(May 3, 2015 at 9:21 am)Cato Wrote: Six pages in and no evidence provided for the existence of God, just an unsubstantiated declaration that some of The Bible is true, woefully misinterpreted by believers and is simultaneously "The most accurate and honest history of mankind ever produced". Poe or imbecile?

Both

(May 2, 2015 at 11:34 pm)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote: There is no Christian nation, and there never has been, but in the U.S. the religious idiots rule the roost because they have the majority in a democratic society that doesn't work. The atheist concern in the West is political and social. Not a supernatural or scientific issue. 

There is no Christian nation, but many nations belonged to Christendom nominally under the Pope. U.S. religious idiots enjoy undue political influence despite being a minority, not a majority. Madalyn O'Hair's truck was indeed mainly political, in 1963 prayer in public schools, although I wouldn't imagine atheists ignoring science or neglecting to deny credibility to the supernatural. Human failing can be found anywhere; O'Hair for instance disowned her son for converting to Christianity, but on the other hand tried to help an ex-offender who later murdered her along with two of her other relatives. See, the same person can be "good" and "bad" at different times!

(May 2, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Exian Wrote: It's a common tactic in these parts for theists to claim they used to be atheists.

Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. I admit I have no idea what kind of "-ist" I am most of the time.  

(May 3, 2015 at 2:08 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 2, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote: [...]the Mosaic law simply protected slaves.

It allowed them to be beaten to within an inch of their lives.  It allowed them to be bought and sold as property. You're not the first theist here to defend Biblical slavery... 

The Mosaic law was probably better than nothing, though hardly anyone would defend it today. Curiously, it did call for the release of slaves at the jubilee, which traditionally came every 7 years. What we don't know about is actual practice at the time. There's no reason to suppose the letter of the law was honored too reliably. In general, slaves who came from high-status backgrounds or developed personal connections to powerful people had the best chances to win eventual freedom.

(May 3, 2015 at 2:43 am)Aractus Wrote: The Slavery practises in Egypt were far fairer ... Women could own property, and ... get divorces.

Labor for the state in Egypt was hardly voluntary, consider the xnrt wr "Great Enclosure (of restraint)" for those attempting to dodge conscription and their families as well (Eyre, Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt, pp. 72-74) and tributary bAkw labor in the fields (Eyre, pp. 208-212). Slaves were probably more like serfs, "immovable" and tied to whatever parcel of land they were on (Eyre, p. 105). Temporary labor conscription applied to all free persons, at least all who couldn't afford to buy the services of a stand-in. Egypt was unusually progressive for women, c.f. adoption, manumission of slave, and disinheritance of family branch by a woman in Pap. Ashmolean Mus. 1945.96. And of course, Hatshepsut herself on the throne.

abaris Wrote:First, in most cases it isn't militant opposition, but the fact that the pieces don't add up which led us to atheism. As you said, this book was compiled some time between the bronze age and the iron age by a tribal society of half nomadic desert dwellers. The content presents itself accordingly. The original thought probably was to provide a set of rules to a lawless society. And to do some gorilla style breast pounding on the side. The fact that people still follow it to the letter is somewhere between amusing and appaling. It gets appaling when the people following it, have some kind of influence on society at large.

That is the way it goes. The majority, the rich have the political control.

Quote:Apologies, if I presumed, you to be comfortable withe the trinity and all the woo included. Your post was somehow misleading. But if you don't follow the woo, what is left aside from some ancient set of laws and a collection of campfire tales?

I don't know what "woo" is, but I don't buy into the trinity. The trinity was a teaching of Plato. After the conquest of Alexander the Great Greek philosophy had a powerful influence on Jewish thinking and the result was that the Platonic Trinity and the concept of the immortal soul, from Socrates and Plato, became fused with the religious thinking and so today is confused as a Bible teaching. 
The Bible does not teach or support the following:
1. The Immortal Soul.
2. Hell.
3. The Rapture.
4. Jesus death on the cross.
5. All "Good People" go to heaven.
6. 6 Literal days of creation. 
7. 6,000 year old creation. 
8. The celebration of holidays, most of which are pagan in origin. Easter, Christmas, Birthdays, Halloween, New Years Day, Valentines Day, etc. 
9. Evolution. 
10. An omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God in the strictest sense. 
The Bible does support the global deluge. 

---

(May 3, 2015 at 7:58 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Ok, thanks for reminding me that atheism doesn't always imply rational thought as I understand it. To help me better understand you please tell me:

1) You are saying that the bible is pretty much a historical record (after a bit of cherry-picking) which depicts the morality and culture of the people of that time period, right? So why couldn't the people themselves have written these laws and records? Why would they need divine intervention/inspiration to do so? Or to put it another way, why do you think that the bible was divinely inspired?

2) What fact or record in the bible do you believe in that proves the existance of anything supernatural?

3) Do you believe 'Adam' or the 'first human' just popped up on earth? If yes, then when? at what point in time? Also do you believe in the concept of original sin?

4) What convinced you of the authenticity of the biblical flood?

1) No cherry picking. The people themselves could have provided some semblance of an historical account that was no more accurate or honest than any other people that did the same, but that isn't the way it happened. The extent of my response would depend upon how well you might understand the meaning of the Bible and Jehovah God's purpose. What plans did God make after Adam's sin? Why did he produce a nation of Laws and a Messiah? Things like that you would need to grasp the meaning of. Why do I think the Bible was divinely inspired? How am I supposed to answer that? Imagine someone who has studied medicine for years and has to explain why they have a specific diagnosis to someone who not only doesn't have the capacity to understand because they haven't been instructed accordingly, but also flat out rejects the notion from the start. We can discuss it gradually in the future and hopefully you will begin to understand my position. That's about the best I can do. Suffice it to say, after great consideration the Bible has demonstrated it to me and I have no reason to doubt it. 

2) Same answer as above. What is the supernatural? Some race of super intelligent beings which we can't see in our current state? Something we can't test? 

3) Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E. likely in the fall. The most ancient calendars started to count time around October 1, the first new moon of the lunar civil year. Bible chronology is very accurate. Just from Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6 you can deduce the following: From Adam's creation to the birth of Seth 130 years. From then to the birth of Enosh 105 years, to the birth of Kenan 90 years, to the birth of Mahalalel 70 yers, to the birth of Jared 65 years, to the birth of Methuselah 65 years, to the birth of Lamech 187 years, to the birth of Noah 182 years, to the flood 600 years with a total of 1,656 years. From there, fixing any point with secular history in agreement and the confirmation of astrological records you can take any event in the past Biblical history until the present moment quite accurately. 

As for original sin, you would have to be more specific, preferably avoiding terminology that may have various interpretations. Yes, I believe that Adam sinned by disobeying God in eating the literal fruit of a specific tree, resulting in inherited sin. 

4) The Bible. Why would I doubt it? 

(May 3, 2015 at 8:45 am)Alex K Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 8:29 am)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote: Nonsense. They only believed in the geocentric for about 2 thousand years, only a fraction of time the Bible has been around. And, by the way, not supported by scripture as is often thought. 

What do you mean, they believed it for about 2 thousand years? How old do you think humanity is?!

About 6,000 years old. 

(May 3, 2015 at 11:10 am)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 8:45 am)Alex K Wrote: What do you mean, they believed it for about 2 thousand years? How old do you think humanity is?!

About 6,000 years old. 

Interesting thread up to this point. Now you're just denying reality.

(May 3, 2015 at 9:30 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 9:21 am)Cato Wrote: Six pages in and no evidence provided for the existence of God, just an unsubstantiated declaration that some of The Bible is true, woefully misinterpreted by believers and is simultaneously "The most accurate and honest history of mankind ever produced". Poe or imbecile?

Actually, I think the OP has spent more time telling us what atheists believe than discussing what or why he does.  In fact, OP, you have an awful lot of words to describe something of which the definition is "a lack of belief in deities".  Maybe you could enlighten us as to what it is you actually believe instead of what atheists do.  

The subject of the thread, upon request, was my own personal history as a former atheist. The focus of the response has been a general doubt of my claim to have even been atheist. I think I've been pretty clear what I believe and I don't see my having harped on what atheist believe or lack thereof but their rejection of my own claim as such. 

I'm on my phone and looking up the reference is unwieldy so I'll get to it later tonight ... but I don't think you're correct about Jubilee liberation, Hash.

(May 3, 2015 at 11:13 am)Exian Wrote:

(May 3, 2015 at 11:10 am)Theoretical Skeptic Wrote: About 6,000 years old. 

Interesting thread up to this point. Now you're just denying reality.

Again - this is an historical estimation of a secular nature which is . . . wait a minute! In total agreement?! As opposed to, what? Manetho's untenable listing of a succession of kings simultaneously? The fragmentary Palermo Stone, the Turin Papyrus? 

Thanks for your reply to my questions.

(May 3, 2015 at 11:22 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm on my phone and looking up the reference is unwieldy so I'll get to it later tonight ... but I don't think you're correct about Jubilee liberation, Hash.

It was 50 as well as 7. The Jubilee was 50 but there was also a maximum of 7 years. Whichever came first.