AS Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I have read the Bible. In my faith the Bible is the Word of God in that it is mostly instructive stories written by man but with the voice or guidance of God. It does not represent history, and the Gospels are sometimes in conflict with each other if you try to take it as history. The authors were more concerned with point than historical fact. There is a fluidity in it that allows the same story to speak differently to a person in today's world than to a persona from a 1000 years ago, and differently to someone with need A than need B. That fluidity is, in many ways, its greatest gift. If it was a history, it wouldn't have that.

Yes, there are those who believe differently, and believe it is all must be taken literally, but I don't understand that view. It seems to me that the book almost cries out at you NOT to be taken that way, but instead to apply your creative mind and own conscious to all that it says. Still, some people can't respond with that grayness, so for them faith must be black and white and very literal and, if that approach leads them to a better life (which it does not always) then it is as it was meant to be.

I am amazed, really, at how little any of you who attack faith seem to have actually studied it in any real way. There is a difference between reading and knowing and understanding.

While I am not a religious person (agnostic at best; more Taoist than anything), I have to quibble with you here. The Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books; these assorted books all reference the history of a man known as Jesus. There are indications throughout the history of the time that indicates the existence of this man - as little in the past can be proven, only inferred, I use the term indications to show this. Whether this man was the son of god, the messiah, as proclaimed by so many, can be argued endlessly... but to discredit the existence of the human being known now as Jesus, is a little excessive.


M.

To assume that the records refer to the Jesus of the bible is like assuming that "John of New Orleans" refers to any of the few hundred people in this city named John. Yeshua was a very common name. They've edited the bible's contents in such a way to where Jesus is separated from Yeshua but it's the same name.

Ok, this is the question, why God does not and cannot logically exist? As far I can see, the only thing that seems you have provided to support that assertion is the lack of empirical evidence, and that doesn't cut it, it doesn't seem to be really enough to support that conclusion as a logical proof and the answer of why the existence of God is a logical impossiblity, so the question would still stand, why God cannot logically exist?


well, an issue is that what you say here, seems contradictory with your assertion made earlier about the logical impossibility of God's existence, I mean, if we can say that we MIGHT be created by an intelligent being, regardless of lack of evidence, then we are asserting a Possibility.

Izaak, although I don't believe in God, that doesn't mean that I'm right. I don't think there is anything that we can prove exactly 100%. I can't even prove that I'm alive -- I could just be part of a big computer program. I'm 99.99999999999% sure that I'm alive, but I can never be 100% sure, and the same goes for whether a God exists or not.

The Bible isn't the only account - it may well be just the best embellished. It may well be a composite of multiple individuals; it may be the idealization of an individual. Yet there is evidence through non-Christian sources that the individual did exist - just the details are lost. I'm not speaking in favor of religion, but cautioning against the out-of-hand dismissal due to religious content as the opposite extreme of religious fanaticism.


M.

I'm sorry I upset Izaak. I do love my daughter.

Last edited by lelia on 07 Oct 2009, 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree.....we're supposed to be talking about who here is atheist and who isn't, not about whether or not there are any gods. Otherwise we're just getting sucked into polemical stuff that (history shows) never reaches any conclusion or consensus.

Though I admit it's not easy to stay on topic with such a contentious (and fascinating) issue begging for air time. I've noticed this problem before - occasionally in conversation I've declared my theological position, and what seems to happen is that as soon as I try to explain the reasons for it (and so make it look as if I may be correct), the theists have become ruffled and turned on the pro-theist rhetoric. At which point I used to become ruffled myself and turn on the anti-theist rhetoric These days I notice and make sure I don't get embroiled. I'm sure it could happen the other way round - i.e. if a theist starts looking as if they're right, the atheists and agnostics will get mad and the polemics will begin.

Another difficulty is the general one with the written word.....we have few clues as to whether people here are getting upset - some folks can argue the toss in the most vitreolic terms without ill feeling, others (perhaps most) can't. There are no clues in facial expression or body language to warn us that the time has come to back off, though even if there were, we probably wouldn't notice them, being mostly Aspies.

So I'd suggest that we stick to the topic, just reveal our own position, and try not to wade in with off-topic arguments. There must be an old thread somewhere called "Is there a god?" to which those who want to debate that issue can be directed.

Actually, there is no evidence through non-Christian sources that he did exist. That is the problem. If you know of any, I would appreciate you directing me to them. And my dismissal is not out of hand, due to religious content, or the opposite extreme of religious fanaticism. The default position for any claim that "X" exists is non-belief. There is a lack of evidence of Jesus the Christ's existence, so by default, I do not believe that claim. That doesn't automatically mean that I believe the claim "Jesus the Christ did not exist". You have the beginnings of a nice staw man, there.

And the works of Tom Clancy all reference the existence of a man name Jack Ryan, but that doesn't mean it is valid to claim he existed. And the Bible being a collection of separate works is not a fact that works in its favor. Actually, if people would read it (those few that read it at all) with that in mind, there would be a lot less dispute over it.

Forgive me if I am out of line, but based on the above statements, I doubt you have read the whole Bible or even the Gospels. While it true that the four canoncial gospels (I'm sticking with these for now, as it would take too long to go into the other books) were more concerned with point than historical accuracy, I think you miss their intent.
The fact is, there is NOT a fluidity to any of the Gospels. They contradict each other drastically in both mundane detail and in the very core teachings of the man they claim to be writing about. They NEVER intended for their writing to be interpretted in the context of civilization 2000 years after their passing. There stories were written with the people of their day in mind and should be read in that context.
And if these books were really the inspired word of the evil God of the OT, then don't you think he would have made sure that different accounts actually agreed?
You are right in saying that there is a difference between reading and understanding. I have made great efforts to understand the motivations of the various authors and what their writings mean in the context of their times.
I am curious to know what you think of the fact that the very basis for the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus after his Crucifiction, is a forgery? The last chapter of Mark, 16, is known to have been added later.

As it seems to have been missed, I have put part of my comments in bold. There are references to a certain Christ figure in both Jewish and Roman histories; while not conclusive, these are non-Christian resources from which to draw. As a non-religious person, my concern is from the historical perspective, not the theistic. There is little conclusive evidence for much of history which, as is oft said, is written by the victors (and failed writers of fiction, for that matter). But there is little to indicate that the person from which so much is derived and drawn upon was created from whole cloth; there is more evidence that points to the existence of a man, whose tale and life as they are presented now, 2000 years later, may bear little to no resemblance to the facts of his time.


M.

I did not miss the bolded statement. I simply disagree with your statement that there are extra-Biblical accounts of the Jesus character. There aren't any. (disclaimer: when I say Biblical, I including the non-canonical Gospels that the Council of Nicea did not include in their final, authoritative compliation of the Bible). There are Roman and Jewish accounts of CHRISTIANS and what they believe, but not of Jesus himself. Again, please provide some sort of reference to a single extra-Biblical accounts of this man and then we will have something worth talking about.

EDIT: In regards to the bolded statement, I agree that the Bible IS a compilation of multiple authors. That is a fact. That they are embelished is also a fact. The individual books are also an idealization of the Jesus character. However, the main issue I have with people following this book, be it literally or otherwise, is that the idealizations from book to book are RADICALLY different, both in the details and in the overall message and main events of the character's life and death. And, in my opinion, these differences are unreconcileable and thus far every version of the Christian faith I have heard has been a loose mish-mash of ideas and sayings the the individual believer has conjoured up in their own head that are not supported by the actual texts.

It seems to me that you and I are looking for different things when we read the Bible and, thus, see different things. I read to see what message speaks to me uniquely at the moment; you read to find the human hand and try to understand that aspect. I don't wish to debate your points because they aren't relevent to me and what I am trying to do in my life, just as mine aren't relevent to you. We're at entirely different purposes and frames of mind. Both are valid, and I am going to ask you simply to respect that.

Ah, the agenda. I see you have one. I can only say that what you see as a problem, I do not. I've always thought it was part of the beauty of the book how different people could read it and take out very different conclusions. Yes, when those conclusions are destructive, it is a problem, but one can combat that with different arguments from the very same book. It speaks more to the nature of the reader than the nature of the book, when a teaching is used for a negative purpose. You aren't going to win against those readers by making points on the conflicts in the book and trying to discredit the book. You have to understand the readers if you wish to reach them and change their path.