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.
@Tin-Man: thousands of Christian sects/denominations
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, there 33,000 denominations. Of course, 32,999 of them are totally wrong. My favorite is the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent, which was founded by a character in "Sirens of Titan" by Kurt Vonnegut.
@Algebe Re: "....Church of God the Utterly Indifferent, which was founded by a character in "Sirens of Titan" by Kurt Vonnegut."
Hmmm.... I think I have that book, but have not had a chance to read it yet. With a church like that, though, now I am really curious. lol
Algebe: “That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Any pope, priest, preacher, parson, or parishioner who doesn't share your view is excluded from your definition of Christianity because they don't "rightly understand".
My definition of Christianity is not important. The correct definition and doctrines of Christianity is what you should judge Christianity by. The authors of the 66 books in the Bible intended to convey a specific meaning in those books. In order to rightly judge Christianity you must understand what the intended meaning of the authors was. A false, incomplete, or ill informed view or understanding of Christianity could either lead one to search for a better understanding, or to condemn Christianity based on wrong beliefs about it. It is far easier to condemn that which we don’t understand than than to admit ignorance.
@AJ777: The correct definition and doctrines of Christianity is what you should judge Christianity by.
Do you mean the correct definition and doctrines that different factions of Christianity have been fighting and killing each other over for two millennia?
The authors of the 66 books in the Bible intended to convey a specific meaning in those books.
I hope that all of the authors and all of the translators were guided by the same divine inspiration. Otherwise we might have ended up with a confusing and contradictory book that could be used to justify all manner of atrocities.
@ Aj777
^^^^^^^ Read this post from Algebe as many times as you need ^^^^^^^^^^
Numpty! * AJ cocks rifle,( carefully sighting on the little toe) asks two friends to check that rifle is pointed at toe, not throat, pulls trigger....*
LOL...haven't had so many laughs since granny fell down the well, as soon as we did , Granpa chucks himself down the well crying "I thought I was rid of that noise" Oh we laughed and laughed that day.
AJ777,
"The authors of the 66 books in the Bible intended to convey a specific meaning in those books."
Don't you know that the Protestants stole 14 books from the complete Bible just about 137 years ago? I guess they didn't like to read.
TL/DR
AJ777: "It is far easier to condemn that which we don’t understand than than to admit ignorance."
Which is what you are doing for anything not-Christian.
rmfr
Whenever SFT ducks in and out of here to troll, this springs to mind each time, and makes me smile.
https://youtu.be/BZwuTo7zKM8
AJ777 "By what standard do you call someone a good person?"
They'd definitely know, and be able to explain easily, why it is immoral to torture children for a start.
Sheldon, so what is the standard?
Well being
Ok, I'll bite on this one, if only for the hilarity that will almost certainly ensue once I do.
And how are we supposed to know what the asserted "correct definition and doctrines" actually are, given that those supernaturalists declaring themselves to be "Christians" cannot agree among themselves what purportedly constitutes the "correct definition and doctrines"? There are thousands of different sects, all with their own version of the "correct definitions and doctrines", and no universal agreement between those sects on this matter. In the face of this virulent anti-consilience amongst self-declared adherents of the relevant mythology, which itself suffers from being written in obscurantist language in numerous places, containing assertions which together cannot simultaneously be true, and containing assertions about the observable universe and its contents that have since been discovered to be plain, flat, wrong, expecting us either to work this out from the available data, or blindly accepting your unsupported assertions on this matter, are both non-starters from the standpoint of obtaining whatever substantive knowledge may exist on this subject.
And once again, self-declared adherents of this mythology cannot agree among themselves what this purported "specific meaning" actually is. Now if you happen to have some fantastic insight into this, that has somehow eluded the theologians down the ages who have disagreed with each other on this matter, then a proper, lucid, detailed exposition thereof is long overdue.
Now, do you actually possess the detailed exposition of the purported "correct definition and doctrines" that has eluded so many adherents of this mythology, and if so, how come millions of other adherents of this mythology failed to alight upon this, despite exerting effort to acquire this prior to your appearance on the scene? What makes you so special and so gifted, that you can claim to possess something that has apparently eluded some of the most celebrated names in theology?
I'm going to enjoy seeing if you can actually provide something resembling genuine answers to the above.
@Cali Re: "Ok, I'll bite on this one..."
Once again, love your work.... *grinning*... Small word of advice, though..... Do not try holding your breath while waiting on any type of reasonable reply from good ol' AJ. Those "religicolored glasses" he wears probably filtered out over half of what you wrote, and he seems incapable of providing any type of answers that do not come directly from his "Apologetics 101" text book... *chuckle*... Nevertheless, at least most of the rest of us enjoy your gift for precision prose.
Cali, the existence of groups and individuals who disagree on what the meaning of a message is, is good evidence the message has a meaning to be discovered. Counterfeit currency would not exist without genuine currency. The meaning of a message lies with the author, not the reader. A message can either be interpreted correctly, or incorrectly. If you want to know the meaning of a specific text, study it, find out who wrote it and to whom was it written. When was it written. What is the main point of the text. The theme of the text. Etc... I appreciate your skepticism, I wonder if you’ve ever been skeptical of your skepticism.
@Cali Re: AJ's response
See?... Told ya....
Tin-Man
Need your hands again for a quadruple face palm.
rmfr
@AJ777: The meaning of a message lies with the author, not the reader.
If that were true, all the literature and art by authors unknown would be meaningless, from the Lascaux cave paintings to Beowulf, the Icelandic Sagas, and I dare say most of the Bible.
The meaning of words evolves through interactions among humans, like our morality. No word has precisely the same meaning to any two people. Once authors have sent their work out into world, they have no control over how it will be understood by readers. Nor do authors have any right to demand that their words will be interpreted one way or another. When I buy a book, those words are mine to understand as I wish.
I'm sure the unknown author of the words attributed to Jesus would have been horrified by the frightening cult that grew out of those words.Perhaps he should have chosen those words more carefully.
“When I buy a book those words are mine to understand as I wish” Ridiculous algebe! But since you say I can interpret your words any way I like, then I’ll interpret your response to mean you agree with me. Thanks.
AJ777: "The meaning of a message lies with the author, not the reader."
How can anyone who seems to use English fail to comprehend how wrong they are?
You are so completely wrong. Here is a quote I made in a high school debate that the teacher posted on her wall.
Per it haps you can go back to English class and ask your teacher.
rmfr
@AJ777: I’ll interpret your response to mean you agree with me.
Religulous, AJ777.
Unlike the authors and translators of your magic book, I take care to express my meanings clearly and precisely. So I think you'll be all alone in reaching that conclusion.
You’re also here to request verification from, unlike the writers of the texts referred to as the bible. :)
@AJ777
"The meaning of a message lies with the author, not the reader."
NO
When anyone authors anything, their obligation is to put to text something the reader can grasp and use effectively. When any sane person decides to put down rules and instructions, they want to make sure the reader can follow them as intended.
@ AJ777
Had to go to the doctor with serious facial bruising. He told me not to read any more of your posts. Sorry Old Thing. Apparently facepalming is injurious to my health.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Bauer-Goalie-Mask-Shell-No-Padding-NME-3-5-7-10...
AJ777, you wrote, “A message can either be interpreted correctly, or incorrectly.”
So, if the god you believe exists is all-powerful, why, do you suppose, would that god provide a message that is so very subject to misinterpretation? Do you think it is the intention of the god in whom you believe to have only a subset of people able to interpret the instructions properly? Do you think the god in whom you place your faith cares if everyone gets it right?
@AJ777
"the existence of groups and individuals who disagree on what the meaning of a message is, is good evidence the message has a meaning to be discovered."
Then it is possible that the christian message that jesus died for our sins may be invalid because it was never correctly interpreted?
Or that your god is a loving god?
@AJ777
"the existence of groups and individuals who disagree on what the meaning of a message is, is good evidence the message has a meaning to be discovered."
Then it is possible that the christian message that jesus died for our sins may be invalid because it was never correctly interpreted?
Or that your god is a loving god?
Here is my interpretation of the jesus story.
There was a kid born from a very dysfunctional family. the father was a raging alcoholic who could not hold down a job, the wife was cheating on this idiot. This kid grew up basically a street urchin, and when he got older, became a homeless and unemployable malcontent. He gathered some unsavory characters around him as part of his crime gang, and also kept a few whores around for everyone to enjoy.
Eventually one of his gang (I said they were all unsavory) gave him up to the local authorities and he was executed. No one cared but just a small handful of people. But they created an urban legend that attracted fools.
Just had a thought pop into my head browsing around.
Anyone else notice how AJ777 is now thread hopping in the hopes of recovering some face having lost previous debates?
rmfr
Oh dear. Not that I expected anything more substantial than this.
Let's take a look at this, shall we?
No it isn't. The existence of the scientific consensus alone destroys this fatuous assertion. Because, wait for it, when there does exist a message to be discovered, appropriate and proper analysis of extant data relevant thereto, results in that message being elucidated in an unambiguous and comprehensible manner. Which has occurred in every empirical scientific discipline in existence. Indeed, empirical scientists have uncovered 'messages' about the operation of the observable universe and its contents by the supertanker load, and demonstrated in robust manner that those messages arise directly from the relevant observable data.
All that the rampant anti-consilience of supernaturalists demonstrates, is that either they lack the cognitive tools required to uncover any purported "message" contained in their mythologies in a discoursively proper manner, or that the assertion of the existence of a "message" is itself in doubt.
None of your evasions, fabrications and irrelevant bad analogies changes this elementary principle.
Irrelevant bad analogy. Not least because fiction exists independently of facts.
If an author is incapable of presenting any message being offered, in an unambiguous and comprehensible manner, then the author is incompetent. Th whole point of being an author, is to present one's ideas in such a manner. A principle which, strangely enough, is equally applicable to fictional literature as well as factual documentary.
Any message that needs "interpreting", in the sense of requiring the reader to try and extract meaning from obscurantist prose, without even the most elementary of guidelines in advance as to what that prose is purportedly telling us, is probably not worth disseminating in public to begin with. Worse still, any such unambiguous and comprehensible exposition renders said obscurantist prose superfluous to requirements upon presentation, by definition. One might as well ask why the author didn't present the unambiguous and comprehensible exposition instead of the obscurantist prose. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
Except, of course, that in the absence of unambiguous and comprehensible expositions thereof, the reader is left wondering what was the point of the exercise to begin with.
Another elementary concept applicable here.
This is, not to put too fine a point upon it, drivel. Because, in case you hadn't received the memo, the whole point of scepticism, is to question assertions presented. I'm tempted to ask if you have ever done this, with regard to your adherence to mythology.
Now, let's see if you can provide some straight answers to some unambiguous and comprehensible questions. Viz:
[1] Does there exist an unambiguous and comprehensible exposition of the "correct definition and doctrines" you assert above exist? Yes or no?
[2] If the answer to [1] above is "yes", do you know what that exposition is? Yes or no?
[3] If the answer to [2] above is "yes", can you present said exposition here?
[4] If, upon answering [3] above with the relevant exposition, can you tell us why this exposition constitutes a purportedly authoritative statement thereof? Yes or no?
[5] If the answer to [4] above is "yes", why is your exposition of your particular version thereof, purportedly the "right" exposition, and other, alternative expositions purportedly "wrong"? Can you provide proper, substantive reasons for this?
If you cannot answer any of these questions with a straight answer, an honest admission to this effect will be welcome. Said honest admission will also enhance your discoursive status, rather than subtract from it, though if you do not understand why, perhaps you need to reflect upon your entire approach to discourse.
Pages