Please consider the following as a request for information.
As atheists we do not believe in any god.
By extension, we do not believe there ever was a god.
Therefore the Bible (“The Word of God”) is theologically irrelevant and meaningless, and always has been so.
So why do we debate and discuss, in a theological context, the stories, contradictions, “miracles” and people in the Bible, a) with theists and b) amongst ourselves?
(As an aside, I will admit that there are some valuable non-theological lessons in personal behavior in the Bible. For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan regarding bigotry and racism, and the passage, “You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye,” come to mind.)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Completely agree. Atheism is a declaration of apathy relative to all things supernatural, specifically god/religion related, and by that declaration the assumption is no further thought will be extended towards it. Yet, we persist.
It isn't really about the definition and assumption of atheism, though. It's about a juxtaposition between people of philosophical distinctions, or differences, and their impact upon whole cultures across our global population. There's much to be identified in terms of the variables in behavioral anthropology originating in, and extended from god-fearing groups and their resulting divisiveness over the centuries.
Only an atheist can neutrally take up that perspective, being on the outside looking in, and attempt logic-based assessments of the irrationalities of faith based behavioral models.
It's a fat free diet, if you will.
Nevermind the valuable moral lessons, they were pilfered from our common human heritage anyway.
With regards to us, and why we meet, I must say I think you are perfectly accurate to question. Reason would dictate that atheist would have no association with religion - for or against.
When I posed this same question - and the irony in our meeting - to Jeff Vella Leone, he stated "we are not just atheist; we are atheist who care." This being the websites motto, I took his response to be tongue-in-cheek - but if you consider it, it makes sense.
I think we are not atheist, as per the definition. Rather, we're post-theist (separate from the theory), or people after belief. What does that mean? Maybe we gather as a way to grieve. I don't know. Or maybe I do, and am afraid to say. It'd be typical of a post-theist, wouldn't it?
: )
Well, the answer is easy.
The bible, the Qur'an and the Torah are what the faithful always fall back to as "proof" of their beliefs. So, the better we know the scriptures and everything that is wrong with it, the better we can debate the religious. It can also be interesting to know how and when they have been created and consolidated, both from a historical perspective and a debating perspective.
However, I do agree that way too much time is spent on discussing such obviously fabricated "books".
(I wonder how long it will take for someone to start spamming this subject with "the true story of gods behind the fictional story of God")
@The Pragmatic
"(I wonder how long it will take for someone to start spamming this subject with "the true story of gods behind the fictional story of God)"
Mission accomplished! :-D
Like it or not, the theory has been installed and will never be forgotten!
@Alembe
We are studying the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) because it says that the gods had sex with women and produced a new race of humans. Only, we fail to understand what the ancient author wanted to communicate (perhaps that we have got far too small iq to enable us to understand)!!
It is possible that you have IQ problems but please speak for yourself.
It it quite clear that it is saying that the sons of godSSS took as many woman as they wanted.
Thus the sons of godSSS were a different race but could procreate with our woman too.
We are talking about a different specie similar to humans.
The author was just reporting something that he did not fully understand.
I couldn't easily find reputable sources, who would claim knowledge of Egyptian slave breeding colonies, and the direct involvement of "gods" as the centre of the genetic selection process.
Maybe I didnt look hard enough, but it seems a theory that doesn't have much hard evidence to support it. Could you provide an independent link to a scholarly article, that might support the claim of the modern bible being the corrupted rule book of an ancient slave society?
I thought you might have some insight into this.
@Mitch
“I couldn't easily find reputable sources, who would claim knowledge of Egyptian slave breeding colonies, and the direct involvement of "gods" as the centre of the genetic selection process.”
There are no such sources.
What do the Egyptologists teach about Osiris? The he was the god of the dead!
The Egyptian title of Orisis is “Lord of the Living” and yet “Living” does not mean “alive” it means “gods by birth” as most gods had a common woman as mother, the same as the humans did.
There is an inscription that reads:
Osiris created new life in the great harem in Thebes
I found this inscription in the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptyae. You can see an image of the entry in page 14 of the following article:
https://www.academia.edu/9608618/Open_letter_to_Egyptologists_1_Human_br...
The gods were creating humans by raping imprisoned girls who eventually were accused to be whores. :-D
“Could you provide an independent link to a scholarly article, that might support the claim of the modern bible being the corrupted rule book of an ancient slave society?
I thought you might have some insight into this.”
No such thing either. The Bible scholars refuse to explain the incidents where the God attacked Moses to kill him (Ex. 4: 24-26) and the “marriage” of the sons of the gods to the daughters on men (Gen. 6:2).
The scholars dare not attack religion when they can indeed cause it harm.
I don't think your papers are written for the non-Egyptologist, so I do appreciate your additions to clarify you interpretations of ancient texts.
You begin with the opening line of:
"Dear ladies and gentlemen Egyptologists, You are hereby accused of pretending not to understand what is written in the texts when reference is made to the judgment."
Yet you did not explain how they have been pretending. If you could summarize the problem, your theory, analysis, and conclusion in a page - and present that as an opening statement - it'd help me greatly. : )
_Yet you did not explain how they have been pretending. If you could summarize the problem, your theory, analysis, and conclusion in a page - and present that as an opening statement - it'd help me greatly. : )_
You do have a point here!
The non-Egyptologist who will read the article in question is expected to be a person with an interest in the subject. One who most probably had sometime wondered why the ancient Egyptians, who taught science and philosophy to the world, were so damned stupid when it came to religion (believing that the dead persons were having sex in afterlife) and why they had such a preoccupation with judgment.
“Judgment” is the key word!
If the judgment idea was indeed a conception of the theologians, then modern religion (Last Judgment etc.) had nothing to worry about. If, however, the judgment was an everyday practice in ancient Egypt and the judges were judging people alive, killing those found not suitable, then modern religion was in danger of having the ridiculous idea of the judgment of soul exposed.
The Egyptologists, in order to protect religion, mistranslate the texts when reference to the judgment is made but, for this fact to be proven, detailed analysis of the texts with quotes from various dictionaries and other texts is indispensable and thus the article ends up suitable to be read only by very few persons.
Moreover, I have came to realize the fact that I like to do the research but I am no good at communicate what is on my mind. :-(
@Dimitrios
Given that we humans and chimpanzees share 98.8% of our DNA, either these gods didn't contribute very much to modern humans or perhaps they were human themselves ;-)
@Alembé
Is there a race today that bears in its genome part of the DNA of an extinct race?
A race which is an hybrid race, the result of the interbreeding of two races?
_The “gods” created “humans” in their image. How did they accomplice that?
_By eliminating those that did not come out in their image (that is how the other race went extinct).
The Australians were prohibiting the Aboriginal girls to marry men of their own race in order for their race to disappear. Fortunately they failed; the “gods” did not fail. :-D
@Dimitrios,
Scientifically, the more one looks at “race” the harder it becomes to define. We are a complex mixture, all of whom can interbreed; therefore I consider all of us to be members of one human race.
That said, there are many people alive today who have genes that have been identified to come from Neanderthals and/or Denisovans – humans who are now extinct.
For your thesis that “The “gods” created “humans” in their image…By eliminating those that did not come out in their image” to be true, then all “gods” everywhere in the world, would have to be acting similarly for a considerable period of time on all the different populations of humans. Is there any evidence to support this?
I think I can answer this:
He considers to "gods" of antiquity to actually have been people, who'se actions have bee inflated by theologians. Specifically, the lords of ancient Egypt.
@Alembé
“Scientifically, the more one looks at “race” the harder it becomes to define. We are a complex mixture, all of whom can interbreed; therefore I consider all of us to be members of one human race.”
In my opinion races were well defined from the very beginning:
Black, White, Yellow and Red, the main races with Neanderthals and Denisovans added lately. Humans are ONE SPECIES divided into races.
Those who regard Neanderthals and Denisovans members of a different species, those are the racists.
Furthermore the science of genetics has proved that no human race evolved out of another human race. Africans (by that term the members of the black race are meant) reached the stage of AMH (Anatomically Modern Human) approximately 200,000 years before the Eurasian did it and therefore the members of the white race started as members of the white race from South Africa (c. 70,000 years ago) and not as black people who turned white.
“That said, there are many people alive today who have genes that have been identified to come from Neanderthals and/or Denisovans – humans who are now extinct.”
Correct!
The white guys who reached Near East 60k to 50k years ago interbred with Neanderthals, drove them to extinction and then proceeded to Europe where they also killed the European Neanderthals.
“For your thesis that “The “gods” created “humans” in their image…By eliminating those that did not come out in their image” to be true, then all “gods” everywhere in the world, would have to be acting similarly for a considerable period of time on all the different populations of humans. Is there any evidence to support this?”
Everything happened in the Near East. When the hybrids Homo sapiens sapiens – Neanderthal left the area they spread all over the earth and their story along with them.
While in the Near East they were forced to speak the language of the white “gods” (in the Egyptian texts there are two judgment tests mentioned: one focused on the physical appearance and one on the ability to speak the proper language). When they left, different languages were developed (The Bible is right about the Tower of Babel and the dispersal of the people afterwards, but we are not yet in a position to understand that events 45,000 years old are mentioned).
Do not forget that modern linguists speak of the mother language which they call Proto World, or something.
"further more The science of genetics has proved that no human race evolved Out of another human race"
Did I miss a memo? What proof? Please supply a link to any scholarly papers heralding this proof. I'd appreciate it.
@Andrew McArthur
Max Planck 2010
html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html
pdf: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/pdf/nature09710.pdf
Take notice of figures 1 and 3
I'm guessing we have different understandings of the term "proof."
Thanks Dimitrios. I'll look it over.
man the quackery in this thread has reached a new high.
yeah, i noticed it too, its 4k+ and counting...insanely amazing huh?
maybe there's a glitch...or its just me?
Hi Qu@si,
The OP went up back in May 2015. It's had time to accumulate.
A.
yeah, i didn't see that coming..hahaha..my bad,, dumb me..
anyway... thanks for the FYI..
for me we discuss bible basically because of the wrong doctrines..
and some say the bible will be the reason why war is imminent.
I believe the question was why do we spend time discussing religion. So that we will not end up burned at the stake again by these ignorant people. How many innocent women were brutally tortured here in America because some men who were abstinent, with women, wearing somber dresses had a problem with sex? Never again.
Since so many people are religious and I interact with them, I like to know some of what they believe. Some of Jesus’s parables, for instance, are useful in conveying a message to persuade to engage a course of action.
I have a high enough IQ to know this is all a bunch of bull shit ☺️
If their were a super Grand Master in the sky, how retarded would it be that he made it so only a genious could figure out what the truth really is ?
If imaginary God's were real, they would be clearly obvious. End of story.
The bible, what we call the old testament, was originally just a collection of stories and retellings of myths and fables that constituted the Jewish religion. As a piece of literature its an interesting collection of linked stories myths legends and prophecy about gods wizards witches necromancers faith healers miracle workers and life beyond death that has a vagueness of purpose that tantalises uncritical minds.
A complicated fairy story if you like.
Unfortunately during the course of history the bible and the Jewish religion got mixed with Greek philosophy, which included a rigid formalised logical examination of what a god and what religion should be like. This mix of mythology and philosophy has provided beleivers and controllers with an inexhaustible supply of vague and complicated explanations for just about every form of hocus pocus ever contrived about life and death. And in the middle of all of this came the cult of Jesus, Christ and the Messiah. It has been utilised by and created all the major christian religions and Islam too, but it was skilfully managed by the intellectuals of the Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years to keep the masses in submission.
I thoroughly recommend reading Barbara Tuchmann's Sword and Bible if you want to understand the bible's massive contribution to the English language and its affect on critical events in modern history.
not editied at all, I gotta go to work, I'm late now.
Because we're born into a believing culture. There's a church on the corner. Christmas carols play in the supermarket from November to December 25, then the Easter eggs turn up at the end of January. If that was the extent of it, we wouldn't discuss the bible, but it isn’t. Those churches on the corners have a great deal of money and that gives them a great deal of influence over society. Far too much influence. Most people find nothing odd in churches dictating morality to secular society. They think churches are all about the greater good, not power. Atheists use the bible to highlight the contradictions in it, in the hope that people will start to wonder if there are contradictions in the religion itself and find out for themselves.