The word of god

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapporo's picture
A being that carries out

A being that carries out torture cannot be called merciful.

Greensnake's picture
Great Hope,

Great Hope,

"Then it truely is survial of the fittest and dog eat dog. Literally no reason for morality. There is no debate. It only is I'm going to get mine. - Great Hope"

Morality IS a tool for survival! In small groups, where morality first arose, treating your neighbors badly was a prescription for your own extinction. It's not just dog eat dog, as you seem to think. Cooperation is a powerful tool that increases a group's chance for survival. Conclusion: There is EVERY reason for morality!

Cognostic's picture
The Bible was Einstein's

The Bible was Einstein's inspiration for the Atomic bomb. Imagine what life would be like if scientists had not extracted the DNA code from the Bible.

JoC's picture
This is an old issue rehashed

This is an old issue rehashed one too many times. How old is the modern scientific method? How old are the books of the Bible?

It’s easy to see the modern scientific method did not exist when the books of the Bible were written. Why are we trying to force a narrow scientific interpretation on an ancient form of literature? John made a good point earlier.

Why would God even write in terms only scientists in the past 50 years can understand? When will you guys realize that the books of the Bible weren’t meant to record scientific facts (ie, it isn’t a science textbook). When the Bible says the Earth stands still, you call foul. But when other writers write the same line, you understand it right away to be idiomatic expression. Why is that?

David Killens's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

The modern scientific method is the most consistent method of determining the truth and facts. Before the modern scientific method matured into practice, there was nothing as consistently accurate in determining the truth.

For example, Genesis states that the earth came before light. Do you believe that this earth was formed before the sun? That does not make sense, pure and simple.

"When the Bible says the Earth stands still, you call foul. But when other writers write the same line, you understand it right away to be idiomatic expression."

Who stated that the earth stands still? I will criticize them for stupidity too.

Please respond, who stated the earth stands still?

And if you state Flat Earthers, I will be direct. They are bat-shit ignorant and crazy morons.

JoC's picture
Actually, everyone you know

Actually, everyone you know who uses the terms sunrise and sunset.

By using these terms, does everyone mean the sun is actually rising from the horizon? Or sets? Does anyone who uses these terms secretly imply that the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth?

Of course not.

David Killens's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"By using these terms, does everyone mean the sun is actually rising from the horizon? Or sets? Does anyone who uses these terms secretly imply that the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth?"

You are mixing up two distinct terms. One is relative. For an individual standing on the ground and watching the sun rise... RELATIVE to the observer, the sun is rising. They are not describing planetary motion, they are describing what they are observing.

If I am on a train rushing along at 60 MPH, and there is another train on a parallel track, but going in the opposite direction, also going at 60 MPH, RELATIVE to an observer standing on any train, the other train is rushing towards them at 120 MPH. Neither train is going 120 MPH, each is traveling at 60 MPH.

And this is what is going on with your comment. relative to an observer, the sun is rising. Based on planetary motion (a completely different topic) the earth is rotating.

JoC's picture
Exactly my point. It does

Exactly my point. It does happen that the Bible would describe things or origin of things in non-literal terms. But they are otherwise useful and accurate.

The problem arises when people force the text to say something it never meant to in the first place. It would be like me telling someone who says “sunset” is wrong and that they’re stupid for thinking the sun moves around the earth. It simply wasn’t what the text meant.

Sheldon's picture
What a useful about an

What's useful about an erroneous creation myth where life is magically created instantly in its current form, including humans who only evolved a couple of hundred thousand years ago at most in a process that took billions of years, and all described as being completed in 6 days?

That's not useful, it's hokum archaic superstition. What's more an omniscient deity would know this...and know we'd see through it. Ancient superstitious humans tellingly wouldn't have known.

Hmm....

JoC's picture
If you’ll notice the language

If you’ll notice the language being used in Genesis 1, it involves a lot of repetition. Now, usually, repetition is a indicative of a form of poetry. The author of Genesis 1 is using poetry to get a point across. Is it a chronological point of “This happened on the first of January, etc...” Of course not. It’s trying to make a completely different point altogether.

Look at old creation myths which depict gods battling each other or battling a dragon and in the aftermath of that battle, people rose and became a thing together with the land and the seas.

Contrast those two views. You see them as myths and we can view them as such. One views mankind as created by God... “and it was good”. This view puts forth the idea that man is inherently good.

As opposed to the other myths which view man as a side effect or a byproduct of a violent encounter. It’s almost like saying man is made for combat/war.

This is the point being made by the creation story. It’s presented in a way to press the point in a beautiful manner. Genesis 1 actually makes another point which explains why God is creating every single thing imaginable.

It would be quite common in ancient religions to worship animals, plants, etc. Genesis 1 puts forth the idea that, “Nope, those things aren’t god. The true God actually made those things.”

Sheldon's picture
"Genesis 1 is using poetry to

"Genesis 1 is using poetry to get a point across. Is it a chronological point of “This happened on the first of January, etc...” Of course not. It’s trying to make a completely different point altogether."

That is precisely it is rational infer it is entirely a human creation rather than a divinely inspired one.

Is the point about magic apples and talking snakes? You know that genetic science has already concluded the diversity of human DNA means it was never possible for just two humans to exist, that the smallest gene pool allowed by the evidence would be in the hundreds of thousands?

Was your deity's point to inspire a fictional creation myth that had little if any basis in fact?

If so why? That seems incongruous with the idea it wants it's message to be a vehicle for belief, and it is oddly cruel as well to deceive people into disbelieving it exists in this way, given what religions claim the consequences might be.

Why on earth deal in cryptic erroneous allegory rather than facts? This sound like a very desperate and spurious rationalisation to me.

JoC's picture
Consider it this way, if you

Consider it this way, if you're trying to explain certain facts of life to a child and to an adult, you'd be using very different language. Say, where babies come from.

If I were talking to a child, I'd use more beautiful words like the birds, the bees. Or maybe say that when a mommy and a daddy love each other, the daddy puts a seed into the mommy's belly which grows in a child. If I were talking to a young adult, however, I'd use terms which give a clearer sense of how the baby actually comes into the world.

In the first case, you wouldn't conclude that I actually believe that the daddy puts a literal seed in the belly of the mommy. You'd simply conclude that I was trying to ease the child into the facts of life.

How Christians see the Bible (in it's entirety), is that it is God slowly revealing himself to his people. He doesn't give them everything all at once and it's very evident in the Biblical stories.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

Oh come on JoC...really? The omniscient all powerful all knowing god cant get his message across without asking for foreskins? This really does take the biscuit for apologetic rubbish. Heavens, man, read the damn book.

Sheldon's picture
Of all the risible desperate

Of all the risible desperate rationalisation that apologists use parent analogies are the most spurious. To compare a human parent to an omniscient omnipotent deity is asinine.

However if your argument is that humans were like babies and couldn't understand facts, explain how we gathered those facts on our own in such a relatively short time. While youre at it please explain the advantage of lying to them with a spurious myth involving original sin, magic apples and talking snakes? It would have known we'd find out the truth after all, how is that merciful?

Lastly please explain why the myths in the bible including the errant nonsense of genesis accurately reflective ignorance of humans from the culture and epoch that produced it, coincidence?

It simplyvdoesnt add up to the bible being divinely inspired, whereas it all all makes sense if it is primitive fearful human societies trying to find answers.

Religion fulfilled a need, it still does in many sadly. The comfort blanket of assuming you have the answers is so my not worth surrendering the ability to think open mindedly for yourself.

Greensnake's picture
JoC,

JoC,

A lot of phrases, such as "the ends of the earth" are inherited from a time when they could only be understood in terms of a flat earth and a Babylonian cosmos. The big problem is that the Bible never rises above a Bronze Age descriptive understanding of astronomy and not all of it can be passed off as innocent observation. As always, truth is in the details and when we study enough of those biblical details they clearly depict a Babylonian cosmos, which was a 3-layer cake consisting of the heavenly vault, the pancake earth, and the deep waters below it. I did a thread on it in 2016 which is mentioned in my longer post on this thread.

JoC's picture
Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go

Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples. Look back at the stories we say contradict science. Say, the creation of the world (Genesis 1). It’s just a chapter long in a much longer book. It’s quite obvious that the author of Genesis never meant Genesis 1 to be the end all. It actually acts as more of an introduction to the rest of Genesis. Yet, a lot of people (Christians included) expect Genesis 1 to tell the whole story when it simply wasn’t written that way.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - The Bible doesn’t go

JoC - The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples.

Oh I agree. That is why it is so crazy. The only deity that would have written that non-sense would be a deity of chaos.

Also if what the bible says is for ancient people and it's applicable to the modern world; can we assume you won't be using it for any modern arguments?

JoC's picture
I’m assuming you mean it’s

I’m assuming you mean it’s “not applicable to the modern world” and I say, of course not. We never throw away/disregard ancient wisdom or knowledge just because we aren’t the primary audience. The same goes for anything ever written.

Greensnake's picture
Joc,

Joc,

Don't you think it stupid of God to focus on a tiny, ancient audience and miss the audience of billions in today's world? I would think that an intelligent author would focus on his main audience.

If the Bible never rises above Bronze Age cosmology, then who is to say that it rises above Bronze Age morality? If it can't be trusted in the here and now, how can it be trusted in the hereafter? How can we be confident that there is even a divine author behind it?

Genesis I is clearly modeled on a Babylonian-type cosmos. That is to say, the Bible is in serious error. How could a divine author with omniscient powers fail to present an account this is acceptable to ancient readers without sacrificing the truth? See my old thread "Flat-Earth World" (03/23/2016 16:53) for a review of the cosmological errors in the Bible.

Sheldon's picture
"Exactly. The Bible doesn’t

"Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples."

You seem determined to miss the point, why is that? Why would an omniscient deity waste billions of years and vast space and energy on a universe that is largely redundant, to eventually bring about our minuscule solar system, then waste billions of years evolving life, and hundreds of millions of years tinkering with dinosaur evolution, then about 200 000 years ago finally evolve homo sapiens. only to sit by mute while humans lived suffered and died in ignorance and fear, then about 2 to 2 thousand years ago suddenly say "well that's enough of that" "it's time for an intervention". An intervention in the ancient middle east, among an ignorant and superstitious culture, only to relate a message that precisely reflected both the ignorance and superstition of that culture.

SI this really what you you would expect of an omniscient being?

"Say, the creation of the world (Genesis 1). It’s just a chapter long in a much longer book. "

Isn't the ridiculous and immoral concept of original sin important and central to the christian religion? Isn't the whole idea of atonement based on the erroneous claims in the genesis myth? If there was no original sin then the idea of vicarious atonement and the blood sacrifice of crucifixion is irrelevant.

"expect Genesis 1 to tell the whole story when it simply wasn’t written that way."

Is it really unreasonable to expect clarity and accuracy from an omniscient message? I ma always shocked at how low theists are prepared to move the bar for credulity, whilst scoffing at other religions and other versions of their religion that do the same.

Qu@si's picture
pretend that i'm an theist ok

pretend that i'm a theist ok??here is what they will say to your brilliant statement and query.

"because he is god!!"

checkmate shelly...you're owned by them...hahahahha..
*sheldon just drooled then few seconds past out*

Algebe's picture
@JoC: because it was written

@JoC: because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples.

If the Bible was meant for Bronze Age people, why is so much importance placed on it in the Digital Age? I threw away my Windows 3.1 manual because it was no longer relevant to contemporary computing. Why hasn't the Bible been discarded? It's both irrelevant and harmful today.

Or is god going to issue Bible 2.0 soon?

JoC's picture
That’s a funny analogy. But I

That’s a funny analogy. But I’ll try to answer it here.

Again, when Genesis is presenting its story, it’s not trying to give a chronological account. It’s not making a scientific point. It’s trying to make a theological one, which actually still holds true today.

I feel like I’m repeating myself over and over in these forums whenever Genesis is brought up....

So here’s a video. Lol

https://youtu.be/ZGDDKlXl488

Sheldon's picture
"Exactly. The Bible doesn’t

"Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples"

Or it was "written in the ancient times, *BY the ancient peoples"

Yes that's a much more rational explanation. It doesn't require the addition of anything supernatural or a deity either, and so satisfies Occam's razor as well as fitting the evidence of it being errant nonsense.

Sheldon's picture
"It’s easy to see the modern

"It’s easy to see the modern scientific method did not exist when the books of the Bible were written. Why are we trying to force a narrow scientific interpretation on an ancient form of literature? "

For the obvious reasons stated already, that human science outstripping and disproving a message from an omniscient deity is absurdly irrational. So you're left with either the obvious fact that the bible's errancy is evidence it is an entirely human creation, or that human errancy has corrupted it. The problem with the latter idea is that nothing in the bible can be shown as unequivocally requiring an omniscient deity to produce it, and of course no one being able to demonstrate objective evidence for any deity means Occam's razor again favours the first idea.

Why would a deity communicate or allow a message to be communicated that it knew was erroneous? Especially if it wanted the message to evidence it's existence, so that people would believe it existed and would worship it, with of course the most dire consequences imaginable for failing to do so?

"Why would God even write in terms only scientists in the past 50 years can understand?"

That's a ridiculous straw man, no one has claimed that, just pointed out that how absurdly irrational it is to claim omniscience is behind a book as demonstrably erroneous as the bible is.

"When will you guys realize that the books of the Bible weren’t meant to record scientific facts"

You have a bizarre view of atheists and atheism if you think they believe that. It's an ancient book of myths, cobbled together by humans, and reflects the human ignorance, cultures and prejudices of the epochs it is derived from.

" it isn’t a science textbook"

Why on earth would you think any atheists would think it is? People are just pointing out the obvious contradiction between the claim it is inspired by an omniscient mind and the fact it reflects precisely the ignorance and prejudice of the humans who wrote it.

"When the Bible says the Earth stands still, you call foul. But when other writers write the same line, you understand it right away to be idiomatic expression. Why is that?"

Are you being serious? Come off it Joc for goodness sake, re-read what people have written as you are missing the point spectacularly.

Sheldon's picture
"Why would God even write in

"Why would God even write in terms only scientists in the past 50 years can understand? "

To show some validation for the claim the message was from an omniscient deity, rather than thought up by ignorant bronze age Bedouins, obviously. As it now reads as if it is entirely human in origin.

Cognostic's picture
Without the Bible we would

Without the Bible we would never have known who built the pyramids in Egypt.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: Pyramids

@Cog Re: Pyramids

Okay, now you are stretching it a bit. lol

Cognostic's picture
How could anyone question the

How could anyone question the word of God? If it were not for the Bible, Lincoln never would have freed the slaves. Christopher Columbus would never have found the New World. America would still be overrun with heathen red skins.

Sheldon's picture
Without the bible we wouldn't

Without the bible we wouldn't know that rape and murder are wrong.

Also that it is grossly immoral to wear blended fabrics, or eat shellfish.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.