OT: What's your religeon?

[dogscoff]

On the other hand, it is somewhat surprising on how many people make such strong statements on a book they have never read. ...
It doesn't make sense to dismiss it without first examining the evidence.

I've never read the bible either, but we were forced to read or listen to bits at school, and to watch really poorly-animated bible stories, and to take part in nativity plays and all that, so large chunks of the stories (if not the actual text) are at least familiar to me and to most people I know. The stories and such that I was told appear to be a more-or-less random entanglement of mythology and ancient history.

The idea that every word in the Bible is the actual word of God is absurd to me- you have to admit that Man has a habit of putting words into God's mouth, and to me the bible is nothing more than the end result of two or three thousand years of that: Most of the Old Testament was carried by nothing more than word-of-mouth for centuries before it was ever put into writing, and various political spins were woven into it by different people along the way. Then you have the New Testament, which was written by loads of very different people over several centuries and has also been re-written/ re-translated with "spin" throughout that time by those who have used it to advance their own viewpoints/ justify their own actions. <snip listing of various barbarisms carried out in the name of Christ over the Last two Millenia> More to the point though, the bible- in particular the New Testament- has been interwoven with mythologies from other religions (to ease conVersion from other those religions throughout the ages) so that you have to wonder how much of it there is left that could actually have anything to do with the true story/ teachings of Christ. Quite a lot, probably, but how do you know which bits are which? It just throws into doubt the reliability of the whole thing.

And of course that's all assuming you can get past the "yes, there is a God" belief that is fundamental to the entire process, which to be honest makes the whole thing a non-starter for me.

Finally there's the fact that the bible doesn't seem to carry any single, clear message: Some people use it to promote universal peace and acceptance, others to justify bigotry and murder, even in this day and age. Those are the extremes of the spectrum, be it seems that every possible permutation in-between is accomodated somewhere. They can't all be right. What's the point in basing your faith on a book that can mean anything you want it to mean? I might as well not bother with the book and do whatever I want anyway. (Which is pretty much what I have done.)

[Ragnarok]

dogscoff said:
Finally there's the fact that the bible doesn't seem to carry any single, clear message: Some people use it to promote universal peace and acceptance, others to justify bigotry and murder, even in this day and age. Those are the extremes of the spectrum, be it seems that every possible permutation in-between is accomodated somewhere. They can't all be right. What's the point in basing your faith on a book that can mean anything you want it to mean? I might as well not bother with the book and do whatever I want anyway. (Which is pretty much what I have done.)

Actually that is an interesting point. If you were to study the Bible you would see that it does carry a single message or theme throughout it. That theme is the vindication of God's sovereignty by means of the Messianic Kingdom Government. The Bible clearly covers a wide range of other topics but they all tie in with and go back to that main theme.

[AgentZero]

Unapologetically aethiest. Couple points I'd like to make though.
1) Aethism does not count as a religion. Aethism is the lack of belief in God, not a belief in the lack of God.
2) Refering to God as 'He' is not sexist. It's proper English. Ask any English teacher (or English major) and they will tell you that in the English language, the default gender for beings of indeterminate sex is male.

[Alneyan]

Well, there is somewhat of a debate about such pronouns, though the masculine form is still dominant (if not the only one) in grammar books; interestingly, nobody is concerned about this in the French language, even though the situation is exactly the same.

A summary of alternatives among many (from someone involved in linguistics, for lack of a better term) is available here .

[AMF]

Allow me to add to this that it is commonly asserted by those with some sort of belief in god that atheists are unable to have a set of morals. This is, of course, not true. Morals exists just fine outside of the beleif in some divine presence. I just always feel the need to point this out whne this topic comes up since non-atheists love to paint atheists as amoral, evil, etc...

AgentZero said:
Unapologetically aethiest. Couple points I'd like to make though.
1) Aethism does not count as a religion. Aethism is the lack of belief in God, not a belief in the lack of God.
2) Refering to God as 'He' is not sexist. It's proper English. Ask any English teacher (or English major) and they will tell you that in the English language, the default gender for beings of indeterminate sex is male.

[Niltrias]

This is probably the most amusing OT post I've seen on this forum. Though I'm a bit late, here goes...

I was raised mormon. Or raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I later converted to Orthodoxy (russian, to be specific, not that it matters.) I used to be a monk but gave it over.

My brother is the Army's wiccan chaplain for germany.

Niltrias

[Spoo]

alarikf said:
Allow me to add to this that it is commonly asserted by those with some sort of belief in god that atheists are unable to have a set of morals. This is, of course, not true. Morals exists just fine outside of the beleif in some divine presence. I just always feel the need to point this out whne this topic comes up since non-atheists love to paint atheists as amoral, evil, etc...

Strangely enough, I've heard this accusation made against theists many times, yet in all of my dealings with theists, I've NEVER heard any of them claim atheists are unable to have morals. NEVER.

Now, I can easily imagine that there are people in this world who think they are God's right hand and who would say such a thing. I, however, have never had the (dis)pleasure of conversing with them. I assure you, they are the minority.

To claim that theists "commonly assert" that atheists are incapable of morals is simply untrue.

[Electrum]

Wow! I never would have imagined a simple statement would create such a brew-ha-ha! I sometimes forget that religious fervor isn’t limited to the pro-Bible stance.

Narf, I’m sorry that this conversation has seemed to move your thread away from it’s original intent. That being said, this will be my final post on this subject. I have found that arguments & debates rarely, if ever, change anyone’s views. To the contrary, they usually make a person more set in there opinions.

Deccan, I check out the opinions promoted in the sites you listed. The Bible has never been short of controversies & critics. It was interesting that the majority of the issues were not w/ Biblical accuracy & historicity, rather with the views of those who claim to speak for it, just as I had mentioned. The rest is a promotion of opinions of so-caller “Higher Critics”. Such opinions are nothing new. It is interesting that the standard such higher critics use with the Bible is: If there is no corroborating evidence, it must be a lie.
Son rushes hurriedly into the house to talk with his father.
Son: Dad! Dad! I just saw an albino deer behind the house.
Father: Really! Did anyone see it?
Son: Nope! Just me!
Father (as he starts beating his son): NEVER LIE TO ME AGAIN!

Again, although the Bible was not written as a science textbook, Bible says nothing that is contrary to established scientific facts. The progression of the Biblical creation account is:
(1) a beginning
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water
(3) light (Remember that this is from the perspective of the Earth)
(4) an expanse or atmosphere (second creative day refers firmament (KJV) Others use “Expanse” the Hebrew word use here means to stretch out or spread out or expand. Amazing what a little research can turn up)
(5) large areas of dry land
(6) land plants
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals
(10) man.
Nothing unscientific there. If fact, science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. The issues usually arise interjecting information that’s not there, such as the 7 creative days being 7 literal 24 hours days, instead of what is being stated, 7 eras or epochs in the preparation of the earth several thousand years in length (interestingly, the Genesis account never states an end of the seventh day. Paul, in his writing states still being in the seventh rest day.)

Think of the mathematical probability with coming up with this order (1 in 3,628,800)

How does this compare to other culture’s creation stories?

the principal Babylonian myth says that the god Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, killed the goddess Tiamat, then took her corpse and “split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky.” So the earth and its sky came into existence. As to the creation of human life, this myth states that the gods caught the god Kingu and they “imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by James Pritchard, 1974, pp. 67, 68)
Other cultures have similar stories. One Egyptian myth relates that the sun-god Ra created mankind from his tears.

Are any of these plausible and in harmony with scientific fact? The very nature on the Genesis account and these stories is so different, is it really reasonable to think the Genesis account was copied from them, as some critics claim?

Again, though the Bible is not a science textbook, it shows remarkable insight in such matters. Especially remarkable when compared with the thinking of the time. While much of the world was believing the world was flat, supported on the backs of elephants, the Bible clearly states the world was a sphere (Isa 40:22) suspended on nothing (Job 26 : 7). While the rest of the world’s medical practices were employing dangerous techniques involving dung & urine, the Mosaic Law instituted hygienic practices including not touching dead bodies and quarantines. Again, well above the standards of the times they were written, why above the standards of relatively modern times, too.

Biblical critics & revisionist historians will continue to give their opinions. Yet the Bible time and time again has stood up against such claims, many times aided by science & archeology.

Again, I apologize Narf for the direction this thread took. This will be my final post on this subject. I just felt that some of the misinformation needed to be corrected. I hope you don’t mind.

[Azselendor]

Electrum,
A lot of your arguments are not supported and highly inacurate and based upon fallacy, not fact. Your arguement is actually based on a number of illogical premises like: Shifting the burden of proof, Reification / Hypostatization, Plurium interrogationum / Many questions, Non sequitur, Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion, Affirmation of the Consequent, Converting a conditional, Bifurcation, and so on.

While condemning other religions for being out of touch, the same religions are used to support the Noah fable. IE, global floods which are entirely impossible. Earth lacks the amount of water needed to support such a flood to the extent described in any fable.

As to disprove your agrument, I will not rely upon any athiestic or non-religious documents but merely point you to the nearest mosque and ask them for pamphlets about thier religion and science. You'll find many of the arguments in them are word-for-word your arguements.

Spoo,
As an Athiest, I have been accused of lacking morality because I lack religious beliefs just as many times as I've been accused of being a satanist. But what this means is that the accuser does not understand what athiesm is. Athiesm is not a denial of simply god, but a denial of fact without proof or facts without proof. When such claims are made against an athiest, it is religion or a relgious individual attempting to define athiesm in the realm of beliefs they understand. Typically it's in a negative light to illustrate an argument or to place someone on the defensive.

My solution to it is, for the satanist claim, is to point out the satan of the bible is a christian for his belief in the biblical god. For the morality charge, I demand they define thier own morality without using the bible or religion.

You are correct, most thiest do not make the morality claim against athiests. The people who make the claims are people on soap boxes invoking the Royal "We". Argumentum ad populum is the fallacy in this case.

Narf, you are very right. The Bibles of today are not the bibles that the first church laid down. Countless tranlations and retranslation mistakes add up over time, then to top it off the bible is drawn for various documents and oral traditions and older religions that further compound things.

But this is not to say some of the parables from the bible are bad ones, some of it is very good and helps to teach life lessons. The problem is when the mindless zeal of zealots are used to push for personal gain and power is when religion directly conflicts with others.

When people argue about the conflict on which religion is right and which is wrong, I can't help but frown in dismay. Our founding fathers in America were able to put aside thier athiest & religious beliefs and realize there are bigger things than religion going on in this world and we need to focus on the world here and now.


Back on topic,

I'm an Progressive Freethinking Federalist Athiest