Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
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.
Donating = Loving
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It's just another of your woeful attempts to shift the burden of proof, exactly as you always do. I'm starting to wonder if you even know you''re doing it. If you think the bible is not entirely man made then demonstrate some evidence for the claim, otherwise who cares whether the odd truism slipped in here and there.
"No, if on the whole you think the bad outweighs the good, that's fine. Although I would find it redundant, since I already assume everyone here thinks that."
Well I'll not labour the irony of yet another biased assumption from you in a thread you've started to insist atheists are biased, but yet again your assumption is wrong, as there is at least one person here who doesn't think the "good outweighs the bad" in the bible. And of course I' not tied to any subjective interpretation of anything in it, and can take it exactly at face value.
I am atheist because I have seen no claim for the existence of a deity ever meet it's burden of proof. Unlike religious apologists I don't insist on a position then seek to "evidence" to confirm it.
leaving aside your dishonest straw man argument, Christians having a motive for believing the bible is far more likely to produce bias and subjectivity. Your posts do help defend the idea of theistic objectivity. That's before we look at the centuries old claim for the validity of faith, which is the very antithesis of objectivity.
Even if your biased dishonest claims were true, it hardly makes the bible or it's supernatural guff any truer.
"I believe many atheists, regardless if they were once Christian, simply look for things they disagree with, or hope to disagree with."
I think I just injured myself laughing, you have tried to deny and ignored the bible's very specific endorsements of slavery in no less that 5 separate threads I know of, hilarious.
"I would like each of you to tell me three things that you believe the Bible does right, and then three positive things about Christianity."
Three correct things in the bible doesn't make God any more real, so why would we bother just to massage your ego?
"This should be difficult or perhaps impossible if you are heavily based."
That's a fairly hilarious attempt at a loaded question, woeful stuff, terrible. Now give us your best piece of evidence that you think demonstrates that the bible is not entirely man made? You're the one making a claim a deity exists after all, so the burden of proof is entirely yours.
Wow! Has this topic gone south. Intellectual honesty does not mean "ignoring the facts." Choosing the positive is just "ignorance." Pretending that the bible is unique and different from all other religions is also ignorant. The good things in the bible came from someplace. Your 10 commandments came from Babylonian Law. Your Noah story came from the Hittites and the story of Gilgamesh. Your story of Moses from the Babylonian Exile (It has nothing at all to do with Egypt.) There is little to nothing authentic in the Bible. Choosing to see "the positive" while ignoring the rest is just "cherry-picking." It was not difficult for the atheists above to cite perfectly good things about the Bible. It was also not inappropriate of them to place these items in context. It is delusional and completely inappropriate to pretend the items are all positive, the word of God, or somehow divine. It's just a book, written by men. (I will give you the FACT that it was written by very intelligent men. Richard Carrier does a wonderful breakdown of the biblical text and how the chapters are structured. The scholars that wrote the bible were well adept in their craft.) And, it is just a book created by men to perpetuate a religion.
That's funny. I own a book of ancient Near East writings. It contains everything from laws, religious texts, stories, literally any small detail from ancient cultures that relates to the Bible. I love it. It has the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Code of Hammurapi, etc. It was given to me by a pastor friend that took a class while studying theology.
What does any of this have to do with my OP? No clue. You could have just made the Richard Carrier comment (Which was perfect) from the start and moved on with your life. I told you it would be hard.
Yes: You are expressing your opinion. We can all agree on that.
OPINION:
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
It's just that some "opinions" carry a bit more weight than others.
OP doesn't stand for Opinion.
Everything I read is for myself. I wanted to make sure I know exactly what I am rejecting. Now I know.
LOL - Who could tell you were referring to your Original Post. You have squirreled around so much.
You win. A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still. What we have here is a glass tube fallacy. Thank you for participating in the fun,
Hi John - I am sure the Bible sometimes gets it right. There's an Irish phrase which says that a stopped clock is right twice a day. In fairness the Bible contains some lines that most sensible people would echo. Psalm 106: Blessed are those who act justly, who always do whats right. Or Zechariah 7:9 - Show mercy & compassion to one another. I don't need to come up with bad examples from the other side of the ledger; this forum has loads of them.
But sometimes being right on some moral issues is nowhere near enough to support the claims that Bible supporters want to make for their book. Many voices want to assert that the Bible is always right and can't be debated or criticised. Whats more, it gets to silence every other book. It is cited as the authority on which to restrict how science is taught in science class. It has a privileged position in courtrooms. These unearned, unquestioned and unhealthy privileges are what concern me most about the Bible, not what it says.
As for the book itself... well, I haven't read the Koran and the Hadith in detail but I don't need to in order to say that I don't believe that Mohamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. I haven't studied Buddhism but I don't believe in reincarnation. Large, large parts of the claims put forward by religions are self-evidently nonsense and should be called out as such. It is simply not reasonable for the religious to challenge rational people and state that we must study your book first before we reject it.
Your first paragraph is good. Your second paragraph goes without saying. Your third paragraph as well.
I'm not interested in what you believe or reject. I'm interested in how the things you believe and reject affects your behavior. In this case, how being atheist and rejecting the Bible affects how you read and perceive the Bible.
"I'm interested in how the things you believe and reject affects your behavior. In this case, how being atheist and rejecting the Bible affects how you read and perceive the Bible."
You're getting the chronology wrong, not for the first time either. The more I read the bible the more evidence stacked up against the christian god claim. The reading of the bible came first then the atheism. The problem with your posts is that you don't understand that the importance you attach to people's atheism is unlikely to be shared by them, I attach no more significance to my lack of belief in Jesus than i do to my lack of belief in Zeus, Apollo or mermaids. As hard as that may be for you to accept it is a fact.
I just don't understand what your dilemma is. You're trying so hard to justify your objectivity, when I gave you the means to do so. You claim to have read the Bible; or at least enough to have stacked up evidence against Christians claims. Am I to believe that in all your reading, you never came across a single thing you liked or appreciated, thought was good or positive? Were you only stacking up evidence against, and none in favor?
Why is it difficult for you to list the positives, if you're as objective as you claim to be?
I have no dilemma, and I've no need nor am I trying to justify anything if you had bothered to read what I said in response to your claim you'd know this.
Breezy "Am I to believe that in all your reading, you never came across a single thing you liked or appreciated, thought was good or positive?"
>>Believe what you want, but anyone can see that's not remotely what I said though.
Breezy "Were you only stacking up evidence against, and none in favor?"
>>Try reading what I have said instead of making up false claims.I haven't made.
I answered a specific and erroneous claim you made about atheism, but for some reason you have chosen to ignore what I said entirely, and make a string of mendacious claims about something else? I have also answered your OP more than once, try reading those posts and then you wouldn't keep making erroneous claims about what I do or do not know, have read, and believe or disbelieve.
Now try again....
YOU SAID**
BREEZY***"I'm interested in how the things you believe and reject affects your behavior. In this case, how being atheist and rejecting the Bible affects how you read and perceive the Bible."
I RESPONDED***You're getting the chronology wrong, not for the first time either. The more I read the bible the more evidence stacked up against the christian god claim. The reading of the bible came first then the atheism. The problem with your posts is that you don't understand that the importance you attach to people's atheism is unlikely to be shared by them, I attach no more significance to my lack of belief in Jesus than I do to my lack of belief in Zeus, Apollo or mermaids. As hard as that may be for you to accept it is a fact.
I set the same criteria for biblical claims I do for everything, that evidence is demonstrated commensurate to the claims. It's you who has a different standard of belief for the bible from other religious claims and texts, not me.
'How I read and perceive the Bible'... routinely, I don't. How do your Christian prejudices affect your behaviour when you are studying the Koran? I suspect that you don't do any such thing. You have enough knowledge of the Koran from your basic education and your broader reading to be able to dismiss it as nonsense on its own terms, dangerous nonsense when relied upon by others as the source of all law for believers and non-believers alike.
My attitude to the Christian bible is precisely the same. Call it prejudice if you like, but when I look at bible passages I do so with a mixture of horror and distaste not so much at the passages themselves but at the capacity for societal damage that they provide to biblical literalists. You simply can't divorce the book itself from the damage that it does.
On its own the bible has great cultural significance but you will learn more about morality from many better sources, from Confucius to Voltaire to Shakespeare.
I guess in part my frustration with your argument is its artificial starting point. The world divided between two equal arguments - christian believers reading the bible, and atheists whose prejudice prevents them from understanding it. A very false dichotomy.
I don't find the Koran to be dangerous nonsense. I disagree with Islam, but no more than I disagree with Catholics or Mormons. I don't need to magnify their error to justify my dismissal. I believe each of them have so many millions of followers, precisely because they're filled with plenty of good things.
I don't see what's false or artificial with that dichotomy. If those are the two groups I wished to focus on, then they are the two groups I wished to focus on. I'm Christian, everyone here is Atheist. Who else should I have included in my argument?
It goes without saying I don't subjectively interpret the bible, what would be the point? If an omniscient omnipotent deity can't convey it's message accurately and unambiguously first time, then the idea it needs an evolved ape to accurately "interpret" it using subjective opinion is beyond absurd.
Humans are capable of morality and profundity, so it goes without saying that bible could contain both, yet still be entirely human in origin. What is equally self evident is it extremely unlikely that an omniscient omnipotent deity would deal in absurdly errant myths, and immoral evils like genocide, slavery and sex trafficking for example.If the bible contains anything that could not possibly be entirely human in origin I have not read it, or even heard of it, but by all means share it here if you know of anything.
John,
I will agree with you... I have a biased hatred for the Bible. But when I was a Christian I did really want to learn yet through reading it I found many issues. Now I no longer believe in a god, I do find the Bible disgusting, so much so that I cannot think of a single shred of good in that immoral book.
But I ask you john can you name three things you dislike about the Bible?
I guess there's one broad category, which has many examples:
I don't like the ambiguity of some verses: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Corinth 15:29). There's no way to know what Paul meant, at least not confidently. Which isn't a problem until some churches make a doctrine out of it. Or take the slavery verse about dying after two days. I'm positive it doesn't mean what you guys want it to mean. But because of the way its written, it takes a lot more work to prove my point.
" Or take the slavery verse about dying after two days. I'm positive it doesn't mean what you guys want it to mean. But because of the way its written, it takes a lot more work to prove my point."
What a shockingly dishonest thing to say, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a blanket accusation of bias against 'atheists' for objectively stating PRECISELY what the text says, without bias, and when you have subjectively just claimed you are "SURE it doesn't mean" precisely what it says?
That's rank dishonesty, and the worst kind of subjective bias. At least we can see through your OP, when you say "atheists interpret the bible the way they want" you mean they don't allow you to lie, and subjectively ignore what the text specifically says in order to interpret it as YOU want.
As I said at the start, the bias here is yours, and this thread is hilarious because that fact is so patently obvious in multiple threads. Here is the relevant passage:
"20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property."
Nothing there that remotely requires interpretation unless you are frantically trying to deny what it actually says, as of course 5 separate threads show quite clearly you are trying to do just that. If it doesn't mean what it says then that;s hardly the fault of those who read it objectively and precisely as it is written.
Bias doesn't mean you don't defend your position and it also doesn't mean you don't have subjective opinions. Moreover, if I'm able to defend my position then what's the problem?
I haven't called anyone here biased for having an opinion. I do call them biased when they seek to reaffirm that opinion exclusively. This thread tested to see how true that is. Some people passed, others admitted to be biased, and then there's those like you.
Typical bluster when you face something you can't answer. Here is what you said again, since you ignored me last time:
"Tue, 11/21/2017 - 14:45 (Reply to #72)Permalink
John 6IX Breezy ..."take the slavery verse about dying after two days. I'm positive it doesn't mean what you guys want it to mean. But ***because of the way its written,*** it takes a lot more work to prove my point."
Note how the way it is written is a barrier to YOUR desire to interpret it another way, note how you dishonestly pretend this bias belongs to atheists who accept it as it is written with your lie " it doesn't mean what *YOU GUYS* want it to mean."
What is it *US GUYS* want it to mean that isn't explicitly stated in the text?
I wonder will you have the courage and integrity to answer a direct question for once? Here's the text to help you out:
**"20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property."**
In what way is that not stating plainly a slave owner can beat a slave to death with impunity if the slave doesn't die within 48 hours, please **INTERPRET* that objectively for us so we can see where we are biased here?
I'm not getting into a slavery debate here, specially when you don't bother to follow the OP's instruction.
However, let me give you an example of ambiguity: "I shot the elephant in my pants." That phrase is ambiguous because there's more than one way to interpret it. Was the elephant that I shot living in my pants? Or was I wearing pants when I shot the elephant?
When you cling to a certain interpretation, such as me having an elephant in my pants, I have to work harder to undo it, and show the other interpretation is the appropriate one. I did so in your slavery claim by showing how other verses and the context, contradict your interpretation.
Breezy "I'm not getting into a slavery debate here,"
>>Why change your MO now, but since you raised slavery not me we can all see that the answer to my question is no, you don't have the courage or integrity to honestly answer a direct question,,, not that there was much doubt.
Tue, 11/21/2017 - 14:45 (Reply to #72)Permalink
John 6IX Breezy "Or take the slavery verse about dying after two days. I'm positive it doesn't mean what you guys want it to mean. But because of the way its written, it takes a lot more work to prove my point."
-----------------------------------------------------------
""I shot the elephant in my pants.""
I have no interest in what you do in your pants.
------------------------------------------
"When you cling to a certain interpretation, "
>>You are the one clinging to your favoured interpretation that the text opposes quite specifically. All I did was read the text exactly as written. Here it is again since you have ignored it, and are busy shooting into your own pants...
As I said at the start, the bias here is yours, and this thread is hilarious because that fact is so patently obvious in multiple threads. Here is the relevant passage:
"20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property."
Nothing there that remotely requires interpretation unless you are frantically trying to deny what it actually says, as of course 5 separate threads show quite clearly you are trying to do just that. If it doesn't mean what it says then that;s hardly the fault of those who read it objectively and precisely as it is written.
Don't insult my intelligence with moronic and irrelevant analogies, there is an example of text that I accept exactly as it is written, and you have stated plainly you don;t accept it, and the way it written is a barrier to what you want to believe it means. Deal with that candidly please, show some integrity just once and I might think your beliefs have some basis in reality, and some cogent thought process is involved even if they are ultimately false. Leave your pants alone, please...
The person that reads my analogy, and takes it to mean an elephant was in my pants, is also reading it objectively and precisely as it is written, and yet it is still the wrong way to interpret the phrase. I also don't know what version of the Bible you are quoting from here, but it seems to side more with my explanation than yours. I'll make sure to use this version when I post my thread on the subject.
Once again I have no interest in irrelevant moronic analogies. What in the following quote do you agree with? As you have denied repeatedly that the bible endorses slavery?
20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property.
Do you accept it endorses slavery now? Do you accept it condones beating a slave, even to death as long as it doesn't die within 48 hours? Only these would be drastic reversals from your previous assertions, though admittedly they'd be an accurate assessment of what those passages were saying. Again to tie in with your OP as you seem to miss the connection, I am an atheist and am not seeking any particular interpretation of the bible, as you have tried to claim, I am reading it objectively as it is written, and it is hardly ambiguous. Now are you prepared to accept what it says AS IT IS WRITTEN? Or are you "positive it doesn't mean what you guys want it to mean. But because of the way its written, it takes a lot more work to prove my point. even though it makes it much harder for you to interpret it as you want to, in your own words." as you just claimed two posts ago?
I already stated my position on most of these questions in previous threads. And as to your attempt to tie this in with the OP, those questions are answered by my analogy.
Except you are contradicting yourself everywhere, and accusing atheists of bias? Since it was you who raised the topic of slavery in your earlier post, and cited the text that condones beating slaves, in a thread where you have claimed atheists are misinterpreting the bible through bias, you need to clarify what in the text you cited atheists are misinterpreting. Here is the text for clarification.
20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property.
Clearly this biblical text endorses the right to own and beat slaves to death, as long as they don't die within 48 hours of the beating. Are you now claiming my reading is not biased or wrong? If so then you have reversed your earlier position, where you claimed the text was a barrier to you arguing what you believed / wanted it to mean. I'd also disagree you gave answers to my questions as giving candid answers to direct questions simply isn't how you roll.
I'm contradicting your assertions, not mine. I didn't accuse anyone of bias. I stated my reasons for believing there is bias, and offered a way to disprove those beliefs. I also don't think I need to clarify anything about that verse since that's a discussion I've already had. I'm here using that discussion as an example, which I believe satisfies the point I was making.
"I'm contradicting your assertions, not mine."
>>You have claimed you agreed with the quote that specifically endorses owning slaves and beating them, even to death (as long as they don't die within 48 hours) this directly contradictions your previous claims denying the bible does this.
"I didn't accuse anyone of bias. I stated my reasons for believing there is bias,."
>>Oh ffs...you levelled the accusation at atheists, here are a few quotes to jog your execrable memory.
1) Breezy "I believe many atheists, regardless if they were once Christian, simply look for things they disagree with, or *hope* to disagree with."
2) Breezy "I do assume the Bible is interpretable. That's why I believe *atheists have incentive* to pick the least charitable one, the least logical one, the least beneficent one. Because doing so makes it easiest to reject."
3) Breezy "We're all biased."
4) Breezy "As I mentioned in the OP: "I believe many atheists, ......simply look for things they disagree with, or *hope* to disagree with."
5) Breezy "Why is it difficult for you to list the positives, if you're as objective as you claim to be?"
6) Breezy "take the slavery verse about dying after two days. I'm positive it doesn't mean what you guys **WANT** it to mean."
7) Breezy " I do call them biased when they seek to reaffirm that opinion exclusively."
>>All quotes from your posts in this thread either making explicit accusations of bias or tacitly implying it.
So I ask again from this verse and my sentence after what have I said that misinterprets it using bias?
20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property.
Clearly this biblical text endorses the right to own and beat slaves to death, as long as they don't die within 48 hours of the beating.
------------------------------------------------
"I also don't think I need to clarify anything about that verse since that's a discussion I've already had."
>>You raised the verse in question not me, and made a claim that it was a barrier to the argument you wanted to make, and then a shameful lie was implied by you that stated you were "sure it didn't mean what *YOU GUYS* want it to mean. Of course you now want to run away and not answer, but i won't play your puerile games, I prefer honest debate and discussion. That also is a clear accusation of bias as well, something you just denied doing. What else could *wanting* something to have a particular meaning be other than bias? So two lies for the price of one there.
"I'm here using that discussion as an example, which I believe satisfies the point I was making."
>>On a par with the rest of your beliefs then, as you are equally reticent when asked to demonstrate evidence for those as well. I'll leave it to others to decide if you have offered anything approaching candour here Though it is palpably your usual mendacious tap dance using smoke and mirrors to try and denigrate those who don't hare your beliefs.
Pages