Jump to content

Religion vs Atheism Book 2


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Because you said the only problem is if someone wants to kill you.

Right, because if they want to kill you, there's clearly a problem. Whether they want to chop your head off, drag you behind a truck, beat you to death, shoot you, enslave you, mock you, spit on you, whatever they want to do, that is indicative of a problem. I'm certainly not excluding any sort of varying expressions of this same ugly problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, because if they want to kill you, there's clearly a problem. Whether they want to chop your head off, drag you behind a truck, beat you to death, shoot you, enslave you, mock you, spit on you, whatever they want to do, that is indicative of a problem. I'm certainly not excluding any sort of varying expressions of this same ugly problem.

So why didn't you just say that then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Wait. Wasn't he trying to wipe out the naphilim?

 

 

Nephilim and idolaters. This was the period in Christian history where the  Young Earth Creationist (Y.E.C.) believe we rode purple dinosaurs and repopulated the earth through lots and lots and lots of incest. http://youtu.be/X33PHPDx0LA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence to support any of that.  None.  The only evidence we have, if the flood story is real, is that god killed everything on the planet except for a few selected fortunates, because god was pissed off.

Has there ever been any evidence to support any of religions claims?

Has said lack of evidence stopped religion from continuing to exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. There is no evidence to support any of that.  None.  The only evidence we have, if the flood story is real, is that god killed everything on the planet except for a few selected fortunates, because god was pissed off.

I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to. I guess you mean taking the flood story literally, but that is not how most people interpret it today. A literal flood of water would have left traces that geologists can see and these aren't there. The story of Noah's Ark is usually taken to be one of a recreated universe as seen by people with an understanding of the universe from several thousand years ago. Furthermore, the story is about Noah rather than a description of the world as a whole -- no human being is going to write down something that addresses every last animal and plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to. I guess you mean taking the flood story literally, but that is not how most people interpret it today. A literal flood of water would have left traces that geologists can see and these aren't there. The story of Noah's Ark is usually taken to be one of a recreated universe as seen by people with an understanding of the universe from several thousand years ago. Furthermore, the story is about Noah rather than a description of the world as a whole -- no human being is going to write down something that addresses every last animal and plant.

So if it's not literal, why should other claims from the Torah/Bible be taken literally?

I'm not trying to be rude, but it's this buffet style interpretation of holy books that's always annoyed me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it's not literal, why should other claims from the Torah/Bible be taken literally?

I'm not trying to be rude, but it's this buffet style interpretation of holy books that's always annoyed me.

I can't speak to others interpretation of the Bible. But for me, as a Christian, the most important parts are the stories about Jesus Christ - how He lived and died and the lessons He taught to His disciples. I think Christians should be followers of Christ and so, that is far and away the most important parts of the good book.

As for the rest... there's lots of great stories from which you can learn a lot. But much of it is very much a product of its time and should be viewed as such - including a good portion of the New Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak to others interpretation of the Bible. But for me, as a Christian, the most important parts are the stories about Jesus Christ - how He lived and died and the lessons He taught to His disciples. I think Christians should be followers of Christ and so, that is far and away the most important parts of the good book.

As for the rest... there's lots of great stories from which you can learn a lot. But much of it is very much a product of its time and should be viewed as such - including a good portion of the New Testament.

I can respect that point of view, and I've seen from your Thanksgiving posts that you walk the walk.

As a non-believer I can see the value in some of Jesus' teachings, but I don't believe said teachings really need religion as a fuction to flurish. And there are so many vile things in the texts that, in my opinion, dilute the value of said teachings.

With regards to viewing the texts through the lense of the time of their conception, doesn't that show that they are inherently fallible? Shouldn't god's teachings transcend the ages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to. I guess you mean taking the flood story literally, but that is not how most people interpret it today. A literal flood of water would have left traces that geologists can see and these aren't there. The story of Noah's Ark is usually taken to be one of a recreated universe as seen by people with an understanding of the universe from several thousand years ago. Furthermore, the story is about Noah rather than a description of the world as a whole -- no human being is going to write down something that addresses every last animal and plant.

That's even crazier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to. I guess you mean taking the flood story literally, but that is not how most people interpret it today. A literal flood of water would have left traces that geologists can see and these aren't there. The story of Noah's Ark is usually taken to be one of a recreated universe as seen by people with an understanding of the universe from several thousand years ago. Furthermore, the story is about Noah rather than a description of the world as a whole -- no human being is going to write down something that addresses every last animal and plant.

1. This means that the story is an attempt to persuade people to follow 'god's law' lest the vast majority of life on the planet be destroyed.  It is an inherently evil concept.

2.  Because, sadly, humans as a whole were (up until very recently) uncaring about the welfare of animals and plants.  If the object lesson in the flood myth is to be accepted as indicative of god's attitude, then it portrays a being of indifference to suffering and death on a scale that is incomparable in human history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to viewing the texts through the lense of the time of their conception, doesn't that show that they are inherently fallible? Shouldn't god's teachings transcend the ages?

Some of them are timeless, but it would be extremely difficult to explain the structure of the universe to human beings without fundamentally changing the nature of the latter. After thousands of years of effort, we've managed to make some progress towards understanding, but even today we're very far from mastery of any given field of science (and the very existence of these fields is an admission of the fact that the overall problem is too big).

1. This means that the story is an attempt to persuade people to follow 'god's law' lest the vast majority of life on the planet be destroyed.  It is an inherently evil concept.

Actually, that is not the point of the story: at the end God explicitly says that this was a one time event (i.e. there will be no more "floods" no matter how wicked human beings get).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is not the point of the story: at the end God explicitly says that this was a one time event (i.e. there will be no more "floods" no matter how wicked human beings get).

Daemrion disagrees with you.

Rainbows form when sunlight filters through water.  There is nothing symbolic about them.

The fact that (in the myth) god did it once is bad enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of them are timeless, but it would be extremely difficult to explain the structure of the universe to human beings without fundamentally changing the nature of the latter. After thousands of years of effort, we've managed to make some progress towards understanding, but even today we're very far from mastery of any given field of science (and the very existence of these fields is an admission of the fact that the overall problem is too big).

So? Why is this a problem?

Though I note you seem to be well aware of the limitations this supposedly powerful deity has. What type of shite god has trouble explaining physics? At they very least couldn't been like "just a heads up, earth orbits the sun which is one of billions of stars that make up your galaxy, which inofitself is just one of millions of galaxies. Oh and wash your hands, disease is caused by tiny organisms not the four humours." But either of those "issues" are not issues for a being that is supposed to have created us and the universe.

 

Daemrion disagrees with you.

Rainbows form when sunlight filters through water.  There is nothing symbolic about them.

The fact that (in the myth) god did it once is bad enough.

And this doesn't preclude him using other methods to wipe out all life on earth. Like an abusive spouse promising not to beat you with the stick anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this doesn't preclude him using other methods to wipe out all life on earth. Like an abusive spouse promising not to beat you with the stick anymore.

Agreed.  It is a protection racket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is not the point of the story: at the end God explicitly says that this was a one time event (i.e. there will be no more "floods" no matter how wicked human beings get).

It's good that you brought up the quote that gives thousands of people the impression that we have no responsibility towards our environment because their celestial parent has removed it, thus undermining the fight of the non-deluded to protect our planet and our future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stubby,

Is Daemrion a believer in the literal interpretation of all scripture?  If so, he holds to a different view of the Bible and other sacred texts that is quite different from most here who fall on the theist side of the coin.

You can read his posts upthread, Scot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could any religious person explain to me why god would have any special feelings towards humans? It has created the whole universe, has infinite intelligence and power. For such being humans would be nothing more than microbes are to us.

No.  I can't speak for God.

However, I will say this much, human consciousness allows us to do things like notice, then question, or deny the existence of God.  Other than that we're like every other part if the Universe that has the spark of life, even if we cannot quite define what that spark means, or how it differentiates from us merely self-replicating molecules.  Our Consciousness makes us interesting if not unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...