Posts tagged the bible.

Bible Contradictions: Why Are They There? What Do They Entail? ›

The day was December 22, 69 CE. It was no ordinary day, at least not for the people of ancient Rome, and it was certainly not a quiet one. The previous year had seen the overthrow and suicide of the scandalous emperor Nero and the final collapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Earlier this year, the Roman empire had been divided and fought over by three successive, short-lived emperors. The first, Galba, had been assassinated by an angry mob in January, the second, Otho, had committed suicide in April, and now the third, Aulus Vitellius, was about to breathe his last.

Continue Reading

A must read!  In many ways, this serves as a response to my earlier post in where I responded to Bock’s video.  It seems Ferguson, like Ehrman, doesn’t like harmonization—and now we see why.  Ehrman, as paraphrased by Bock, thinks harmonizing is an illegitimate way of handling the text.  After reading Ferguson’s post, it’s hard to disagree with Ehrman’s stance.

#atheism  #history  #christianity  #the bible  #matthew ferguson  
∞  May 02, 2013
7 notes

A number of the books of the New Testament were disputed already in early Christianity, among the Christian scholars of the second to the fourth centuries, who were arguing over which books should be included in Scripture.

The most famous instance is the book of Revelation. A third-century Christian scholar of Alexandria, Egypt, named Dionysius, argued that the book was not actually written by Jesus’ disciple John, the son of Zebedee. Dionysius’ argument was compelling and continues to be compelling to scholars today. He maintained that the writing style of the book is so different from that of the Gospel of John that they could not have been written by the same person (modern scholars differ from Dionysius only in thinking that the Gospel too was probably not written by John). Dionysius thought there must have been two authors of the same name who later came to be confused as the same person. But it is interesting that Dionysius, according to the church father Eusebius, had a number of predecessors who had argued that Revelation was written not by a different man named John, but by a heretic named Cerinthus, who forged the account in order to promote his false teaching that there would be a literal future paradise of a thousand years here on earth.

The small letter of Jude, allegedly written by Jesus’ own brother, was also debated in the early church. Some Christians argued that it was not authentic, in part, according to the famous fourth-century Christian scholar Jerome, because the book quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it were authoritative Scripture. The book of 2 Peter was rejected by a number of early church fathers, as discussed by both Jerome and Eusebius, but not more straightforwardly than the notable Christian teacher of Alexandria Didymus the Blind, who argued that “the letter is false and so is not to be in the canon.” Peter, in other words, did not actually write it, according to Didymus, even though the author claimed to be Peter.

Other Christian teachers disputed whether 1 and 2 Timothy were actually by Paul, some claiming that their contents showed that he did not write them. The book of Hebrews was particularly debated; the book does not explicitly claim to be written by Paul, but there are hints at the end that the author wants readers to think that he’s Paul (see 13:22-25). For centuries its Pauline authorship was a matter of dispute. The book was finally admitted into the canon only when nearly everyone came to think Paul must have written it.

In short, there were long, protracted, and often heated debates in the early church over forged documents. Early Christians realized that there were numerous forgeries in circulation, and they wanted to know which books were written by their alleged authors and which were not.

Bart Ehrman (2011. Forged, p.21-22)
#atheism  #history  #bart ehrman  #the bible  #christianity  
∞  April 19, 2013
15 notes

Thousands of people have written to tell me that I am wrong not to believe in God. The most hostile of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally imagine that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.

Sam Harris

(via the9th)

#atheism  #sam harris  #christianity  #the bible  
∞  February 17, 2013
193 notes
via the9th
zoom
Yes, Cyrenius was an important Roman official in the time of Augustus. His name was really Quirinius, which became Kyrinios in Greek, and Cyrenius in English. (The RSV bible has corrected his name back to Quirinius.) He was in charge of Roman military matters in Syria, which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on 2 different occasions: 6-4 BCE and 6-9 CE. Apparently this information was unknown to Ingersoll, who claims Cyrenius did not come into power until ten years after the death of Herod the Great. What Ingersoll is speaking of is Cyrenius’ second term, from 6-9 CE. No Christian scholar contends that Jesus was born as late as 6-9 CE. The consensus among Christian scholars is that he was born in 4 BCE, during Cyrenius’ first term. And all Christian scholars, even Fundamentalists, agree that Cyrenius was governor twice. According to Josephus, there was a census taken for the purpose of assessing a special tax initiated during Cyrenius’ second administration. During this time, Herod Archelaus (son of Herod the Great) had been deposed as ethnarch, and Judea had come under direct Roman rule— it became a “procuratorial province” with its capital at Caesarea and Caponius as procurator. This we know as fact. This change in rulership— Judea coming under direct Roman authority— is the reason behind the special taxation. As long as Judea was under the control of a native ruler, Rome was willing to let the taxes be collected in whatever way that pleased the ruler, as long as the appropriate amount was sent on to Rome. But once Rome took control, taxation had to be done systematically, and hence the need for the census— numbering the people and their possessions. And that’s why only Luke’s story mentions that the taxation was under Augustus Caesar, and he says nothing of Herod Archelaus— because Herod was gone. Herod the Great (Herod Archelaus’ father) ruled Judea as king during Cyrenius’ first term, but he died in 4 BCE. This is the ‘death of Herod’ mentioned in Matthew. Between Cyrenius’ first and second terms, Herod Archelaus was governor of Judea; but he was deposed prior to Cyrenius’ second term. The taxation that Luke claims Joseph and Mary fled from happened in Cyrenius’ second term, under the direct rule of Augustus Caesar. The contradiction stands, even stronger now than in Ingersoll’s day. If there was a Jesus, and if he was born around 4 BCE, then yes, Cyrenius was governor at that time. BUT, that’s not when Luke’s taxation under Augustus happened. It happened in Cyrenius’ second term around 7 CE, when Jesus must have been around 11 years old. Continue Reading First off, let me begin by saying that I admire this attempt to simplify history and an argument that can be used against the reliability of the Gospels.  However, history requires an attention to detail; perhaps that is why a lot of atheists stray from studying it or using it in discussions with the devout—particularly Christians; that’s unfortunate because nothing disproves Christianity more than a close examination of its history or more accurately, its inconsistent, misrepresented or embellished account of history—if it’s even proper to say that Christianity accounts for history.  I simply ask that you relay accurate information.  Please and thank you; this isn’t meant to embarrass though I’ve made it public, but this sort of thing can be repeated.  Moreover, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this though I didn’t know at the time that atheist-overdose was a bot (see here).  That was in response to a post on atheist-overdose that gave the impression that Christians got their morals from the New Testament.

Yes, Cyrenius was an important Roman official in the time of Augustus. His name was really Quirinius, which became Kyrinios in Greek, and Cyrenius in English. (The RSV bible has corrected his name back to Quirinius.) He was in charge of Roman military matters in Syria, which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on 2 different occasions: 6-4 BCE and 6-9 CE. Apparently this information was unknown to Ingersoll, who claims Cyrenius did not come into power until ten years after the death of Herod the Great. What Ingersoll is speaking of is Cyrenius’ second term, from 6-9 CE.

No Christian scholar contends that Jesus was born as late as 6-9 CE. The consensus among Christian scholars is that he was born in 4 BCE, during Cyrenius’ first term. And all Christian scholars, even Fundamentalists, agree that Cyrenius was governor twice.

According to Josephus, there was a census taken for the purpose of assessing a special tax initiated during Cyrenius’ second administration. During this time, Herod Archelaus (son of Herod the Great) had been deposed as ethnarch, and Judea had come under direct Roman rule— it became a “procuratorial province” with its capital at Caesarea and Caponius as procurator. This we know as fact. This change in rulership— Judea coming under direct Roman authority— is the reason behind the special taxation. As long as Judea was under the control of a native ruler, Rome was willing to let the taxes be collected in whatever way that pleased the ruler, as long as the appropriate amount was sent on to Rome. But once Rome took control, taxation had to be done systematically, and hence the need for the census— numbering the people and their possessions. And that’s why only Luke’s story mentions that the taxation was under Augustus Caesar, and he says nothing of Herod Archelaus— because Herod was gone.

Herod the Great (Herod Archelaus’ father) ruled Judea as king during Cyrenius’ first term, but he died in 4 BCE. This is the ‘death of Herod’ mentioned in Matthew. Between Cyrenius’ first and second terms, Herod Archelaus was governor of Judea; but he was deposed prior to Cyrenius’ second term. The taxation that Luke claims Joseph and Mary fled from happened in Cyrenius’ second term, under the direct rule of Augustus Caesar.

The contradiction stands, even stronger now than in Ingersoll’s day. If there was a Jesus, and if he was born around 4 BCE, then yes, Cyrenius was governor at that time. BUT, that’s not when Luke’s taxation under Augustus happened. It happened in Cyrenius’ second term around 7 CE, when Jesus must have been around 11 years old.

Continue Reading

First off, let me begin by saying that I admire this attempt to simplify history and an argument that can be used against the reliability of the Gospels.  However, history requires an attention to detail; perhaps that is why a lot of atheists stray from studying it or using it in discussions with the devout—particularly Christians; that’s unfortunate because nothing disproves Christianity more than a close examination of its history or more accurately, its inconsistent, misrepresented or embellished account of history—if it’s even proper to say that Christianity accounts for history.  I simply ask that you relay accurate information.  Please and thank you; this isn’t meant to embarrass though I’ve made it public, but this sort of thing can be repeated.  Moreover, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this though I didn’t know at the time that atheist-overdose was a bot (see here).  That was in response to a post on atheist-overdose that gave the impression that Christians got their morals from the New Testament.

#atheism  #history  #jesus christ  #the bible  #christianity  
∞  February 09, 2013
45 notes
via thegodlessatheist

Word of Advice

If you’re a Christian and you ask a question from ignorance (in other words, a question that has an answer(s) though you don’t know the answer(s)) and an atheist responds and asks you to consider that response, do not accuse said atheist of arrogance or condescension; do not accuse said atheist of anger.  Who cares if said atheist is being condescending or arrogant or angry?  Said atheist has taken the time to answer the question(s) you asked out of ignorance; said atheist has taken the time to educate you.  Besides, the anger, arrogance or condescension—whether real or perceived—is more your fault than his/hers.  Look in the mirror, take responsibility and make it your duty to seek out answers rather than asking out of spite.

The post is in reference to this post (read here).  This kind of response is quite common.  They don’t want answers; they want to ask questions that stump us.  Unfortunately, they can’t have it their way and it peeves them to know that their unanswerable questions are, in fact, answerable and very much so.

#atheism  #christianity  #jesus christ  #god  #angels  #demons  #hell  #the church  #the bible  #church  #salvation  #nearlyhuman  #all these random tags because I want a lot of Christians on Tumblr to see this post  #and because someone needs to put an end to blatant and/or out of spite ignorance  
∞  February 09, 2013
11 notes

Put-in-Context Argument

I’m sure all of you are familiar with the old out-of-context argument.  I always counter this infantile argument by demonstrating that said verse(s) isn’t (aren’t) out of context.  Let us consider an example:

3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

1 Samuel 15:3

This verse is appalling.  This is when a Christian will run along and scream “out of context!”  That is when you respond with the put-in-context argument; in other words, you put the verse(s) in its (their) context.  How does one do that?  The same way one would infer the definition of a word judging by how it’s used in a sentence.  Read the verses before it and after it.  In the case of the above verse, you will find that Yahweh wanted to punish the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:2).  You will also find that Saul carried out the command, and that the only survivors were King Agag, sheep and cattle (1 Samuel 15:9).  “Oh, but this passage is about obedience” or “this passage is about obedience being greater than sacrifice.”  No; you’re just repeating what you’ve been taught.  Would you obey god if he told you to kill the children and infants of a “rebellious” or “pagan” or “ungodly (because they don’t worship Yahweh)” people?  No context makes this passage any prettier; it’s ugly and repulsive.  So, whenever you’re approached with the out-of-context argument, strike back with the put-in-context argument. 

It’s a shame; them who scream that x or y verse is out of context usually don’t know the context or they invent their own context in order to distract from the point.  From a Christian lens, 1 Samuel 15 is about obedience, and about how it is valued over sacrifice.  So what?  Did Yahweh have to punish the Amalekites in this manner?  Wouldn’t an omnipotent deity think of a better way?  Why did innocent children and infants die simply because their parents didn’t believe in Yahweh or because their parents were rebellious?  Context takes all things into account and there are things in this passage that are quite dubious; therefore, they can’t be ignored.  As a matter of fact, they should be highlighted; your worldview must be able to explain these things.  Unfortunately, it can’t.  My worldview can explain 1 Samuel 15 perfectly, but that’s another discussion.*

*It’s a discussion I’m willing to have; feel free to reblog the post or message me.

#atheism  #christianity  #the bible  
∞  January 01, 2013
16 notes

On Gary Habermas’ The Historical Jesus

whycatholicism:

We saw in the last post that no serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus. The agnostic historian Bart Ehrman stated that “Jesus certainly existed, as almost every competent historian agrees”. Richard Dawkins in a debate with Christian apologist and Oxford Professor John Lennox was forced to retract his ahistorical claims when confronted with the facts.

“As an historian, I do not know for certain that Jesus really existed, that he is anything more than the figment of some overactive imaginations… In my view, there is nothing about Jesus of Nazareth that we can know beyond any possible doubt. In the mortal life we have there are only probabilities. And the Jesus that scholars have isolated in the ancient gospels, gospels that are bloated with the will to believe, may turn out to be only another image that merely reflects our deepest longings.”

Robert W. Funk, Jesus Seminar Founder and Co-Chair (The Fourth R, January-February 1995, p.9)

Simple as that.  The quote of one historian negates the quote of another.  Contrary to popular Christian belief, there is no consensus.  There are historicists like Bart Ehrman, mythicists like Richard Carrier and agnostics like Thomas Verenna.  Jesus may have existed, but that isn’t exactly a fact, and one look at Jesus studies will prove it.  I’ll get back to this later.

Read More

#atheism  #history  #jesus christ  #christianity  #the new testament  #the bible  #gary habermas  #apologetics  
∞  December 06, 2012
21 notes
via whycatholicism

returningtheticket asked: "most of you have something below a college education". Wow, are you able to express your opinions without being a complete ass? Thanks.

That’s the problem with most of you; most of you have something below a college education and thus, many of you never have supporting points.  Assertions are made and I’m left waiting in the cold for anything of substance that will lend some credence to the assertions made (see here).

Is there something wrong with what I said?  Were my comments directed at you or another blogger?  If not you, then why are you offended?  You should be more offended by the nonsense that individual posted.  Ultimately, atheists don’t twist the narrative; to the contrary, Christians distort the narrative without shame.  Genesis once contained a literal creation account; now it contains an allegorical account or even a mythological account.  The Bible was once taken literally; now some parts are and have always been figurative.  As if that isn’t enough, Christians distort the narrative with their constant “out of context” argument, which is nothing but a smokescreen.  For instance, I say something like, god honored the curse of an offended prophet and thus, 42 lives were lost when they were mauled by two bears.  Then some Christian comes along and screams “that’s out of context” as if there’s a context capable of salvaging such a disgusting tale.  Again, most of you are distorting the narrative and then some of you have the nerve to accuse us of doing so.  Furthermore, some of you have the nerve to make unsubstantiated assertions; that’s the kind of behavior I’ve come to expect from an under-educated individual.  The truth hurts; I know.  Unfortunately, I don’t become “a complete ass” because I’m brutally honest.  Suck it up or step up your logic and while you’re at it, ask your brethren to the same; I will continue to call like it is regardless of who’s offended.

#atheism  #christianity  #the bible  #education  
∞  November 19, 2012
7 notes

From Al Stefanelli: The Bible Proves The Christian God Does Not Exist ›

thisoneandonlylife:

“When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.”  - Peter O’Toole

One of the most-asked questions that an Atheists gets asked is to prove that God does not exist. This is known as “Proving a Negative,” and is one of the most difficult issues to address. Not because of the premise itself, but because the Christians who pose this question lack the mental acuity to grasp the utter ridiculousness of their request. Do invisible pink unicorns exist simply because they have not been “proven not to?” Obviously, these individuals do not understand the concept of,

The Burden Of Proof…

The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making the claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When someone tells me that God exists, I ask him or her to prove it with real, empirical evidence. But yet they continue to ask us to prove that God does not exist. What they are really asking is for us to prove that their God doesn’t exist, as they reject the gods of all other religions, past and present, as being false. Apparently they lack the understanding in the whole “pot meet kettle” concept.

So, for the sake of argument, take a little trip with me down “Reason Road,” and we’ll examine why the concept of the Christian God cannot exist from a biblical standpoint.

The Juxtaposition…

According to Christianity, their God exists and he is perfect. Thus, an imperfect God cannot exist. So, if we can prove that their God is not perfect, then by default, we can prove that he does not exist. In doing so, the house of cards that is Christianity collapses. How can we do this? Easy, as the Christians have already provided the means to do so by virtue of their enigmatic, ambiguous, error-laden, interpolated, inconsistent collection of ancient writings they call “The Bible.”

Christian doctrine teaches that “creation” was perfect because it was fashioned by a “perfect” God, and it remained so until the “fall of man” occurred in the Garden of Eden. This begs the question of why God felt the need to create anything in the first place. The need to create results from a perceived lack of balance between what is and what should be. So, what disturbed God’s perfection and compelled him to create? If God is presumably perfect, then he would have been complete and in need of nothing. Conventional Christian “wisdom” teaches that God created us because he desires our worship. Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection. This is where the existence of the Christian God becomes impossible, because perfection cannot exist as long as there is need, want or desire. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist and thus, a perfect God who creates anything is not perfect.

Of course, a favorite amongst Christians is the answer of “his ways are higher,” which is not only the height of ignorance, but shows a lack of reason so profound that all you really can do is just shake your head in disbelief. What it comes down to is that an allegedly perfect God created a perfect universe that was rendered imperfect by his creation, humans. Thusly, the ultimate source of imperfection is God himself. An imperfect humanity could have only been created by an imperfect God and Christianity does not allow for an imperfect God, so thus, God does not exist. He is a logical fallacy unto himself.

The Paradox…

This is a paradox of monumental proportions for Christians, and has spawned a plethora of Christian colleges, universities and think tanks all for the purpose of trying to eliminate the unavoidable cognitive dissonance that is part and parcel of being a Christian. The best they can come up with is the concept of “free will,” which basically states that human imperfection is only a byproduct of our capacity as free moral agents. That’s all good and well, but the concept was doomed to fail from the start. According to Christian theology, the fictional Characters of Adam and Eve used their free will to choose evil, which was a design flaw. If we are to believe in intelligent design, then creating something that is broken does not make God intelligent at all. It was this flaw in God’s design that was responsible for the introduction of imperfection into his previously perfect universe. Another proof of imperfection, thus another proof that God does not exist.

To make matters worse, God knew that Adam and Eve were going to totally fuck everything up for the rest of humanity and did nothing about it, in spite of hearing screams of the damned. No, this perfect, all-compassionate, all-loving God went ahead with his plan anyway, knowing that billions of humans would end up eternally damned to hell. Nothing screams compassion louder than eternal suffering for temporal sins… Of course, eternal damnation is avoidable as long as one accepts Jesus as lord and savior. However, salvation is only necessary because the problem of sin was brought on by God in the first place. The need for salvation is incompatible with a perfect God because if God were perfectly just, he would not dole out infinite punishment for finite sins. The fact that the best God could do was offer up human sacrifice as a solution to his design flawed humanity is further proof that he is imperfect, and thus does not exist.

What We Have Here Is A Lack of Communication…

Another proof that God is not perfect is the venue that he chose to communicate with his imperfect creation – the Bible. Avoiding eternal punishment by knowing and believing in Christ is wonderful if you have access to a bible. However, there are billions of people in the past, present and future all over the planet in remote areas that have never heard of nor will likely never hear of Jesus Christ or his “gospel of salvation.” According to Christian theology, all of these people are doomed to eternal punishment – regardless of their generosity, kindness, morality, ethics or disposition – because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Without access to the Bible, they are being punished for committing a crime they had no idea even existed. A God that would judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions is imperfect, and thus does not exist.

So, how does God combat the problem of the shortage of bibles in every language known to humanity and the equal shortage of Christian bookstores in the Amazon jungle and other remote places where there isn’t even a Starbuck’s? Happy feet! Yes, happy are the feet that bring the gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ to the world, right? And whom do these feet belong to? None other than one of the most destructive groups of people ever to walk the face of the earth. Missionaries. They have destroyed whole cultures and have stolen entire countries from their indigenous inhabitants. If you don’t believe me, just ask any Native American. Missionaries believe that their job is to bring the “Word of God” to the savage masses, savage meaning anyone who does not believe like they do. The problem is that like the imperfect Christian God, the bible is also imperfect.

It is a logically indecipherable fusion of books that contain so many errors, contradictions, misinformation and ignorance beyond any standards of reason that it boggles the mind that it’s even taken seriously. It is a poor excuse for the supposedly perfect word of God. The fact that no two individuals will ever agree on what the bible says in its entirety makes it suspect. An imperfect God who reveals his imperfect will in an imperfect book is another proof that God does not exist.

Another interesting point to note is that according to Christianity, God experiences all of the emotions of a human being. What they fail to understand is that emotion is a response to something previously unknown. A perfect God who is omniscient God would be ignorant of nothing. Nothing would be hidden from him and nothing can be revealed, thus there would be no need to act emotionally. Thus, he is not all-knowing. Another point to ponder as to why God cannot exist.

Mass Delusion Happens…

Yet, more than two billion people still stubbornly insist that there is a God and he is watching us all the time, which should make them uncomfortable, to say the least. Is he casting his watchful eye over us as we take a shit? Does he watch us have sex? Masturbate? Pick our noses? Scratch our asses? Does he listen into our phone conversations? Read our email? God is everywhere? God lives within us? Is he up our asses? Please, when will people realize just how illogical and unreasonable the whole God thing is and come to the place in their lives when they finally realize that there is no God?

Deities were invented at the dawn of time and persisted throughout our history to explain what was unexplainable in the early years of our development. The culmination of human knowledge and intelligence has answered many questions with certainty that were unknown even up until very recently. We no longer need to rely on ancient superstitions to explain weather patterns, genetics, biology and other life sciences. We no longer need to make sacrifices or live a life if credulous servility to appease an angry God so he allows our crops to grow or to keep sickness at bay or any one of a plethora of other superstitions.

It’s Time To Get Over It…

The concept of God is one that is passed and no longer needed. Humans are more than capable of moral behavior, altruistic actions, inner peace and happiness on our own. We have a choice to make. We can choose to do what is right regardless of what religion tells us, or we can do what religion tells us, regardless if it is right. The former is the choice that will allow our species to evolve. The latter can only result in our annihilation.

——————————————————

Notes:

This essay is excerpted from my book, “Free Thoughts –  A Collection Of Essays By An American Atheist” Available in print and in digital editions. It has also appeared in a few other publications, in similar format. I have highlighted the word “Christian” because this essay focuses on some doctrinal concepts that are unique to the Christian religion. I mention this because previous publications of this essay have generated commentary that was focused on Islam, Judaism and sometimes Deism, in general. The purpose of this essay is to expose how doctrines in general are contradictory to Scripture, and how cognitive dissonance applies to these situations.

#atheism  #the bible  #christianity  
∞  November 08, 2012
53 notes
via alstefanelli.wordpress.com

Let's Answer Some Questions ›

spid3rkelsey:

About atheism really.  I’ve been doing my own research, but I want to hear it from an atheist that I can ask my questions to.  I’ve figured out a few things…

  • Atheism is NOT a religion.
  • Since Atheism isn’t a religion, it can coexist with science (religion & science cannot coexist because science is involved with everything that is natural, & religion is involved with everything that is supernatural).

That isn’t entirely true.  Theoretically speaking, a religion can coexist with science.  If the scripture of said religion was accurate concerning science, it would coexist with science.  Science and naturalism are married at the hip; religion and supernaturalism are also married at the hip.  However, they don’t innately contradict one another because of that.  They can be reconciled.  Unfortunately, theistic religions and science are not compatible.  Modern Buddhism is closest to being compatible with science.  However, Buddhism is a godless religion; thus, it is an atheistic religion.  In my honest opinion, it is more like religiously based philosophy than a religion.  Taoism and Confucianism would also fit that description.  Deism is also compatible with science; Thomas Paine, for example, believed in what he called “The God of Nature”.  He believed in a supernatural entity that revealed himself in natural ways.  Einstein and Spinoza also had a concept that can be easily reconciled with science.  They were Pantheists.  Other Pantheists believe that the universe is god and our universe can be understood by natural means.  Thus, some people believe that the universe is a supernatural entity, per se, that reveals itself via natural means.

  • That being said, the only proof that atheists have is what is natural, & if they were to try to disprove God (or gods depending on your religion) they would be going into the supernatural, thus ripping them of their ability to involve science in the debate.

Not exactly.  Let’s take the Bible and the Qur’an for example.  They are both called “The Word of God”.  Therefore, I would expect one, the other or both to be scientifically accurate wherever applicable.  I’m not expecting either to be a science textbook (a usual Theist argument).  I’m expecting accuracy.  Unfortunately, I don’t get that.  I get a mathematically impossible flood.  I get creation accounts that assumed we were created h.sapien—creation accounts that ignore our evolution.  I get pi=3.  I get the Moon is a lesser light; yet it doesn’t produce its own light.  The Earth was created before the stars according to Genesis; that is utterly inaccurate.  The Qur’an posits four ways in which man was made:  from blood, from water, from dust and from clay.  None of that is accurate.  We are more than just blood.  We are more than just water, and as far as I’m concerned, we’re not dust or clay; we’re stardust, but that’s another matter.  The Qur’an plagiarized the Bible because the Bible also says we were created from dust—the dust of the Earth.  Whenever science is mentioned in these texts, they are wrong.  Therefore, given that these scriptures are considered the word of a perfect god, the scriptures have no room for error and thus, the gods who supposedly wrote and/or inspired them become incoherent.  By the way, there are a number of reasons why I don’t believe in Yahweh and Allah.  Science is one tool in the box, but I’ll digress.

Things I understand:

  • We have a hundred year old book telling us that God sent His only Son to die on the cross for us.

The Gospels aren’t a hundred years old.  The youngest Gospel was written in roughly 70CE.  The books are centuries old and most of the Bible is older still.

  • We have no proof of where the Bible came from.

Yes we do.  Historians know who wrote what book and in what time.  They also know the original language of the book in question.  When no author is obvious, they can tell whether it was written by one anonymous author or more than one.  They can tell the difference between literature, an attempt to convey so called historical events and actual historical artifacts within the Bible; they can also notice similarities with ancient texts—similarities that aren’t coincidental, but likely intentional (i.e. Noah’s Flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh; Jesus turning water into wine as means to establish a superiority over Dionysus).  We have a pretty good idea where it came from.  History is another tool in the box—my most potent tool actually.  :)

  • In the Old Testament, it says many things that do not agree with the way we live today, & that would actually be disturbing compared to how we live today.

I’m glad you haven’t bought the excuses Christians make.  There is no hermeneutics, exegesis, theological sophistication or context that can salvage a verse stating that god threatened to gut pregnant women (Hosea 13:16).

  • It is impossible to believe in the New Testament without the Old Testament.

Correct.

Things I don’t understand about Christians/those who believe in a god:

  • Why we use the Bible (what Atheists don’t believe in/follow) to justify everything.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  The Bible is the living word—the Word of God.  That is why it takes precedence over every other possible explanation—at least for them.  Also, most Christians believe that the Bible is infallible in one way or the other.  The literalist would say that its accurate from beginning to end.  The non-literalist would say something to the effect of “its infallible concerning its purpose—to demonstrate the relationship between god and man”.  I always consider that a contortion to be quite honest because every Christian agreed with the literalist at one point; that is, until higher criticism came into the picture.  Now science, history, archaeology, etc. are applied to the Bible in order to check its accuracy.  Mind you, some of these people were/are trying to prove the Bible and instead, they end(ed) up disproving it (i.e. Georges Cuvier and Flood Geology).

  • Why we, as I would call it, “attack” atheists, even though we know they aren’t going to listen to us, BECAUSE THEY DON’T BELIEVE.

Christians seriously believe they have the truth; they seriously believe in hell and they tell us about it or threaten us with it.  They are mandated to publish the Gospel in every nation.  Since atheists are part of these nations, they aren’t exempt from hearing the Gospel.

Things I don’t understand about Atheists:

  • I read somewhere a quote that said something along the lines of “You’re an atheist too, I just believe in one god less than you.” meaning “you don’t believe in any of the other ‘gods’ that people worship, but you believe in this one, so technically that would make you an atheist too”.  Frankly, He wouldn’t be God if he had to depend on other gods.  So why use that as an example?

Well, you didn’t quote it in full and thus, you missed the punchline:  “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen Roberts

That’s the point.  Unfortunately, most Christians don’t have good reason to dismiss all other gods.  They were born in a country where Christianity is prevalent or they were born to parents who are Christians.  Them being Christian had everything to do with random causal events.  If one were to claim that god made them Christian, then they are being incredibly bigoted, arrogant, naive and insensitive.  They would be saying that god gave them a chance at salvation and damned the child in India—from the onset.  Yes, I’ve heard some of them utter such appalling nonsense.  In any case, an honest atheist would take interest in religion and study religion.  He/she wouldn’t simply assume that all god concepts are incoherent.  On the other hand, most Christians make that assumption and they make that assumption because they’re taught that they have the truth and that they can’t possibly be wrong.  Regardless, I dismiss the Christian god for the same reasons I dismiss Allah, Ahura Mazda, Ra, Osiris, Waheguru, Vishnu, Shiva, etc.

  • How could it be possible to Atheists to ‘disprove’ God, when they can’t even dive into the supernatural since their basis is science.

Our basis isn’t solely science.  We have philosophy, history, reading comprehension and common sense.  You said it yourself, you can’t believe in the NT without believing in the OT.  Well, why am I expected to believe in the god of the OT—the father of Jesus?  Your humanity disagrees with some things in the OT; well, don’t you think some of us feel the same way?

  • Really & truly, I’m curious.  And the obvious question: WHY don’t you believe in God?  And when I did research I noticed my pet peeve: answering a question with a question.  So please give me facts, not analogies.
Please & thank you.

P.S. I’m not looking for a debate, I’m looking for answers.

Why don’t I believe in god?  I don’t believe in god because every concept to date is unsatisfactory in one way or another.  Theistic gods are linked to the most terrible afterlives.  Two of them are loving and merciful; yet they’re supposedly going to damn people to hell and the jahanam respectively.  The Jewish god is the Christian god is the Muslim god.  Only their doctrines and scriptures differ.  The concepts do not.  Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are extremely interesting.  However, I can’t simply ignore their mythologies.  Early Hindus were perhaps the first to come up with an awful afterlife concept:  the Narakas.  The Narakas are composed of three chambers, per se, in where a person is tortured for long periods of time, but not eternally.  Eventually, the individual is allowed to reincarnate.  The Narakas chambers are cold, hot and isolated.  Ironically, the Muslim jahanam is similar to this concept.  Early Buddhists adopted this.  Getting more specific, Krishna is an interesting deity; however, I can’t be expected to worship the supernatural equivalent of a man whore.  He seduces women with his flute and puts them in a trance.  Don’t get me wrong, the Bhagavad Gita is a profound piece of literature, but Krishna is too human to believe in.  Therein lies the problem; I expect transcendence and what I get is humanity and not just any humanity, but the most repulsive our specie has to offer.  These gods advocate the fire sacrifice of animals.  Blood is central to many religions.  Women are subjugated in almost every religion.  Some religions are considered the absolute truth; then why indoctrinate children?  If it is the truth, they will discover that on their own.  I can’t believe that a deity with us in mind cursed us with conflicting religions.  I can’t believe that the creator of the universe ordered the sacrifice of birds, a sacred cow or even a person (!)—Jesus Christ.  Mind you, that wasn’t the only time the Christian god was directly responsible for human sacrifice (Judges 11).

I can tell you why I find the Deist concept unsatisfactory.  I can tell you why I find the Pantheist concept unsatisfactory.  However, I’ve tried my best to keep it brief.  If you’re curious, you can inbox me.  Thank you for the genuine curiosity and you’re most welcome.  I hope that I made some things clear. 

#atheism  #religion  #christianity  #God  #heaven  #hell  #the devil  #the Bible  
∞  October 22, 2012
26 notes
via k-bash