It's not just that I don't believe in God, I think you are LYING when you say you do [Archive]

truethat

9th January 2009, 07:40 AM

Richard Dawkins made an interesting point in The God Delusion. Even though I felt the book focused too much on religion and not God per se, there were a few times I thought he made good points. This is one of them:

Polls suggest that approximately 95 per cent of the population of the United States believe they will survive their own death. I can’t help wondering how many people who claim such belief really, in their heart of hearts, hold it. If they were truly sincere, shouldn’t they all behave like the Abbot of Ampleforth? When Cardinal Basil Hume told him that he was dying, the abbot was delighted for him: “Congratulations! That’s brilliant news. I wish I was coming with you!” The abbot, it seems, really was a sincere believer. But it is precisely because it is so rare and unexpected that his story catches our attention, almost provokes our amusement. (Dawkins 356)

This is just one example of the lack of authenticity that is apparent among believers.

If you visit message boards you will find inevitably that the Religious Forums are usually the busiest sections. In fact many science discussions are held in religious forums because they are more active. It says something about the huge debate that is raging on between believers and non believers. You wonder why the debate continues. If you believe great, if I don't ok. Why the discussion?

I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism.

Many of us atheists have similar experiences in dealing with so called believers and come to the same conclusion as Dawkins' observation. If you REALLY believed in God, you wouldn't behave the way you do.

For example I recently had a debate regarding Gay Marriage rights with a so called believing friend of mine. While I can to some degree understand a person feeling their moral convictions had merit, whether I agreed or not, I couldn't understand the need of the Christian to try to force his personal belief on strangers whose lives had no impact on him at all. He tried to dance around the morality of the country issue, but bottom line I asked him why if he REALLY believed in the after life, that he would be so concerned about the worldly affairs. God doesn't ask Christians to create a world that reflects His views? He says that this is basically nothing and the afterlife is what its all about. Eden resumed. My friend argued that he can't support sin. That sin is sin, its all the same, not one worse than the other, but he just can't support sin.

Yet he had a pagan Christmas tree this year and bought his wife gold for Christmas. Apparently he was unaware that these two things were big NoNos to God.

When pressed it became apparent that he didn't know these things were NO NOs because (as most Atheists know) he hadn't read the Bible in such detail.

And this brings us to a very important point. The reason most Atheists that I know of became atheists is that they started to read the Bible. When they did they found it didn't "add up" to what the claim of God was. As they investigated further they realized it was a likely fraud.

What is obvious though, is that most of the masses of supposed "believers" out there, do not REALLY BELIEVE. If you really believed that this text was from God, why haven't you read it? Why haven't you committed it to memory? In fact, why haven't you learned the original language and made study of this incredible book that has been given to you by the almighty Creator of the Universe and all that is Good and Holy. He sent you a tome and you asked for another to basically get you a cliff notes to that?

If you, in your heart of hearts truly believed that this book was from God, you would have read it from cover to cover over and over again. This is one of the first things that an atheist begins to notice about believers.

So when I take my staunch stance that says "I don't believe in God" I want to take it a step further. I think you are lying when you say you do. I don't see any true conviction in your life that you think this book is a sacred text. You spend more time on the internet, watching tv, drinking, going out for fun, hanging with friends, talking on the phone, than you do reading this book and trying to understand it.

I call BS on the God belief.

Rrose Selavy

9th January 2009, 07:58 AM

I think there is a strong element of "half belief" with montheism particularly. Like someone who doesn't consider themselves "superstitious" but avoids walking under a ladder (aside from practical reasons not to)
"just in case" and because there is still a strong irrational impulse (from upbringing usually) to do so.
Same may apply to those who fill in surveys about the "afterlife" .
Or part of the the so called "moderate"/political wing of the Theist Party rather then the fanatical/paramilitary.

truethat

9th January 2009, 08:04 AM

I agree. I think alot of these so called believers are doing it just in superstition. However where it gets problematic, is when they try to repress the rights of others based on superstition.

My friend wants me to believe that the reason he tries to suppress the rights of Homosexuals is based on Logical understanding.

I suggested it based on personal preference as to what he chooses to focus on in the bible. Somehow this was a great insult.

But that reactiveness really proves that he's not sincere.

The debate surrounding religion needs to move away from politely trying to each have our say.

I want the Believers to demonstrate their belief, by living the life they say they are supposed to. And this is not about calling believers "hypocrites" because that nifty reply "We're not perfect, we all sin" gets them off.

However here's the bottom line. If you want your religious beliefs to be respected, then respect them yourself first. If you want me to accept that you "KNOW" that there is a God because of your belief and experiences, then demonstrate that belief. Don't just Talk the Talk, walk the walk. Otherwise I think you are lying.

Rrose Selavy

9th January 2009, 08:25 AM

"lying" implies to me some deliberate deception but I think it's more subtle than that - they're certainly lying to themselves in a sense, Consider the number of Roman Catholics who use non approved contraception. The number of "moderate" muslims who drink alcohol etc -
Rather than the God of the scriptures etc , for practical reasons , I think they invent an easy -to-live-with personal "God" where some things don't really matter (to them) but they'll cherry pick aspects that suit them.

Dave Rogers

9th January 2009, 08:42 AM

If you visit message boards you will find inevitably that the Religious Forums are usually the busiest sections. In fact many science discussions are held in religious forums because they are more active. It says something about the huge debate that is raging on between believers and non believers. You wonder why the debate continues. If you believe great, if I don't ok. Why the discussion?

I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism.

While the rest of the OP makes some good points about the half-heartedness of many believers, I've seen this argument in other forms too many times on the 9/11 CT forum to let it pass. The problem is that it's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. Clearly, declining to argue a position can be interpreted as arising from a lack of conviction; if arguing it is also interpreted as arising from a lack of conviction, then there is no behaviour attributed to conviction. There are plenty of reasons for arguing a position to which one is fully committed. These include, but are not limited to: wanting to explore one's own understanding more fully by considering the views of those who would falsify it (a good example of skepticism in action); wanting to sway the undecided, for their own benefit, out of a spirit of altruism; or simply being the sort of person who enjoys debate.

In fact, if I were a committed Christian, who truly believed not only in salvation and damnation but in helping others, then arguing with non-believers in an attempt to convert as many as possible to my religion would in fact be not simply a moral choice, but the only moral choice. Far more so than worldly works of charity, which might save the body but lose the soul.

The rest of the post makes some very good points, but the argument that "If you really believed in your position you wouldn't bother debating" is not a strong one.

Dave

truethat

9th January 2009, 08:43 AM

Interesint point, I do concede that its a loaded word. However I think this "loadedness" is really what the debating is all about.

We all understand that everyone is hypocritical in one way or another. I think lazy people are fools but I am one of them.

However, as I said, when people are attempting to have the laws of the land reflect this supposed God belief, we need to acknowledge something important. That is the person is denying that what they want is based on personal preference.

My friend denies that he is bigoted against homosexuals, he instead does this sort of, shrugging of the shoulders saying "I'm a loving guy, and I don't judge anyone, but I can't help it, God said it....who am I to question God."

Its about assigning authority to the texts. Using the text as an authoritative source of what is right in the world. We can't deny that the bible is used to justify the oppression of homosexuals. Here and now.

But if you want me to accept the authority of this book, then why don't you as a believer? If you really believe this book is God's say, then why aren't you committed to reading it daily and going over it with a fine tooth comb? People memorize songs, comedy routines, movies and favorite poems? But the book? not so much.

truethat

9th January 2009, 08:49 AM

Thanks Dave, I agree. I didn't mean to convey that this was the ONLY reason people debated. Actually I was addressing this point from the opposite perspective.

I think that we ATHEISTS debate these points with a believer not because we as ATHEISTS want to convince the believer, both the atheist and the believer are arguing their point of view.

However, what I was trying to convey, which apparently I didn't, is that what is really going on under the atheists surface conversation, is the title of this thread. When an atheist argues against a believer they are saying "I don't believe you that God exists" and what I think is going on is really "I don't believe that you really believe God exists"

At least this is my experience with my friend. Its not just that I don't accept what he's saying, its that deep inside, in his heart of hearts, I don't think he really accepts what he's saying either.

Monketey Ghost

9th January 2009, 08:52 AM

Just saying quickly, this is a fascinating discussion, please continue!

I quite agree that if God truly existed and believers truly believed, then what could be more important?

Rrose Selavy

9th January 2009, 08:54 AM

When pressed though , don't many revert to a kind of agnosticism? Maybe thats where the "if i convince you maybe I' will convince myself as well" aspect comes in.

INRM

9th January 2009, 08:57 AM

I think there's an element of "half-belief" in there.

truethat

9th January 2009, 09:12 AM

The reason I am starting this discussion is I'm done. Enough already with the PC BS. I think many atheists know very well what I'm talking about. There's a polite sort of acceptance that Billy really believes in God because he had a miracle happen many years ago and he KNOWS Jesus is his personal savior.

Truly, most believers are nothing more than (to reappy Hume) superstitious atheists. When we know someone is superstitious we know that they have an unreasonable belief and we don't press the issue. Especially if we know it is related to some sort of mental quirk. If a woman fell down a flight of stairs and as a result always tells people to hold on to the railing, we sort of demure to her request because why push the issue? Obviously she has her reasons.

So believers have their reasons. Most believers need God in their lives in order to cope. We as a society accept this across the board.

But in order for society to evolve we need to grow. And that falls on the shoulders of atheists to stop the debating and the PC conversations.

My conversation with my friend required me to hold my tongue or lose the friendship. I've lost the friendship with another person for basically calling it out. Many people are familiar with the frustrating conversation regarding Christian Hypocrisy. But that's the wrong angle.

I suggest that from now on, ask a believer if they believe in God. Which God? Ok you believe that the bible is a sacred text given to you by God? Instead of debating the bible simply ask them if they have memorized the bible? Do they read it every day? How many times do they read it? Point out that this is basically the ONLY text that we have from God, according to what they suggest, so it should be pretty easy to memorize it.

Then say "Well I'm sorry but I don't believe that you are really a believer because you dont' seem to follow through on your claim. I suggest that you are actually a superstitous atheist, and until you have memorized the bible, I will continue to think so.

Lets shift the paradigm.

Monketey Ghost

9th January 2009, 09:40 AM

Atheists are far too few. All my friends believe in God, as do all my family.

I tried, feebly to stop saying things like "God bless you" and "Merry Christmas", even when typing I tried to stop capitalizing the G, but...

We run the risk of deeply offending those who believe and so turning them away from our line of thinking. Whereas, why would I be offended if religious folks can't understand my atheism? It will take time, and may never happen.

Yours in Christ, Mags

I Ratant

9th January 2009, 09:44 AM

truethat

9th January 2009, 09:45 AM

Well the time is now. The debate has been spinning in circles. Obviously we're not going to win friends by suggesting this, and the debate doesn't have to be really attacking. But simple. Like so.

You believe in Christ??!! Really? I don't believe you........

Big Les

9th January 2009, 10:20 AM

Ichneumonwasp

9th January 2009, 10:24 AM

If you want your religious beliefs to be respected, then respect them yourself first.

I really like that way of expressing it. Mind if I use that in the future? That's very good.

truethat

9th January 2009, 10:43 AM

I have many friends who are avid bible readers. They participate in discussions on it weekly.
But to me, the basic problem with the presumption that god "wrote" the bible fails the simplest examination.
The souce(s) for all of it are obviously humans, with all the biases and fantasies that humans have invented to "prove" their version of their religion.
It's a book of fables, with some relatively common moral guidances, and other unique to the book ideas on what is and isn't right (according to the authors of the passages).
Objective examination of the story of Job for instance, should bring up the question as to the source of the story. If it truly is god, he shows himself as a monster.
It's more obviously a parable written in a bizarre effort to show how faith can be rewarded. Written by a salesman, not a deity, as that deity is obviously crazy.
The same with the story of Samuel, a self-appointed god-shouter, responsible on his own hook for the elimination of an entire society, due to ... mental problems???
The book of god reeks with these inconsistencies and contradictions between the alleged noble purposes of the creator, and yet it's full of carefully detailed obviously human failings of the deity himself.
I don't challenge my friends on these problems, they're all of a age when the Reaper is looming large in their lives, and they fear it.
When religion comes up, I don't participate.

Weekly isn't good enough though now is it? I mean we're talking about GOD. How does God get put on the back burner for UFC and LOST?

How does God get put on the back burner for chatting online? Or going bowling?

Its absurd.

I know those types of people too. Occassionally they will read the bible, lots of preferred versus, lots of focus on the gospels and proverbs. Romans and whatnot.

However, I don't believe they don't see these inconsistencies. They do see them and this is why they don't keep reading. They read a bit, questions come up OK OK OK You win...back away.........calm down.

My friend did this to me when I pointed out his wife's gold. He said "OK fine I'll go home tonite and stone her, I'll cut off my right hand"

Huge extreme emotional distancing from the logic. The truth. The truth being "wow I didn't know that...."

And that truth leading to "Why not? You want others to accept the authority of this book yet you are lying when you say you do, otherwise you'd know it backwards and forwards. If God is giving instructions in this book and you believe in God, wouldn't you read it? Why wouldn't you be curious what the creator of the universe had to say? It would be illogical not to"

But as you say, and I've said earlier, as you continue to read the book you can tell pretty quickly that its a fraud. I continue to study the bible for historical reasons. It doesn't take MUCH to really understand that the bible is a fraud. So why the denial?

Ichy you can use that quote. I'm sticking with "superstitious atheists"

Mister Agenda

9th January 2009, 12:08 PM

I suppose when most Americans are atheists, the level of discourse around here will drop dramatically. Are we sure we want them to realize they're atheists?

I Ratant

9th January 2009, 12:33 PM

I find no reason to confront my religious friends with the contradictions in their beliefs.
They're friends, not adversaries.
Missionaries that come to door though.. they leave very unhappy!

westprog

9th January 2009, 01:10 PM

I call BS on the God belief.

I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism.

It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness.

Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God?

I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.

DeusPhasmatis

9th January 2009, 01:46 PM

I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager.

No. It's a social thing. People go in for religion because it's just what you do. There isn't a decision.

I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism.

It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness.

Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God?

I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.

If you're not taking the bible literally, than you don't have to take the bible-literal definition of a good Christian.

Patsy

9th January 2009, 01:53 PM

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

I don't keep any devils or serpents around, but as soon as one single believer is willing to drink the draino under my sink, I'll believe they actually believe the nonsense they spout themselves. And if they emerge unscathed, I'll even listen to them.

roger

9th January 2009, 01:58 PM

I find much of the reasoning on here quite spurious.

Consider: right now there are human slaves. Genocides are going on. Mass murderers and serial killers are on the loose. Some countries are undergoing harrowing Aids epidemics. Children are dying of diarrhea for lack of basic sanitation and medicine.

I'm sure you'd agree all these things are real, happening, and vastly more important than, say, sitting on a forum posting jokes and armchair arguments. Yet here we all are (I include myself), doing that. I could go get a job at McDonald's to get some secondary money, and donate it all to various African charities. I choose to post, play with my dogs, go for walks, etc.

We all, all of us, balance our lives between extremely important outside issues and the quotidian - what am I going to have for dinner, oh, I've got to respond to this post, someone is wrong on the internet, hey, let's go to Dairy Queen for some ice cream, etc. Considering the horrors I wrote about in the first paragraph, pretty alarming, yet ultimately understandable and entirely human.

So, do we conclude that I really don't believe human slavery is wrong? That it is okay that kids die of diarrhea? Because that is the way the logic in this thread leans? Or should we conclude that humans are shortsighted, don't look too far beyond their immediate environment and clan, and focus more on today than the future? I suggest the latter.

I know plenty of people who believe in God. So far as I can tell, they are sincere in that belief. There lack of focus on heaven strikes me as no different than my lack of focus on the AIDS epidemic.

We are all tragically flawed. I guess you can view that as a way to put down everyone, or perhaps, recognize our humanity and limitations with compassion.

Darat

9th January 2009, 02:03 PM

I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager. Mostly because they really haven't thought it through and probably don't want to in case they too come to conclusion that they don't believe in god/there probably isn't a god.

...snip...

(Warning: Personal opinions and generalisation galore ahead!)

I think it goes much further than that - if you ask most people who label themselves as CofE I bet most would not be aware of what most of the doctrines of the CofE actually are.

It would seem to be that religion for many people is quite a passive thing, they self-identify with it but have never considered it deeply or probably even know what it is they are meant to "be doing" according to their own label.

This is one of the reasons why, when we we get someone who is "anti-atheism" who offers that silly "Oh that's just what fundamentalist would think" I find it quite amusing, all religions are "fundamentalist" it is just that most people who follow the religion or say they follow it simply don't realize it. What the anti-atheist is really saying is "Yes but most people don't actually believe in what their religion says" without realising the irony of making such a claim, never mind how patronising that claim is.

truethat

9th January 2009, 02:05 PM

I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism.

It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness.

Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God?

I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with Christian hypocrisy. Its not about not following the rules of the bible.

So this isn't about my friend buying gold even though he's not supposed to. Its about him not knowing that biblically wearing gold is wrong. Does that mean he doesn't really believe in God? In my opinion YES. Because God is not just some historical figure. Its GOD!!!!! So how can a person be "meh" about what God said if he really believes?

Now as I said before. Its one thing if you have your belief system and you practice it in your own way, living your life, doing your thing. I think we all know these kinds of people in all walks of live Christian or otherwise.

However when it comes to oppressing homosexuals, this is where it turns into something else.

When I point out to my friend that his not wanting homosexuals to have marriage rights is a personal preferance, he was affronted. He suggested that no, its not that, its just this is what the bible says and as an abiding Christian he just has to go along with what God says.

I have another friend I know who was that Jesus is her savior. Due to the illness of her child she turned to Jesus and never turned back. And that's a wonderful thing for her, let her use it as she might. As I said, no one is going to deny a person their superstitions. Its only when they try to force those superstitions on other people that it even becomes an issue. So even though she's a really nice person, one of her causes is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Why?

God has ordained marriage as between a MAN and WOMAN only. Any other type of marriage will lead to problems in our society and bring upon us the plagues of God. Children are produced in families, and the traditional family is the backbone of the World. Traditional families are forever!

So far the debate has always revolved around Christian authority. We're not having a debate about Gay Marriage rights based on a Stephen King novel? Everyone accepts that this is a story or fiction. Likewise we're not having a debate on Gay Marriage rights based on the Hammrabi Code. Because that has no authority in this country.

The bible is granted authority in this country. And so this is why we need to shift the debate from whether the bible is true, to the real truth. That if this book is an authority by which we see fit to form our laws, then those who are insisting on its authority should know it well. Those who want to use its authority to oppress SOME people, should be expected to know all the laws in it. If those who insist on biblical authoriy don't have the inclination to actually read the book, why should the rest of us be expected to consider it anything more than fiction?

I believe that what believers (or superstitious atheists) are doing is just using the authority of this book to hide behind because it helps them oppress people they just personally don't think are right.

And as far as "they are our friends and not our adversary" well I disagree. If my friend is oppressing someone then they need to be called out on it. If they can't handle being called out on it, then they should shut up about it or stop doing it. If your friends were members of the KKK would you say the same thing?

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 02:09 PM

No. It's a social thing. People go in for religion because it's just what you do. There isn't a decision.

Perhaps for the majority. There are some of us, I guess a (very?) small percentage, who want to believe in something greater than themselves, who are actively concerned about what follows this life, if anything, and who hope (but don't know) for something more to follow.

My belief in or of God is irrational and based on equal parts of hope and fear. Not hope or fear of a diety's benevolence or anger, but rather of the desire for there to be more to this life. My particular faith is hardly social, and it's not, as far as I know (or have delluded myself) based on Pascal's Wager.

truethat

9th January 2009, 02:13 PM

Perhaps for the majority. There are some of us, I guess a (very?) small percentage, who want to believe in something greater than themselves, who are actively concerned about what follows this life, if anything, and who hope (but don't know) for something more to follow.

My belief in or of God is irrational and based on equal parts of hope and fear. Not hope or fear of a diety's benevolence or anger, but rather of the desire for there to be more to this life. My particular faith is hardly social, and it's not, as far as I know (or have delluded myself) based on Pascal's Wager.

Ok so answer the question. What do you believe? What is your faith as you would describe it?

DeusPhasmatis

9th January 2009, 02:13 PM

I know plenty of people who believe in God. So far as I can tell, they are sincere in that belief. There lack of focus on heaven strikes me as no different than my lack of focus on the AIDS epidemic.

People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false.

If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.

roger

9th January 2009, 02:20 PM

People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false.No, I'm quite clearly saying people value their own welfare more than others. We don't give up our lives for starving children, AIDS prevention, etc.

If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.That is removed from us just like the human slaves are. There ARE human slaves right now. Go search CNN, MSNBC, any of the news sites. Yet you do nothing about it. (and neither do I).

This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.

truethat

9th January 2009, 02:21 PM

People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false.

If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.

That's a very good analogy. But there's a part that seems to be eluding people a bit. Christians suggest that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. They suggest that they KNOW God is there, that he is almighty and all powerful and that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

Ok

Jews and Muslims don't believe this, yet I think Jews are much more dedicated to reading the Torah. This is the kind of dedication I'm talking about. I don't readily apply this commentary to the Jews because Jews typically learn Hebrew and study the Torah regularly. You have to respect the Jews religiously because they are definitely walking the walk.

So explain about these Christians who are too busy watching movies and going to Disneyland or hanging out with their friends to be bothered to read the words of God.

roger

9th January 2009, 02:26 PM

truethat, explain why you are so busy posting in this forum when there are human slaves?

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 02:28 PM

Ok so answer the question. What do you believe? What is your faith as you would describe it?

Sorry, didn't realize there was a question I needed to address. :D

I believe that there is a God and there is an afterlife. I do not know that these things are real, I believe that they are.

I wouldn't describe my faith beyond that. I don't subscribe to any religious institution as, after reasonable study, they all seem to focus on details rather than the larger concern. Details that, ultimately drive people apart and worse.

not daSkeptic

9th January 2009, 02:29 PM

This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.

I would not use the OP's argument to say that people do not believe in God. I would, however, say that at times one has to question if there is not an inconsistency between what someone professes to believe and what they actually believe.

truethat

9th January 2009, 02:33 PM

Because I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't like people. You are missing the point. Its not about hypocrisy.

This is why this paradigm shift is important.

If you BELIEVE that GOD is there and you BELIEVE that GOD wrote the bible, why wouldn't you read it?

Why wouldn't you sit down, and open the book and start reading. I'm not talking about going to Church and hearing a sermon and looking at a part of the book. I'm talking a good old fashioned sit down and read it from cover to cover like you would any other book.

Example I wanted to know more about Obama so I bought Dreams from my Father and spent a weekend reading it.

Years ago when I converted to Islam I spend a week reading the Qu'ran from cover to cover.

You buy a Stephen King book you read it from cover to cover. You don't just pick out a few chapters to read.

Why wouldn't YOU personally want to know what God said, if you really believed that he wrote this book?

So, I don't believe you when you say you believe in God if you haven't read it. I think you are lying.

Just like I would think I'm lying if I said I'm outraged at the human slavery in the world. I'm not, that's why I can sit here on the computer goofing off.

DeusPhasmatis

9th January 2009, 02:36 PM

No, I'm quite clearly saying people value their own welfare more than others. We don't give up our lives for starving children, AIDS prevention, etc.

We don't give up our lives for strangers. We do a hell of a lot on behalf of ourselves, and those dear to us.

That is removed from us just like the human slaves are.

********. Numerous religions have real, immediate and personal results of adherence. Take the saints of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance: they are given sainthood because at least one person has received a "miracle" by praying to them.

There ARE human slaves right now. Go search CNN, MSNBC, any of the news sites. Yet you do nothing about it. (and neither do I).

I never contested immoral behavior in the world.

This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.

People believe in a penultimate parent in the sky. This is not the same thing as honestly believing in Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as writ.

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 02:51 PM

truethat

9th January 2009, 02:57 PM

Talking to roger.

See Rob Roy you aren't ascribing to a sacred text. And you arent' using that sacred text to oppress people. So I wouldn't be able to judge you either way. But to a Christian who says they believe the bible is a sacred text written by God I say BS. Because then why haven't they read it and memorized the thing by now?

Ragnarok

9th January 2009, 03:10 PM

In fact, if I were a committed Christian, who truly believed not only in salvation and damnation but in helping others, then arguing with non-believers in an attempt to convert as many as possible to my religion would in fact be not simply a moral choice, but the only moral choice. Far more so than worldly works of charity, which might save the body but lose the soul.

Dave

If that was what the creator wanted, would he not have placed specific quotas in his holy record? I'd have imagined with his penchant for hierarchies and a great bonus scheme, he could have really improved the efforts of his adherents to chase up new blood.

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 03:29 PM

Talking to roger.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

See Rob Roy you aren't ascribing to a sacred text. And you arent' using that sacred text to oppress people. So I wouldn't be able to judge you either way. But to a Christian who says they believe the bible is a sacred text written by God I say BS. Because then why haven't they read it and memorized the thing by now?

Couple of things wrong with this, just from a cursory view. First, which Christians are we talking about? I'm not aware of any Christian sect which held that the Bible was "written by God". The most usual claim is that it is inspired by God, but written by humans.

Second, why the need for memorization? Does rote recall of the Bible confer more understanding than, say, daily study? Weekly study? I can recite various monologues from Shakespeare and a number of other folk, but I wouldn't say that confers the fullest understanding of what the author intended.

truethat

9th January 2009, 03:36 PM

Rob Roy, the "memorized" part is sort of tongue and cheek. You don't need to memorize Shakespear if you have read it obviously.

My point is probably similar to saying "Shakespear is the final authority on everything. I know what he wants because he's contacted us through a messenger whose words are in this here book, which I've read a few chapters of and yeah boy, it says homosexuals are bad and some other things I've hear......."

You'd be laughed at if you hadn't even bothered to read it.

And it would totally undermine your argument that this was a sacred text.

When I say they should have it memorized I mean, rather, that THAT would be the ideal, total comprehension and understanding and put to memory in the original language. This seems absurd to some but many Jews have done this with the Torah so its not impossible.

Instead we have people who know some of the parables, and some of the gospels etc.

For example I did a presentation in a graduate course once on the story of Sara and Hagar. I was the only atheist in the class. Most of the people int he class were Christian fundies and Jews.

And

Do you know that when I presented my presentation I started off asking who knew the story of Sarah and Hagar? And er......no one did? I mean that's not an obscure story. I had to sort of sum it up for them or my presentation would have made no sense.

kedo1981

9th January 2009, 03:51 PM

So Robby you’ve never seen the bumper sticker
God wrote it
I believe it
That settles it

Of course fundys believe that god really wrote the bible, please!!!!!!!!!!!

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 03:55 PM

Rob Roy, the "memorized" part is sort of tongue and cheek. You don't need to memorize Shakespear if you have read it obviously.

Thanks for the additional response.

When I say they should have it memorized I mean, rather, that THAT would be the ideal, total comprehension and understanding and put to memory in the original language. This seems absurd to some but many Jews have done this with the Torah so its not impossible.

Ok, again, not to beat the dead horse, but why is rote memorization ideal?

I agree that those who profess a belief in a particular faith should have more than a cursory understanding of the articles of that faith. I'm not certain that a lack of that understanding is indicative of deliberate deceit.

For example I did a presentation in a graduate course once on the story of Sara and Hagar. I was the only atheist in the class. Most of the people int he class were Christian fundies and Jews.

Out of curiosity, how did you know they were Christian fundies? Do the Jews in your personal story counter your contention above that "many Jews have done this with the Torah"? Or do you consider that sampling too small? And if you do, then wouldn't the Christian fundy sampling also be too small to draw the same conclusion?

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 03:57 PM

So Robby you’ve never seen the bumper sticker
God wrote it
I believe it
That settles it

Actually, it's RobRoy. One word, spelled like two. A surprising number of people make that same mistake, so you're in decent company. :D

No, I actually haven't seen that bumper sticker.

Of course fundys believe that god really wrote the bible, please!!!!!!!!!!!

Which sect please?

rocketdodger

9th January 2009, 03:59 PM

truethat, explain why you are so busy posting in this forum when there are human slaves?

She is one step ahead of you.

Her slaves are the ones doing the posting.

I Ratant

9th January 2009, 04:16 PM

Actually, it's RobRoy. One word, spelled like two. A surprising number of people make that same mistake, so you're in decent company. :D

No, I actually haven't seen that bumper sticker.
Which sect please?
.
Seen it.
There's active groups of Charismatics in the area.
I doubt engaging anyone with that bumper sticker in conversation would result in anything more than having them run over your foot as they leave!

RobRoy

9th January 2009, 04:24 PM

.
Seen it.
There's active groups of Charismatics in the area.
I doubt engaging anyone with that bumper sticker in conversation would result in anything more than having them run over your foot as they leave!

Are they big Bible readers? By which I mean would you say that the majority have actually read the Bible?

slingblade

9th January 2009, 04:25 PM

If you, in your heart of hearts truly believed that this book was from God, you would have read it from cover to cover over and over again.

I did. I find it funny-ha-ha when certain posters here try to talk about god and the bible, and then must admit they haven't read the bible, or not all of it, or only some of it....

I once was so well read, I could cite you chapter and verse for a great chunk of the bible. I've had pastors tell me I embarrassed them, my bible knowledge was so much greater than theirs. And I could only wonder why that was so.

That was a small part of my problem with religion. I often felt I was one of the few who took it seriously, and who really tried to live as I was told. But I kept seeing most of the people around me, who said they also believed, living as if they didn't.

I saw people doing awful, mean, hurtful things, and then getting things like a new car every year, or a great job, and praising god for it. I saw me trying so hard to live the right way, and getting hit and cheated on and humiliated for it.

It finally dawned on me: God was the air freshener hanging from their rear-view mirrors. An accessory. As long as I followed along and pretended too, everyone was happy. But if I broke the illusion, they'd have to admit to pretending, too. If I brought up chapter and verse about why their behavior was "un-godly," they got angry because they knew I was right, but they didn't want to have to change or obey. Not really.

I really, really believed in god, so I know some other people do too. But they, I think, are the minority.

I Ratant

9th January 2009, 04:54 PM

...
But as you say, and I've said earlier, as you continue to read the book you can tell pretty quickly that its a fraud. I continue to study the bible for historical reasons. It doesn't take MUCH to really understand that the bible is a fraud. So why the denial?

...
The same can be said with more reason about the Koran, I've read.
"sophomoric theology" at best.
As its sources are in recorded times these have been investigated and found to be little different than those of the Torah and Bible.
Buncha guys sitting and recalling what the Prophet -would have said- in any particular circumstance.
With adjustments by various editors along the way.
Presumably you're rejected the Bible and accepted the Koran.
Why did you do that?

stilicho

9th January 2009, 05:08 PM

The reason most Atheists that I know of became atheists is that they started to read the Bible. When they did they found it didn't "add up" to what the claim of God was. As they investigated further they realized it was a likely fraud.

Atheists tend to take the Bible literally. That might be the source of your confusion in witnessing a pagan Christmas tree in the home of your Christian friends. I have to chuckle whenever I see someone explain that the source of their atheism was the misjudgement of the value of pi in the Bible. It shouldn't take anyone that long to figure out there's something wrong with Christianity.

Are you saying that those who are not atheists are slackers because they find time to watch TV? If an atheist watches wrestling or attends NASCAR does that bring their atheism into question?

Minarvia

9th January 2009, 05:17 PM

I have seen the bumper sticker. Also, I used to date a Lutheran. I don't know about the sect itself but his family vigorously claimed on numerous occasions that god wrote the bible and that man was merely the "pen." I live in the Chicago area if that helps nail things down as to some fundies who believe in the god being the author claim.

Malerin

9th January 2009, 05:31 PM

truethat

9th January 2009, 07:03 PM

double post.

truethat

9th January 2009, 07:05 PM

The same can be said with more reason about the Koran, I've read.
"sophomoric theology" at best.
As its sources are in recorded times these have been investigated and found to be little different than those of the Torah and Bible.
Buncha guys sitting and recalling what the Prophet -would have said- in any particular circumstance.
With adjustments by various editors along the way.
Presumably you're rejected the Bible and accepted the Koran.
Why did you do that?

Usually when people write Koran, I know they haven't read a good copy of the Qu'ran, but that's OT just so you know.

Um I was probably a lot like slingblade there. I probed and probed. I even became a Jehovah's witness for a while. When I found out about the Qu'ran it solved a lot of problems about the bible and how it seemed fraudulent, because it was. The bible was not divinely inspired if it was tampered with. The Qu'ran supposedly was fixing what was screwed up by the apostles.

I wound up rejecting the Qu'ran as well once I realized that the Hadith did the exact same thing.

I'm an atheist.

Jews are known for the scholarship of the Torah. Most Jews I know speak Hebrew. Why is that?

Two things

I knew the Christians in the class were Christian fundamentalists because the class was ON theology and we discussed religion the whole class.

Second

I don't mean that God himself wrote the bible. The bible is supposed to be divinely inspired which means God controlled what was written into the bible.

As to Rob Roy's constant questioning about memorization, you are starting to come off as a sort of Tourettes here. LOL Memorization is just an expression, you are derailing the conversation down an irrelevant path.

If I really believed that God wrote the bible, I'd want to know it really well. I knew it pretty good there for a while. Most of the Christians I knew had no clue.

truethat

9th January 2009, 07:09 PM

I did. I find it funny-ha-ha when certain posters here try to talk about god and the bible, and then must admit they haven't read the bible, or not all of it, or only some of it....

I once was so well read, I could cite you chapter and verse for a great chunk of the bible. I've had pastors tell me I embarrassed them, my bible knowledge was so much greater than theirs. And I could only wonder why that was so.

That was a small part of my problem with religion. I often felt I was one of the few who took it seriously, and who really tried to live as I was told. But I kept seeing most of the people around me, who said they also believed, living as if they didn't.

I saw people doing awful, mean, hurtful things, and then getting things like a new car every year, or a great job, and praising god for it. I saw me trying so hard to live the right way, and getting hit and cheated on and humiliated for it.

It finally dawned on me: God was the air freshener hanging from their rear-view mirrors. An accessory. As long as I followed along and pretended too, everyone was happy. But if I broke the illusion, they'd have to admit to pretending, too. If I brought up chapter and verse about why their behavior was "un-godly," they got angry because they knew I was right, but they didn't want to have to change or obey. Not really.

I really, really believed in god, so I know some other people do too. But they, I think, are the minority.

This is exactly what I am talking about. One of the reasons I became an atheist is that none of the people around me who said they were Believers were in any way shape or form someone I would consider a person taking God seriously.

An accessory is right. Something to be put away when other more interesting things came up.

So that's my point to a Christian believer, when you speak for God, if you don't take him seriously why should anyone else?

truethat

9th January 2009, 07:13 PM

Atheists tend to take the Bible literally. That might be the source of your confusion in witnessing a pagan Christmas tree in the home of your Christian friends. I have to chuckle whenever I see someone explain that the source of their atheism was the misjudgement of the value of pi in the Bible. It shouldn't take anyone that long to figure out there's something wrong with Christianity.

Are you saying that those who are not atheists are slackers because they find time to watch TV? If an atheist watches wrestling or attends NASCAR does that bring their atheism into question?

Are you seriously asking this? Because if you are it shows you don't understand what I am saying.

An atheist is not claiming that God exists. Therefor he has plenty of time to focus on worldly things. A Christian is saying God is here, he sent this book down, and we're all supposed to follow the rules which I'll get around to reading eventually.....in the meantime I saw something about gay people in it, or someone told me about.......and so we have to stop them, because God wants us to......it says so in this book somewhere, which I'll get around to reading sometime............:words:

plumjam

9th January 2009, 08:04 PM

stilicho

9th January 2009, 08:35 PM

Are you seriously asking this? Because if you are it shows you don't understand what I am saying.

An atheist is not claiming that God exists. Therefor he has plenty of time to focus on worldly things. A Christian is saying God is here, he sent this book down, and we're all supposed to follow the rules which I'll get around to reading eventually.....in the meantime I saw something about gay people in it, or someone told me about.......and so we have to stop them, because God wants us to......it says so in this book somewhere, which I'll get around to reading sometime............:words:

I don't think you believe what you're saying.

Remember, too, that we're just talking about one specific form of faith in the coin of Christianity. Let's ignore, for the moment, everything from Inuit animism and Meso-American theocracy to Islam and Shintoism. Christianity is not unique in the manifestation of literal interpretation. What you've discovered, in explaining "scripture" literally, is not atheism but Protestantism.

The vast majority of atheists I encounter depend on preconditions to reject Christianity. One of those is that the "Bible" must be literally interpreted. This isn't a passive condition either.

You fall into a bit of this, yourself, when you claim that atheists have more time for worldly concerns than Christians do. Where does this claim come from? Your objection to Christianity is 'Biblical', which you claim is inconsistent, but you likewise claim that this same inconsistent source must compel believers to behave in a certain way. Why? Why would you hold such a belief?

I think you can tell that you actually have no time for NASCAR or other worldly concerns when you're busy answering such questions.

Hokulele

9th January 2009, 09:08 PM

Usually when people write Koran, I know they haven't read a good copy of the Qu'ran, but that's OT just so you know.

Um I was probably a lot like slingblade there. I probed and probed. I even became a Jehovah's witness for a while. When I found out about the Qu'ran it solved a lot of problems about the bible and how it seemed fraudulent, because it was. The bible was not divinely inspired if it was tampered with. The Qu'ran supposedly was fixing what was screwed up by the apostles.

I wound up rejecting the Qu'ran as well once I realized that the Hadith did the exact same thing.

It is spelled Qur'an.

truethat

9th January 2009, 10:46 PM

It is spelled Qur'an.

Oh man, see what rushing gets ya! Thanks. :redface1

truethat

9th January 2009, 10:54 PM

Apply the same standard in the opposite direction and what do you get? Pretty much the same.

There are plenty of people in society who believe in evolutionism and are consequently either anti-theist, atheist, agnostic or generally disinterested in theological matters.
Yet how many of these people have bothered to read either Darwin's Origin of Species or anything at all written by Darwin? Personally speaking, no one I know has to my knowledge read any of Darwin's books, but most of them still believe in evolution.. whether strongly or in a vague wishy-washy manner. For most people this belief is just something that's kind of handed down to them, second-hand, through a few lessons at school, the occasional documentary, a visit to a museum. I do know one person who read a book by Dawkins, that's it.

In the UK I'd say most people could be described in this way. Now, would it be fair of me to go up to them and tell them that they are liars for believing in evolution without having read Darwin (or any of the subsequent important writers on the topic)?
No, I don't think it would be fair. They do really believe it, and I believe they believe it.
Some people examine their belief systems more than others - on both sides. That's all it is.. nothing to see here.

Well if you think you are arguing with me with this point, yer not. I would say the same thing.

You don't BELIEVE in Evolution. Its not recognized as a belief system to accept the theory of Evolution. And if people stated that they "accept the theory of God" then that would be a different matter entirely.

People are making enormous leaps over small but significant and defining differences. I would believe a person who stated that they accepted the theory of God. Why not?

Additionally a person that holds their faith to themselves is fine. No problem there. I don't disbelieve people who say they believe in God. They can do what they wish. How do I know that God isn't really true to them? And of what concern is it to me? None whatsoever. I'd be entirely hypocritical to invade their privacy no?

I am discussing (which seems to be pretty clear since I've mentioned it quite a few times) Christians who attempt to justify their personal preference of oppressing others, like those who want to deny Gay Marriage, by suggesting that the bible is a book of authority given to us by God to guide us. And yet, have not read it. That is not the same thing at all.

I don't beleive that they really believe the bible is from God. I think they know fullwelll its a man made book written up to discuss God theory. I also don't think they really believe in God as they define him, based on this book. And so since they are going on about it so much, I think they are lying.

truethat

9th January 2009, 10:57 PM

I don't think you believe what you're saying.

Remember, too, that we're just talking about one specific form of faith in the coin of Christianity. Let's ignore, for the moment, everything from Inuit animism and Meso-American theocracy to Islam and Shintoism. Christianity is not unique in the manifestation of literal interpretation. What you've discovered, in explaining "scripture" literally, is not atheism but Protestantism.

The vast majority of atheists I encounter depend on preconditions to reject Christianity. One of those is that the "Bible" must be literally interpreted. This isn't a passive condition either.

You fall into a bit of this, yourself, when you claim that atheists have more time for worldly concerns than Christians do. Where does this claim come from? Your objection to Christianity is 'Biblical', which you claim is inconsistent, but you likewise claim that this same inconsistent source must compel believers to behave in a certain way. Why? Why would you hold such a belief?

I think you can tell that you actually have no time for NASCAR or other worldly concerns when you're busy answering such questions.

I don't. Christians do. I keep seeing the old cry of "literal atheist" being thrown at me. Why? Where have I SAID that the bible is to be taken literally?

On the topic of Gay Marriage, homosexuals are mentioned pretty briefly in the bible, and yet Christians have decided that homosexuality is a sin. Even going so far as to argue OUT OF CONTEXT when context is constantly thrown in people's faces by way of argument.

Please before I continue, demonstrate what you mean by me taking the bible literally?

rocketdodger

9th January 2009, 10:57 PM

Apply the same standard in the opposite direction and what do you get? Pretty much the same.

There are plenty of people in society who believe in evolutionism and are consequently either anti-theist, atheist, agnostic or generally disinterested in theological matters.
Yet how many of these people have bothered to read either Darwin's Origin of Species or anything at all written by Darwin? Personally speaking, no one I know has to my knowledge read any of Darwin's books, but most of them still believe in evolution.. whether strongly or in a vague wishy-washy manner. For most people this belief is just something that's kind of handed down to them, second-hand, through a few lessons at school, the occasional documentary, a visit to a museum. I do know one person who read a book by Dawkins, that's it.

In the UK I'd say most people could be described in this way. Now, would it be fair of me to go up to them and tell them that they are liars for believing in evolution without having read Darwin (or any of the subsequent important writers on the topic)?
No, I don't think it would be fair. They do really believe it, and I believe they believe it.
Some people examine their belief systems more than others - on both sides. That's all it is.. nothing to see here.

Yeah I agree entirely.

I mean, I always told people I believed in the theorems of calculus, since I took courses on it at university and actually derived the theorems myself -- as most have. But, I mean, it was still just faith until I actually read Newton's and Leibnitz's pieces on the subject written hundreds of years ago.

You just can't believe in evolution without reading 100+ year old works about it by the real Prophet, Darwin himself. I mean, yeah, you can fully understand the mechanisms of natural selection on your own, and you can look at objective evidence and see why evolution is provably true, but you can't believe until you see the ink on the pages of the holy text itself. It also helps to visit the tomb of our Lord and Savior Charles Darwin and beg him to forgive your sins while giving money to the museum -- faith in evolution is always accelerated by helping line the pockets of our most Holy Museum Curator.

Your ability to generate spot-on analogies has always stunned me plumjam. I wish I was as clever as you.

truethat

9th January 2009, 11:12 PM

Oh I remember Plumjam. Ok Plumjam are you a Christian? I'd like to know?

plumjam

10th January 2009, 12:06 AM

Well if you think you are arguing with me with this point, yer not. I would say the same thing.

You don't BELIEVE in Evolution. Its not recognized as a belief system to accept the theory of Evolution. And if people stated that they "accept the theory of God" then that would be a different matter entirely.

People are making enormous leaps over small but significant and defining differences. I would believe a person who stated that they accepted the theory of God. Why not?
If I were to challenge these points it would most likely turn into a barren debate about semantics, so I'll leave it.

Additionally a person that holds their faith to themselves is fine. No problem there. I don't disbelieve people who say they believe in God. They can do what they wish. How do I know that God isn't really true to them? And of what concern is it to me? None whatsoever. I'd be entirely hypocritical to invade their privacy no?

I am discussing (which seems to be pretty clear since I've mentioned it quite a few times) Christians who attempt to justify their personal preference of oppressing others, like those who want to deny Gay Marriage, by suggesting that the bible is a book of authority given to us by God to guide us. And yet, have not read it. That is not the same thing at all.
So your position is what? That it would be better for group A to oppress group B when all members of group A have read group A's holy text.. rather than group A oppressing group B with some of group A's members not having fully read group A's holy text?
Surely, what is objectionable about the situation is the oppression itself, rather than how well read are the oppressors. If I'm about to be executed for being what is perceived as an exploitative landowning capitalist running dog it's of no consequence to me whether my executors have fully read Mao's Little Red Book, or Das Kapital.

I don't beleive that they really believe the bible is from God. I think they know fullwelll its a man made book written up to discuss God theory. I also don't think they really believe in God as they define him, based on this book. And so since they are going on about it so much, I think they are lying.
Well I bolded one of your phrases because it brings out something that goes little mentioned. I could quite easily make a similar claim in the other direction towards anti-theists, and those who deny the spiritual nature of the human being. These people believe in an ontology that holds that life, the universe, and everything, is objectively without meaning or purpose.
If they were to live their lives completely consistently with this ontological belief then most of 'em, I suspect, would be suicidal, borderline-suicidal, depressive, aimless and the like.
So, what you're doing is analogous to me going up to a person with that ontology and pointing out that due to the fact that they seem not to be suicidal, and that they carry on in life endeavouring to carve out some small, temporary, subjective meaning from their lives.. that they are therefore being hypocritical liars.
You argue that it's worse if people are trying to foist their ideas on others while being hypocritical. So, here's the rub. We are brought up within an educational and mass-media environment which indeed does foist this meaningless ontology onto the whole population (excluding hermits), yet how many people actually live their lives consistently with the ontology?
So, yes, there are some hypocritical and inconsistent Christians. But I see the greater hypocrisy and inconsistency going in the other direction.
The reason it is more difficult to perceive is that it's around us all the time, to a much greater extent.. like the water around the fish. It's much easier to identify Christian inconsistency because it's over away in the corner, relatively marginalised, and easier to objectify.

Oh I remember Plumjam. Ok Plumjam are you a Christian? I'd like to know?
Many aspects of Christianity I admire, but I'm not a Christian. I'm a theist, and have a relatively liberal views in regard to religions. Religions are not the truth, they're better understood as vehicles or pointers towards the truth. It's a shame that some manifestations of religion tend to end up worshiping religion rather than anything else. My main influences come from the eastern religions, particularly the teachings of Meher Baba.
But let's not make this thread about me, eh?

truethat

10th January 2009, 12:47 AM

One of the things I've noticed you do in debates is you say "It can go either way" as if this has anything to do with what is being said.

It reminds me of childish arguing. For example you confront a friend in the middle of a debate and say "I just found out that you were talking about me behind my back to Bill and it bothered me."

Your reply would be "Well it goes both ways, I heard you were talking about me to Genny"

Your reply is a deflection rather than a real thinking through of what was said to you. You have missed out on all the information because your stance is so defensive. It boils down to "I know you are but what am I" kind of conversations.

The topic is about Christian God believers who wield the bible as some sort of God given authority when they haven't read it. Its like holding it in your hands all the time when having a conversation, but never opening the book.

In grad school one of my professors published several books. One of my classmates in an effort to suck up to the professor went to the library and checked them out and would pile them on his desk during class. The professor was a fun guy and he teased my friend saying, "You're dragging the books around but have you even opened any of them?"

By the nature of the relationships that Christians have said they have with God, personal relationships, you would imagine that they would take the time to read the book right? But they don't. When they don't it proves to me that they are lying. Now you can argue that Darwinists do the same thing. And I might agree with you or disagree, you can say that atheists do the same thing, but in order for you to make it work, you have to try to make atheists share a dogma, which they do not, and then you have to get extreme in what you expect them to do.

On the other hand, I am saying that Christians state that God inspired the bible, and that it's an authority on how we should live.............I expect them, to then read the bible.

What I am saying is quite simple. Your "equivalent" is a wrangling of things and a major complication.

But lets put that on pause or start another thread.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

If Christians state that God inspired the bible, and that it's an authority on how we should live.............it is reasonable to expect them to read the bible.

plumjam

10th January 2009, 01:53 AM

One of the things I've noticed you do in debates is you say "It can go either way" as if this has anything to do with what is being said.
Yes. Because time and again atheists/materialists/philosophical naturalists.. whatever you want to call them.. bring up certain criticisms against theists / the religious. And they do it in a way which implies that their own camp is somehow not doing exactly the same kind of thing, and that therefore the criticism they bring up is an argument in favour of their own 'side', and against the 'opposition'. If you can establish group B does exactly the same kind of crap group A does, then the group B criticism of A is, if not exactly hypocritical, at least self-undermining.
If I didn't highlight these things I'd be a naughty critical thinker for not doing da critical thinking.

It reminds me of childish arguing. For example you confront a friend in the middle of a debate and say "I just found out that you were talking about me behind my back to Bill and it bothered me."
Your reply would be "Well it goes both ways, I heard you were talking about me to Genny"
And how is that not a justified and pertinent reply? It's highlighting an inconsistency of approach.

Your reply is a deflection rather than a real thinking through of what was said to you. You have missed out on all the information because your stance is so defensive. It boils down to "I know you are but what am I" kind of conversations.
Well, I'd say this reply of yours is more of a deflection. I took your points and answered them one by one. You are pretty much ignoring the points I made in return, and seem to be taking refuge in blanket statements.

The topic is about Christian God believers who wield the bible as some sort of God given authority when they haven't read it. Its like holding it in your hands all the time when having a conversation, but never opening the book.
I'm no fan of Bible Bashers but, like I said, Origin-of-Species Bashers have had a much greater, and more negative effect, upon society in contemporary history than have the Bible Bashers. Also like I said, I'm more concerned with actual repression / injustice / immorality than I am with whether the perpetrators have done their homework or not.

In grad school one of my professors published several books. One of my classmates in an effort to suck up to the professor went to the library and checked them out and would pile them on his desk during class. The professor was a fun guy and he teased my friend saying, "You're dragging the books around but have you even opened any of them?"
Presumably your classmate was doing no harm to anyone, so this example is not really relevant.

By the nature of the relationships that Christians have said they have with God, personal relationships, you would imagine that they would take the time to read the book right? But they don't. When they don't it proves to me that they are lying. Now you can argue that Darwinists do the same thing. And I might agree with you or disagree, you can say that atheists do the same thing, but in order for you to make it work, you have to try to make atheists share a dogma, which they do not, and then you have to get extreme in what you expect them to do.
Almost all atheists do indeed share a more or less dogmatic belief system. Usually at this point people mention Buddhists and Raelians :rolleyes: , so the terminology I use is 'those who do not believe in the spiritual nature of the human being'. Very concise, no?
Like I said before, they almost all believe that reality is objectively without purpose, that there's no life after death, that the universe and life came about in a manner unguided by intelligence.... I could go on.. there are dozens.
These are fundamental, and fundamentally important ideas. Ideas have consequences. When these ideas are wrong, and are widely believed in, they often have disastrous consequences.
In the last 150 years the most disastrous human events have been driven by these erroneous but widely held ideas. In comparison the actual harm done by the inconsistent and hypocritical stance of some Bible Bashers is chicken feed.
So that's my point. There is inconsistency and hypocrisy on both sides, but in terms of actual damage the ledger is not looking good for those who deny man's spiritual nature.

On the other hand, I am saying that Christians state that God inspired the bible, and that it's an authority on how we should live.............I expect them, to then read the bible.
What I am saying is quite simple. Your "equivalent" is a wrangling of things and a major complication.

A major complication why? Because it redresses balance?

But lets put that on pause or start another thread.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

If Christians state that God inspired the bible, and that it's an authority on how we should live.............it is reasonable to expect them to read the bible.
Yes, it would be reasonable.
But if they chose not to it certainly would not be a basis on which to label them as liars in regard to their belief in God.
Doesn't really follow, does it. Maybe they just prefer to spend time singing hymns, or doing fund-raising, or chatting to the Priest, or praying etc.. than they do reading old books. Some people are happier to have the messages filtered through to them via sermons and the like, rather than have to go wading through it all themselves.
It doesn't make them liars, it's just different strokes.

stilicho

10th January 2009, 02:53 AM

I don't. Christians do. I keep seeing the old cry of "literal atheist" being thrown at me. Why? Where have I SAID that the bible is to be taken literally?

On the topic of Gay Marriage, homosexuals are mentioned pretty briefly in the bible, and yet Christians have decided that homosexuality is a sin. Even going so far as to argue OUT OF CONTEXT when context is constantly thrown in people's faces by way of argument.

This is a false equation. You do know, of course, that some Protestant churches have ordained openly gay ministers. One could argue that it's easier to be openly gay and hold an office in the church before you could do so and be elected mayor in any town in North America. Why are churches more welcoming to gays than secular society is?

Please before I continue, demonstrate what you mean by me taking the bible literally?

Let me answer your question with a question: Do you think that a true Christian must take each phrase in their 'scripture' literally?

westprog

10th January 2009, 02:56 AM

(Warning: Personal opinions and generalisation galore ahead!)

I think it goes much further than that - if you ask most people who label themselves as CofE I bet most would not be aware of what most of the doctrines of the CofE actually are.

It would seem to be that religion for many people is quite a passive thing, they self-identify with it but have never considered it deeply or probably even know what it is they are meant to "be doing" according to their own label.

This is one of the reasons why, when we we get someone who is "anti-atheism" who offers that silly "Oh that's just what fundamentalist would think" I find it quite amusing, all religions are "fundamentalist" it is just that most people who follow the religion or say they follow it simply don't realize it. What the anti-atheist is really saying is "Yes but most people don't actually believe in what their religion says" without realising the irony of making such a claim, never mind how patronising that claim is.

So what? Does that mean, because someone doesn't know the intricate details of the 39 articles that they don't believe in God in any sense?

stilicho

10th January 2009, 03:06 AM

The topic is about Christian God believers who wield the bible as some sort of God given authority when they haven't read it.

Are you sure that's what it's about? If so, you're describing a very small portion of people with almost no political or economic authority in the Western world. Isn't Dawkins rather talking about all people who hold religious beliefs of any kind?

Although I am truly sympathetic to Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, they're just re-wording Kingsley Amis to a fresh generation that doesn't read or think too deeply.

Darat

10th January 2009, 03:11 AM

Atheists tend to take the Bible literally.

...snip...

I wouldn't put it quite like that. I would say that on a forum like this one "the atheists" are the ones who tend to have actually researched into what the label people self-apply actually means.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, in the UK a large percentage of the population are labelled as CofE and as I also said earlier most people's self-applied religion label seems to be a passive thing; so they will say they believe in something but are rather vague about what that belief actually is and when you start asking about specifics of the doctrine of their self-applied religion label they usually don't know what it is they are meant (by their chosen religion) to believe in and accept as the truth. And my personal experience is that when you mention some of the obviously contradictory "truths" of their religion they will start to reconsider what their religious label is, usually ending up with something rather like what RobRoy says his position is in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4334703#post4334703

Darat

10th January 2009, 03:15 AM

So what? Does that mean, because someone doesn't know the intricate details of the 39 articles that they don't believe in God in any sense?

Non-sequitur.

wafonso

10th January 2009, 03:38 AM

plumjam

10th January 2009, 03:55 AM

I know I'm coming a bit late to this part if the discussion, but... I don't think this analogy quite holds. Believing in evolution without having read Darwin is not the same a believing in god without having read the bible; first of all, Darwin's works are not "sacred" in any sense, and are not the only account we have of how evolution works - or even the best one.
Sure, but the Darwinian view of life is a central pillar (perhaps the central pillar) of the belief system most popular in the education system and the media. Of course, current evolutionary theory has been amended somewhat since the time of Darwin, but the basic idea is the same. The same still applies, few people who believe in evolution have bothered to read up on the amendments either.

Secondly, and more important, no one believes that they will be punished (or, at the very least, fail to be rewarded) for all eternity if they violate something Darwin said.
Not really relevant. The relevant point is that it constitutes a very important part of most people's current belief system.

Evolution does not include a moral code, and does not dictate a way of conducting our lives;
Its most fervent and influential early followers, most of them scientists, certainly believed it did. Until that turned out bad.

a belief in god does. You can't really "live your life like an evolutionist".
Not these days. It has become kind of taboo.
So these days people live with an evolutionist ontology, but a spiritual morality. Kind of incongruous and inconsistent if you ask me.

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:05 AM

You're not understanding what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with Christian hypocrisy. Its not about not following the rules of the bible.

So this isn't about my friend buying gold even though he's not supposed to. Its about him not knowing that biblically wearing gold is wrong. Does that mean he doesn't really believe in God? In my opinion YES. Because God is not just some historical figure. Its GOD!!!!! So how can a person be "meh" about what God said if he really believes?

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? ...
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

The whole point of Christianity - starting with Christ and as interpreted by Paul - is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist digging around Leviticus is going against Christian teaching. Fair enough - let them believe what they want. It's for everyone to decide what they select from an infinite range of choices.

What I don't understand, and which I find completely bizarre, is that atheists can be dogmatic fundamentalists about what the God they don't believe in is saying. I've found atheists on this forum more rigorous than the most extreme fire and brimstone preachers about what a Christian's proper duties are. It's absurd.

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:09 AM

I would not use the OP's argument to say that people do not believe in God. I would, however, say that at times one has to question if there is not an inconsistency between what someone professes to believe and what they actually believe.

And is this confined to Christians?

Darat

10th January 2009, 04:09 AM

...snip...

What I don't understand, and which I find completely bizarre, is that atheists can be dogmatic fundamentalists about what the God they don't believe in is saying. I've found atheists on this forum more rigorous than the most extreme fire and brimstone preachers about what a Christian's proper duties are. It's absurd.

You find it bizarre that "atheists" actually listen and read what a religious person says they believe in. Now that is absurd.

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:13 AM

Do you know that when I presented my presentation I started off asking who knew the story of Sarah and Hagar? And er......no one did? I mean that's not an obscure story. I had to sort of sum it up for them or my presentation would have made no sense.

And what relevance does this story have in telling Christians how to live their lives? Because that's what it's actually about. If they didn't know about the Crucifixion, or the Good Samaritan, then that would affect their faith. Sarah and Hagar is something which relates to being a Jew.

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:15 AM

So Robby you’ve never seen the bumper sticker
God wrote it
I believe it
That settles it

Of course fundys believe that god really wrote the bible, please!!!!!!!!!!!

If you've seen a bumper sticker, that settles the argument then.

Let's clarify the OP - the claim is that no Christians believe in God. They are all lying.

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:18 AM

I even became a Jehovah's witness for a while.

That explains a lot.

I wonder how many of the fundamentalist all-the-bible-or-nothing atheists were originally fundamentalist all-the-bible-or-nothing Christians?

plumjam

10th January 2009, 04:19 AM

The whole point of Christianity - starting with Christ and as interpreted by Paul - is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist digging around Leviticus is going against Christian teaching. Fair enough - let them believe what they want. It's for everyone to decide what they select from an infinite range of choices.

What I don't understand, and which I find completely bizarre, is that atheists can be dogmatic fundamentalists about what the God they don't believe in is saying. I've found atheists on this forum more rigorous than the most extreme fire and brimstone preachers about what a Christian's proper duties are. It's absurd.

Yes, well said. It's like if you don't believe in the Strawman God perpetuated by the Anti-theists for their own argumentational convenience, then you can't really be a true believer.
You're no longer a believer, you're a liar, or an apologist.. or some such.

Darat

10th January 2009, 04:19 AM

And what relevance does this story have in telling Christians how to live their lives? Because that's what it's actually about. If they didn't know about the Crucifixion, or the Good Samaritan, then that would affect their faith. Sarah and Hagar is something which relates to being a Jew.

Out of curiosity could you tell me how you are able to tell the billion plus people in the world who label themselves "Christians" what they believe in, and also of course the (I think it is) 12 million people who similarly apply the label "Jew"?

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:22 AM

It is spelled Qur'an.

It's actually spelled

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/koran.gif

Anything else is arbitrary.

Darat

10th January 2009, 04:23 AM

Yes, well said. It's like if you don't believe in the Strawman God perpetuated by the Anti-theists for their own argumentational convenience, then you can't really be a true believer.
You're no longer a believer, you're a liar, or an apologist.. or some such.

I think you've summed up Westprog's position in too strong a manner however I think fundamentally you are right.

westprog

10th January 2009, 04:28 AM

Out of curiosity could you tell me how you are able to tell the billion plus people in the world who label themselves "Christians" world what they believe in, and also of course the (I think it is) 12 million people who similar apply the label "Jew"?

Can you tell me why you are asking this of me and not Truehat? I specifically said that I'm not trying to restrict what people might or might not believe. Truehat is the one who's labelled those billion people liars and hypocrites, based apparently on a conversation he had recently.

As to the story of Sarah and Hagar, I suggest that a look at the word "Christian" and what it derives from might be in order.

if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Nothing there about learning the Bible off by heart.

Do all Christians follow the instructions above? I doubt it. Do they regard that as the basis of their faith? I strongly suspect they do, for the most part.

The thing about Christianity is that it's simple and difficult.

Darat

10th January 2009, 04:38 AM

Can you tell me why you are asking this of me and not Truehat?
...snip...

I didn't know I had to ask Truehat something before I responded to what you posted in a thread.

...snip...

I specifically said that I'm not trying to restrict what people might or might not believe.

...snip...

You may have said that yet your posts show that you are quite happy to tell the billion plus people in the world who label themselves as a "Christian" what their beliefs are, even what would and would not effect their faith:

...Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone?...

....The whole point of Christianity - starting with Christ and as interpreted by Paul - is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist digging around Leviticus is going against Christian teaching...

...And what relevance does this story have in telling Christians how to live their lives? Because that's what it's actually about. If they didn't know about the Crucifixion, or the Good Samaritan, then that would affect their faith. Sarah and Hagar is something which relates to being a Jew. ....

....The thing about Christianity is that it's simple and difficult. ...

Anything else you would like to tell those billion plus people about their Christianity?

slingblade

10th January 2009, 04:44 AM

Guys? It's True THAT, not True Hat.

wafonso

10th January 2009, 04:55 AM

Sure, but the Darwinian view of life is a central pillar (perhaps the central pillar) of the belief system most popular in the education system and the media.

I think that's very much debatable, beginning with the description of evolution as a "belief system". But I don't really want to argue semantics... If you're arguing the the Darwinian view figures heavily in a reality-based view of the world, which is propagated (often enough) by the education system and (reasonably often) by the media, I'd agree.

Of course, current evolutionary theory has been amended somewhat since the time of Darwin, but the basic idea is the same. The same still applies, few people who believe in evolution have bothered to read up on the amendments either.

They have certainly read/heard some account of evolution; otherwise, they wouldn't be aware of it at all. There's no "preferred" text for evolution as there is for any given religion.

Not really relevant. The relevant point is that it constitutes a very important part of most people's current belief system.

I really think this is debatable, and that believing in evolution has little, if anything, to do with how people lead their lives. You might as well be arguing that people believe in gravity without having ever read Newton.

So these days people live with an evolutionist ontology, but a spiritual morality. Kind of incongruous and inconsistent if you ask me.

And that I outright disagree with. I think most of us here live with a morality that is anything but spiritual.

westprog

10th January 2009, 05:03 AM

I didn't know I had to ask Truehat something before I responded to what you posted in a thread.

Since what I wrote related directly to what TH posted, and it only makes sense in that context, and since TH is quite clearly and deliberately making general assertions about those billion Christians, (which I am not), then it's at least interesting to find out why TH gets a free pass.

You may have said that yet your posts show that you are quite happy to tell the billion plus people in the world who label themselves as a "Christian" what their beliefs are, even what would and would not effect their faith:

...Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone?...

....The whole point of Christianity - starting with Christ and as interpreted by Paul - is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist digging around Leviticus is going against Christian teaching...

...And what relevance does this story have in telling Christians how to live their lives? Because that's what it's actually about. If they didn't know about the Crucifixion, or the Good Samaritan, then that would affect their faith. Sarah and Hagar is something which relates to being a Jew. ....

....The thing about Christianity is that it's simple and difficult. ...

Anything else you would like to tell those billion plus people about their Christianity?

I note that you snipped

Fair enough - let them believe what they want. It's for everyone to decide what they select from an infinite range of
choices.

I wonder why?

I'm not trying to restrict Christianity to one thing. I'm saying that Christianity is not only valid in its fundamentalist, bible-oriented form. That you find what I am saying over-prescriptive, while ignoring the original claim to which I was responding seems very curious.

Anyone who says he's a Christian is a Christian. If he says he believes in God, then I'm quite willing to accept that. I might debate whether a fundamentalist has the right interpretation of the Bible, but I don't proceed to insist that he doesn't really believe what he believes, or is an inherent hypocrite.

And when I'm posting quotes from the New Testament, it's not to tell Christians what they should be doing - it's to tell TH what Christ said, and how his instructions are rather more important to Christians than TH's.

Darat

10th January 2009, 05:16 AM

Guys? It's True THAT, not True Hat.

Oops - sorry truethat, and thanks switchblade!

Darat

10th January 2009, 05:32 AM

Since what I wrote related directly to what TH posted, and it only makes sense in that context, and since TH is quite clearly and deliberately making general assertions about those billion Christians, (which I am not), then it's at least interesting to find out why TH gets a free pass.

...snip..

As I said I didn't know I had to ask truethat something before I commented on something you posted. How many things do I have to ask him (or her - sorry I don't know), are there specific questions I have to ask before I should ask you something? Is this just confined to this thread or must I always ask truethat something before I respond to one of your posts? Do let me know what your rules are.

I note that you snipped

I wonder why?

...snip...

Because I was only interested in the sections of your posts in which you told us what Christianity is and what Christians believe and what would effect their faith.

I'm not trying to restrict Christianity to one thing.

...snip...

Apart from of course anyone that you consider is a fundamentalist:

...The whole point of Christianity .... is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. ...

Or restricting what they take from their sacred text:

...Because that's what it's actually about. ...

It is quite clear that you are happy telling Christians what their beliefs actually are.

I'm saying that Christianity is not only valid in its fundamentalist,

...snip...

Well I agree with this, as I showed above you are quite happy to state that "fundamentalism" isn't Christianity!

...snip...

Anyone who says he's a Christian is a Christian.

...snip...

Apart from apparently those "fundamentalists". Remember what you said about them? "...The whole point of Christianity .... is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. ...".

zooterkin

10th January 2009, 05:40 AM

Guys? It's True THAT, not True Hat.

Also, Truethat is a she.

slingblade

10th January 2009, 06:05 AM

Can you tell me why you are asking this of me and not Truehat? I specifically said that I'm not trying to restrict what people might or might not believe. Truehat is the one who's labelled those billion people liars and hypocrites, based apparently on a conversation he had recently.

I think a lot of them are liars, or self-deceiving, and I base it on 30 years within their ranks.

As to the story of Sarah and Hagar, I suggest that a look at the word "Christian" and what it derives from might be in order.

Well, honey, they sure taught it to me in their churches! In all of them, actually.

I've asked before, and will ask again: if nothing in the OT is supposed to apply to Christians, WHY IS IT PART OF YOUR BIBLE? I didn't jam the stupid thing together.

Nothing there about learning the Bible off by heart.

I never learned it by heart, either, but I did read it a lot more than most of the people in the churches I went to. I knew verses even pastors didn't know were in the bible. Am I wrong to expect the leaders in the faith to know as much and more than the average follower?

Do all Christians follow the instructions above? I doubt it. Do they regard that as the basis of their faith? I strongly suspect they do, for the most part.

I simply can't base my "faith" in the contents/authorship of a book I rarely ever crack. I wonder why it's okay for them?

The thing about Christianity is that it's simple and difficult.

Ironically, so are many of its followers. Go figure.

Tricky

10th January 2009, 06:38 AM

"And it puzzle me to learn
That though a man may be in doubt of what he know - oh

Very quickly will he fight
He'll fight, to prove that what he does not know is so."
Oscar Hammerstein II

I Ratant

10th January 2009, 09:30 AM

...

What I don't understand, and which I find completely bizarre, is that atheists can be dogmatic fundamentalists about what the God they don't believe in is saying. I've found atheists on this forum more rigorous than the most extreme fire and brimstone preachers about what a Christian's proper duties are. It's absurd.
.
No, it's history.
It's the rigorous application of "christian" principles thru force of arms that make fervid christianity a force to be feared, where there is the obvious dicohotomy between the actual principles and the application of same by the believer.
Most folks who accept evolution have little more interest in it than accepting it as a better explanation of life than "goddidit", and go on with their lives paying no more attention to the idea.
If you don't accept evolution, so what? I could care less. Just don't try to force me to accept oogie-boogie as THE explanation, it always falls flat on its face when examined to the extent Darwin has been, and will continue to be, for the betterment of the theory.

RandFan

10th January 2009, 09:44 AM

What I don't understand, and which I find completely bizarre, is that atheists can be dogmatic fundamentalists about what the God they don't believe in is saying. I've found atheists on this forum more rigorous than the most extreme fire and brimstone preachers about what a Christian's proper duties are. It's absurd.I think the problem arises out of the mess of trying to coherently explain what the hell the bible teaches. Atheists are as capable of deciphering it as anyone else. If you say christians believe slavery is wrong or killing folks who work on the Sabbath is wrong then we can point out that you should perhaps reconsider your position or stop telling us that the Bible has any coherent meaning.

You don't really get to pretend the bible is the word of god but that it is only à la carte and only means what you want it to mean.

Rrose Selavy

10th January 2009, 10:04 AM

Darat

10th January 2009, 10:07 AM

It's just Plumjam's favourite assertion dressed up a bit i.e. atheism is a religion/faith.

Dancing David

10th January 2009, 11:16 AM

On the analogy between knowing the texts of Darwin compared to the Bible etc. I'm not sure it holds.

Especially since that particular text has been deconstructed and the theory revised.

DeusPhasmatis

10th January 2009, 11:26 AM

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? ...
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Actually, this is Jesus chiding the pharisees for being uneducated on rabbinic lore. While harvesting to sell or store is considered work, harvesting for immediate personal use is not. Plucking an apple from a tree on the Sabbath to sell in market is unlawful, while doing so to eat is fine.

westprog

10th January 2009, 02:44 PM

Well, honey, they sure taught it to me in their churches! In all of them, actually.

That's another data point. I don't think that there's a necessary correlation between fundamentalism and atheism, but between fundamentalism and fundamentalist atheism?

zooterkin

10th January 2009, 03:01 PM

That's another data point. I don't think that there's a necessary correlation between fundamentalism and atheism, but between fundamentalism and fundamentalist atheism?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Was that a question?

As far as data points go, I too heard many of the Old Testament stories when I went to church as a child, which was by no means a fundamentalist church, including the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar.

truethat

10th January 2009, 06:05 PM

I wouldn't put it quite like that. I would say that on a forum like this one "the atheists" are the ones who tend to have actually researched into what the label people self-apply actually means.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, in the UK a large percentage of the population are labelled as CofE and as I also said earlier most people's self-applied religion label seems to be a passive thing; so they will say they believe in something but are rather vague about what that belief actually is and when you start asking about specifics of the doctrine of their self-applied religion label they usually don't know what it is they are meant (by their chosen religion) to believe in and accept as the truth. And my personal experience is that when you mention some of the obviously contradictory "truths" of their religion they will start to reconsider what their religious label is, usually ending up with something rather like what RobRoy says his position is in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4334703#post4334703

I agree with this. The self applied lable specifically.

The whole point of Christianity - starting with Christ and as interpreted by Paul - is that it's a rejection of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist digging around Leviticus is going against Christian teaching. Fair enough - let them believe what they want. It's for everyone to decide what they select from an infinite range of choices.

What I don't understand, and which I find completely bizarre, is that atheists can be dogmatic fundamentalists about what the God they don't believe in is saying. I've found atheists on this forum more rigorous than the most extreme fire and brimstone preachers about what a Christian's proper duties are. It's absurd.

This is also my point. As I have stated several times. I believe that the rigorous nature of the atheist is based on the fact that they are debating someone who is lying.

Here's an example below. Pay attention to my specific point please, to the people who keep misunderstanding me (like plumjam and other) because you are missing the point. Like this one below.

If you've seen a bumper sticker, that settles the argument then.

Let's clarify the OP - the claim is that no Christians believe in God. They are all lying.

NO this is not what Iam saying. :nope: Try to understand it this way:

Say I have a relative who has a child wth a fatal allergy, lets say its to chocolate. So when this mother visits my house she asks me to put all the chocolate away because she's worried that her child might get sick or worse die. So I oblige (as this society has obliged) out of respect for the concern that the mother has and to be fair and decent. For a year this goes on. Additionally when we are together this mother will ask that my child not have chocolate because it could cause her child to want chocolate, and if she is touched by my child it could make her sick. And so it goes.

Finally after a year I go to visit my friend at her house. And while there I see in the fridge are packs of candy bars. On top of this, there is a bowl of hershey kisses on the coffee table. All are within easy reach of her daughter whom she allows to roam freely and often unattended at her house.

When I confront her on this, she says, "Oh I've trained her not to eat it here, she won't touch it."

Now in this case what MY POINT IS and what is at the heart of the matter to me, is that the woman's statements don't ad up. Since I took her at her word I feel manipulated. This is the same reaction I have with many Christians. I don't think I'm the only person to experience this feeling as slingblade has demonstrated.

Here's the comparison.

If I got into a discussion with the mother about her hypocrisy, it would not reallly be what the mattered. I mean the hypocrisy DEMONSTRATED the problem, but the hypocrisy is just a symptom of the bigger issue.

Talking with self labled, bible believing Christians, and arguing over their hypocrisy is pointless. It doesn't really address what's going on.

What is going on, is really a disrespect of ME--- not because I don't agree with the Christian but because the Christian has asked me to respect their beliefs when it is pretty obvious that they do not respect the beliefs themselves.

The point I want people to consider is this:

What bothers me about my friend, is not that she is being hypocritical, but rather that she is lying about the level of concern she has for her daughter OR the truth of the nature of the daughter's condition.

Logically no mother would risk a fatal accident when it could be avoided. Although the mother may have "taught the child" the risk is too great for her to take that lightly.

Which leads us to the conclusion that the woman is lying about her fear that this a fatal allergy.

Her actual behavior makes no sense. My frustration is not coming from BIBLICAL literalness but rather taking the Chritian at their word, just as I took the mother at her word. I am taking the Christian literally because they have asked me to.

Again, I am not taking the Bible literally but rather I am taking the Christian literally when they say that they believe this book is the book of God. It is obvious that they don't believe the bible is a sacred text from God if they don't even bother to read it. Hence I suspect that they are lying.

Roboramma

10th January 2009, 08:37 PM

I think the OP doesn't give people enough credit for laziness.

I may realise that if God exists, and is the author of the bible, it's in my best interests to sit down and read the thing, but then find that when I open it it's boring and time consuming and hell, my buddy the preacher already read it, I'll just ask him what it says.

I may also realise that my own reading comprehension just isn't all that good (as I found getting low marks on book reports, for instance) whereas others have spent a great deal of time studying the source material, and they are much better at making its meaning clear to me than I ever could be. So I decide I'd be better off just to ask them for advice when I want to make choices, go and listen to the things that they feel are important to tell me once/week, and try to live my life by their advice. Sometimes listening to the experts is better than figuring everything out for yourself.

When it comes to living by that advice, well, I'll do my best, but we all have times of weakness. Does the fact that people don't follow their religious views unerringly suggest that they don't really believe in God? About as much as the fact that people have unprotected sex means they don't believe in AIDS.

stilicho

10th January 2009, 09:12 PM

stilicho

10th January 2009, 09:24 PM

You don't really get to pretend the bible is the word of god but that it is only à la carte and only means what you want it to mean.

I think the point is that it might mean something different than what you think it means.

Simply the phrase 'word of god' might mean something different to you than it does to a Christian. I know I've always been puzzled by the concept of the "Holy Spirit". Why do you need that to create a trinity? What's wrong with just keeping it "Father" and "Son" and running with it?

Just because we don't understand what a religious phrase or concept entails doesn't necessarily mean we have to reject it. We could just say that, as disinterested bystanders, we just don't know what 'word of god' means.

stilicho

10th January 2009, 09:33 PM

Since I took her at her word I feel manipulated.

That's normal, Truethat.

I know a lot of people who fear Christians and Christianity as much as you do. You may sleep easier knowing that there is zero per cent chance that "they" will force you into a situation where you actually are manipulated by their faith systems. You are far more likely to be manipulated by your boss at work.

plumjam

10th January 2009, 10:51 PM

On the analogy between knowing the texts of Darwin compared to the Bible etc. I'm not sure it holds.
Nobody needs to know Newton, Einstein, inside out - plus all the latest research and findings - to be demonstrably subject to the forces of gravity, etc whether they choose to or not - it's not a matter of will to make them evident.
Someone else brought this one up too. There's a big difference.
Anyone can observe gravity in action.
No one has yet observed significantly different (e.g. new body plans, design principles..) forms of life arising from the natural selection of genetic mutations, and given the long record of failure there's no reason to believe anyone ever will. Except for faith in the theory.

plumjam

10th January 2009, 11:02 PM

Moreover, why does Christianity in specific and religious spirituality in general garner such intense interest here whereas equivalent secular belief systems do not?

Didn't you get the memo? The philosophical naturalists / materialists / atheists are magically immune to believing in stuff.
Ironically, of course, this belief (that faith and belief are bad things, and are to be avoided or denied at all costs) is an important part of their general belief system.

stilicho

10th January 2009, 11:23 PM

Didn't you get the memo? The philosophical naturalists / materialists / atheists are magically immune to believing in stuff.
Ironically, of course, this belief (that faith and belief are bad things, and are to be avoided or denied at all costs) is an important part of their general belief system.

Worse yet is that they are ideas to be feared.

Frankly, plumjam*, Christianity hasn't been scary or inhibiting to anyone for over five centuries.** I mentioned a handful of secular ideas and belief systems, with plenty of adherents, that remain scary and inhibiting to this day.

Yet not a peep. Just as the Inquisition had its limits, so does scepticism.

----

*I do not agree with your equation of "Darwinism" as a belief system. I know what you are trying to say but my examples are probably better than yours. "Atheism" is probably a better example. There are millions of "atheists" who have never scrutinised their belief system in any way whatsoever and they are far more influential, politically and financially, than 'Christians' are.

**OK, maybe some "witches" were burnt since then but that was inspired by superstition endemic among the low-brow. Not to mention the same salacious intent you see today in the intense scrutiny of Lindsay Lohan's latest breast implant surgery or detoxification routine.

plumjam

10th January 2009, 11:42 PM

*I do not agree with your equation of "Darwinism" as a belief system. I know what you are trying to say but my examples are probably better than yours. "Atheism" is probably a better example. There are millions of "atheists" who have never scrutinised their belief system in any way whatsoever and they are far more influential, politically and financially, than 'Christians' are.
My point was that Darwinian Evolution is an important (perhaps the most important) part of the belief system. There are other parts to it, such as philosophical naturalism, sense-empiricism, a degree of utilitarianism, denial of man's spiritual nature, secularist politics, faith in the saving potential of science and technology etc..

The problem with using the term 'atheism' is that people will object that Buddhists and Raelians are atheists too, and also some will say that their particular brand of atheism is simply a very passive lack of belief.. and will try to liken it to not collecting stamps, and other such silly stuff.
Probably a whole new word is needed.

Other than that I agree with your post, and your others too :)

slingblade

10th January 2009, 11:55 PM

That's another data point. I don't think that there's a necessary correlation between fundamentalism and atheism, but between fundamentalism and fundamentalist atheism?

Why are you moving to another "data point" before addressing the ones already extant?

Oh, well, the horse is out, now; might as well try to catch it.

I do everything like that, West, as far as the fervency of my ideology. Since you replied to my answer, specifically, I take it you mean to point out my particular fervency.

If you're using me as a data point, ya fell right into a fallacy, doing so. You don't know me well enough to use anything I say or do regarding atheism as evidence against or in support of that ideology, or those who ascribe to it.

I'm a fervent person. I'm what they used to call "passionate," and now more often call "mentally ill." When I do or think a thing, I don't go halfway. I go the whole hog. See some of my previous posts on The English Language and Its Proper Use, Dammit, for examples of this.

Asperger's Syndrome and Borderline Personality Disorder are but two of the current candidates for what ails me. There are others.

Atheism is Not-Theism. Literally. That's all there is to it. Some people do not believe in gods. Trying to make much more of it is just silly. It cannot be assumed or asserted that because certain people share one opinion, they must share specific others as well. Non-sequitur: it does not follow.

stilicho

11th January 2009, 12:06 AM

Other than that I agree with your post, and your others too :)

We'll see how close our philosophies are once RandFan defines "word of god".

stilicho

11th January 2009, 12:34 AM

Atheism is Not-Theism. Literally. That's all there is to it. Some people do not believe in gods. Trying to make much more of it is just silly. It cannot be assumed or asserted that because certain people share one opinion, they must share specific others as well. Non-sequitur: it does not follow.

Very clever and rather cute. But...wrong.

"Atheism" is an active philosophy that specifically denies the existence of 'gods'. It is not a passive philosophy that simply says "no-no-no-no" quicker than a Christian can say "yes-yes-yes-yes".

"Atheism" is also (benignly?) evangelical. Its adherents are not simply "people [who] do not believe in gods." It is also a philosophy whose faithful actively critique those who believe differently.

9/11 "truthers" use your approach. They claim that showing enough inconsistency in the "official story" is enough; they don't have to have any consistent story of their own. They aren't "pro" anything but just "non-official-story". You and I both know that's simply absurd.

I doubt you meant what you wrote.

Mashuna

11th January 2009, 01:05 AM

Someone else brought this one up too. There's a big difference.
Anyone can observe gravity in action.
No one has yet observed significantly different (e.g. new body plans, design principles..) forms of life arising from the natural selection of genetic mutations, and given the long record of failure there's no reason to believe anyone ever will. Except for faith in the theory.

For someone who believes in all sorts of gibberish with no evidence, I'm always surprised when you refuse to accept something with so much evidence.

Well, not that surprised really, just saddened at the intellectual dishonesty of it all.

slingblade

11th January 2009, 01:13 AM

I doubt you meant what you wrote.

I'll take your last comment first.

You should doubt if what I wrote is correct, and if you can show me it is not, I appreciate correction, always.

You can't doubt I meant it though. You'd be accusing me of deliberately writing falsehoods. I don't do that. I wouldn't have written it if I didn't "mean" it. That is my sincere position. However, just because I mean it, doesn't mean I'm right about it.

Very clever and rather cute. But...wrong.

Not trying for clever or cute.

"Atheism" is an active philosophy that specifically denies the existence of 'gods'. It is not a passive philosophy that simply says "no-no-no-no" quicker than a Christian can say "yes-yes-yes-yes".

I can't sort out what you mean here. If you want to know if I'm what some call a strong atheist, then yes, I am. I say gods do not exist. However, I remain open to having my opinion changed with evidence.

"Atheism" is also (benignly?) evangelical. Its adherents are not simply "people [who] do not believe in gods." It is also a philosophy whose faithful actively critique those who believe differently.

Not for me, not in the way you mean.

I post and comment here at JREF because it interests me to do so. It is a large part of my social life. I rarely ever leave my home. When I do, I say not a word about my atheism to anyone, and can think of nothing that would compel me to do so. My atheism is my own business, and I keep it firmly to myself.

When I post here, I am not interested in converting anyone. I'm interested in intelligent dialogue, talking to friends, working my critical thinking skills, learning new things, and honing my logic. If I consider JREF forums as a kind of home, it seems to me the theists come here, to my door, and instigate conversations about religion. I like to participate.

But I've never once, in over 10,000 posts, ever suggested or told anyone they should convert, should abandon their religion, or are wrong if they don't do so.

9/11 "truthers" use your approach. They claim that showing enough inconsistency in the "official story" is enough;

There's one official story to religion? One official story covers all things imaginary and magical? Really? I didn't know. What is that one story called? Can you lay it out for me?

they don't have to have any consistent story of their own.

My "story" is consistent. You are invited to peruse my posting history. If you find any contradictions in it, you are welcome to post them publicly. Other than that, I am not really certain what you mean by "have a consistent story of their own." Or what you mean by "they." Are you lumping all atheists together as if the one aspect binds them in all ways? Are you doing the same thing as Westprog?

They aren't "pro" anything but just "non-official-story".

Sorry, do you mean "anything" as in literally anything in life, or just about the existence of gods? If the former, there are lots of things in the world I'm "pro" or in favor of.

Otherwise, I don't really understand what you're saying here.

You and I both know that's simply absurd.

I most certainly do not know that, largely because I'm not sure what you're on about.

However, for your comfort, 9/11 was not an inside job. Happy now? :confused:

plumjam

11th January 2009, 01:51 AM

For someone who believes in all sorts of gibberish with no evidence, I'm always surprised when you refuse to accept something with so much evidence.

Well, not that surprised really, just saddened at the intellectual dishonesty of it all.

Help yourself to a kleenex.

Mashuna

11th January 2009, 02:05 AM

Help yourself to a kleenex.

I appreciate the sympathy, although I don't personally keep kleenex by my computer screen. Not that I'm judging.

zooterkin

11th January 2009, 02:10 AM

Someone else brought this one up too. There's a big difference.
Anyone can observe gravity in action.
No one has yet observed significantly different (e.g. new body plans, design principles..) forms of life arising from the natural selection of genetic mutations, and given the long record of failure there's no reason to believe anyone ever will. Except for faith in the theory.

Where does the theory of evolution predict that? Exactly what do you mean by 'new body plans', and 'design principles'? Where does 'design' come in to evolution?

Do you have any evidence that disproves the theory? What's your belief as to the origin of species?

zooterkin

11th January 2009, 02:42 AM

It's just Plumjam's favourite assertion dressed up a bit i.e. atheism is a religion/faith.
Now look who you've summoned.

This works for secular belief systems too (e.g. vegetarianism, animal rights, patriotism, xenophobia, jingoism, Marxism, and even atheism). There are professionals who examine all aspects of the systems and sometimes have to explain the controversies to the adherents of those systems. Here, of course, we have skilled amateurs trying to do the work of theologians and it's not very convincing.

On this forum, I have been told that biblical scholars are not to be trusted ('dime a dozen' was the phrase), but skilled amateurs with no stake in the issue should be. That's got to be a concern to an honest sceptic.
Hard to tell without the specific content, but I don't see the link between, "not to be trusted" and, "dime a dozen".

Moreover, why does Christianity in specific and religious spirituality in general garner such intense interest here whereas equivalent secular belief systems do not?
Because it's the dominant religious belief in the USA, UK, and Europe, and in some of those countries it is assumed that most people believe in it?

That's normal, Truethat.

I know a lot of people who fear Christians and Christianity as much as you do. You may sleep easier knowing that there is zero per cent chance that "they" will force you into a situation where you actually are manipulated by their faith systems. You are far more likely to be manipulated by your boss at work.

Worse yet is that they are ideas to be feared.

Frankly, plumjam*, Christianity hasn't been scary or inhibiting to anyone for over five centuries.**

"Zero per cent" is still a bit too absolute. I'm also not convinced by the five centuries; I've not thought of a good counter-example, but how inhibited would an atheist be running for US President, do you think?

I mentioned a handful of secular ideas and belief systems, with plenty of adherents, that remain scary and inhibiting to this day.
Where?

*I do not agree with your equation of "Darwinism" as a belief system. I know what you are trying to say but my examples are probably better than yours.
It's Plumjam's hobby horse, which he likes to ride at any opportunity.
"Atheism" is probably a better example. There are millions of "atheists" who have never scrutinised their belief system in any way whatsoever and they are far more influential, politically and financially, than 'Christians' are.
Atheism, per se, is by definition the opposite of a belief system.

The fact that many people who are atheists also believe in the fruits of the scientific method is perhaps a consequence of the fact that there is a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism.

Very clever and rather cute. But...wrong.

"Atheism" is an active philosophy that specifically denies the existence of 'gods'. It is not a passive philosophy that simply says "no-no-no-no" quicker than a Christian can say "yes-yes-yes-yes".
Wrong again. Wasn't your point that you didn't want non-Christians telling you what you believed? How about listening to what atheists actually say?

"Atheism" is also (benignly?) evangelical. Its adherents are not simply "people [who] do not believe in gods." It is also a philosophy whose faithful actively critique those who believe differently.
There are some atheists who are 'evangelists' for various reasons (for example, see the recent story about posters on buses in the UK). There are many who are not. There is not a single atheist organisation, though there are several organisations for atheists, but I would guess that most atheists do not belong to one.

9/11 "truthers" use your approach. They claim that showing enough inconsistency in the "official story" is enough; they don't have to have any consistent story of their own. They aren't "pro" anything but just "non-official-story". You and I both know that's simply absurd.

What is unexplained? What do you need to invoke god to explain? Are you seriously claiming that atheists are as deluded as 11/9 "truthers"?

Darat

11th January 2009, 02:48 AM

...snip...

Moreover, why does Christianity in specific and religious spirituality in general garner such intense interest here whereas equivalent secular belief systems do not?

Criticising the "intense interest" in what this section is meant to discuss strikes me as quite bizarre!

This is the section for discussing "Religion and Philosophy", have a look at the "Social Issues..." section for very intense debates about subjects such as vegetarianism, look in the "Science..." section for intense interest in debates regarding such theories as evolution.

Darat

11th January 2009, 03:02 AM

This is a warning for Plumjam, stop trying to derail threads with off-topic discussions of evolution.

ETA: 13/1/09: The above warning does mis-characterise your repeated breaches of Rule 11 and I apologise for that. However Plumjam you have repeatedly breached Rule 11 and I am warning you that repeatedly doing so will result in further action which may include suspension and even banning.

Whilst the warning above is aimed specifically at Plumjam others should note that a discussion about theism (for example) is not always a discussion about atheism, and of course vice-a-versa.

Please try to keep to the thread's topic otherwise we will end up with nothing but an amorphous blob of barely distinguishable threads and then we may as well just have the one ongoing thread in this section!

(And please no complaints that this Mod box warning is somehow shutting down debate or discussion, there is nothing stopping a Member starting a new thread to discuss something that was inspired by the content of another thread. )

And after this interruption back to your scheduled thread.....

slingblade

11th January 2009, 03:31 AM

Darat

11th January 2009, 05:21 AM

I think the evidence is overwhelming that most people only pay lip-service to the religious label they apply to themselves, at least in the UK.

I must admit I don't like the negativity that is associated with "lip service", I don't think it is conscious dishonesty or anything like that, that's why I prefer my way of putting it i.e. for most people their religion is one of many passive aspects of their life.

Another way of putting it is that many people who label themselves "Christian" of one form or another are probably better labeled (in the sense of understanding what their beliefs are) as "culturally Christian", by which I mean their rather vague beliefs and knowledge of their religion are more to do with the culture they live in than religious teaching from their religious leaders.

Darat

11th January 2009, 07:04 AM

Thinking about this a bit more I think we can very broadly (and yes it is a generalisation) split the people who label themselves with a religious label into two groups. the ones that I described as "cultural Xs" above and the ones that are more active in their religion. So people who regularly attend church services would be in the second group and then I do think there is some validity to stating that many of those do indeed pay "lip service" to the religion they label themselves. Certainly I can remember as a young kid hearing the "old" women at the doorway of chapel after a service bickering and bitching about other people, casting judgment on their behaviour and their worth. (I do wonder now how old they actually were, to my child's eye they were very old, probably in their forties! :) )

quarky

11th January 2009, 08:11 AM

Their age wasn't as important as the 'bluing' they used in their hair.

What's become of the blue-haired church ladies?

kurious_kathy

11th January 2009, 11:25 AM

RandFan

11th January 2009, 11:39 AM

You are right, more believers need to walk it more than talk it! I say that because I am committed to the cross and what it stands for, ULTIMATE TRUTH!What is ultimate truth? Certainly not the Bible. Was it truth when Moses ordered his soldiers to kill children? I know you don't like the nasty bits but it's there and if you are going to claim the Bible is truth then you are going to have to accept all of it including the parts about killing folks who work on the sabbath, genocide, fillicide, infanticide, etc..

stilicho

11th January 2009, 02:04 PM

This is the section for discussing "Religion and Philosophy", have a look at the "Social Issues..." section for very intense debates about subjects such as vegetarianism...

Religion is a social issue. So is atheism. There's a lot of overlap, you'll acknowledge.

Quote:
"Atheism" is probably a better example. There are millions of "atheists" who have never scrutinised their belief system in any way whatsoever and they are far more influential, politically and financially, than 'Christians' are.

Quote by zooterkin:

Atheism, per se, is by definition the opposite of a belief system.

The fact that many people who are atheists also believe in the fruits of the scientific method is perhaps a consequence of the fact that there is a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism.

Atheism is predicated on the evaluation of the statement: "There is no god" or alternatively "There are no gods". By its very predication it is, by definition, not scientific. That statement is, almost by definition, not falsifiable.

There are many other ways out of this, of course, but they involve retreating from the basic tenet of the atheist's belief system. In the same way that some religious people believe in "god" but don't really think it through, some atheists retreat from the essential statement to create a faith system that's more palatable to the sceptical.

Quote by zooterkin: "Zero per cent" is still a bit too absolute. I'm also not convinced by the five centuries; I've not thought of a good counter-example, but how inhibited would an atheist be running for US President, do you think?

This is another of those issues that appears to be unique to the US. Religion plays virtually no part in political life in Canada. Nobody cares what, if any, church Stephen Harper attends.

stilicho

11th January 2009, 02:08 PM

What is ultimate truth? Certainly not the Bible. Was it truth when Moses ordered his soldiers to kill children? I know you don't like the nasty bits but it's there and if you are going to claim the Bible is truth then you are going to have to accept all of it including the parts about killing folks who work on the sabbath, genocide, fillicide, infanticide, etc..

I asked a pastor who I know why the OT lesson rarely if ever was read from Nahum or Hosea. I consider each of those to be remarkable books but Isaiah is far more common as an OT reading in most churches. Apparently there is a measure of fear involved in selecting the appropriate material for a cloudless Sunday morning.

stilicho

11th January 2009, 02:12 PM

3. Believe, adhere to most of the beliefs within their particular relgion, and use it as a cudgel against anyone they perceive as non-believers and/or those who "aren't doing it right."

But that's what TrueThat did when he said that the Christians with the 'pagan tree' in their living room were obviously non-believers. You don't have to be a Christian to use religion as a cudgel, apparently.

zooterkin

11th January 2009, 02:13 PM

Religion is a social issue. So is atheism. There's a lot of overlap, you'll acknowledge.
I think you missed Darat's point.

Atheism is predicated on the evaluation of the statement: "There is no god" or alternatively "There are no gods". By its very predication it is, by definition, not scientific.

I didn't say it was scientific (which isn't to say it isn't).

That statement is, almost by definition, not falsifiable.

Evidence of a god or gods would falsify it.

There are many other ways out of this, of course, but they involve retreating from the basic tenet of the atheist's belief system. In the same way that some religious people believe in "god" but don't really think it through, some atheists retreat from the essential statement to create a faith system that's more palatable to the sceptical.

Atheism is a belief system in the same was as not believing in a teapot orbiting Saturn is a belief system.

Rrose Selavy

11th January 2009, 03:32 PM

I sometimes prefer the term non-theistic.

truethat

11th January 2009, 07:58 PM

That's normal, Truethat.

I know a lot of people who fear Christians and Christianity as much as you do. You may sleep easier knowing that there is zero per cent chance that "they" will force you into a situation where you actually are manipulated by their faith systems. You are far more likely to be manipulated by your boss at work.

This is a very good example of the kind of person I am talking about.

This is a manipulative statement, obviously.

If I am a homosexual, there's a 100 percent chance that I am actually manipulated by their faith systems. I am not, but that doesn't change the fact that many people are.

I could go into the hegemony of living in a society where the tyranny of the masses oppresses people around me every day, but that's another thread.

truethat

11th January 2009, 08:06 PM

Okie dokie. :)

Back to OP, it is my opinion that a certain number of believers in god(s):

1. Only pay lip-service to belief in god, for various and usually self-serving reasons. In common vernacular, they only talk the talk, and have no intention or desire to walk the walk;

2. Believe, but generally adhere only to those aspects of the belief that suit them and their opinions, discarding or discounting the rest;

3. Believe, adhere to most of the beliefs within their particular relgion, and use it as a cudgel against anyone they perceive as non-believers and/or those who "aren't doing it right."

Exactly how many are in this "certain number," I do not venture to say. I do not know. I feel it is more than most might expect, and is common.

I've read a few of your posts and it seems that you and I have had a similar path, with regard to investigating God. All it would take for you to be my twin would be you being an INTP on he Myers Briggs Personality Test, but I digress.

(Only I'm a horrible speller as well)

The point of the OP is to address why so any Atheists have so many conversations about Christian hypocrisy. As I stated before, I believe at the heart of the matter is the lie. The hypocrisy is just evidence that the Christian is nothing more than a superstitious atheist. The are lying when they say that they believe this book was inspired by God and that we should follow it. This is the real conversation that needs to be had.

I believe that anyone who calls themself a Christian and hasn't read the bible in its entirity is paying lip service.

Geri_Berri

11th January 2009, 08:25 PM

I've read a few of your posts and it seems that you and I have had a similar path, with regard to investigating God. All it would take for you to be my twin would be you being an INTP on he Myers Briggs Personality Test, but I digress.

(Only I'm a horrible speller as well)

The point of the OP is to address why so any Atheists have so many conversations about Christian hypocrisy. As I stated before, I believe at the heart of the matter is the lie. The hypocrisy is just evidence that the Christian is nothing more than a superstitious atheist. The are lying when they say that they believe this book was inspired by God and that we should follow it. This is the real conversation that needs to be had.

I believe that anyone who calls themself a Christian and hasn't read the bible in its entirity is paying lip service.

GREAT TOPIC

Anyway I just wish to add something..but 1st must make one thing rather clear - I was a former christian but stepped back long ago due to my own personal ideas and what didn't make sense in ref to the bible...

I read parts of this thread and you made some great points, one of which went a little something like ... - You take up a Stephen King novel ..you read it, you don't just take parts of it to read NO you read the entire book

That is true, but too many christians are all reading from a book that has too many mixed scriptures...IE Mathew, Mark, Luke and so on...they take a story IE - The story on John the Baptist..and each one give a different outlook on that particular story

So christians then pick and chose what part they WISH to believe is correct

It IMO is just a book to read and take from it as you wish....that's why so many non chrisitans can't take it seriously, for it doesn't exactly hold any water does it?

If it were written by just ONE GUY and never tampered with..then I guess it would be different....but see IMO that's not hte case is it?

Any wonder so many christian faiths break away from each other

truethat

11th January 2009, 08:39 PM

Hey Geri!!! :j1: Absolutely awesome to see you posting here!

Geri_Berri

11th January 2009, 08:43 PM

Hey Geri!!! :j1: Absolutely awesome to see you posting here!

Yea it took a while...great topic you got her missus ...you seem to have a firm grip on it

Keep up your greatness

(btw I am full of typos tonight lol)

stilicho

11th January 2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:
That statement is, almost by definition, not falsifiable.

Evidence of a god or gods would falsify it.

If we said "god" was a large man sitting in a house with four windows, gazing in all directions at once, and this house was situated on a high mountain in the Levant, then that's falsifiable. (That's from Ugaritic mythology, incidentally). This is why so many proto-religions failed to inspire in their infancy. You're about 5,000 years behind the times in suddenly discovering this. Your definition of a god or gods is hardly anything inspirational to anyone. And if it had prevailed 5,000 years ago, there would be no such thing as religion.

Here's an exercise for you, zooterkin. Try to devise a definition of "god" that actually would be inspirational. I think you will surprise yourself.

stilicho

11th January 2009, 11:13 PM

This is a very good example of the kind of person I am talking about.

What kind of person am I, TrueThat?

stilicho

11th January 2009, 11:17 PM

Any wonder so many christian faiths break away from each other

And why I explained to TrueThat that you haven't discovered atheism but rather have discovered Protestantism. Five centuries too late but you have done it nonetheless.

Congrats!

zooterkin

11th January 2009, 11:42 PM

If we said "god" was a large man sitting in a house with four windows, gazing in all directions at once, and this house was situated on a high mountain in the Levant, then that's falsifiable. (That's from Ugaritic mythology, incidentally). This is why so many proto-religions failed to inspire in their infancy. You're about 5,000 years behind the times in suddenly discovering this. Your definition of a god or gods is hardly anything inspirational to anyone. And if it had prevailed 5,000 years ago, there would be no such thing as religion.
I'm not looking to inspire anyone with descriptions of mythical beings, and I didn't produce any definition of god, you're the one who just did that.

Here's an exercise for you, zooterkin. Try to devise a definition of "god" that actually would be inspirational. I think you will surprise yourself.

Why would I want to do that?

To return to the topic, I think there may be a lot of people who are not necessarily lying, but who don't think through the consequences of what they have been brought up to believe, or even to examine the whole of the texts their religion is based on. Even those who do study (and I think in Islam, for example, there is a lot of this) may be heavily guided as to the interpretation of passages, so it may be hard to stand back and see what is actually written.

stilicho

12th January 2009, 12:00 AM

Why would I want to do that?

I can think of a very good reason why you wouldn't want to.

To return to the topic, I think there may be a lot of people who are not necessarily lying, but who don't think through the consequences of what they have been brought up to believe, or even to examine the whole of the texts their religion is based on. Even those who do study (and I think in Islam, for example, there is a lot of this) may be heavily guided as to the interpretation of passages, so it may be hard to stand back and see what is actually written.

Once again, this is not the source of atheism but instead the core of Protestantism. Almost all of the people who've agreed with the OP are describing their epiphany into the Reformation and are therefore about 500 years too late to boast of their accomplishments. I'm a little embarrassed for you.

PS: Your term "mythical beings" is an oxymoron. Anything existing as a being is by definition not a myth. And anything existing only as a myth has likewise no form or being. I am sure you were just being funny so I laughed too.

slingblade

12th January 2009, 12:02 AM

Atheism is predicated on the evaluation of the statement: "There is no god" or alternatively "There are no gods". By its very predication it is, by definition, not scientific. That statement is, almost by definition, not falsifiable.

We know. That's why the burden of proof isn't on that claim. It's on the positive claim: X exists. Okay. How do you know that?

We know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But it isn't, conversely, evidence of exisitence, either!

I know I can't prove gods don't exist. That's why I don't believe in them. But I always remain open to a display of evidence, which I will judge when and if I can engage it in some way with my senses.

Yes, I realize that if--very big if--there is a childish god out there who gave me this thinking, reasoning, learning brain, but didn't intend me to use it to discover him, or was to stupid to realize I would at least try, then it's not any better than me and it's not worthy of my worship, so I just. Dont. Care.

zooterkin

12th January 2009, 12:04 AM

I can think of a very good reason why you wouldn't want to.

Go on, do enlighten me.

Once again, this is not the source of atheism but instead the core of Protestantism. Almost all of the people who've agreed with the OP are describing their epiphany into the Reformation and are therefore about 500 years too late to boast of their accomplishments. I'm a little embarrassed for you.

Who was claiming it was the source of atheism? ETA: Ok, I see it in the OP. I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but a lot of people seem to believe only the bits they choose of their religion.

PS: Your term "mythical beings" is an oxymoron. Anything existing as a being is by definition not a myth. And anything existing only as a myth has likewise no form or being. I am sure you were just being funny so I laughed too.

What would you call a pink unicorn?

truethat

12th January 2009, 05:52 AM

STOP IT

This is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. :catfight:

Stilicho......you have successfully distracted the conversation by derailing it into an argument about whether God exists or the definition of God.

This is not the issue. And this is why I suggest to atheists that we need to change the paradigm of the conversations.

The conversation here with stilicho is not whether God exists. We don't KNOW that God doesn't exist in some form unknown to mankind. It is an irrelevant argument. Whether God exists or doesn't exist has no bearing on the world of an atheist. We aren't hedonistic people, we aren't thinking there's no point to anything, we simply live in the here and now and try to take responsibility for what we manifest in our actions.

So God existing or not existing doesn't change anything in the way we live.
That discussion is irrelevant.

What is relevant is if God believers are effecting our lives. And they are. By insisting for example, that "GOD" condmens homosexuality Christian believers condemn members of this society. Thus, I am forced to live in a society that actively oppresses other people based on the authority of a text. This sacred text is supposedly from God. Its important when deciding what is moral according to the Christian believer. I decide what is moral based on my own personal convictions but the Christian believer says that it is not up to them, rather it is what is written in this book.

Therefor the Christian believer abdicates authority over his own life and defers to the sanctity of this book. Now I ask you, if you lived your life this way, wouldn't you read the entire book to make sure you were following things correctly? There should be no case of me pointing out to a Christian something that is in this book, that is condemned by God, that they didn't know about. Since the bible is such a deep book, very complicated with contradictions everywhere, I don't believe that this is a quick read but something that would require dedication.

So stilicho. I suggest you are defending not God, but rather YOURSELF here because I don't believe you have read the entire bible from cover to cover and have dedicated your life to understanding it. I am certain of this just based on your few postings in this thread. Therefor I say you are not just a hypocrite, but that the hypocrisy proves that you are lying when you say you believe in God. If you truly felt he was there, you wouldn't be sitting online so much before you had dedicated yourself to understanding the sacred text.

We will not derail this conversation into a debate about God and pink unicorns etc. etc. etc. Stay on topic.

Beth

12th January 2009, 06:50 AM

The point of the OP is to address why so any Atheists have so many conversations about Christian hypocrisy. As I stated before, I believe at the heart of the matter is the lie. The hypocrisy is just evidence that the Christian is nothing more than a superstitious atheist. The are lying when they say that they believe this book was inspired by God and that we should follow it. This is the real conversation that needs to be had.

Who is it you want to have this conversation with and why? Do you want to convince people who call themselves Christians that they aren't actually? Are you willing to listen to Christians who don't take the bible literally and don't feel that it is the cornerstone of their faith? They tend to be the sort who aren't trying to impose their interpretation on the rest of society, so I'm not clear if you find them to be liars as well.

truethat

12th January 2009, 07:52 AM

I don't see how one could possible call themselves a Christian, and not take the bible as a sacred text. Even if they felt that the text was maybe tampered with, one should read it in its entirity. You can't compare this to any other text because there are no OTHER texts to read in this regard. For example a Muslim is expected to read the Torah, the Bible and also the Qu'ran ultimately accepting the Qu'ran as the final authority.

Who do I want to discuss this with? Pretty much other atheists. As I said, I think it is time we stop allowing ourselves to get derailed into the debates over whether or not God exists. We can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than God does.

What I've realized is that the reason the debates are happening, is not because Atheists don't believe in God per se, but that they deep inside don't believe that the Christian does either. But I think people haven't noticed this detail and why the debates go on and on and in circles. Its sort of picking at an itch.

I'm hoping to bring it out into the open to change the paradigm of skeptics discussions.

If you say that you believe in God, putting aside all debate of whether or not God exists, lets say for the sake of argument he does, then please explain why you have not read the bible in its entirity and continued to study it, putting it as a priority in your life.

I do not see God as a priority in the life of most Christians. I see kids, work, home, wife, and those things I can obviously understand being a priority although biblically it is not supposed to be, GOD is supposed to be the priority in your life.

Ex

Luke 9:57-62 reads,

57 As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you
wherever you go.” 58 Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have
nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” 59 He said to another
man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my
father.” 60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and
proclaim the kingdom of God.” 61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord;
but first let me go back and say good bye to my family.” 62 Jesus replied, “No
one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the
kingdom of God.”

Now while I can concede that people might not be able to put God as a priority over those things. What about sports? How many Christian men out there are huge sports fans and dedicate themselves entirely to football season? Explain that?

If you really believed in GOD and you sincerely truly in your heart of hearts felt the presence of God the way so many Christians assert they do, you would devote yourself entirely to GOD---AS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO.

So I think you are lying when you say you believe in God and that this is his sacred text. I call BS on that.

Beth

12th January 2009, 08:31 AM

I don't see how one could possible call themselves a Christian, and not take the bible as a sacred text. Is this an argument from incredulity? Whether you agree with them or not, there are Christians who feel that the Bible is secondary to their faith. There are those who feel that being a Christian only implies a belief in the value of many of the teachings of Christ (not necessarily all) and an attempt to live according to those values.

Even if they felt that the text was maybe tampered with, one should read it in its entirity. I understand that you feel this way, but I don't find it surprising that others do not. Since the Bible and Christianity predate near universal literacy, it doesn't seem surprising to me that many Christians have not bothered to do so nor do they consider it an important part of their faith. And 'tampered with' is probably not the best way to describe their feelings. A feeling that the text was written by men with normal human failings and is not infallible would be a better way to put it.

Who do I want to discuss this with? Pretty much other atheists. As I said, I think it is time we stop allowing ourselves to get derailed into the debates over whether or not God exists. We can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than God does. Okay. All you have to do is convince all athiests to stop doing so. No one is forcing anyone to debate anything, here or elsewhere.

What I've realized is that the reason the debates are happening, is not because Atheists don't believe in God per se, but that they deep inside don't believe that the Christian does either. But I think people haven't noticed this detail and why the debates go on and on and in circles. Its sort of picking at an itch.
I'm hoping to bring it out into the open to change the paradigm of skeptics discussions.
I don't agree with this analysis. I think the reason the debates keep happening is that they occur with new participants. People do not necessarily hold to the same beliefs throughout their lives, but change. Changes and conversions (both directions) often occur as a result, at least in part, of such conversations.

If you say that you believe in God, putting aside all debate of whether or not God exists, lets say for the sake of argument he does, then please explain why you have not read the bible in its entirity and continued to study it, putting it as a priority in your life.
Me? I'm agnostic. I belong to a Christian church that welcomes agnostics and athiests as members of the congregation, and does not preach that the bible is literally true. They also preach for the acceptance of homosexuality, among other 'liberal' values. So, if this congregation is not trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society and does not feel that the Bible is the literal truth, but simply an inspired work produced by ancient writers living in a vastly different society, why should they expect or require members to read the entire book?

I do not see God as a priority in the life of most Christians. I see kids, work, home, wife, and those things I can obviously understand being a priority although biblically it is not supposed to be, GOD is supposed to be the priority in your life.

According to your faith regarding Christianity. Not all sects see things the same. While some agree, others do not. The church I attend would define placing GOD as a priority in your life to be living and working according to the values they espouse - such as being honest and compassionate in all your dealings with others. For example, they don't advocate giving all your possessions to the poor because that would simply mean there was one more poor person they had to try to take of.

Now while I can concede that people might not be able to put God as a priority over those things. What about sports? How many Christian men out there are huge sports fans and dedicate themselves entirely to football season? Explain that? They like sports? I don't know. I just don't see the Christian religion as requiring the kind of dedication you clearly do.

If you really believed in GOD and you sincerely truly in your heart of hearts felt the presence of God the way so many Christians assert they do, you would devote yourself entirely to GOD---AS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO. I don't know. What do you suppose they think GOD wants them to do? The people I know who feel that way are typically ministers, so they are devoting their lives to god.

So I think you are lying when you say you believe in God and that this is his sacred text. I call BS on that. But I don't say I believe in God or that the Bible is his sacred text. There are people who do, but very few of them post here at JREF and are generally considered to be Trolls when they do. The Christians who do post here tend to be the more liberal sort, who might believe in God but don't necessarily consider the Bible to be an infallible indication of his will.

Aepervius

12th January 2009, 08:51 AM

truethat, Actually, Christian are , by definition, believer in the Christ. They are not required by their belief to take the bible seriously, or literally. What they are required to believe in (for example for the christian sect my parents belong to) we are all sinner, Christ died for our redemption etc... But the bible was only used as allegorical example. I am just saying.

Even the most basic principle, taken from the bible or not, are often ignored by those which I call "cultural" christian, and even those who i call "true believer" fall in the pitfall. But this is naturally "explained" away by saying we are all sinner, imperfect etc...

Basically, their belief give them a passport to hypocrisy land any time they wish.

Rasmus

12th January 2009, 08:55 AM

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 09:33 AM

And why I explained to TrueThat that you haven't discovered atheism but rather have discovered Protestantism. Five centuries too late but you have done it nonetheless.

Congrats!

I haven't discovered atheism lol I don't claim to neither..for I am NOT an atheist...Being non Christian doesn't necessarily mean atheist...I believe in god and don’t care how many centuries late I am on that issue

Now that you have just discovered that ...congrats to you...it's amazing what great observation can do LOL

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 09:38 AM

STOP IT

This is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. :catfight:

Stilicho......you have successfully distracted the conversation by derailing it into an argument about whether God exists or the definition of God.

So stilicho. I suggest you are defending not God, but rather YOURSELF here because I don't believe you have read the entire bible from cover to cover and have dedicated your life to understanding it. I am certain of this just based on your few postings in this thread. Therefor I say you are not just a hypocrite, but that the hypocrisy proves that you are lying when you say you believe in God. If you truly felt he was there, you wouldn't be sitting online so much before you had dedicated yourself to understanding the sacred text.

We will not derail this conversation into a debate about God and pink unicorns etc. etc. etc. Stay on topic.

WAY TO GO GIRL..you tell em LOL

:D

jmcvann

12th January 2009, 10:21 AM

truethat

12th January 2009, 10:26 AM

Of course, that stance would be the question of how else they got to know about their god and what the (reliable) sources of their religion are.

Exactly. You can't call yourself a Christian without basing that belief on the bible, otherwise what kind of Christian are you? The book that informs the public about Jesus is the bible. Now unless you want to argue that you believe in Jesus and his stories because you have a direct lineage of oral retelling of the story of Jesus that goes all the way back to the apostles which is not entirely impossible, but would be extraordinarily rare, then you used said bible or someone else used said bible as an authoratative text on your beliefs and the "truth" as you see it now.

If you see this as a sacred text and a truth delivered to mankind from the holy creator, it defies logic to suggest you would not read this book.

And what part of this book are you taking as sacred? If one part of the book is deemed flawed, then it creates suspicion about the veracity of the rest of the book. So in order for this story to be held as true there needs to be some sort of authority attached to the book.

The bible doesn't instruct the readers to sit down and pour over the book and read it daily. However how could a book written by the CREATOR of the universe and all that is holy, not be something that you would want to read?

I don't understand this. If you truly felt that this book was inspired by God, why WOULDN'T you want to read it? Makes no sense to me?

Thus I call BS on the faith here.

truethat

12th January 2009, 10:36 AM

Beth: Your post (#148) is terrific. I happen to be a full-blown atheist, but I feel that TrueThat, whom I agree with on many points, has generalized too much here. On the other hand, if you pray to the god you refer to in your post, I still believe you are delusional. But even delusional people can make a good point now and again.

I am not generalizing too much. And your statement shows why people aren't seeng the logic in here. Not trying to be sniping, I just don't think people are seeing my point because they are looking at it too vaguely.

Think of it this way.

Say tommorrow God SHOWED himself. He lit up the sky at night and revealed himself and said "I am here and I am sending you a message through the internet" and blew everyone away in shock.

The next day everyone on the planet got an email from God. And there's no question over whether or not the email is truly from God. (As believers insist there is no doubt whatsoever in their mind that God is real and he inspired the bible)

Are you telling me you wouldn't read the email? The entire thing? Maybe not all at once but wouldn't you read it? And wouldn't you just realistically spend a lot of time looking around the internet and trying to find stories that discuss this?

In the most simplistic of ways Christians blow their own cover by not doing the simple thing of reading the bible from cover to cover. It is obvious that they do not believe that this book is actually from God.

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 10:40 AM

Me? I'm agnostic. I belong to a Christian church that welcomes agnostics and athiests as members of the congregation, and does not preach that the bible is literally true. They also preach for the acceptance of homosexuality, among other 'liberal' values. .

If I may...can you tell me what kind of christian church this is you claim to belong to even though you are agnostic?

And going on what you have just stated.....--> they don't take their bible literally true..........So are you suggesting that they are nothing more than pickers & choosers?

Like truethat had said before previously in her thread I will reword it and say...

Do you go to a library, pick out a good book to read but only read little parts and claim that’s all you need? I KNOW you didn't say your church (whatever that church is) does this exactly, but picking and choosing what they WANT to believe is TRUTH..is no different
It's no different than those that read their daily Horoscope and if they don't fully like what they read from it, they automatically take from it what they WANT it to mean and run with it......

I say if you want to follow a bible DO IT ALL or not at all...and if you call yourself a christian then at least take your faith as actual truth not just what tickles your fancy

truethat

12th January 2009, 10:51 AM

RobRoy

12th January 2009, 10:59 AM

As to Rob Roy's constant questioning about memorization, you are starting to come off as a sort of Tourettes here. LOL Memorization is just an expression, you are derailing the conversation down an irrelevant path.

Hmmm. I didn't realizing questioning you about your contentions and statements was an attempt to derail. Apologies, since that wasn't my intention. I was simply trying to get to the heart of what you were saying.

Apparently, though, you didn't read where I said, "I agree that those who profess a belief in a particular faith should have more than a cursory understanding of the articles of that faith. I'm not certain that a lack of that understanding is indicative of deliberate deceit."

In the most simplistic of ways Christians blow their own cover by not doing the simple thing of reading the bibe from cover to cover. It is obvious that they do not believe that this book is actually from God.

While I do see your point, I simply disagree with it. I believe others have done the same, and I have to agree with them that you're overgenerlizing the issue, trying to boil it down to a claim that self-professed Christians who don't read the Bible must be liars. That claim is simply indefensible based on multiple reasons offered by others above: basic apathy, laziness, etc. There is no reason to believe that Christians first look at their faith, and then decide that they must deliberately deceive others.

I would like to ask again which sects of Christianity you see that make the claim that the Bible comes from God? I reviewed a number of my texts over the weekend and still can't come up with a single one who claim that the text was more than inspired.

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 10:59 AM

Geri great post! This is what I think is at the heart of the matter on this topic. It isn't "different atheists" as Beth asserts, its the same atheists getting frustrated. And I think its because, as I said, deep inside they know the believer doesn't believe what they are saying really.

Its the same reaction you get when someone comes up and says "Well I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me ....." We know there's no flying spaghetti monster so we know that they don't really believe this.

I think that this is at the heart of all the debating.

I just can't get my head around someone claiming to be agnostic that belongs to a christian church but hey don't take the bible as litteral truth <---------the general idea IS to take it as truth..the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth so help you god

jmcvann

12th January 2009, 11:02 AM

Say tommorrow God SHOWED himself. He lit up the sky at night and revealed himself and said "I am here and I am sending you a message through the internet" and blew everyone away in shock.

This is, in fact, close to the kind of proof I would need!

In the most simplistic of ways Christians blow their own cover by not doing the simple thing of reading the bibe from cover to cover. It is obvious that they do not believe that this book is actually from God.

But I can see Beth's point. Someone could believe the basic Jesus story and also believe that the cult that built up around him skewed almost every detail about that story. Especially the parts about what happened before he arrived. Don't we atheists often argue that that is exactly what happened? Beth is just saying (sorry to put words in your mouth, Beth!) that not every word was skewed.

Your e-mail scenario is different in that it would be current. Your own premise assumes that we would know the e-mail to be genuine. That's the problem with the bible; we cannot know it to be genuine. Beth is acknowledging that.

Granted, I think Beth's logic is odd. She claims to be agnostic. I think agnostics lack strength in their convictions. (I do NOT want to force this definition on anyone else.) Assuming that she is an adult, she must have accumulated enough information to either believe or not believe. (Sorry, Beth -- it's time to choose!)

And let me repeat that I agree with most of what you're saying in this thread. But the fact that you're making it a requirement that believers read (and, it seems, believe) every word of the bible is where I think you overstep.

truethat

12th January 2009, 11:12 AM

This is, in fact, close to the kind of proof I would need!

But I can see Beth's point. Someone could believe the basic Jesus story and also believe that the cult that built up around him skewed almost every detail about that story. Especially the parts about what happened before he arrived. Don't we atheists often argue that that is exactly what happened? Beth is just saying (sorry to put words in your mouth, Beth!) that not every word was skewed.

Your e-mail scenario is different in that it would be current. Your own premise assumes that we would know the e-mail to be genuine. That's the problem with the bible; we cannot know it to be genuine. Beth is acknowledging that.

Granted, I think Beth's logic is odd. She claims to be agnostic. I think agnostics lack strength in their convictions. (I do NOT want to force this definition on anyone else.) Assuming that she is an adult, she must have accumulated enough information to either believe or not believe. (Sorry, Beth -- it's time to choose!)

And let me repeat that I agree with most of what you're saying in this thread. But the fact that you're making it a requirement that believers read (and, it seems, believe) every word of the bible is where I think you overstep.

I challenge you to find me three self defined true Christians who will agree with that statement. I don't think so.

Beth's logic is not odd to me. She represents the reality of so called Christians out there. Christians always jump to defend believing in God although it defies logic. Christians argue that you see god not with logic but with spirituality. Etc etc etc.

The bible is not to be taken literally. Got it.

However what I am discussing is NOT THE BIBLE, and NOT GOD. Rather I am discussing the Christian who asks that THEY themselves be taken literally when they say that they believe in God.

These same Christians who use the bible as a means to oppress others.

I am OPPRESSED by having to live in a society that is oppressing homosexuals. I am not a homosexual but this offends me greatly. How would everyone on here feel about suddenly getting sent into a time portal and arriving in a time where segregation was alive and legal. How would you feel living then? Even if you were white? Its oppressive. And the nature of this oppression is based on Christians exerting their rights.

They state that God is the final authority on this and they base this assertion on the statements in the bible.

Therefore this Christian is asking me to regard this book as a sacred and authoratative text written by the highest authority, God.

And yet..................................they haven't read it?

I call BS on the God belief.

RobRoy

12th January 2009, 11:13 AM

And let me repeat that I agree with most of what you're saying in this thread. But the fact that you're making it a requirement that believers read (and, it seems, believe) every word of the bible is where I think you overstep.

I disagree on this. TT position that a believer should read the text on which their faith is based is reasonable. The position that these people are liars because they haven't read that text is a bit absurd.

truethat

12th January 2009, 11:24 AM

truethat

12th January 2009, 11:31 AM

I disagree on this. TT position that a believer should read the text on which their faith is based is reasonable. The position that these people are liars because they haven't read that text is a bit absurd.

I am saying that people who suggest that the bible is some sort of authoratative text that should be used to create moral standards in society and have not read it in its entirity are lying. No kidding around. I think these people don't believe in the authority of the bible. They are lying if they say so, otherwise they would have read it.

I Ratant

12th January 2009, 11:46 AM

You're way too strict on belief!
A slap-dash education in anything doesn't mean everyone who speaks from that shaky base is a liar.
Uninformed, undereducated or ignorant are better terms.
The true liars are those who have the good religious background, and find ways to prostitute that towards their own well-being.
Undereducated would be someone like W. Knows just enough to be dangerous.
Liars are those 800-number god-shouters on the Sunday tv evangelical shows.
Foulwell, Popoff, etc.
Or the Pope himself.
He's in a position where the centuries of history have to show the intelligent person that there's absolutely nothing to the supernatural aspects of the religion he's the head of, unless he's also a total loon.

truethat

12th January 2009, 11:53 AM

I disagree. Answer the question. If you got an email from God, and it was definitely FROM GOD. Would you read it? YES or NO?

RobRoy

12th January 2009, 11:57 AM

Rob Roy, comes from and inspired? I'm not seeing the difference. Just FYI so you know we're on the same page, no one is saying God himself wrote the bible physically. They are saying God wrote the bible inspirationally. In other words what is in the bible, is what God has conveyed to the writer or put his stamp of approval on.

Here, let me help you out:

Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. That book "comes from" him.
Tolkien inspired Dennis L. McKiernan to write to write The Iron Tower trilogy. Those books don't come from Tolkien.

I don't know of any Christian sect which claims that God wrote the Bible.

Second, I'm not saying every Christian in the world is a liar. I'm saying those who assert biblical authority in the world but have not read the entire bible. Unfortunately as we all well know, the majority of Christians have not read the bible.

We do? I didn't know we knew that. Probably overlooked that key citation somewhere. Would you mind pointing it out to me?

Most Atheists on the other hand, have read more of the bible than the Christian has. So isn't that interesting.

Have they? I'm sure you have a citation for this as well.

Although, based on anecdotal evidence from this site alone, I'm willing to buy this assertion with no further evidence. Most (please note use of the caveat here) of the atheists on this site seem to have been members of a Christian religion. They're reading of the Bible, therefor, is not surprising.

Also to everyone replying, please see that you are all showing the lack of faith in the God belief here. Its clear as day to me.

Wait, wait, wait. Because I'm replying to this thread, then I must have a lack of faith in God or the belief in God? Seriously?

If you got that email, Rob Roy would you read it or not? Beth? Jmcvann? Geri? everyone? If God showed himself and sent you an email? Would you read it? Wouldn't you race to read it? Wouldn't you be consumed by curiosity?

Your analogy fails. I've read the Bible. I've also read the Qur'an and I've slogged through a few other religious texts.

jmcvann

12th January 2009, 12:09 PM

I challenge you to find me three self defined true Christians who will agree with that statement. I don't think so.

Beth caller you out earlier on using an argument from incredulity, and I will have to do so here. Just because you can't imagine them and I can't name them doesn't mean they don't exist. Beth clearly is one.

However what I am discussing is NOT THE BIBLE, and NOT GOD. Rather I am discussing the Christian who asks that THEY themselves be taken literally when they say that they believe in God.

Which does not include Beth, the only example I have for my singular argument that you are overstating.

Therefore this Christian is asking me to regard this book as a sacred and authoratative text written by the highest authority, God.
And yet..................................they haven't read it?

Again...not Beth

AkuManiMani

12th January 2009, 12:10 PM

truethat

12th January 2009, 12:15 PM

Here, let me help you out:

Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. That book "comes from" him.
Tolkien inspired Dennis L. McKiernan to write to write The Iron Tower trilogy. Those books don't come from Tolkien.

I don't know of any Christian sect which claims that God wrote the Bible.
I don't know of any Christian sect that would use the term, "inspires" the way you do here when it comes to Divine Inspiration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration

Here it says the Modernist view, comes close...but I've never heard of any Christin who thinks that people were inspired the way you define it in your post here. If there are any Christians on here that could jump in on that, that would be helpful.

Here is what I have found in a 2 second google search which I am loathe to use but I'm pretty stunned at your confusion on this matter.

Divine Inspiration is the belief that God gave the men who penned the Bible, the very words to write. Being penned by over 40 different authors from different walks of life, over an estimated period of 1,500 years, the only way the Bible can possibly make sense and fit so nicely together is Divine Inspiration. Over the generations and generations, there were many different people penning different parts of the Bible. However, these people were not the "authors" of the Bible so to speak; rather, there was One Author, telling each person what to write and even how to write it. God is that author. All scripture was given by inspiration, of God. This is evident by 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

http://www.workmenforchrist.org/Bible/Insp.html

We do? I didn't know we knew that. Probably overlooked that key citation somewhere. Would you mind pointing it out to me?

Have they? I'm sure you have a citation for this as well.

Although, based on anecdotal evidence from this site alone, I'm willing to buy this assertion with no further evidence. Most (please note use of the caveat here) of the atheists on this site seem to have been members of a Christian religion. They're reading of the Bible, therefor, is not surprising.

Wait, wait, wait. Because I'm replying to this thread, then I must have a lack of faith in God or the belief in God? Seriously?

No, and I'll tell you what. Since you have clearly misunderstood about 90 percent of what I've written, perhaps allow other people to debate me rather than wasting space on here.

My point is, I see no difference in the way the Christian and the atheist is arguing in this conversation. What is plain as day, is that there is a sense that God is some sort of traditional legacy.

In other words the bible is something that he wrote way back then for way back then. In which case it would not apply in modern times. If it does apply in modern times, then it would stand to reason that the bible is something that should be read by modern man for new interpretation, especially if we feel that it shouldn't be taken "literally."

Your analogy fails. I've read the Bible. I've also read the Qur'an and I've slogged through a few other religious texts.

I notice you didn't answer my question. If you got an email that was from God, no kidding, would you read it? Yes or No? What would your reaction be?

truethat

12th January 2009, 12:17 PM

Beth caller you out earlier on using an argument from incredulity, and I will have to do so here. Just because you can't imagine them and I can't name them doesn't mean they don't exist. Beth clearly is one.

Which does not include Beth, the only example I have for my singular argument that you are overstating.

Again...not Beth

Sorry but Beth is a self defined Agnostic Christian, not a self defined TRUE Christian.

Sooooorry. You still haven't answered if you would read God's email.

RobRoy

12th January 2009, 12:50 PM

I don't know of any Christian sect that would use the term, "inspires" the way you do here when it comes to Divine Inspiration.

Sorry, what exactly was wrong with my analogy that you disagree with? Your citations don't dispute the way I understand the Bible's reported inspired nature.

No, and I'll tell you what. Since you have clearly misunderstood about 90 percent of what I've written, perhaps allow other people to debate me rather than wasting space on here.

I'm sorry that my questions are too hard for you to answer. In response to your request, however, I must politely decline.

Now, can you please point me to the citation where you showed that "the majority of Christians have not read the bible". That would go some way to proving your conclusion.

My point is, I see no difference in the way the Christian and the atheist is arguing in this conversation. What is plain as day, is that there is a sense that God is some sort of traditional legacy.

In other words the bible is something that he wrote way back then for way back then. In which case it would not apply in modern times. If it does apply in modern times, then it would stand to reason that the bible is something that should be read by modern man for new interpretation, especially if we feel that it shouldn't be taken "literally."

No disagreement here (as I said earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334953&postcount=42)). Lacking proof to support your claim that "the majority of Christians have not read the bible" I disagree with your concept that those who haven't read the Bible are lying to you (or anyone else) about their belief.

I notice you didn't answer my question. If you got an email that was from God, no kidding, would you read it? Yes or No? What would your reaction be?

No, I answered it by addressing your analogy. You compared reading the Bible to reading an email known to be from God. I've read the Bible. Therefore I would also read your theoretical email, and thus your analogy fails. It would be hard to say what my reaction would be, as it would depend on the content of the message. If it was for penile enhancement, I believe I would be less than thrilled as I'm already sufficiently endowed.

westprog

12th January 2009, 02:20 PM

I just can't get my head around someone claiming to be agnostic that belongs to a christian church but hey don't take the bible as litteral truth <---------the general idea IS to take it as truth..the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth so help you god

This is where the whole misunderstanding comes in. Obviously Truethat is quite wrong in her belief that the vast majority of Christians are lying - sorry, LYING - about their belief in God. But where does this misapprehension come from?

I think it lies in the atheist misunderstanding of religion. There are people who don't believe in God who don't understand what religion is. They try to apply rules to religion that aren't applicable.

The odd thing is that there are believers who do the same thing. The fundamentalists also try to treat religion as if it were science. It doesn't work. It doesn't surprise me at all that Truethat was a JW. A JW isn't that pushed about God, and certainly doesn't worry about their personal relationship with Christ. They worry about the user's manual.

That's why Truethat can say that a Christian who prays daily, who follows the teachings of Christ, who has a feeling of personal relationship with God, is a bad Christian, because they don't know, or care, how old Methuselah is. They might not even believe that Methuselah existed. They don't think that's the point. You don't need to spend all your time perusing the user's manual. You need to make the equipment work right.

And for Darat - no, I'm still not telling Christians which form of Christianity is correct. I'm telling Truethat that she doesn't have the right to do so.

jmcvann

12th January 2009, 02:56 PM

Sorry but Beth is a self defined Agnostic Christian, not a self defined TRUE Christian.

Sooooorry. You still haven't answered if you would read God's email.

Sheesh. I'm beginning to think you're really yrrrrrrrrrrg. You said (all lowercase) "true" Christian in your previous post and I admittedly put less emphasis on the "true" part. But now you tell us you only mean "TRUE" Christians. Well, then...that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax. After the fact you're letting us know that you've defined the question in a way that you have to be correct. So, fine. You are absolutely correct. In your narrow little way of asking the question, your are right.

But that doesn't mean that the comments from me or almost anyone else in this thread are wrong. We were just having a more nuanced discussion than you apparently wanted to partake in.

Be good.

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 03:02 PM

Here, let me help you out:

I don't know of any Christian sect which claims that God wrote the Bible.

.

HEH..but they all believe it's all the TRUE word of god...so as they believe it is gods word..then why not follow it ALL?

If you call yourself a christian and you banter on how your bible is the absolute word of god....you claim your bible is TRUTH....<---again I ask...why would you pick and choose what to follow??

I Ratant

12th January 2009, 03:10 PM

I disagree. Answer the question. If you got an email from God, and it was definitely FROM GOD. Would you read it? YES or NO?
.
How would one know who it's from?
Pastor Powell promises 1 million dollars.
PASTOR POWELL <powell.pastor@yahoo.com>
Alice promises the same..
Alice Idrissa <aliceidrissa@yahoo.com>
Margaret has $12,500,000 to share.
<margaretdonvb359@yahoo.co.jp>
These are real addresses.
Scams, but there is a person at the other end.
What would god's look like?
"Myself <PearlyGates@eternallfe.net>"?
.
Were what's his name deign to dabble in my life, I'd wanna know why all the misery in everyone else's lives?
There's a pretty much endless list of crimes against humanity the hairy thunderer has to explain.
I'm not holding my breath.

jmcvann

12th January 2009, 03:11 PM

Oh...almost forgot...of course I would read that e-mail.

After thinkin about your scenario, though, I do have problems. If god appeared in the sky and told me he had sent everyone an e-mail, I would probably start by wondering how someone rigged that big image in the sky. I will assume it would be more realistic than the image I have in my head from "Monty Python and the Holg Grail." I'm hoping it would be one hell of a special effect. Or maybe all the people who saw this thing were slipped a drug to create the effect. Either way, some big bucks were spent. Which church has the money to pull off something like this. Those damn Mormons! Gotta be the Mormons! (The Catholics have all their cash in reserve for legal expenses.)

And here's a funny thing -- well...I thought it was funny -- We've got god (or those damn Mormons) making the same goof as the last time it sent a message. A lot of people might still miss this message. First, some people would be asleep. Of course, god could make them see the vision in a dream, but that would just be a dream, right? Then there's all the people who don't have e-mail! Once again, god tries to prove his presence, and just can't seem to get the word to everybody. You'd think an all-powerful diety could get this done.

That e-mail, by the way, had better say something to the effect of: "Steven Hawking will walk and talk tomorrow. All cases of progeria will be cured. And every amputee from the Iraq war will awake with new limbs."

Something like that.

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 03:17 PM

.
How would one know who it's from?
Pastor Powell promises 1 million dollars.
PASTOR POWELL <powell.pastor@yahoo.com>
Alice promises the same..
Alice Idrissa <aliceidrissa@yahoo.com>
Margaret has $12,500,000 to share.
<margaretdonvb359@yahoo.co.jp>
These are real addresses.
Scams, but there is a person at the other end.
What would god's look like?
"Myself <PearlyGates@eternallfe.net>"?
.
Were what's his name deign to dabble in my life, I'd wanna know why all the misery in everyone else's lives?
There's a pretty much endless list of crimes against humanity the hairy thunderer has to explain.
I'm not holding my breath.

AHA..you have a point with this one lol

This reminds on how many claim to be the messiah LOL

Beth

12th January 2009, 03:32 PM

Beth: Your post (#148) is terrific. Thank you.

I am not generalizing too much. I think the point is that you are generalized the beliefs of some Christian sects to all Christians.
For example:
(As believers insist there is no doubt whatsoever in their mind that God is real and he inspired the bible) This parenthetical does not apply to all Christians, not even all fundamentalist Christians. There are plenty of believers, I would suspect a majority even, who are willing to admit that they have doubts.

If I may...can you tell me what kind of christian church this is you claim to belong to even though you are agnostic? It is a Congregational Church.

And going on what you have just stated.....--> they don't take their bible literally true..........So are you suggesting that they are nothing more than pickers & choosers? Absolutely. As, IMO, do all churches. I understand that many athiests would prefer that all religious believers either accepted their sacred tests as being literally true in their entirety. However, relatively few do that. The church I attend does not presume the Bible to be either the literal truth or the infallible word of God as dictated to mankind. Instead, the Bible is considered to be inspired by God but written by fallible human beings.
Do you go to a library, pick out a good book to read but only read little parts and claim that’s all you need? I don't read novels that way, but technical stuff I certainly do! I might go to the library to research a particular problem and check out half a dozen books that I hope will contain some insight. I don't need to read an entire graduate level textbook to find the section I need and concentrate on that.

I KNOW you didn't say your church (whatever that church is) does this exactly, but picking and choosing what they WANT to believe is TRUTH..is no different
It's no different than those that read their daily Horoscope and if they don't fully like what they read from it, they automatically take from it what they WANT it to mean and run with it...... And this is a problem for daily horoscope readers because.....

I say if you want to follow a bible DO IT ALL or not at all...and if you call yourself a christian then at least take your faith as actual truth not just what tickles your fancy

Where did you get the idea that this was the one and only definition of Christianity and all others were in error?

I just can't get my head around someone claiming to be agnostic that belongs to a christian church but hey don't take the bible as litteral truth <---------the general idea IS to take it as truth..the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth so help you god

Where did you get the idea that this was the one and only definition of Christianity and all others were in error?

I think agnostics lack strength in their convictions. (I do NOT want to force this definition on anyone else.) Assuming that she is an adult, she must have accumulated enough information to either believe or not believe. (Sorry, Beth -- it's time to choose!) Nope. I don't have to and you can't make me. :p I simply have no firm beliefs on the matter and no inclinations to state a preference one way or the other.

truethat

12th January 2009, 03:40 PM

truethat

12th January 2009, 03:43 PM

Geri_Berri

12th January 2009, 03:52 PM

Thank you.

It is a Congregational Church.
.

So basically - Pickers and choosers...exactly what this topic is about and yet here you go complaining over it...feeling the need to DEFEND...yet admitting that's exactly what you are...interseting...LOL

You don't see the harm in it, you like the idea of being a picker and chooser...

To sum up it's not really a christian church then...if it keeps going down this road, in years to come the word CHRISTIAN will mean sweet FA!! (pardon me)

You didn't seem to get what I meant with the horoscope thing LOL well what I meant was horoscope readers do exactly what bible readers do.. PICK AND CHOOSE what suits them and run with it....

truethat

12th January 2009, 03:54 PM

This is where the whole misunderstanding comes in. Obviously Truethat is quite wrong in her belief that the vast majority of Christians are lying - sorry, LYING - about their belief in God. But where does this misapprehension come from?

I think it lies in the atheist misunderstanding of religion. There are people who don't believe in God who don't understand what religion is. They try to apply rules to religion that aren't applicable.

The odd thing is that there are believers who do the same thing. The fundamentalists also try to treat religion as if it were science. It doesn't work. It doesn't surprise me at all that Truethat was a JW. A JW isn't that pushed about God, and certainly doesn't worry about their personal relationship with Christ. They worry about the user's manual.

That's why Truethat can say that a Christian who prays daily, who follows the teachings of Christ, who has a feeling of personal relationship with God, is a bad Christian, because they don't know, or care, how old Methuselah is. They might not even believe that Methuselah existed. They don't think that's the point. You don't need to spend all your time perusing the user's manual. You need to make the equipment work right.

And for Darat - no, I'm still not telling Christians which form of Christianity is correct. I'm telling Truethat that she doesn't have the right to do so.

No I'm not. Once again not understanding my point at all. Christians don't believe you are "saved" through Acts, but Grace.

Once again.

This is not about Perfection. This is not about Hypocrisy. This is not about taking the bible literally. This is not about whether God exits or not.

This is about taking the Christian at their word when they ask that their beliefs be respected and granted some sort of authority in the world.

The Christian sets the parameters, not me. If the Christian read the bible, then I believe that they are a believer. However I might be a little suspect if they read it 20 years ago. However if Rob read the bible, then he is proving what I am saying.

If you state that God inspired the bible, and you state that you believe in God as the creator of the universe, you would read the bible.

God by the definition of Christians who use the bible, is an awesome, transcendant, final authority. He is great and powerful.

What I see here and pretty much everywhere is a piddly little regard for the ideas of this amazing and awe inspiring entity. People are too busy watching television to be bothered with what he says?

In my mind, if you use the bible as a book that you consider authoratative enough to hoist on the rest of society, and vote your conscience when it comes to what "God said......in the book" then you need to put your money where your mouth is and keep reading what God said in the rest of the book.

If you don't want to, then it seems to me you really don't believe its from God.

Patsy

12th January 2009, 03:55 PM

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Seriously, I've got some Draino here; I want to be sure that I get my witnessing from the genuine article, for my problematical atheist soul's sake. Drink it, and I'll believe YOU believe. Emerge unscathed, and I'll listen to you.

Anyone?

I Ratant

12th January 2009, 04:28 PM

Trueth, you are raging (really) about something that is meaningless to most of us, who have accepted "no god" for a "belief".
If there were a god, then there could be an e-mail from it but the odds are infinite against it, aren't they?
Practical experience would tell most of us that that communication is just junk mail from some con man.
Possibly a true believer might respond.
The type that thanks the hairy thunderer for fixing the car, but glosses over the extreme injustices to other people and their horrendous circumstances which surely should be more important.
Or maybe that person would begin to ask "why those do occur"?
"Why bad things to good people "?
"Why Original Sin?"?
"What's with that crap in the first place"?
Why, for instance, did this really poor driver not bite the big one?
" Look at the first picture and you can see where this driver
broke through the guardrail, on the right side of the culvert,
where the people are standing on the road, pointing.

The pick-up was traveling about 75 mph from right to left
when it crashed through the guard rail.
It flipped end-over-end bounced off and across the culvert outlet,
and landed right side up on the left side of the culvert,
facing the opposite direction from which it was traveling.

The 22-year-old driver and his 18-year-old passenger
were unhurt except for minor cuts and bruises.

Just outside Flagstaff , AZ on U.S. Hwy 100.
"
The second picture shows what could have happened.
...
" If this guy didn't believe in God before,
do you suppose he believes now?"
..
And no doubt will dedicate his life to the service of the lord.
( I crack me up!)

jmcvann

12th January 2009, 04:37 PM

You are MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY. I'm sorry if I seem irritated but I keep pointing it out and everyone is arguing the wrong issue.
God is a GIVEN. There is no doubt. Accept for the sake of argument that it was indeed GOD. No question. One hundred percent certainty.
This is what Christians claim to believe.
So would you read the email?
All the "how do I know its really from God" and "I don't believe its from God" is pointless conversation.
The statement is IT IS FROM GOD. Would you read it?
And the answer is OF COURSE YOU WOULD.

Get over yourself already. You seem to have skipped over my post (#174) where I conceded that your were absolutely correct. I was then trying to have a little fun. Pull the stick out, already.

Beth

12th January 2009, 05:22 PM

I have never said ALL Christians Beth, in fact I've stated several times that I'm not and additionally I've made specific examples at least three times. This is draining to say the least so excuse me if I don't respond to you again.

No problem. So some Christians are okay by you and others aren't then? I think that most people would agree with that, though they will differ on which ones they think are okay and which aren't.

So basically - Pickers and choosers...exactly what this topic is about and yet here you go complaining over it I'm sorry, but what did I write that caused you to think I was complaining about it? Picking and choosing doesn't bother me, but it appears to bother you and a lot of other atheists quite a bit. What do you consider to be the problem with someone taking the bible as a guide rather than the literal truth and infallible word of god and picking and choosing the parts that they find most meaningful and valuable?

You don't see the harm in it, you like the idea of being a picker and chooser... Yes. What harm do you see in it?

To sum up it's not really a christian church then...if it keeps going down this road, in years to come the word CHRISTIAN will mean sweet FA!! (pardon me)

And this is a problem because? BTW, as near as I can tell, with all the different Christian sects, this is pretty much where we are now. How much more variation in beliefs among Christians is required for you to think it means sweet FA!! ?

This is about taking the Christian at their word when they ask that their beliefs be respected and granted some sort of authority in the world.

The Christian sets the parameters, not me. And if the Christian says they don't believe that the bible is the infallible word of god, but is meant to be interpreted according to the culture and the times of the reader, do you respect their beliefs? Or do you conclude they don't qualify as a TRUE Christian?

truethat

12th January 2009, 06:06 PM

Get over yourself already. You seem to have skipped over my post (#174) where I conceded that your were absolutely correct. I was then trying to have a little fun. Pull the stick out, already.

I am sorry but when its several people misunderstanding the point, its a little unfair to confuse it further for shets and giggles.

As you can see people are still asking me why I'm ranting. The only one who seems to have understood here is slingblade and Patsy!

Patsy that's so funny!:j2:

truethat

12th January 2009, 06:08 PM

No problem. So some Christians are okay by you and others aren't then? I think that most people would agree with that, though they will differ on which ones they think are okay and which aren't.

And if the Christian says they don't believe that the bible is the infallible word of god, but is meant to be interpreted according to the culture and the times of the reader, do you respect their beliefs? Or do you conclude they don't qualify as a TRUE Christian?

I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. Its not MY qualification. Its entirely the individuals. However, if they claim to believe something, they need to demonstrate this in their faith, if they want me to respect that they believe it.

westprog

13th January 2009, 02:47 AM

I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. Its not MY qualification. Its entirely the individuals. However, if they claim to believe something, they need to demonstrate this in their faith, if they want me to respect that they believe it.

But you are demanding that they accept your standard as to how they should demonstrate their faith - which standard seems to be predicated on how you interpreted Christianity back when you were a Christian.

Do you see the irony in demanding scriptural literacy as a prime requisite for Christians without being able to find such an instruction in the teachings of Christ?

westprog

13th January 2009, 02:52 AM

No I'm not. Once again not understanding my point at all. Christians don't believe you are "saved" through Acts, but Grace.

Once again.

This is not about Perfection. This is not about Hypocrisy. This is not about taking the bible literally. This is not about whether God exits or not.

This is about taking the Christian at their word when they ask that their beliefs be respected and granted some sort of authority in the world.

The Christian sets the parameters, not me. If the Christian read the bible, then I believe that they are a believer. However I might be a little suspect if they read it 20 years ago. However if Rob read the bible, then he is proving what I am saying.

If you state that God inspired the bible, and you state that you believe in God as the creator of the universe, you would read the bible.

God by the definition of Christians who use the bible, is an awesome, transcendant, final authority. He is great and powerful.

What I see here and pretty much everywhere is a piddly little regard for the ideas of this amazing and awe inspiring entity. People are too busy watching television to be bothered with what he says?

In my mind, if you use the bible as a book that you consider authoratative enough to hoist on the rest of society, and vote your conscience when it comes to what "God said......in the book" then you need to put your money where your mouth is and keep reading what God said in the rest of the book.

If you don't want to, then it seems to me you really don't believe its from God.

But your view of what the Christian view of the importance of the Bible in their faith is not the same as the view of all Christians. Catholics, for example, have a very different viewpoint.

MetalPig

13th January 2009, 03:47 AM

The statement is IT IS FROM GOD. Would you read it?
This scenario apparently takes place in a world where God's existence has been proven.
How would the answer to your question have any meaning in the real world?

Rasmus

13th January 2009, 03:55 AM

This scenario apparently takes place in a world where God's existence has been proven.
How would the answer to your question have any meaning in the real world?

There are people in the real world that are convinced that (a/their) god exists. To them, there is enough proof or evidence for the existence of God - or so they say.

The question basically translates to "If you were on of these people, would you want to know what your god had to say?"

The argument here is that at least some believers act in a way that suggests that they might not read such a hypothetical message.

westprog

13th January 2009, 04:17 AM

The argument here is that at least some believers act in a way that suggests that they might not read such a hypothetical message.

The argument is also that there's only one way such a message might be delivered.

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 04:56 AM

Almost all atheists do indeed share a more or less dogmatic belief system. Usually at this point people mention Buddhists and Raelians :rolleyes: , so the terminology I use is 'those who do not believe in the spiritual nature of the human being'. Very concise, no?

Concise is easy if you're willing to ignore accuracy.

I'm sorry that I'm late to this thread and catching up, so you've probably all moved on, but I want to address this briefly.

I am a fairly hard-line atheist and the last thing I would do is deny the spiritual nature of humanity. I realise that you mean spiritual in the sense of having a floaty see-through body stuffed away inside us like an air-bag, just waiting for death to pop out and scare any nearby dyslexic great-Danes, but I don’t and since you failed to define your definition, I will take the opportunity to expound.

Having been trained and working as a physicist/engineer since…well…since birth thanks to my father, I have over the last few years discovered the wonders of my spirituality; but which I mean that method of communication and relation to others that is synthesized by the coming together of lots of different people and their own brands of synaesthesia, humour and observation. There is plenty of human life that does not follow rigid logical and scientific rules, even if they are all merely an emergent property of synaesthetic conglomeration.

Life is objectively pointless and meaningless and that makes the ability of humans to create a rich spiritual world entirely out of their own imaginations all the more wonderful.

…now…how long until I can have an avatar…?

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 05:02 AM

...oops...I just saw Darat's previous warning. Sorry if I was OT.

Back OT, I generally agree with the OP. To my mind a genuine beliefe in such a concept would instigate such crippling paranoia and fear of opression that every waking moment should be dedicated to appeasing the malevolent, childish despot who holds dominion over my eternal fate. I hate Bible-thumpers, but at least they have conviction.

MetalPig

13th January 2009, 05:54 AM

There are people in the real world that are convinced that (a/their) god exists. To them, there is enough proof or evidence for the existence of God - or so they say.
True, but how many of them believe that God would send them e-mail? I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention e-mail.

Anyone who believes their god does communicate through e-mail would probably read his message, but the rest wouldn't, and that wouldn't make them any less a TRUE christian in my opinion.

westprog

13th January 2009, 06:18 AM

I hate Bible-thumpers, but at least they have conviction.

Which is a fairly typical misapprehension about religion - which is based on treating religion as if it were something else altogether. There are people who obsessively read the Bible and totally fail to live up to Christian principles. There are Christians who live a Christian life who hardly ever look at the Bible.

The idea that the Bible is an email message from God is not part of the teachings of Christ. It's something that a minority of fundamentalists, Christian and Atheist, have as an article of faith.

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 06:28 AM

Which is a fairly typical misapprehension about religion - which is based on treating religion as if it were something else altogether. There are people who obsessively read the Bible and totally fail to live up to Christian principles. There are Christians who live a Christian life who hardly ever look at the Bible.

The idea that the Bible is an email message from God is not part of the teachings of Christ. It's something that a minority of fundamentalists, Christian and Atheist, have as an article of faith.

I don't really care whether they have conviction in the Bible, or in whatever flavour of belief they personally prefer. It's the conviction that matters.

If you believe that an all-seeing creature is observing and judging your every action with reference to a set of standards that it has defined and will reward or punish your behaviour based upon those actions, isn't the only logical course of action to do everything you can - read every book (espescially, but not just, the Bible) on the subject, follow all the rules you have access to, appease every whim that is made apparent - to ensure that you get the 'good' afterlife?

Forget the Bible. That's a distraction. If a believer has a real belief in a behaviour-dependant afterlife and that there is a method by which to influence which way you go (reading the Bible is a handy example, but not the only one, I'm sure) then any willing ignorance of any sacred information is simply inexcusable. At the worst they are flat out lying to themselves, at best they are cooperating in ignorance.

Beth

13th January 2009, 06:52 AM

I don't really care whether they have conviction in the Bible, or in whatever flavour of belief they personally prefer. It's the conviction that matters.

If you believe that an all-seeing creature is observing and judging your every action with reference to a set of standards that it has defined and will reward or punish your behaviour based upon those actions, isn't the only logical course of action to do everything you can - read every book (espescially, but not just, the Bible) on the subject, follow all the rules you have access to, appease every whim that is made apparent - to ensure that you get the 'good' afterlife?

Forget the Bible. That's a distraction. If a believer has a real belief in a behaviour-dependant afterlife and that there is a method by which to influence which way you go (reading the Bible is a handy example, but not the only one, I'm sure) then any willing ignorance of any sacred information is simply inexcusable. At the worst they are flat out lying to themselves, at best they are cooperating in ignorance.

If you have been overweight for years and acknowledge that fact, does it imply you are lying to say that you believe you will live a longer, healthier, more enjoyable life if you lose weight? After all, if you truly believed that why wouldn't you diet and lose the weight?

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 06:59 AM

Laziness. I am and I have. My life is limited and I must make a choice between the various different activities with which I can fill my finite time. We might argue about the relative merits of one choice over another, but that's entirely OT.

If I believed that my dietary choices were going to determine the manner in which I spend eternity then I'd eat more cabbage now in the hopes of getting time to kick back and write fairy stories once I'm sitting on a cloud.

Darat

13th January 2009, 07:13 AM

westprog

13th January 2009, 07:59 AM

Another Member wrote something about making claims like this on behalf of Christians:

... But your view of what the Christian view of "Christian principles" are, is not the same as the view of all Christians. [Original source] (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4342924#post4342924)...

That there are wide variations in what is considered "true Christianity" is precisely what I am saying, in rebuttal to Truethat's assertions.

N.B. it's not quite clear to me whether Truethat is making her assertions about all Christians, or about just the ones who claim the kind of biblical justification to which she's objecting. The second person "you are LYING" leaves that bit obscure.

Beth

13th January 2009, 08:05 AM

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 08:11 AM

I dare say it is, yes.

At best, I would be lax in my thinking, but if I continued in that way, it would be intellectually dishonest. Perhaps I was hasty to say that I agree with the OP; I think it is generally accurate, but I would stop short of attributing willful and knowing deception to all theists. Some, but not all.

I am quite at home with the contradictions in the way I live and the fact that I could be healthier and could probably live longer if I gave up some of the freedoms and practices that I currently enjoy and which make my god-free life very plesant, thankyouverymuch. I do not, you see, believe that someone is keeping score.

Rasmus

13th January 2009, 08:43 AM

True, but how many of them believe that God would send them e-mail? I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention e-mail.

It is not my post, but I am fairly sure that it was just an example and not a claim that god actually might, could or would use e-mail, or that naone would actually hold that belief.

Anyone who believes their god does communicate through e-mail would probably read his message, but the rest wouldn't, and that wouldn't make them any less a TRUE christian in my opinion.

The point as I see it is this:

IF you believed that your god send you an e-mail, you WOULD read that e-mail. Likewise, IF you believed that your god is somehow behind the production process of the bible, you WOULD read the bible.

If you DON'T read the bible you will have some explaining to do if you ALSO claim it was written/dictated or inspired by God.

Personally, I agree that there are enough believers that don't claim that the Bible is in any reliable way indicative of what god wants. (I see many other problems with the plausibility of those believes, but that's beyond the extend of which I want to follow this thread right now.)

Beth

13th January 2009, 09:12 AM

I dare say it is, yes. I'm not quite so harsh in my judgments of others. We human beings constantly strive to do what we think is best in our long term interests but often end up going for the immediate gratification instead.

At best, I would be lax in my thinking, but if I continued in that way, it would be intellectually dishonest. Perhaps I was hasty to say that I agree with the OP; I think it is generally accurate, but I would stop short of attributing willful and knowing deception to all theists. Some, but not all. Knowing and willful deception is a common enough flaw among humans that what you have said is essentially a true statement applied to any group.

I am quite at home with the contradictions in the way I live and the fact that I could be healthier and could probably live longer if I gave up some of the freedoms and practices that I currently enjoy and which make my god-free life very plesant, thankyouverymuch. I do not, you see, believe that someone is keeping score.

Whether or not they believe someone is 'keeping score' is beside the point. You, after all, know what you weigh and whether or not you are happy with it. So I think you can apply the same reasoning to theists and the OP. You needn't consider them liars just because they fail to make the choices that seem (to you) to be more in line with their stated beliefs.

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 10:26 AM

Now hang on; I openly retracted my support for the blanket assignation of the term 'lying'. If you want to pick a fight, pick one that exists.

I would reply more fully, but my computer is making dying noises and I think I should attend to those.

Beth

13th January 2009, 10:39 AM

Now hang on; I openly retracted my support for the blanket assignation of the term 'lying'. If you want to pick a fight, pick one that exists. Okay, I took the "generally accurate" description of the OP to mean you did not repudiate that terminology.

I would reply more fully, but my computer is making dying noises and I think I should attend to those. Well, okay. But fighting is more fun.

Evolved Wookie

13th January 2009, 11:30 AM

RobRoy

13th January 2009, 11:59 AM

HEH..but they all believe it's all the TRUE word of god

No, they don't "all believe" that. Obviously, that's been shown.

...so as they believe it is gods word..then why not follow it ALL?

Those that do, should. Those that don't, have no such requirement.

If you call yourself a christian and you banter on how your bible is the absolute word of god....you claim your bible is TRUTH....<---again I ask...why would you pick and choose what to follow??

I don't call myself a Christian, and I don't make these claims. Do try to keep up. My dispute is with automatically claiming that adherents who haven't read the Bible and haven't dedicated a certain amount of time to Bible study are automatically lying.

Well; if you're going to start taking my words at face value then we're in trouble ;D

Ladies and gentlemen, there's no fighting in the War Room!

westprog

13th January 2009, 03:51 PM

Well; if you're going to start taking my words at face value then we're in trouble ;D

Sorry if I was unclear (I probably was) - posting here - and the rigour with which those posts are examined - is still relatively new to me.

My POV is that if someone says something that turns out to be not what they meant, rather than agonise about whose fault it was, we should argue based on the views they are actually supporting.

Geri_Berri

13th January 2009, 04:19 PM

No, they don't "all believe" that. Obviously, that's been shown.

Those that do, should. Those that don't, have no such requirement.

!

They don't all believe it's the TRUE word of the god they worship <----sigh the very idea behind this thread is just that...picking and choosing what suits them...so I guess truethat is correct.........thanks for clearing that up

Ohh and BTW...when I say - IF you call yourself a christian <-----dude that mean ANYONE... not aimed directly at you ....at least ASK before you jump the gun with - ohhh do try and keep up lol

Somehow this doesn't make sense....see below

I am a christian, but I don't think the bible that in which I am meant to take as the true word of god as truth is fully true....I like to pick parts that suit me and will state it's not a requirement just to move the goal posts....yadaa yadaa Im a christian!!!!!!
Yea right...:rolleyes: it just cracks me up LMAO....but hey I've seen a lot worse!!

Geri_Berri

13th January 2009, 04:28 PM

Sorry but Beth is a self defined Agnostic Christian, not a self defined TRUE Christian.

.

An agnostic christian ..to sum it up in a nutshell = Someone who likes the idea of this saviour but aren't sure if he was real or not...

So I say why call yourself a christian if you aren't sure he ever existed or not?

The term CHRISTIAN to sum up = FOLLOWER OF CHRIST or Christ's followers lol

Not - I can't be sure if he was real or not.....:confused:

Was it an agnostic that invented - I can't believe it's not butter?? and due to them being so unsure....if and when they go for communion would it be - half the fat bread and call it - I can't believe it's not Jesus LMAO lol just messing!!:D

truethat

13th January 2009, 05:15 PM

There are people in the real world that are convinced that (a/their) god exists. To them, there is enough proof or evidence for the existence of God - or so they say.

The question basically translates to "If you were on of these people, would you want to know what your god had to say?"

The argument here is that at least some believers act in a way that suggests that they might not read such a hypothetical message.

YES

The argument is also that there's only one way such a message might be delivered.

NO

I have to say its pretty shocking to me how confusing this concept seems to be for some people. Holy Crap.

truethat

13th January 2009, 05:23 PM

That there are wide variations in what is considered "true Christianity" is precisely what I am saying, in rebuttal to Truethat's assertions.

N.B. it's not quite clear to me whether Truethat is making her assertions about all Christians, or about just the ones who claim the kind of biblical justification to which she's objecting. The second person "you are LYING" leaves that bit obscure.

They don't all believe it's the TRUE word of the god they worship <----sigh the very idea behind this thread is just that...picking and choosing what suits them...so I guess truethat is correct.........thanks for clearing that up

Ohh and BTW...when I say - IF you call yourself a christian <-----dude that mean ANYONE... not aimed directly at you ....at least ASK before you jump the gun with - ohhh do try and keep up lol

Somehow this doesn't make sense....see below

I am a christian, but I don't think the bible that in which I am meant to take as the true word of god as truth is fully true....I like to pick parts that suit me and will state it's not a requirement just to move the goal posts....yadaa yadaa Im a christian!!!!!!
Yea right...:rolleyes: it just cracks me up LMAO....but hey I've seen a lot worse!!

Well frankly I see no difference in Beth and people who decide that the bible should be used as an authoritative text in society, and then get to act like they went to Sizzler.

It seems to me that many people seem to be misunderstanding a key point.

I'm not talking about heading down to the church and slamming open the doors and yelling "LIARS" at people who are there who didn't read the bible.

I'm talking about people who want to force he bible into society, by either voting against homosexual rights, or making broad statements about.

WHAT GOD LIKES

and haven't read the bible. I think they are lying, I think they are no different than Beth here (not calling Beth a liar, Beth has been honest, she's an agnostic Christian, she's uncertain....but likes the idea of Jesus if it turns out to be true she'd go with it)

But if they say they KNOW with all their Hearts that God really exists and the Bible is his instruction manual.........and yet they haven't read it all..........freaking liar in my book.

I Ratant

13th January 2009, 06:21 PM

"But if they say they KNOW with all their Hearts that God really exists and the Bible is his instruction manual.........and yet they haven't read it all..........freaking liar in my book."
.
No, just followers, who find it easier to be led by those they trust than think for themselves.
"True believers, party loyalists"... they're happy with the status quo, as long as they don't have to do anything more than pay lip service.

MetalPig

13th January 2009, 11:38 PM

The point as I see it is this:

IF you believed that your god send you an e-mail, you WOULD read that e-mail. Likewise, IF you believed that your god is somehow behind the production process of the bible, you WOULD read the bible.

If that's the point, I totally missed it.

I wouldn't put them in the same category; the bible is more like an e-mail from someone you don't know saying "Dude, God talked to me and he told me to tell you <...>"; not something God himself wrote.

If the question had been: would you read an e-mail that you believe was written by God Himself?, the answer would obviously be yes.

westprog

14th January 2009, 02:41 AM

NO

I have to say its pretty shocking to me how confusing this concept seems to be for some people. Holy Crap.

Then if you don't insist that there's only one way that the message can be delivered, why do you regard people who don't follow that route as LIARS?

What about people who pray, talk to their priests, attend church - but don't read the Bible?

Darat

14th January 2009, 02:45 AM

Do they argue against say rights for homosexuals based on the authority of the bible?

Evolved Wookie

14th January 2009, 02:46 AM

My POV is that if someone says something that turns out to be not what they meant, rather than agonise about whose fault it was, we should argue based on the views they are actually supporting.

I don’t recall agonising about it; genuine apologies are easy to give. Thanks or your concern, though.

I’ll try to elucidate.

I believe that Truethat is making a valid point regarding a certain type of religion. She’s referring neither comprehensively, nor exclusively, to Christians, but rather using them as a cipher. Probably because, like many, they are the closest to home and therefore the easiest to reference.

The point being made (remember, not a conclusive point, but an illustration) is that:

IF you believe in god
AND you accept the Bible as being divinely inspired or authored
AND you believe that your eternal disposition is dependant upon adherence to the forms predefined by your god
THEN It only makes sense to do everything possible to learn those rules and avoid hell.
ELSE have a chocolate biscuit.

If you get all the way to the biscuit then we’re not talking about you and you can relax. Enjoy your biscuit, we went all out and bought nice ones.

It has also been pointed out that there is a parallel here with the fact that I do not jog five miles a day even though I know that doing so could increase my life expectancy. I believe I have addressed this and explained where I think the parallel fails.

The point being made is that if you fulfil all three clauses above, but do not adhere to the THEN statement, it must be because either you have no fear of spending eternity in the perpetual torment of hell, or you don’t really believe that you’re going to go there when you die.

The point where I fail to agree with Truethat is the application of the term ‘liar’. Some, I do not doubt, are indeed entirely cognisant of their own deception and they can be called liars. Most, though, I suspect have merely never thought about it that much. They’ve been brought up in a Christian tradition and that’s all they need. Those who simply haven’t thought about it I would not call liars, but perhaps ignorant, or something along those lines.

Again, this can be applied to any number of religions and only to a sub-set of each. The above is merely an illustration.

I hope this is a reasonable representation of your position, Truethat. If it’s not, then I’m sorry and I’d love to hear where I went wrong.

ETA: Oh yeah; also that stuff about using the Bible as authority to back up personal preference...

KarlG

14th January 2009, 07:10 AM

And if the Christian says they don't believe that the bible is the infallible word of god, but is meant to be interpreted according to the culture and the times of the reader, do you respect their beliefs? Or do you conclude they don't qualify as a TRUE Christian?

But whose interpretation? Should every christian have their own, or should they subscribe to some organised set of beliefs interpreted by someone else?

Also,if someone doesn’t believe the bible is infallible, but they believe in the value of many of the teachings of christ and attempt to live according to those values, how do they know the bible isn’t wrong about those values? If the bible is secondary to these values, where do they get their understanding of these values from?

Beth

14th January 2009, 07:59 AM

But whose interpretation? Should every christian have their own, or should they subscribe to some organised set of beliefs interpreted by someone else? Every christian should have their own. At least, that's the official position of the Congregational Church and has been for over 200 years. It is what is termed a 'creedless' church, which is to say that there is no dogma or creed that members are expected to follow.

Also,if someone doesn’t believe the bible is infallible, but they believe in the value of many of the teachings of christ and attempt to live according to those values, how do they know the bible isn’t wrong about those values? If the bible is secondary to these values, where do they get their understanding of these values from? The same way as all other human beings: from our individual backgrounds and shared culture, from discussions with other people and from our own reflections on life, morality, ethics, etc.

Evolved Wookie

14th January 2009, 08:14 AM

If a church has no dogma and places no behavioural requirements upon its congregation - and presumably by extension neither on 'outsiders', then they are exempt from this discussion and the point is moot.

I think you're trying to make this a personal attack on all theists and it's really not.

westprog

14th January 2009, 09:54 AM

I don’t recall agonising about it; genuine apologies are easy to give. Thanks or your concern, though.

I’ll try to elucidate.

I believe that Truethat is making a valid point regarding a certain type of religion. She’s referring neither comprehensively, nor exclusively, to Christians, but rather using them as a cipher. Probably because, like many, they are the closest to home and therefore the easiest to reference.

The point being made (remember, not a conclusive point, but an illustration) is that:

IF you believe in god
AND you accept the Bible as being divinely inspired or authored
AND you believe that your eternal disposition is dependant upon adherence to the forms predefined by your god
THEN It only makes sense to do everything possible to learn those rules and avoid hell.
ELSE have a chocolate biscuit.

If you get all the way to the biscuit then we’re not talking about you and you can relax. Enjoy your biscuit, we went all out and bought nice ones.

It has also been pointed out that there is a parallel here with the fact that I do not jog five miles a day even though I know that doing so could increase my life expectancy. I believe I have addressed this and explained where I think the parallel fails.

The point being made is that if you fulfil all three clauses above, but do not adhere to the THEN statement, it must be because either you have no fear of spending eternity in the perpetual torment of hell, or you don’t really believe that you’re going to go there when you die.

Let's consider a secular analogy. You believe that the Universe runs according to the laws of physics. You know that failure to understand these laws will be possibly fatal. Do you spend your life reading Einstein and Newton? Or do you rely on experts and trust their opinion?

Most people aren't qualified to read scientific papers. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe in gravity. The source materials are obscure, ambiguous, and use their own special language. But all you need to know is that things fall when dropped.

The Protestant tradition of personal interpretation of the Bible is not equivalent to Christianity. Other elements of the faith rely on expert opinion. In fact, it's impossible to read the bible any more except through someone else's views. Too much background knowledge is needed.

Evolved Wookie

14th January 2009, 03:06 PM

Let's consider a secular analogy. You believe that the Universe runs according to the laws of physics. You know that failure to understand these laws will be possibly fatal. Do you spend your life reading Einstein and Newton? Or do you rely on experts and trust their opinion?

Most people aren't qualified to read scientific papers. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe in gravity. The source materials are obscure, ambiguous, and use their own special language. But all you need to know is that things fall when dropped.

The Protestant tradition of personal interpretation of the Bible is not equivalent to Christianity. Other elements of the faith rely on expert opinion. In fact, it's impossible to read the bible any more except through someone else's views. Too much background knowledge is needed.

Not quite. Not understanding the laws of physics cannot in itself be dangerous, so long as you know what those laws are. The basic law of gravity could be expressed as 'if you step off a cliff, you'll fall to your death'. You don't have to know the inverse square law to know that falling to your death is bad. I suspect that's little more than a semantic disagreement, however.

Gravity doesn't tell us that it will drop rocks on us for eternity if we dare to go against its will and try to put a thing on top of another thing, though, and if it did I think it would only make sense to do your upmost not to put things in top of one another. Just like you generally find it advisable not to test gravity's resolve just in case it's different for this cliff.

You do, I think, have a point in the assertion that people should become closely involved with the basics of modern science (modern science, that is, not Newton and Einstein - things move on, if only teaching techniques), but that's a different discussion for a different thread.

As to people's qualificattion to read scientific papers, you're perhaps right. I have a degree in physics and I would think twice before trying to wade my way through many papers. However, someone who doesn't read a scientific paper, then goes pushing grannies off cliffs because they 'believe' the science (which they didn't read) says gravity doesn't work on wheelchairs.

Once again I will state that I believe you're trying to make the disscussion about the generality of theists and that simply is not the case. It's abut a small sub-set; those who selectively quote a reference that they do not know to back up personal prejudice and those who willfully condemn themselves (or so they profess to believe) to eternal fiery punishment.

Thanz

14th January 2009, 04:03 PM

It's abut a small sub-set; those who selectively quote a reference that they do not know to back up personal prejudice and those who willfully condemn themselves (or so they profess to believe) to eternal fiery punishment.
First, albeit perhaps ironic, I'll admit that I haven't read all of this thread.

However, this small subset or person you are talking about: this behaviour does not make them a liar about whether or not they believe in God. It make them a hypocrite, or disingenuous, or a nasty person. But it doesn't make them a liar.

tsig

14th January 2009, 04:31 PM

Patsy

14th January 2009, 04:34 PM

I used to see articles in the paper about fundie preachers being taken to the hospital after drinking poison while preaching. It usually goes along with snake handling.

I wonder what they make of their own failure to pass the believer test?

tsig

14th January 2009, 05:05 PM

I wonder what they make of their own failure to pass the believer test?

If they don't die that's a miracle. If they do then god called them home. Of course, no man knows the mind of god and god works in mysterious ways.

Hint: never let your assistant pastor mix your poison

slingblade

14th January 2009, 05:18 PM

I wonder what they make of their own failure to pass the believer test?

"It's god's will." You may hear some confess some flaw in themselves, but mostly, whether the snake or the poison hurts you or doesn't, it's all god's will.

There are snippets of documentaries on YouTube; at least one that's rather old, and one done by...20/20 I think, in more recent years.

truethat

14th January 2009, 08:25 PM

Every christian should have their own. At least, that's the official position of the Congregational Church and has been for over 200 years. It is what is termed a 'creedless' church, which is to say that there is no dogma or creed that members are expected to follow.

The same way as all other human beings: from our individual backgrounds and shared culture, from discussions with other people and from our own reflections on life, morality, ethics, etc.

The plumage don't enter into it!!!!

Then where does Christ come into it. What version of "Christ" do you claim to accept if you don't count the bible as an authoritative text? Makes no sense.

Evolved Wookie has got it right. Don't know why its so confusing for some. My apologies for what I've contributed to that confusion, but seriously people, its not that complicated.

As far as westprog's argument. I'm tired of people saying we "believe in" scientific theories. People don't believe in them, they accept them. They accept them as authoritative because they've been tested and proven to some degree.

Not so on God. And this is IMPORTANT PEOPLE:

It is faith that stands as a testament to God's authority in society, not evidence. Therefore if a person doesn't feel compelled to read God's word, then they, not God, not the bible, have failed to prove their hypothesis.

Exhibit A

In fact, it's impossible to read the bible any more except through someone else's views. Too much background knowledge is needed.

I think what you really mean here is its too much work. But this very same bible tells you that this is what God wants. A life of dedication to serving God. God as a priority in your life, not some weekend meditation session that helps you blow off some steam and a few choice proverbs memorized, a God loves ya screen saver and an ichthus bumper sticker.

It is not impossible to pick up a bible and read it from cover to cover. Excuses excuses excuses. But as I said, you've got these same Christians who have read through every book Stephen King ever wrote. Yeah........cause?

Beth

15th January 2009, 07:04 AM

The plumage don't enter into it!!!! I don't understand this. What are you referring to here as plumage? ;[/quote]

Then where does Christ come into it. What version of "Christ" do you claim to accept if you don't count the bible as an authoritative text? Makes no sense.
[/quote] If you're actually interested in learning more, I can give you a reference. Our previous minister published a book on it. If you're just expressing your disbelief, that's understandable. It took me about two years before I was able to accept that this was a sincere approach to Christianity.

Evolved Wookie has got it right. Don't know why its so confusing for some. My apologies for what I've contributed to that confusion
Apology accepted. Thanks for making it clear.

truethat

15th January 2009, 07:09 AM

Unless you have another text that mentions Jesus, or are going by the gnostic gospels then you are basing your outline of Jesus on the bible. Now the fact remains that I'm not discussing people who are whittling out their own personal view of Jesus.

I'm talking about hard core Christians who would never agree with the things that people on this thread are saying.

People who believe that the bible is God's word. People who believe that the bible should be used to form our rules in society.

If you are not one of these, then as was said earlier, have a biscuit. It doesn't apply to you so why the heck do you keep inserting yourself into a situation that has nothing to do with you?

As to the plumage........Monty Python.

Evolved Wookie

15th January 2009, 07:24 AM

As to the plumage........Monty Python.

Bishop: In the words of John Cleese, whenever two or three are gathered together in one place, then they shall perform the Parrot Sketch.

Congregation: It is an ex-parrot.

All: It has ceased to be.

westprog

15th January 2009, 08:02 AM

The plumage don't enter into it!!!!

Then where does Christ come into it. What version of "Christ" do you claim to accept if you don't count the bible as an authoritative text? Makes no sense.

Where does Christ come into it? I think Christ is a fairly significant figure to most Christians. I think that most Christians regard Christ as more important than the Bible.

And from Christ derives the Church, which is supposedly continuous for the last couple thousand years. The Church is more important than the Bible.

You don't have to believe that this is true. But that doesn't mean that nobody believes this to be true.

Evolved Wookie has got it right. Don't know why its so confusing for some. My apologies for what I've contributed to that confusion, but seriously people, its not that complicated.

As far as westprog's argument. I'm tired of people saying we "believe in" scientific theories. People don't believe in them, they accept them. They accept them as authoritative because they've been tested and proven to some degree.

How many people have ever performed a scientific experiment in their adult life? How many of them have verified the scientific facts which they believe? And yes, it is a belief, even though science is something entirely different from religion. It might be a different kind of belief, but it's still a belief.

Not so on God. And this is IMPORTANT PEOPLE:

It is faith that stands as a testament to God's authority in society, not evidence. Therefore if a person doesn't feel compelled to read God's word, then they, not God, not the bible, have failed to prove their hypothesis.

Exhibit A

I think what you really mean here is its too much work. But this very same bible tells you that this is what God wants. A life of dedication to serving God. God as a priority in your life, not some weekend meditation session that helps you blow off some steam and a few choice proverbs memorized, a God loves ya screen saver and an ichthus bumper sticker.

Did you read what I posted - from the Bible - where it is described precisely what God wants? How can you say that your interpretation of what is required is more important?

It is not impossible to pick up a bible and read it from cover to cover. Excuses excuses excuses. But as I said, you've got these same Christians who have read through every book Stephen King ever wrote. Yeah........cause?

truethat

15th January 2009, 08:41 AM

You are MISSING THE POINT. The point is not WHAT GOD WANTS. This is why this conversation needs to be had. People are so caught up on the "hypocrisy" angle of what I'm saying they are missing the humanity of it.

I'm not saying "If you don't read the bible you have failed as a Christian"

Rather, I'm saying that if you really believed that God existed, and that he created the universe. If you believed that this awe inspiring deity ACTUALLY EXISTED you would be so fascinated and awe struck that you would WANT TO READ THE BIBLE from cover to cover. If you really believed he was HERE AND NOW right here and right now, this was true to you, then your curiosity would be overwhelming.

People in this country will snatch up, jump on, dive into stories about Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston in two hot seconds because they want to hear what is going on. Why don't Christians have the same reaction to the bible?

This is God's story according to them. Even its Jesus's biography. You would think people who really believed in God would be glued to the pages.

This is why I say if God appeared in the sky tomorrow and it was God and he said he'd be sending out an email, a true believer would probably sit at their computer waiting for that email to arrive.

Even atheists would read this email out of curiosity.

Instead what we see with Christians is this "its old news" kind of approach. So the rules are basically "dated" but if you say that to some people they say that god is all knowing and so therefore the rules are eternal. This is many people's justification for oppressing homosexuals.

This means the bible is nuanced and can be read again and again.

The reason I compare to the Jews is, if I'm not mistaken, rabbis reinterpret the Torah again and again and Jews read the Torah regularly. So when they want these laws to be part of their society it makes sense. Because they take them seriously.

Christians? Not so much. Why? I think they are lying.

truethat

15th January 2009, 09:59 AM

First, albeit perhaps ironic, I'll admit that I haven't read all of this thread.

However, this small subset or person you are talking about: this behaviour does not make them a liar about whether or not they believe in God. It make them a hypocrite, or disingenuous, or a nasty person. But it doesn't make them a liar.

dis⋅in⋅gen⋅u⋅ous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

li⋅ar
/ˈlaɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy-er] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who tells lies.

ly⋅ing
2 /ˈlaɪɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy-ing] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb
ppr. of lie 2 .
lie
1 /laɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Has this really turned into a game of semantics? The bottom line being the person is disingenuous, hypocritical.......a liar.

It does not however, make them a nasty person. This would be a judgment of character. I'm not judging the character but rather observing the behavior.

Difference.....difference....

RobRoy

15th January 2009, 10:49 AM

You are MISSING THE POINT. The point is not WHAT GOD WANTS. This is why this conversation needs to be had. People are so caught up on the "hypocrisy" angle of what I'm saying they are missing the humanity of it.

[snip]

Christians? Not so much. Why? I think they are lying.

No, I think pretty much everyone understood what you were saying. Just very few people agreed with your conclusion. You see this as a linear argument, with a single cause yeilding a single effect. With we, poor, silly mortals, many causes can yeild the same effect, or one cause can have many effects.

In this case, your singular cause is "Christian God belief" which you then claim would yeild the effect of "Bible reading". Based on a lack of reading, you arrive at the conclusion that "Christians are lying".

But this argument is flawed on any number of levels, which have been pointed out to you by any number of individuals just within this thread. To begin with, you fail to provide any numbers from which to argue. So your arguments that "Christians don't read the Bible" suffers here. Most of us are willing to overlook this, but it remains a flaw. You fail to take into consideration that most humans are basically lazy, more than willing to put off tomorrow what might also be put off until the day after. You fail to take into consideration the many, many, many different takes on the validity of the Bible (Old and/or New Testament) and the need for Biblical study of one, the other, or both. On and on and on.

Your conclusion, as well, is flawed. There is no reason to immediately suspect someone of being lying about their faith because they do not act in a manner consistent with your theory on the matter. For the reasons cited above, your conclusion is equally flawed because it fails to take any of these considerations into account.

truethat

15th January 2009, 11:06 AM

Laziness doesn't come into it. You say numerous flaws but I see TWO here and one is just nonsense. The average Christian that I have met has not read the bible completely. If you want to make that your "critical error" here is basically just dumb. This isn't a formal debate but even then it would be a weak argument. And also your focus on "Most Christians" shows you still have yet to grasp what I am saying.

Number two. Laziness. Really? Hmm. How does it become a chore? Do people have to be urged to have sex? Do people have to be urged to eat food? Do people have to be reminded to breath? If a person was anorexic and proclaimed to love eating, would you not pause to question the veracity of that statement?

The fact that God is regulated as a chore to read, or too much work, is a social construct. This is not how God was regarded in biblical times? Did Moses not go to the top of the mountain and not come back down with carved writings from God to US? God apparently wanted us to read it.

The fact that the bible is regarded as this heavy book that laziness would stop one from reading, again is evidence that the paradigm of God and what God really means, is completely not what Christians profess to believe.

God it seems, is a chore. He's boring. He's too much work.

But all the mundane activities with which people occupy their brains, are interesting, time worth and fun.

Who said God was a chore? If God was really the God they say he is, why would God be regarded this way by a believer?

plumjam

15th January 2009, 11:25 AM

Truethat,
having been let back into the forum after my little infraction episode here, let me say that I do understand where you're coming from.
This may sound patronising, but is not meant in that way. In my late teens and my 20s it always seemed very strange to me that seemingly most of the population managed to go through life without applying a great deal of thought or earnestness to the 'Big Questions'. I could never understand how people did not generally obsess upon the finality of death, the impermanent nature of phenomenal existence, the impossibility of lasting happiness or contentment in Worldly life etc..
As I got a bit older I had to recognise that in this 'thing' we are all at different stages (this fits well with my belief in reincarnation).. to some people your concerns are just not going to be as important as they are to yourself. More importantly, you can't really blame them for that. That just happens to be where they are at the moment.

The kind of people you seem to be talking about, may well be people who have been brought up in a strongly Christian milieu, but just developmentally (of the soul) lack the core genuine interest to do the hard work of reading, investigation, radical questioning.
Instead they follow the cultural cues of their upbringing and environment and use those unwisely as reasons to condemn people such as homosexuals.
I agree that these people are just not genuinely interested enough in their subject matter to be worth listening to. So why listen to them? Why worry about it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you saying you were a Jehovah's Witness, and then a Muslim, no?
And now you're an atheist.
And you're still pretty young.
I think these are positive signs. It means you are very seriously searching and questioning.
You have a strong impetus behind your searching and questioning, which is a very valuable thing.
You just need to recognise that you cannot expect the same of others. They are in a different 'developmental stage'.

RobRoy

15th January 2009, 11:57 AM

Laziness doesn't come into it.

Of course laziness comes into it. You can't rule out the human condition when you're trying to analyze humans. But you're overlooking (or dodging) the numerous additional reasons for why your linear argument has failed. Your argument is seriously flawed, and your conclusion inapplicable to the majority in any way, shape or form. As a theory of viewing the world, it simply doesn't hold holy water.

truethat

15th January 2009, 02:14 PM

Of course laziness comes into it. You can't rule out the human condition when you're trying to analyze humans. But you're overlooking (or dodging) the numerous additional reasons for why your linear argument has failed. Your argument is seriously flawed, and your conclusion inapplicable to the majority in any way, shape or form. As a theory of viewing the world, it simply doesn't hold holy water.

You've yet to actually show me the "serious flaws" other than "I don't believe you."

This is the human condition, that's the whole point. How can what GOD SAYS be boring to someone if they really believe in God?

I'd like to see the dodging I'm doing? You can argue up the wall the Christians do read the bible. However I'm not talking about "Christians." I'm talking about people trying to justify their personal preferences with the bible.

My argument doesn't have to apply to the majority. For the last time, it is clear that you don't understand what I'm saying, try to before rattling off your condemnation of it.

plumjam, spare me the Christian "I know you are confused but God understands....type crap"

I'm 37 years old. I've studied religion for years. I was a Jehovah's witness for a second when I was a teen ager precisely because they seemed like one of the few groups that actually read the bible. I was Muslim for 6 years until I realized it was just more of the same. My MA is basically a minor in Theology and I'm trying to get a Masters of Divinity at Union Theological Seminary before continuing on to get either a Thd or a Phd in comparative religion.

This is not a personal sob story. I'm not confused and wayward. This is an academic question.

There is a difference, for example, between someone saying "I love my wife" and then not reading said wife's book on philosophy. You seem to think this is what I'm saying. That if they "really love her" they'd read it.

I don't think that is necessarily true.

However there's a difference in that and in saying "My wife is brilliant and wise and her interpretation of the world should be followed. She's an expert"

And then not reading her book. Do you see the difference or not?

RobRoy

15th January 2009, 03:04 PM

You've yet to actually show me the "serious flaws" other than "I don't believe you."

Sorry, here are the all the problems with your argument (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4349298&postcount=239). Not one of them states "I don't believe you", but the conclusion from reviewing all of the amounts to the same.

Let me know which ones you require additional explanations for.

How can what GOD SAYS be boring to someone if they really believe in God?

I didn't say anything about "boring". I said people are lazy. But again, this is only one part of the whole that you're argument overlooks. You're failure to take in human characteristics is another gaping hole in your argument.

I'd like to see the dodging I'm doing?

Fair enough. You picked one portion of the stated flaws I showed you, the laziness, and dodged all the rest. That's not even good dodging when everyone sees you doing it. You need to work on your dodging skills. Maybe a little ninja-dodgeball at the local community college?

You can argue up the wall the Christians do read the bible. However I'm not talking about "Christians." I'm talking about people trying to justify their personal preferences with the bible.

Wow. I must applaud you. I haven't seen such a blatant moving of the goal posts since the last Ohio-Michigan game! :bigclap:

Unfortunately, your statements from this morning (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4349002&postcount=237) call you a liar:

Why don't Christians have the same reaction to the bible?
Instead what we see with Christians is this "its old news" kind of approach.
Christians? Not so much. Why? I think they are lying.
[emphasis added]

Clearly you are talking about Christians, whether in quotes or out of them.

My argument doesn't have to apply to the majority. For the last time, it is clear that you don't understand what I'm saying, try to before rattling off your condemnation of it.

Actually, I've been trying to understand what you're saying. However, I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong. Please, state for the record exactly what your argument is.

truethat

15th January 2009, 05:14 PM

Wow that's gotta be one of the funniest posts I've read in a while. I takes great skill to swan dive into sticking your foot in your mouth in front of everyone like this.

One more time.

You don't understand the point I am making. I have consistently repeated the point throughout the thread. You just have already decided you know what I am saying so you are not reading it with anything even remotely close to comprehension.

From the first page here is basically the same point. Therefore unless your game is semantic arguing, you have not understood this point which has been pointed out not just by me but by other posters as well.

Pray tell explain how they somehow knew where I was intending to move the goal posts?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334634&postcount=25

Please read these two other interpretations of what I am saying. Perhaps it will make it clearer to you.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4343418&postcount=206

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4345382&postcount=221

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4345379&postcount=220

stilicho

15th January 2009, 08:44 PM

We know. That's why the burden of proof isn't on that claim. It's on the positive claim: X exists. Okay. How do you know that?

In this case it isn't only on "X". It's also on "not X". You know that already because you're a smart fellow. I already started a thread here on the ontology of "skeptigirl" and you'd be surprised at how it turned out.

Seriously, though, the challenge for atheism is, and always has been, to provide an inspirational and positive narrative to support "not X". I doubt we'll find it here on an internet forum but at least you know what to look for. A jumbalaya of "liar", "idiot", "lazybones", and "charlatan" doesn't really work well for a philosophy that hopes to offer a credible alternative.

As always, my sympathies lie with Dawkins, Hitchens et al, but they have to get past the vitriol and into the philosophy of love we all know they're famous for.

stilicho

15th January 2009, 08:46 PM

Therefor I say you are not just a hypocrite, but that the hypocrisy proves that you are lying when you say you believe in God.

I said I believed in God? Where?

plumjam

16th January 2009, 12:19 AM

plumjam, spare me the Christian "I know you are confused but God understands....type crap"
that's not what it was at all, you're pretty defensive.

I'm 37 years old. I've studied religion for years. I was a Jehovah's witness for a second when I was a teen ager precisely because they seemed like one of the few groups that actually read the bible. I was Muslim for 6 years until I realized it was just more of the same. My MA is basically a minor in Theology and I'm trying to get a Masters of Divinity at Union Theological Seminary before continuing on to get either a Thd or a Phd in comparative religion.

You're an atheist. If you don't believe God exists why spend so much of your time learning about him/her/it?
It would be like me devoting years of my only chance at life studying fairies who live at the bottom of people's gardens.

You have repeatedly called some Christians LIARS for being inconsistent in regard to their stated beliefs (claiming they believe the Bible is God's word, yet not bothering to read it).
In return I put it to you that in your own life you are being inconsistent in regard to your stated beliefs.
You claim you're an atheist.. yet you seem to be devoting a large chunk of your life to studying something you claim you do not believe even exists.
You're not being consistent to your atheism.
The difference is that I would never call you a LIAR for this.

westprog

16th January 2009, 08:16 AM

Clearly you are talking about Christians, whether in quotes or out of them.

Actually, I've been trying to understand what you're saying. However, I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong. Please, state for the record exactly what your argument is.

I understood from the OP that it was all Christians. I still don't know what TrueThat means. Christians who base their religious beliefs primarily on the Bible? Christians who accept the bible as divinely inspired? Christians who vote according to their bible-inspired beliefs?

I think I've shown that a Christian can have a belief in the divine inspiration of the bible and still not regard it as the prime inspiration for his faith.

RobRoy

16th January 2009, 08:24 AM

Wow that's gotta be one of the funniest posts I've read in a while. I takes great skill to swan dive into sticking your foot in your mouth in front of everyone like this.

I've got mad divin skilz. The Russ'n judge pwned me a 9.2 ti clinch the silver. :D

Thanks for the posts you provided. To reassure you, I have read them. Actually, I've re-read them, since I've been following this discussion all along. It confirms that I understand the point you're trying to make. It further reinforces the fact that your argument remains flawed for all the reasons that you dodged earlier, and this new argument of "you don't understand", which you seem to repeat quite often, is starting to look intellectually dishonest.

I understood from the OP that it was all Christians. I know don't know what TrueThat means. Christians who base their religious beliefs primarily on the Bible? Christians who accept the bible as divinely inspired? Christians who vote according to their bible-inspired beliefs?

truethat hasn't said, and since the goal posts have become a moving target, I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll get a straight answer. Just more of this "you don't understand" piffle.

I think I've shown that a Christian can have a belief in the divine inspiration of the bible and still not regard it as the prime inspiration for his faith.

Agreed. Any number of Christian sects reflect a view on the Bible which inconsistent with the argument truethat is trying to make. It's another fatal flaw of the argument which truethat just can't seem to understand.

Ooops, now I'm saying it. Mea culpa!