Atheist, are you one??

[retro72]

Originally Posted by howerd

Yep! As I said it is far from it & even the experts can't agree on it so what use is it as a guide to living then? You still haven't answered this question because you admit you have no good answers.

Would you disagree that treating/loving your fellow human as you would yourself to be worthless? That's one of the central tenets and bolstered by the biblical definition of what love actually is. You quote verses often enough. Do you have any beef with how love is described in the following no matter what any of our belief is?

1 Corinthians 4-7

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Correct, even quotes from Jesus haven't brought peace to the world: Look at the crusades (Christianity's version of Jihad or Holy War) to the Middle East. Or even modern conflicts like in Northern Ireland too. That's a far more obvious consequence of his statement:

'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.'

And who's fault is that exactly? God's or mans? How many wars have been fought over territory, prejudice, greed, power, commodities etc? We were on the brink of 'Armageddon' not so long back in the scheme of things and there was hardly anything 'religious' about it. We're still not out of the woods on that score even now...

But you've neglected to explain how we can be sure about how to interpret any of the highly ambiguous verses from the 'Good Book' (of Multiple Choice).

Actually I was just honest with you. I don't pretend that I'm some infallible biblical scholar who has all the answers. I'd be lying to myself as well as you if I claimed that I could.

Certainly not but any fool with half a brain can appreciate that peace is better than war & love is better than hate - we understand these things by reason not by faith so why not live by reasoned philosophy rather than blind unthinking faith? Religion is doing what you are commanded regardless of whether it is moral. Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are commanded. Therefore we don't need someone to do our thinking for us, we need reason to appreciate whether statements from Jesus or God (any one of thousands) really are beneficial to human well being or pointless / harmful. Faith does not & cannot trump rationality. Rationality must rule all morality claims.

Well of course peace is better than war although there's no disconnect between having faith or belief and rationality either. Blind unquestioning adherence to some man concocted dogma in the name of such is another thing altogether, but you can find that in all walks of life including the zealous 'anti theist' which is just as bad. You can be a reasoned believer just as much as you can be a reasoned atheist. Do you consider morality to be an entirely objective matter or rather more subjective?

Glad to hear you aren't but the bible states very clearly that unbelievers are 'fools', as do many religious books -all contradicting each other. Well they can't all be right but they can all be wrong. I appreciate that you find the notion of life and the myriad complexities therein to be some sort of 'chance' more far fetched than the idea of purposeful design but you clearly don't appreciate that there isn't a shred of evidence for intelligent design in our physiology. The laryngal nerve is a dead give away & is insanely 'wired' in humans & all mammals like giraffes but natural selection isn't blind chance anyway -only some of it is. You really should learn more about the body before you assert it is intelligently designed! Watch this:

Yet you probably take for granted the ability to type out and think about what you're typing out without giving it much of a passing thought? At least usually? That's not a put down because I take things for granted everyday and it's only when I think on them I realize just how special they are, including the emotive aspects of a debate such as this. You presume a bit too much where it comes to biology and my knowledge but I hardly signposted it so my bad.

Anyhow, unbelief is not a claim of knowledge, it is simply saying 'I don't believe your claim'. The burden of evidence is on the shoulders of the believers who claims there is a god. If I don't believe in mermaids is it my job to demonstrate they don't exist (how?!) or the person who says they are likely to exist???

Belief isn't a claim of knowledge either. It can be as rational as your own and isn't under any obligation to justify itself on that score alone. There's no burden on anyone to 'prove' anything with this.

[howerd]

Originally Posted by retro72

Would you disagree that treating/loving your fellow human as you would yourself to be worthless? That's one of the central tenets and bolstered by the biblical definition of what love actually is. You quote verses often enough. Do you have any beef with how love is described in the following no matter what any of our belief is?

1 Corinthians 4-7

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

No as I said that's pretty sound stuff but it's the clearly bad stuff I have a major issue with.

Originally Posted by retro72

And who's fault is that exactly? God's or mans? How many wars have been fought over territory, prejudice, greed, power, commodities etc? We were on the brink of 'Armageddon' not so long back in the scheme of things and there was hardly anything 'religious' about it. We're still not out of the woods on that score even now...

Sure wars are 100% human caused - they have to be from an unbeliever's point of view, however a heck of a lot of wars, conflicts & general 'bad blood' is created by the 'in-group' / 'out-group' mentality of most major religions including Christianity. There's no direct clear understanding of what any God (Christian or Hindu or whatever) means in a verifiable terms therefore everybody starts to interpret various translations, versions, books, claims & personal revelations they way that suits them & surprise, surprise, there are major disagreements as a result of this confusion. Not only between one religion & another e.g. Judaism & Islam regarding 'holy land' (neither of which can be empirically proved) but also within individual religions themselves e.g. Catholics vs. Protestants or Sunnis vs. Sheites - each believing the other has the 'wrong sort of faith' despite the fact that faith isn't evidence based anyway! Is it any surprise that this causes wars? Sure most Holy Books state peace & love are good things -that's a no brainer. But again & again you refuse to acknowledge the genocidal & intolerant advice because it doesn't show religion in a good light but that's the very stuff causing all the trouble & it's so obvious that it's entirely man made - as is the good stuff too. Humans create good or bad & this is reflected in the Bible as well as The Koran & other 'holy' books but a true holy book would not contain so much obvious garbage. The problem is, people don't see the difference a lot of the time -I guess you can but strangely you don't say 'Of course this is man made nonsense!' You try to protect your view of the book by ignoring all the shortcomings as if they weren't there. Well you can apply the same selective attitude to anything - even Hitler's Mein Kamf said be kind to horses & dogs but you wouldn't turn the same blind eye to all of the racist stuff & yet you admit it exists in the Bible. Why does the New Testament say 'Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.' in Colossians 3.22 rather than 'Slaves free yourselves by any means necessary - no man should own another as property'? Some say that this was the norm in biblical times so who are we to judge? Who are we not to? And who is God not to point out this moral truth either? A child can see it's inexcusable but God never ever said a single word against it as a principle only as a bad thing for Jews as God's 'chosen people'! So he's racist too! But Christians bend over backwards to make excuses for such obvious man justified exploitation. How could a good God EVER sanction slavery? You will probably ignore that gaping inconsistency too.

Originally Posted by retro72

Actually I was just honest with you. I don't pretend that I'm some infallible biblical scholar who has all the answers. I'd be lying to myself as well as you if I claimed that I could.

Of course you were honest - I pinned you down & demanded how those verses could be justified ever & of course they cannot. Not by you & not by any biblical scholar although many attempt to spin the Bible as a throughly good book. At best it's merely a partially good book with plenty of disgraceful drivel within both the old and New testaments.

Originally Posted by retro72

Well of course peace is better than war although there's no disconnect between having faith or belief and rationality either. Blind unquestioning adherence to some man concocted dogma in the name of such is another thing altogether, but you can find that in all walks of life including the zealous 'anti theist' which is just as bad. You can be a reasoned believer just as much as you can be a reasoned atheist. Do you consider morality to be an entirely objective matter or rather more subjective?

No you are very wrong here: Ask yourself this - What wicked or unjust act could only a theist perpetrate solely in the name of their faith & I'm sure you can list a number of real world examples everyone know exist like The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland etc... -Just turn on your news channel to hear about religion based conflicts occurring all the time. It literally never stops. Now ask yourself what good or beneficial act a religious person could perform which a non-religious person could not? Can you think of anything at all? No, because there are basically good people who will do good things & bad people who will do bad things but it only takes religion to persuade otherwise good people to do evil on the basis of blind faith. Blind faith (not to be confused with 'trust') isn't raised up as a valued quality anywhere else in life. If you think you have faith in your wife you don't. You have trust in her as a tangible being & certainly married her on the basis of SOME evidence rather than none what so ever. I have no idea whether morality is subjective or objective in general - I judge matters on specific circumstances not generalizations.

Originally Posted by retro72

Yet you probably take for granted the ability to type out and think about what you're typing out without giving it much of a passing thought? At least usually? That's not a put down because I take things for granted everyday and it's only when I think on them I realize just how special they are, including the emotive aspects of a debate such as this. You presume a bit too much where it comes to biology and my knowledge but I hardly signposted it so my bad.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here but if you think my requirement for verifiable evidence & justifiable inferences are in some way equivalent to buying into a religion to do my thinking for me I'd love to know why? I'm not saying you do put blind faith in everything you read in a Bible but that's my point. You too know that reason & evidence are valid but many many people don't bother to do what you do & just play the faith card: 'It says this is OK in the gospels so I know homosexuals should not have the same rights as God's people.' Or similar discriminatory attitudes which are impossible to defend rationally. What two consenting adults get up to between the sheets is of no corn to anyone except them. Why should God get so upset about any possible opportunity of love like that? It's senseless bigotry & nothing less.

Originally Posted by retro72

Belief isn't a claim of knowledge either. It can be as rational as your own and isn't under any obligation to justify itself on that score alone. There's no burden on anyone to 'prove' anything with this.

Sure belief isn't (always) a claim to knowledge but it usually is & I've tested this on Yahoo Answers. In a survey I did of those who stated a preference, all theists stated they knew without any doubt that a god existed with 100% certainty. I ask unbelievers if they were 100% certain there was no god & none said they were. They simply said there was no evidence & that you can't prove a negative like mermaids not existing. So who are really more open minded then?? Beliefs have real world consequences regardless of whether the belief is grounded in reality or not. Have you ever heard of a war starting over what people did not believe in? Communism was the unquestioning belief in National Socialism. Fascism was based on unquestioning belief in National Socialism. Both were flawed because both were so similar to fundamentalism: Both encouraged blind faith & discouraged doubt or dissent. No wonder that the catholic Church sanctioned the Nazis party back in the 1930s. Hitler even invoked 'The creator of the universe' as a supporter of the fascist ideology so he certainly showed no signs of atheism at all. There is a burden of proof where ever a claim is made. Deny it all you like but if I said your wife was having an affair I think you should want hard evidence from me not opinion. Children have religious 'truth' drummed into their undeveloped minds before they have any chance to develop the critical skills to avoid indoctrination. That is because healthy informed skepticism is equivalent to virus protection on any computer's hard drive except our 'hard drive' is our mind. Once the 'program' of any religious belief 'run' on a young mind it's probably there for life & will get passed on to the next generation of minds, & the next & the next. Ironically the real internet is speeding up the loss of faith in Iron Age belief systems & it's about time they were scrutinized for what they are: unsustainable models of reality with precious little tangible value unavailable in a purer form elsewhere. Religion is trying to adapt like a virus into New Age woo woo with limited success. This is why I am against any untestable claims to 'knowledge'.

[RowanMooreFan]

I am with George Carlin on this one: "Talking about a bullshit story ... Holy Shit!"

[comeon93]

Originally Posted by retro72

Where it comes to the OT then I'll be quite honest. A lot of it makes absolute zero sense to me either. I'm not a fundamentalist by any stretch or even any sort of orthodox believer for that matter. If God is love, as we understand the term, then it does contradict a lot of what goes on in the OT despite Corinthians in the NT having the most eloquent description of it. I could argue that due to the harshness of the times back then that it would possibly make some sort of sense but that wouldn't even convince me to be honest so I have no satisfactory answer on it. I'm certainly no theologian that's for sure. What does impress is the ministry of the NT as there are certainly times where Jesus is far from meek and mild but hardly any sort of tyrant.

Every single lovey dovey thing you say about Jesus is immediately wiped away by the love me or burn for eternity commands.

Might as well cherry pick the nice things Hitler had to say.

[howerd]

Originally Posted by comeon93

Every single lovey dovey thing you say about Jesus is immediately wiped away by the love me or burn for eternity commands.

Might as well cherry pick the nice things Hitler had to say.

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Jesus.

Jesus who?

Jesus Christ, let me into your heart.

Why?

Because of what my dad will see that happens to you if you DON'T let me into your heart!

[comeon93]

Originally Posted by howerd

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Jesus.

Jesus who?

Jesus Christ, let me into your heart.

Why?

Because of what my dad will see that happens to you if you DON'T let me into your heart!

Exactly, there is a funny meme of that floating around. If Jesus can catch a break, by logic, Hitler should as well.

[retro72]

Originally Posted by comeon93

Every single lovey dovey thing you say about Jesus is immediately wiped away by the love me or burn for eternity commands.

Might as well cherry pick the nice things Hitler had to say.

That's only if you assume that that's what's actually being said. Most of the early church didn't and these were the people who deciphered and translated the original Greek/Hebrew texts. 'Hell' translates as 'the grave' and unending suffering didn't come into 'play' as 'mainstream doctrine' until further down the line. Most of the early theological schools of thought supported the restitution of everything rather than a god who would have people in torment through all time.

I left a church I attended while younger where the above was taught, as like you, it appalled me as well as making no sense. Love can't be coerced else it isn't love. It's freely given and threats undermine that. I became totally cynical with the whole thing for years until actually looking into it a whole lot more.

[retro72]

Originally Posted by howerd

No as I said that's pretty sound stuff but it's the clearly bad stuff I have a major issue with.

Hey, I'll split this into two replies cos otherwise these posts are gonna start looking like chapters from 'War & Peace'...

Sure wars are 100% human caused - they have to be from an unbeliever's point of view, however a heck of a lot of wars, conflicts & general 'bad blood' is created by the 'in-group' / 'out-group' mentality of most major religions including Christianity. There's no direct clear understanding of what any God (Christian or Hindu or whatever) means in a verifiable terms therefore everybody starts to interpret various translations, versions, books, claims & personal revelations they way that suits them & surprise, surprise, there are major disagreements as a result of this confusion. Not only between one religion & another e.g. Judaism & Islam regarding 'holy land' (neither of which can be empirically proved) but also within individual religions themselves e.g. Catholics vs. Protestants or Sunnis vs. Sheites - each believing the other has the 'wrong sort of faith' despite the fact that faith isn't evidence based anyway!

The common denominator within all of this is once again - people. For sure, religious differences have been used as an excuse for all sorts of conflict - both within the same faith along with war with others. The sad thing is that people will find any manner of reason for conflict. We're the most advanced life form on the planet. Unfortunately we're also in some senses the stupidest and certainly the most senselessly violent be it over theological differences, territory, oil or simply the fact that a population separated by a stretch of water happens to speak a different language and has an alternative culture. It also cuts the other way as well. Totalitarian states like Stalin's were hardly theistic and some states have punished any display of belief or objection to the 'status quo' with jail or worse. People...

Is it any surprise that this causes wars? Sure most Holy Books state peace & love are good things -that's a no brainer. But again & again you refuse to acknowledge the genocidal & intolerant advice because it doesn't show religion in a good light but that's the very stuff causing all the trouble & it's so obvious that it's entirely man made - as is the good stuff too. Humans create good or bad & this is reflected in the Bible as well as The Koran & other 'holy' books but a true holy book would not contain so much obvious garbage. The problem is, people don't see the difference a lot of the time -I guess you can but strangely you don't say 'Of course this is man made nonsense!' You try to protect your view of the book by ignoring all the shortcomings as if they weren't there. Well you can apply the same selective attitude to anything - even Hitler's Mein Kamf said be kind to horses & dogs but you wouldn't turn the same blind eye to all of the racist stuff & yet you admit it exists in the Bible. Why does the New Testament say 'Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.' in Colossians 3.22 rather than 'Slaves free yourselves by any means necessary - no man should own another as property'? Some say that this was the norm in biblical times so who are we to judge? Who are we not to? And who is God not to point out this moral truth either? A child can see it's inexcusable but God never ever said a single word against it as a principle only as a bad thing for Jews as God's 'chosen people'! So he's racist too! But Christians bend over backwards to make excuses for such obvious man justified exploitation. How could a good God EVER sanction slavery? You will probably ignore that gaping inconsistency too.

We both live in the 21st century modern West. I can only imagine how grimy existence centuries ago would be in comparison but I wager we'd both balk at plenty of customs and ways of life which would be commonplace in society at that time. Life was a lot harder in many ways for sure. Absolutely, slavery is abhorrent from any modern perspective but back then it was the norm along with many other things we wouldn't tolerate in a 'civilized' society. A completely different way of life.

Of course you were honest - I pinned you down & demanded how those verses could be justified ever & of course they cannot. Not by you & not by any biblical scholar although many attempt to spin the Bible as a throughly good book. At best it's merely a partially good book with plenty of disgraceful drivel within both the old and New testaments.

It was a challenging question I'll certainly give you that, and I thought on it for a lot of today. My response is going to echo the above to a degree. Right now I'm sitting on a comfy couch, with a laptop in front of me, good food, several beers and a shed load of DVD's I put on at will. I'm not living in a commune where the biggest entertainment would likely be some make shift hut being blown away by a gale force wind...
What is abhorrent to us now would not have been back then, and as much as the bible reflects that in regards to slavery it also implores the 'masters' of those to treat them well. This wasn't a society that came back to micro wave dinners or an X box etc. I think it's a bit too easy to judge such when we're privy to the luxury that these people never had by way of.

I'll address the rest shortly.

[howerd]

Originally Posted by retro72

That's only if you assume that that's what's actually being said. Most of the early church didn't and these were the people who deciphered and translated the original Greek/Hebrew texts. 'Hell' translates as 'the grave' and unending suffering didn't come into 'play' as 'mainstream doctrine' until further down the line. Most of the early theological schools of thought supported the restitution of everything rather than a god who would have people in torment through all time.

I left a church I attended while younger where the above was taught, as like you, it appalled me as well as making no sense. Love can't be coerced else it isn't love. It's freely given and threats undermine that. I became totally cynical with the whole thing for years until actually looking into it a whole lot more.

Well doesn't everyone think THEY have the right interpretation of the Bible too? I mean look at all this... it seems pretty clear to me that hell is a real nasty & painful place not just 'the grave':


“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matt. 25:41, 46.

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. Rev. 19:20.

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:10, 14, 15.

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. Matt. 13:36-43.

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Rev. 21:8.

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. Mark 9:43.

Since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. 2 Thess. 1:6-9.

How is all that just 'the grave' then? Should the whole bible be rewritten to your own personal interpretation?

[comeon93]

Originally Posted by retro72

That's only if you assume that that's what's actually being said. Most of the early church didn't and these were the people who deciphered and translated the original Greek/Hebrew texts. 'Hell' translates as 'the grave' and unending suffering didn't come into 'play' as 'mainstream doctrine' until further down the line. Most of the early theological schools of thought supported the restitution of everything rather than a god who would have people in torment through all time.

I left a church I attended while younger where the above was taught, as like you, it appalled me as well as making no sense. Love can't be coerced else it isn't love. It's freely given and threats undermine that. I became totally cynical with the whole thing for years until actually looking into it a whole lot more.

We don't assume anything, just read the bible, then throw it in the trash. I know lots about translations, NT v OT, parables this, literal that, and none of that matters. The only thing that truly matters is that all the texts of the Abrahamic religions are horrible moral guide books.