Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 4

[Thundercrack85]

Oh. Okay. What about the first couple of hundred-thousand years of human existence?

 

[Lighthouse]

There is a great video from the Thinking Atheist about their favorite Top 10 Creationist arguments. It goes through each one pointing out the glaring flaws in those arguments. I'd post it, but I think it would be perceived as insulting others beliefs.

 

[childeroland]

Oh. Okay. What about the first couple of hundred-thousand years of human existence?

I don't know. Presumably God had other ways of contradicting himself before the invention of writing.

 

[Lighthouse]

Oh. Okay. What about the first couple of hundred-thousand years of human existence?

According to the Bible, that's when God actually talked to people and did miraculous stuff before he pulled a disappearing act.

 

[superpower]

But how do you define these "extreme states"? In any event, life is very rarely able to be simplified into any extreme, and right and wrong.

But that can be a definition of duty or anything else you just don't want to do but can't; far too vague a definition for "slavery." Some of the precepts upheld in the Bible and other religious texts can be defined as "slavery" using your definition. And what if one person's will is to do wrong to another person and to do right he/she must sacrifice that will? Is that person living in slavery? How exactly do you define the "good" or "natural" kind, and why would that be called "slavery"?


But you said it was a "form of punishment similar to jail"? How does that jive with it also being the way we depend on each other to maintain our lives and willingly sacrificing our free will?



Obviously. But any moral person would agree to that--why would we need scripture to tell us that? And how does it jive with stories in these scriptures -- say, the Bible -- where God sanctions His Chosen people taking land from, say, the Amalekites and Caananites? And if He sanctioned these things, how could we rely on scriptures supposedly filled with His teachings?


Due respect, this is a cop out. What were the good intentions behind God having Saul put his enemies "under the ban"? Or the sacrifice of Jepthath's daughter? Or the Israelites taking Caananite land? Or the guy who let his prostitute be raped then cut her up in pieces and distributed her all over the land as an "object lesson". Or women's second-class in Paul's church? Or the Bible's at best contradictory stance on slavery? Or the Jews in John with their "his blood be upon our heads"? What was the "pure thing" there, and if the scripture can be turned to such evil ends, why would we use them to learn anything?



What do you mean by stereotypical slavery? There are many examples of slavery in the Bible, and as a whole the Book does not condemn it. For example: Exodus 21 7-11, Leviticus 25: 47-55, Deut 15, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Exodus 21:6, Exodus 20, Ephesians 6:5, the Covenant Code, Colossians 3:22, 1 Peter 2:18 ("Slaves, obey your masters"), 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10 ("Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.")etc. What do you think these slaves and masters were doing that would make a difference between stereotypical and the atypical kind, whatever that is?





Tell that to all the people God had His servants kill--when He wasn't doing it Himself. And again, those Amalekites, Caananites, Philistines, the people of Jericho, etc.


Then why do we need such a contradictory set of documents from an ancient era? Why can't we progress with our own morality?



Some of those leaders used the very scriptures we're talking about and were able to because of the contents of those scriptures. So why would we need those scriptures to help solve this problem?



Really? Like all those Caananites, etc God has His people kill? The Egyptian first born He slaughters? Or the Caesar of whom Jesus says, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods" while Rome oppressed His homeland?





Don't know what this means.


I couldn't agree more. By why rely on ancient scriptures and religions to accomplish this? How do we morally progress trying to salvage contradictory moral codes millenia-old?

I like the way you think.

With so many topics I think we should focus on one at a time or I don't think we will ever come to an end point. Since I already stink at conveying my thoughts with the written word..... This could take a while.

Plus I don't want to waste time talking about my Z if you can decimate my A. So let's come back to slavery.

So.... Why do we need ancient scripture? Really this is one of the fundamental questions because if there is no need.... Then there's no need.

I wrote everything below already so ill leave it. But the main reason I see for keeping and using scripture is to carry a message that hopefully helps to keep man from becoming oppressed. Or to help man free themselves from oppression. When I die I won't have to worry about this place. But other people will and they deserve a real chance, and maybe second, third, fourth or a hundredth.. but at least one real chance at living to their full potential. The bible offers that.

1. Power corrupts, for this reason people should hold the least amount of authority as possible over other people. Scripture emphasizes this.

2. Even if you and I could changes things right now, like a clean brush stroke around the world bringing peace and prosperity, the wisdom you and I shared, to bring about that change should be passed on for the future to help ensure good lives for them as well.

4. At the very least scripture presents a very accurate portrayal of humans. So much so that the observations must have lasted quite some time to be so accurate. Since these stories date so far back I find the wisdom impressive enough to warrant its continued admiration


I see your point of view though. It's hard not to. Another thing to take into account with some scripture is the point in time that the stories are taking place. God was trying to stop the corporate take over of the world with the last mom and pop shop.

No offence to anyone for the bad analogy/joke.

I just read your reply to thunder on the last page.

I will compile a list of the similarities in different religions. Need some time though.

 

[8wid]

Philosophical & Theological Objections To Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig

 

[Thundercrack85]

Is it odd that I find the notion that humans need a book to tell them how to be good offensive?

I'd also like to point out that it's incredibly ineffective. Especially when it comes to slavery. Anyone here know what the Confederate States of America's official motto was?

Deo Vindice. Or as they would say it "God is our vindicator" (or God will protect us).

 

[enterthemadness]

Is it odd that I find the notion that humans need a book to tell them how to be good offensive?

I'd also like to point out that it's incredibly ineffective. Especially when it comes to slavery. Anyone here know what the Confederate States of America's official motto was?

Deo Vindice. Or as they would say it "God is our vindicator" (or God will protect us).

Yea, we should know by now how to behave and act morally without religion really. However some need religion and that's fine. I have religion, but know a um...know that a book that is old....shouldn't be telling me how to act or I'll go to hell for example. Just me though...

 

[childeroland]

I wrote everything below already so ill leave it. But the main reason I see for keeping and using scripture is to carry a message that hopefully helps to keep man from becoming oppressed. Or to help man free themselves from oppression. When I die I won't have to worry about this place. But other people will and they deserve a real chance, and maybe second, third, fourth or a hundredth.. but at least one real chance at living to their full potential. The bible offers that.

Since people's adherence to scripture is responsible for much of the world's oppression, I don't see how it can carry a message that keeps man from being oppressed, particularly given their own dubious morality. The Bible does not offer that, and it's had two thousand years to prove it.

1. Power corrupts, for this reason people should hold the least amount of authority as possible over other people. Scripture emphasizes this.

Scripture is all about authority--I am God, these are my words, obey them. Except that instead of God it's whoever is in power, or the words of scripture writers being used by whoever is in power. Scripture has never emphasized holding the least amount of authority, but concentrating that power in a few hands.

2. Even if you and I could changes things right now, like a clean brush stroke around the world bringing peace and prosperity, the wisdom you and I shared, to bring about that change should be passed on for the future to help ensure good lives for them as well.

But you don't need ancient scripture to do this. Apparently neither did the ancient scripture writers, since the scriptures -- I assume you mean Bible here -- were written over a peroid of centuries where new scripture writers -- Paul, the Gospel writers, etc -- were not afraid to put their two cents in after the Hebrew Bible had been around for centuries. Why can't we, with our relative advances in morality -- not progress further by passing down our own wisdom? Why rely on Bronze Age cultures that condoned slavery?

4. At the very least scripture presents a very accurate portrayal of humans. So much so that the observations must have lasted quite some time to be so accurate.

No more than Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc, none of which are scripture--that's the job of literature, and no one thinks the words of these guys should be worshipped because of it.

Since these stories date so far back I find the wisdom impressive enough to warrant its continued admiration

That sidesteps the many morally dubious things in them. If they prove unreliable on a moral front, what does their age have to do with anything? Is slavery, women-as-second-class citizens, David's slaughter of God's enemies, etc more acceptable because the scriptures promoting them are ancient? If not, what is your criteria to pick and choose? Surely nothing in the Bible, since it is so contradictory on these subjects. If you're relying on any morality found outside these scriptures, why do you need these scriptures at all? Why not just rely on whatever you use to determine the rightness or wrongness of these or that Biblical edict? If your criteria is the ancient status of scripture, what about pre-Biblical writings or other writings done at the time of the Bible? Should we embrace caste systems, warrior societies, king's-as-God's-representatives on earth? Should we worship the Greek Gods as Homer's characters to? Why not, his writings are ancient.

I see your point of view though. It's hard not to. Another thing to take into account with some scripture is the point in time that the stories are taking place.

Exactly. But which scripture? Again, how do you pick and choose which Biblical edicts we hold on to and which we don't without using a morality outside scripture? And if you need to use morality found outside scripture--why not just use that morality, period, instead of then turning to morally dubious texts? What about all the things scripture adheres to that people still hold to today?

God was trying to stop the corporate take over of the world with the last mom and pop shop.

Don't know what this means.

 

[superpower]

Is it odd that I find the notion that humans need a book to tell them how to be good offensive?

I'd also like to point out that it's incredibly ineffective. Especially when it comes to slavery. Anyone here know what the Confederate States of America's official motto was?

Deo Vindice. Or as they would say it "God is our vindicator" (or God will protect us).

Isn't that like saying why do we need a book to learn math or science?

As far as slavery.... That's like saying everyone who owns a gun is going to do horrible things with it.

Not true. The truth is, like most gun owners use their guns, most religious people use religion for good or just passively ie trying to get in heaven.

Some people use scientific knowledge to make weapons. That's a bad thing but do you crucify science for the actions of those few people?

Me neither.

 

[childeroland]

Isn't that like saying why do we need a book to learn math or science?

No. Because books of math and science get updated with new knowledge -- which scripture does not. Its authority comes from NOT having to be updated.

As far as slavery.... That's like saying everyone who owns a gun is going to do horrible things with it.

Owning a gun in and of itself isn't bad. Owning another human being IS bad, even if you don't otherwise abuse him or her -- the ownership is bad enough. There is no good slavery. And if the scriptures were ultimately God's doing and they are supposed to teach, why did God not teach that from the get-go? Of course most religious people just need religion to get through their lives, etc. But those aren't the people who used religion as another means to their own power and were able to do so in part because of the contradictory things scriptures say about some of the things those people do to maintain that power.

Some people use scientific knowledge to make weapons. That's a bad thing but do you crucify science for the actions of those few people?

Science can be used for bad as anything else, but it has not been used as a means to suppress the freedoms of whole peoples in the way religion has. It is subject to constant revision in a way religion is not, and does not rely on divine authority whose precepts are spelled out in contradictory texts.

 

[superpower]

God trying to stop the corporate take over....

I meant, by the time of Moses there were no "Good" kingdoms on earth. There were no rulers trying to give real freedom to the people. And the people were Gentiles, which funny enough seem to gentle to fight back against bad leadership. We are truly sheep just following along.

The Jews were Gods final try at bringing freedom back to a world of unjust slavery. This did lead to war. Why? Because those in power rarely want to give up their power, they will fight hard to keep it. Did God start the war? No. It began when oppression began, when the figurative Apple was bitten.

More later I'm off to wizard world. Have a great day all.

 

[superpower]

No. Because you do need good books that teach you math and science, and those books get updated with new knowledge -- which scripture does not. It's authority comes from NOT having to be updated.

Owning a gun in and of itself isn't bad. Owning another human being IS bad, even if you don't otherwise abuse him or her -- the ownership is bad enough. There is no good slavery. And if the scriptures were ultimately God's doing and they are supposed to teach, why did God not teach that from the get-go? Of course most religious people just need religion to get through their lives, etc. But those aren't the people who used religion as another means to their own power and were able to do so in part because of the contradictory things scriptures say about some of the things those people do to maintain that power.

Science can be used for bad as anything else, but it has not been used as a means to suppress the freedoms of whole peoples in the way religion has. It is subject to constant revision in a way religion is not, and does not rely on divine authority whose precepts are spelled out in contradictory texts.

I have to go. But can we agree that Good knowledge deserves to be passed on?

If we can then good. That stands as my A. Now we just have to examine why I think scripture is good and if I'm right or wrong.

Believe me. To an extent I want to be wrong.

 

[childeroland]

I meant, by the time of Moses there were no "Good" kingdoms on earth. There were no rulers trying to give real freedom to the people. And the people were Gentiles, which funny enough seem to gentle to fight back against bad leadership. We are truly sheep just following along.

How do you define "good kingdoms"?

The "chosen people" themselves owned slaves and attacked other nations that God told them to in order to conquer them, not because they were trying to bring freedom "to a world of unjust slavery." How were they trying to bring freedom to "the people", when they enslaved or killed many of the people they conquered? What does the other people being "gentiles" have to do with anything? What bad leadership were they supposed to fight back against, and how are "we" sheep to follow along with this "bad leadership"? In what ways exactly was this leadership bad?

I have to go. But can we agree that Good knowledge deserves to be passed on?

Obviously. But what constitutes good knowledge? Scriptures that alternately condone and condemn many things we'd find unacceptable today? Or texts promoting the kind of morality most enlightened people believe today?

If we can then good. That stands as my A. Now we just have to examine why I think scripture is good and if I'm right or wrong.

IMO, you'd have to account for all the things in these scriptures we find unacceptable today, and by what criteria we get to pick and choose from them since they themselves give no such criteria.

 

[childeroland]

EDIT: Consolidated in one post

 

[Da Docta]

Is it odd that I find the notion that humans need a book to tell them how to be good offensive?

No, no it's not. The funny thing is that the notion is incredibly racist. If you truly believe that morality can be derived from the Christian bible, you essentially believe that anyone who lived without it is a moral savage. Take the indigenous people of Mexico. Do you really want to presuppose that the the indigenous people of Mexico were killing and raping each other before the great white Spaniards came along to spread their awful Christian religion, and once and for all bless the benighted savages with morality?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Isn't that like saying why do we need a book to learn math or science?

As far as slavery.... That's like saying everyone who owns a gun is going to do horrible things with it.

Not true. The truth is, like most gun owners use their guns, most religious people use religion for good or just passively ie trying to get in heaven.

Some people use scientific knowledge to make weapons. That's a bad thing but do you crucify science for the actions of those few people?

Me neither.

I'm not sure what to make of that analogy.

Science is real, religion is not. The former is based on evidence, the latter is entirely personal opinion.

They're not comparable.

 

[superpower]

Since people's adherence to scripture is responsible for much of the world's oppression, I don't see how it can carry a message that keeps man from being oppressed, particularly given their own dubious morality. The Bible does not offer that, and it's had two thousand years to prove it.


Scripture is all about authority--I am God, these are my words, obey them. Except that instead of God it's whoever is in power, or the words of scripture writers being used by whoever is in power. Scripture has never emphasized holding the least amount of authority, but concentrating that power in a few hands.


But you don't need ancient scripture to do this. Apparently neither did the ancient scripture writers, since the scriptures -- I assume you mean Bible here -- were written over a peroid of centuries where new scripture writers -- Paul, the Gospel writers, etc -- were not afraid to put their two cents in after the Hebrew Bible had been around for centuries. Why can't we, with our relative advances in morality -- not progress further by passing down our own wisdom? Why rely on Bronze Age cultures that condoned slavery?


No more than Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc, none of which are scripture--that's the job of literature, and no one thinks the words of these guys should be worshipped because of it.


That sidesteps the many morally dubious things in them. If they prove unreliable on a moral front, what does their age have to do with anything? Is slavery, women-as-second-class citizens, David's slaughter of God's enemies, etc more acceptable because the scriptures promoting them are ancient? If not, what is your criteria to pick and choose? Surely nothing in the Bible, since it is so contradictory on these subjects. If you're relying on any morality found outside these scriptures, why do you need these scriptures at all? Why not just rely on whatever you use to determine the rightness or wrongness of these or that Biblical edict? If your criteria is the ancient status of scripture, what about pre-Biblical writings or other writings done at the time of the Bible? Should we embrace caste systems, warrior societies, king's-as-God's-representatives on earth? Should we worship the Greek Gods as Homer's characters to? Why not, his writings are ancient.



Exactly. But which scripture? Again, how do you pick and choose which Biblical edicts we hold on to and which we don't without using a morality outside scripture? And if you need to use morality found outside scripture--why not just use that morality, period, instead of then turning to morally dubious texts? What about all the things scripture adheres to that people still hold to today?



Don't know what this means.

Bummer. I just deleted my post

 

[superpower]

I'm not sure what to make of that analogy.

Science is real, religion is not. The former is based on evidence, the latter is entirely personal opinion.

They're not comparable.

You had pointed out the southern states motto. To me it was a comment regarding how "God" can be twisted.

I consider making a bomb for the threat of or attempt to harm others a twisting of science.

Nothing wrong with a bomb used for mining.

I was basically commenting to the fact that if it isn't God then "those" people will have some other tool of vindication.

 

[Thundercrack85]

My point is simply that humans do not need any holy book to tell them how to be good. To say they do is just misanthropic. And if you look at history, it's not even true. Quite the contrary.

Especially if that book sanctions slavery. Which in this case, it does.

I dare say the reason we find slavery revolting isn't because of any scriptures. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the people who made the case for slavery? They sure liked quoting those scriptures.

 

[Marvolo]

My point is simply that humans do not need any holy book to tell them how to be good. To say they do is just misanthropic. And if you look at history, it's not even true. Quite the contrary.

Especially if that book sanctions slavery. Which in this case, it does.

I dare say the reason we find slavery revolting isn't because of any scriptures. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the people who made the case for slavery? They sure liked quoting those scriptures.

If i wanted to follow a religion based on the morals promoted in its scripture and ideas it would be Buddhism. Its one of the most peaceful belief systems i know of. The bible is very violent in places. Mostly in the OT tho. Jesus is more love and less wrath.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If i wanted to follow a religion based on the morals promoted in its scripture and ideas it would be Buddhism. Its one of the most peaceful belief systems i know of. The bible is very violent in places.

The fact that you can decide which religion based on its morals shows you don't need it. At least not for morality. You already have your morals.

 

[Marvolo]

The fact that you can decide which religion based on its morals shows you don't need it. At least not for morality. You already have your morals.

Oh absolutely. Religion has never been about morals for me. I just find beauty in spirituality and to a degree religion so i study them. Religion or the study of it is more of a hobby for me.

 

[superpower]

My point is simply that humans do not need any holy book to tell them how to be good. To say they do is just misanthropic. And if you look at history, it's not even true. Quite the contrary.

Especially if that book sanctions slavery. Which in this case, it does.

I dare say the reason we find slavery revolting isn't because of any scriptures. Correct me if I'm wrong. But the people who made the case for slavery? They sure liked quoting those scriptures.

But they are twisting it. 180... Once you know how to be free you can enslave.

Like a robber using a gun for his own gain they do the same with the scripture.

The same gun that provides food can be used to to take someone's freedom to enjoy life.

It's all the choice of the individual. Most people don't use guns, the bible or anything else in the "bad" way.

They are bad apples. And in that regard the bad fruit of bad teachers that the bible both old and new testaments speak of.

I find it crazy that a shady guy trying to get you to drink the proverbial juice would say that he is considered a failure in the eyes of the one he represents.

It would seem counter productive.

 

[superpower]

The fact that you can decide which religion based on its morals shows you don't need it. At least not for morality. You already have your morals.

But what is the source of those morals?

And are those morals the best they can be?