Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And we don't need to value books that are full of horrible ideas and malevolent instructions just because they also serve up some wise admonitions.
But it's not very honest or accurate to lump them together. It's really an anthology of different books. If you don't like one of them that's fine. But don't lump them all together just because someone in the ancient past did.
Yes, but the majority have never had the exclusive rights to the Truth, just by virtue of being the majority. Look at all the "crazies" who went against the established "science" of their day, some who never had their "day" until after many decades or hundreds of years proved them right all along. Just a point speaking in general terms, as I said before evolution doesn't faze me one way or the other, it's not a threat to me. Peace
It's not a question of numbers of believers, but of which way the evidence points. Science has never established its' credentials by recruiting believers, but by establishing reliable explanations backed up with verifiable and repeatable evidence.
That is why the whole world relies on one science -even the religious who purport to believe that science is unreliable and faith is reliable.
The only 'crazy' I can think of who went against science was the one who postulated tectonic plate -movement. But only because he wasn't an established scientist. If he had been, he would have been like those who argued for feathered dinosaurs, Black holes and Quantum; against the scientific thought of the time. Indeed they 'taught the controversy -in the right place; the forums of science, not the classroom. And in the end the evidence confirmed they were right and it became established science.
Believe me, I/D had its' chance to make its' case and it failed. Crazies now are those who argue about what is valid science, not what is still a matter of debate.
I'm a crazy, too. My own theories on the gospels seem to be the views of a few - or less. I admit I could be wrong, but I think I'm right, and have the evidence to show it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Whether you want to admit it or not, the Bible does contain good stuff. And it continues to inspire people today. I read it from a different perspective than the fundamentalist would, but I probably get similar benefits.
But an atheist will throw out the entire Bible just because he has issues with the Weird parts of it. So a fundamentalist will not even regard their arguments because the atheist doesn't seem to know about or even care about the good parts.
From my perspective the atheist doesn't even seem to acknowledge that it was a third party who combined these various books into one collection called the Bible.
In fact, upon examination, there is less good than the believers like to maintain. Matt Dillahunty did a filleting of the sermon on the mount to show that i wasn't good at all. And a caller -in arguing that not looking lustfully on another is committing rape in his head was a 'good thing'. Matt showed this was not only nonsense but immoral - it is calling for thought -legislation on very poor reasoning.
Of course rape is bad (It's bad because it negates the rights of the other) and that's a good thing in the Bible. But not only in the Bible-that's the point. To hold up the Bible as something special just because it contains some good things (and a lot of bad, too) like any other book is simply looking for an excuse to make the Bible Special. It isn't.
It may be special to a lot of people as Harry Potter is (or was) special to a lot of kids and LoR is still special for me, but I don't suggest that they are somehow to be taken as guides for life just because of that, or the 'Good things' in them. In fact, because of the popularity, they deserve more criticism, because if the influence they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
...
I don't think someone who rejects Jehova should ever have a problem with someone saying "God is good". Maybe even when the fundamentalist says it, he may be referring to something more general than a religious God. Even if he also believes in Jehova.
I sure have a problem with it
Quote:
Originally Posted by kab0906
Most of the "good parts" of the bible don't need religion to be useful.
Quite correct, but -to be fair - those who argue for the Bible of the grounds that there are good things in it, are (though they may not always realize it) arguing for it to be special even if it isn't true. In effect, it is part of the 'we need religion - true or not - because it is good for us' package.
The counter to that is not a new one - neither the Bible nor religion is true enough to merit believing, nor good enough to merit supporting.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-01-2017 at 09:48 PM..
If you can indepedently pick out the 'good stuff' from the 'bad stuff' then your have your own innate moral framework and don't need the bible. It makes no sense to look to a moral framework where you have to pick out the good bits from the bad bits.
Atheists recognise this and work with their own innate moral framework to make sense of the world. I'm a Humanist as well as an atheist. Humanism provides a far better moral framework - there are no bad or 'weird parts' I have to pick through to get to the good stuff. It's just all good stuff. Humanists value kindness, tolerance and rational thinking.
We make rational decisions based on reason and empathy and a desire for a common good.
Exactly. Those who cherry -pick the Bible are applying humanist morality to the Bible. In effect, they are judging God. True, they don't condemn; they excuse or find someone else to blame - but they are judging, nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
But it's not very honest or accurate to lump them together. It's really an anthology of different books. If you don't like one of them that's fine. But don't lump them all together just because someone in the ancient past did.
Fine If you want to have the Bible regarded as a lot of various books, poems, history, legends and fables, none of us goddless bastards will disagree on that - but you might have trouble selling the idea to the Believers.
In any case, scatter the Bible all over the shop or present it as one indigestible lump; we still don't find it credible. or even that moral.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-01-2017 at 09:51 PM..
Real profound. We'd never figure out that those things are detrimental but for the Bible...
There's nothing useful in the Bible that isn't found in myriad other sources. Nor is the Bible an original source for those useful things in it (which are so obvious that it's not really all that useful).
Imagine a biography of George Washington. It's an insightful tome, skillfully examining Washington's achievements in the context of his perpetual striving to prove himself. It deftly reveals his leadership qualities, his failings and his triumphs. Within its covers is masterful history.
Unfortunately, for a long chapter on Washington's conflicts with the Jeffersonians, there's another long chapter claiming that Washington bred pegasi and enjoyed riding them in the sky in his spare time. The book mentions Washington's wooden teeth, but also claims that he had bionic legs that he used in his crossing of he Delaware - one after the other, he put his troops on his back and simply leaped across the river. We are regaled with tales of the hunting expeditions he led where he slew scores of sasquatch. How he invented the lava lamp and he would be Alexander Hamilton's wingman when they hit the pubs on Friday night and how much he loved playing air-guitar.
What person in their right mind would scorn those who dismiss this book just because they have 'issues with the weird stuff'?
And really, what isn't somewhat good? Shoeless Joe was a helluva ballplayer, and since he won more games with his bat than he fixed for gamblers, it's all good. Mussolini made the trains run on time. 9/11 opened a lot of construction opportunities in lower Manhattan. Right?
Except we don't need corrupt athletes in order to enjoy sports. We don't need fascists dictators in order to facilitate mass transit. We don't need carnage and destruction to open up economic opportunities.
And we don't need to value books that are full of horrible ideas and malevolent instructions just because they also serve up some wise admonitions.
Can't rep you, but that deserves a full quote. Yes -these ideas are no more to the credit of religion than Mussolini's trains (btw - I read that he only made sure one train run on time - his own.), never mid crediting the ideas TO religion.
And the example of a criminal being jailed for an offence, never mind how much charitable work he did, is as old as my own aphorism: "you cannot buy the truth with free soup".
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-01-2017 at 09:53 PM..
It's not a question of numbers of believers, but of which way the evidence points. Science has never established its' credentials by recruiting believers, but by establishing reliable explanations backed up with verifiable and repeatable evidence.
That is why the whole world relies on one science -even the religious who purport to believe that science is unreliable and faith is reliable.
The only 'crazy' I can think of who went against science was the one who postulated tectonic plate -movement. But only because he wasn't an established scientist. If he had been, he would have been like those who argued for feathered dinosaurs, Black holes and Quantum; against the scientific thought of the time. Indeed they 'taught the controversy -in the right place; the forums of science, not the classroom. And in the end the evidence confirmed they were right and it became established science.
Believe me, I/D had its' chance to make its' case and it failed. Crazies now are those who argue about what is valid science, not what is still a matter of debate.
I'm a crazy, too. My own theories on the gospels seem to be the views of a few - or less. I admit I could be wrong, but I think I'm right, and have the evidence to show it.
In fact, upon examination, there is less good than the believers like to maintain. Matt Dillahunty did a filleting of the sermon on the mount to show that i wasn't good at all. And a caller -in arguing that not looking lustfully on another is committing rape in his head was a 'good thing'. Matt showed this was not only nonsense but immoral - it is calling for thought -legislation on very poor reasoning.
Of course rape is bad (It's bad because it negates the rights of the other) and that's a good thing in the Bible. But not only in the Bible-that's the point. To hold up the Bible as something special just because it contains some good things (and a lot of bad, too) like any other book is simply looking for an excuse to make the Bible Special. It isn't.
It may be special to a lot of people as Harry Potter is (or was) special to a lot of kids and LoR is still special for me, but I don't suggest that they are somehow to be taken as guides for life just because of that, or the 'Good things' in them. In fact, because of the popularity, they deserve more criticism, because if the influence they have.
I sure have a problem with it
Quite correct, but -to be fair - those who argue for the Bible of the grounds that there are good things in it, are (though they may not always realize it) arguing for it to be special even if it isn't true. In effect, it is part of the 'we need religion - true or not - because it is good for us' package.
The counter to that is not a new one - neither the Bible nor religion is true enough to merit believing, nor good enough to merit supporting.
My point was, that majority is not the determining factor for truth, as in just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't necessarily mean its true. Look at the rapture, case in point, in the "religious" arena. But the same applies in whatever arena you want to examine. People get "seduced" by numbers and the power of influence. Peace
My point was, that majority is not the determining factor for truth, as in just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't necessarily mean its true. Look at the rapture, case in point, in the "religious" arena. But the same applies in whatever arena you want to examine. People get "seduced" by numbers and the power of influence. Peace
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Numbers of people who accept science isn't the point. It stands on its' own merits.
Appeal to Authority (like Evidence of Absence) is often misunderstood, if not deliberately misrepresented. Those who are experts in a particular field Are Authorities and their views matter and can be referred to as having weight. That doesn't mean that they can't be challenged, but if the challenge doesn't make its' case - they stand.
The various supernatural claims on the other hand have no evidential (and therefore no scientific) standing, and so do not work as an a priori as scientific knowledge does. An Authority on Creationism ( I suppose a spokesman of AiG or creation ministries, for example) would be quoted as a valid Auhority on the views of Creatinism, but the subject itself has no scientific validity, no matter how many people believe it.
It is also true that the numbers of scientists who accept evolution is not what validates it, but the evidence for it. Though I don't think a head count was taken, I suspect that at one time, the belief in birds evolving from dinosaurs was a minority view. I can recall one or two spokebods going out on a limb to denounce it as a fantasy or fairy -tale. Well, the evidence is now overwhelming that dinosaurs (broadly speaking) did evolve into birds and the theory now has the numbers - through compelling evidence, not recruiting -drives.
Now, when Creationism was trying to pretend that it was a science, they tried to validate it by the numbers of Creationists who were "scientists". This was debunked by Project Steve where the numbers of scientists called "Steve" swamped all the "Scientists" (Engineers, experts in unrelated fields or even with certificates from Churnemout University, were all counted in) the Creationist ploy could muster. It wasn't to prove evoluiton by numbers of believers, but to debunk the Creationist numbers -claim.
Bottom line -every time an argument gets away from the discussion of the evidence and tries some Rhetorical ploy, like challenging the validity of human logic, or appealing to the "Good" that religion does, you can bet they are fielding false, irrelevant and invalid arguments, because they have lost all the valid ones.
Now you may well say you are no creationist so it doesn't apply to you. But I am using that example to explain how validation and authority works correctly, and how it can be misrepresented by a group who either don't understand how it works or who misrepresent how it works in order to win a point or two. Creationism is the only open and well -documented battle for authority in Law, Society, education and science that I know fairly well (1). So that's why I use it.
(1) There are the Moonies and Scientology, Marxist and Aryan dogma hi -jacking science, Mormonism and the Flat -earth society. But Creationist dogma and methods is a much better Bad Example than any of those.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-02-2017 at 05:36 AM..
Ok, I was on another thread and I think I might see OZ's point. One possible solution is to just ask the Christian if they believe the Bible to be literal. If they do not bringing up certain topics like the flood or hell fire is a complete waste.
Ok, I was on another thread and I think I might see OZ's point. One possible solution is to just ask the Christian if they believe the Bible to be literal. If they do not bringing up certain topics like the flood or hell fire is a complete waste.
I would very much agree with that.
It's always very irritating when people make automatic assumptions about what another person believes.
And that goes for both sides of the aisle.
There are equally many assumptions and sweeping statements made about atheists.
Ok, I was on another thread and I think I might see OZ's point. One possible solution is to just ask the Christian if they believe the Bible to be literal. If they do not bringing up certain topics like the flood or hell fire is a complete waste.
I totally agree. It should come out fairy early whether they are Bible -litralist Christians, Christians who would rather donate a kidney than ry o argue for the Bible as true but try to give i some spurious worth like how many languages and editions and so many different versions they have to burn them all except KJV, or the cafeteria Christians who ignore all the stuff they don't think is defensible and got in to fight to the last bullecks for what they haven' seen through yet.
So every time - we ailor the argument - and the ferocity of it - to whatever claim is being presented. It isn't fo us to tell you what you believe: tell us, and we'll argue hat claim. That's if we don't simply say.
Possible creaor of everything, but you don't know dor sure? We don't have anything to argue about
Even the Bible is strictly academic. Heck does it really matter who really won Waterloo or whether Bligh was a the bullying sadist or that was simply misrepresented. really, my Gospel study is One Of Those Mysteries, Like Waterloo, Bounty, Mongkut and Arthur -real of legend. I have no personal stake in it - were it not that there are Christian who want to make it personal.
This is nearly always Bible -based - literally, substantially, or even just morally. And the argument is the same 'you should for your own good, believe this'.
As will be no secret by now, I reject that and it is not done for my benefit, but theirs - they have a personal sake in the belief - and it doesn't even have to be Bible- based or a society -dominating organization. As we have seen - UR removes the ONLY threat they have, and there is no reason WHY we should believe a claim that has not valid evidential support. And those who believe in a sorta -god of any religon or none, get very fired up when we explain why we reserve belief.
Why? What the heck difference does it make? I suggest that the personal stake in faith is what is doing it -even though the rationale for the personal stake has gone.
Forgive the discusrsive discurcivity...it's a bad habit of the old, drooling and nearly senile Lucky I'm not, eh
But, all that out the way, the influence of organized religion rather than what they believe, is what the campaign is really all about, and has been ever since we got the Internet (deserves a place in the atheist hall of fame, that does )and whether they are ok with evolution, or Creationists, liberal christian or Fundy, religious intent to dominate society for its own benefit (or sawing our souls" as they call it) is the serious threat, whether Fundy forefront or liberal laggers. And the rationale for imposing their will and authority on us all is
T H E B I B L E
Without that, they have nothing. And having nothing mandates - logically - disbelief. We'll debate (if needed - we could even agree) on whatever claim - bu the Bible ius is the Big Basis, so that's what we have to deal with. One little Book -whether it makes us look crazy or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My own theories on the gospels seem to be the views of a few - or less. I admit I could be wrong, but I think I'm right, and have the evidence to show it.
