those either.

Okay, so you are afterall arguing that people wouldn't make up negative personal experiences, thus relying on the authors of those books being the people you claim. BTW, you also misspoke about Paul, whom no one believes wrote Acts. Paul does admit in Galatians that he persecuted Christians, but that hardly has to be false to ascribe any kind of legitimately miraculous experiences to his life history.

I explained why

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. You contend that if God didn't influence the writing of the book it wouldn't contain shortcomings of mankind, but I'm not seeing even an attempt at justifying this position.

It's actually pretty extreme, since God needn't have directly authored the Bible through humans for those humans to have been writing about actual miraculous events experienced firsthand. Actually, if the whole Bible is the literal transcription of God's thoughts I don't even know why it matters who physically wrote it.

So what? How does that disprove anything I said? Better still, can it?

Okay, at this point I'm not even really sure what you were trying to say in the first place. You said that the Bible contains a so-called honesty that it wouldn't if it were "man's book." Is this contingent on people writing about personal experiences or not? If it's simply a matter of an authenticity of a book being contingent on the book's tone towards god vs man then there are plenty of other sources of mythology that have these themes and I don't think you'd say that aids in their authenticity.

If it's a matter of personal experiences, I'd posit that a) there's mountains of evidence that many of the books of the Bible weren't written by those Church tradition claims b) there's also mountains of evidence that most books of the people were redacted in some way or another over time c) it's not the least bit inconceivable that a person would lie about themselves in a way that's unflattering given some greater ulterior motive and d) claims and personal accounts can be sincere but still wrong (someone hallucinating thousands of years ago not only could misinterpret it as a supernatural incident but almost certainly would)

You're not addressing my point. You're basically saying, since "A" is this way, then "B" must be that way too.

This is a fallacy of association.

No, I'm not saying that.

You're saying that ancient Israel having laws against other religions is evidence that these laws are of a divine origin. I'm saying that they just as easily work as evidence that ancient Israel takes maintaining the authoritative powers its religion gives them seriously. I don't see a single reason why your explanation works better than mine, except in the greater framework of your faith.

Look, dude...I don't know where you're getting at. Please explain yourself.

I'm asking why you used the word superstition here.

 

[Retro Rob]

Okay, so you are afterall arguing that people wouldn't make up negative personal experiences, thus relying on the authors of those books being the people you claim.

Who said they wouldn't make up negative personal experiences but you?

Strawman found and bypassed.

BTW, you also misspoke about Paul, whom no one believes wrote Acts.

Who said Paul wrote Acts anyway? You're 0-2. Need more straw?

Paul does admit in Galatians that he persecuted Christians, but that hardly has to be false to ascribe any kind of legitimately miraculous experiences to his life history.

If he didn't lie about being a persecutor, I'm to suppose that he did as regards his experience with the resurrected Jesus?

Why?

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. You contend that if God didn't influence the writing of the book it wouldn't contain shortcomings of mankind, but I'm not seeing even an attempt at justifying this position.

I'm not justifying that position because it isn't my position. My position is those sort of shortcomings wouldn't occur again and again in a man's book...that is not saying no shortcomings wouldn't occur.

You said that the Bible contains a so-called honesty that it wouldn't if it were "man's book." Is this contingent on people writing about personal experiences or not?

No. I'm simply saying these sort of shortcomings appear in the book...consistently, over the course of the entire book. Some report their own errors, some are reported by others...it doesn't matter "how" they're reported.

there are plenty of other sources of mythology that have these themes and I don't think you'd say that aids in their authenticity.

So what?

If it's a matter of personal experiences, I'd posit that a) there's mountains of evidence that many of the books of the Bible weren't written by those Church tradition claims b) there's also mountains of evidence that most books of the people were redacted in some way or another over time c)

Please, don't tell me you're going to show me anything related to the Documentary Theory?

it's not the least bit inconceivable that a person would lie about themselves in a way that's unflattering given some greater ulterior motive

What motives do you think they had? And do you have any way to substantiate it outside your obvious incredulity?

(someone hallucinating thousands of years ago not only could misinterpret it as a supernatural incident but almost certainly would)

So everyone who claimed to see a miracle was "hallucinating"? Why do you think that isn't evidence? Because it's all conjecture.

C'mon.

You're saying that ancient Israel having laws against other religions is evidence that these laws are of a divine origin.

I was asked why I believe the Bible, this is a reason. No, its not that they simply had laws against "other religions", but laws against things proven false thousands of years later (like Astrology, Fortune-telling). I would posit, though I have no evidence, that nearly all religions at the time practiced all those things.

If they were as "hallucinating" as you posit and "lying", they'd follow the false superstitious beliefs around them (like astrology, and fortune-telling).

 

[schmuckley]

I'm going to keep asking this question until you understand its significance or supply an answer:

What part of "there are no organisms that are not 'transitional'" confuses you?

I'm not confused;You made an assertion "there are no organisms that are not transitional" which is the same as: "Every organism is transitional" therefore;if the theory (of evolution) is correct,there should be transitional examples for every organism.Out of every organism there is and ever has been,there are really no examples of transition.
No inter-species transition..none of it.period.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not confused;You made an assertion "there are no organisms that are not transitional" which is the same as: "Every organism is transitional" therefore;if the theory (of evolution) is correct,there should be transitional examples for every organism.Out of every organism there is and ever has been,there are really no examples of transition.
No inter-species transition..none of it.period.

false