The most important reason anyone is an atheist

[Sword of Christ]

So, what, the biblical literalists of Westboro aren't proponents then?

Do they look like they're following Christs example love even toward your own enemies? They're proponents of their own hate cult not what Christianity is meant to be about, or most other religions for that matter. How many of them are there? 50? You can ignore them.

The countless numbers of people from times gone by who have used a literalist interpretation of biblical texts to denounce (and often kill) their enemies aren't proponents either?

They were already accounted for in advance.

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"

Are you actually saying that the bible was written, initially through its formation and collation of texts, not as a literal interpretation of how those events occurred (from Genesis right through) but as some sort of allegory?

Some parts of it were most definitely, particularly when you get into some the symbolic and dream imagery that's all meant to mean something. And take a look at some of the early Christian interpretations of Genesis.

http://biologos.org/questions/early-inte...of-genesis

The 6000 years literal 6 days of creation business was a relatively modern day interpretation. I think it was first formulated in the 17th century.

In effect,you're admitting that the bible is just a fiction?

Certainly not it's an attempt of describing a reality beyond our normal everyday understanding. There are some dubious tales and whatever else you like to pick out from there as well it is a bit of mixed bag in Old Testament, you have to read it in the cultural context of it's time.

I know a few people on this very forum who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal and accurate description of the truth of how man first walked this 6000~ Y/O earth. I invite them to debate you on this point now. There are quite a few hundred million more out there in the real world too (depends on ones definition of real I guess).

YEC is essentially a conspiracy theory I wouldn't worry about it. Before you say modern Christians are just yielding to science I gave you some examples of very early Christians who believed the same kind of thing long before Darwin and modern science. It's the kind of thing you know who likes to point out.

What is the bible going to rebuke, then, as Timothy supposedly points out, if there is no real historic substance to it? Or is only some accurate history, and the other parts are just filler?

It's the history of God creator of the universe breaking into human life, culture and civilization, changing it for the better for the most part I think. The ancient Jews prepared the groundwork. I'm somewhat open to other religions as well if someone wants to ask why the Hindu Vedas or Zoroastrian Avestas aren't the word of God. Perhaps they are to some extent who knows? As long as it isn't hard polytheism or the worship of idols that would be purely man made.

Don't get me wrong, SOC, I admire someone who agrees with 'us' mean old atheists that the bible isn't really a good conveyor of anything when talking about historic accuracy.

It's a conveyor of God to humanity compiled over historical time by real people who encountered God in their lives whatever form that took. It's not a book of pure history nor is it a pure work of mythology. As Timothy said the scripture was God breathed.

[Lemonvariable72]

Okay so then how do you prove chrisitianity is the accurate religion, and that all others are false using that standard of evidence?

I don't prove it - faith is involved in the faith. And I've noted ways to differentiate various beliefs in recent threads.

Now for the purposes of clarity I will define faith here by quoting the letter to the Hebrews as written by Paul in the NASB

11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

The fact that it requires faith at all demonstrates aptly that it does not satisfy any standard, for if it did no one would have to have conviction in things unseen (unknowable is used in some translations)
So I think you just demonstrated my original point, thank you.

[Sword of Christ]

Faith back in the day meant to place your trust in something or someone and clearly if you want to accept Jesus or the Church fathers at their word you still have to place your faith in them as credible representatives of the one supreme God. It didn't mean "belief in something without evidence if you're some kind of an idiot" which is the moden day understanding of the word.

[Doubting Thomas]

Does that say all scripture is literal historical fact?

So you're admitting that the bible isn't literal historical fact? Are you sure you want to go down that path? Because once you start claiming that certain passages are metaphorical, how do you determine that all of it isn't metaphorical? Who gets to judge which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal?

Ah, I see. The good parts are literal, while the embarrassing inconvenient parts are metaphorical.

[Sword of Christ]

So you're admitting that the bible isn't literal historical fact?

It's not a history book no, it has some history in it sure. You use it to understand your own relationship with God. And you do have one.

Are you sure you want to go down that path? Because once you start claiming that certain passages are metaphorical, how do you determine that all of it isn't metaphorical? Who gets to judge which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal?

It doesn't matter what literally happened and when and to who, the only major supernatural event/miracle you're required to believe in is the resurrection. I would suggest the faith was started by someone after some kind of profound experience. If you're not assuming physical naturalism, which is a belief in it's own right as far as I'm concerned, you won't have much of an issue with that.

Ah, I see. The good parts are literal, while the embarrassing inconvenient parts are metaphorical.

Many of the good parts aren't literal at all, I'm a big fan of the Genesis creation myth for instance.

[Brian37]

So you're admitting that the bible isn't literal historical fact?

It's not a history book no, it has some history in it sure. You use it to understand your own relationship with God. And you do have one.

Are you sure you want to go down that path? Because once you start claiming that certain passages are metaphorical, how do you determine that all of it isn't metaphorical? Who gets to judge which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal?

It doesn't matter what literally happened and when and to who, the only major supernatural event/miracle you're required to believe in is the resurrection. I would suggest the faith was started by someone after some kind of profound experience. If you're not assuming physical naturalism, which is a belief in it's own right as far as I'm concerned, you won't have much of an issue with that.

Ah, I see. The good parts are literal, while the embarrassing inconvenient parts are metaphorical.

Many of the good parts aren't literal at all, I'm a big fan of the Genesis creation myth for instance.

The entire book is a comic book. If you accept Genesis as not literal, then why would claims of "POOFDADY" sperm knocking up what would be a 9-14 girl(and also outside her marriage), be more credible?

When you know humans don't survive rigor mortis it is really hard to swallow the death story as well.

It's called cherry picking. That is how you cling to that comic book and pretend it is still relevant.

Now, unless you have scientific evidence that either the birth story or death story are even physically possible, just like you rightfully reject Genesis, maybe YOU need to scrap the entire book as being fact.

Truth hurts sometimes, but you will feel lots better not having to defend such claptrap.

[Sword of Christ]

The entire book is a comic book. If you accept Genesis as not literal, then why would claims of "POOFDADY" sperm knocking up what would be a 9-14 girl(and also outside her marriage), be more credible?

Genesis is still true in general theme it just isn't literally true. It depicts God as creator of the universe and the human condition for what it is. The virgin birth? I don't know but again I think the story of Nativity makes use of archetypes and themes that are meant to have meaning. We kind of know it won't be word for word literal history the dates don't really match up. But it's possible Jesus was immaculately conceived, it doesn't matter if he wasn't it's not as vital a thing as the resurrection would be. If that didn't happen it doesn't mean God doesn't exist though Christianity would be a misrepresentation of God. I think the Christian God is the best of the alternatives but someones going to be right someone will be mistaken. Atheists are mistaken right off the bat they're not even at first base.

When you know humans don't survive rigor mortis it is really hard to swallow the death story as well.

It wasn't the same old body as before he was raised in glory as we ourselves will be of course. And then you'll stand in judgement before the Lord. Though if you're a repentant Christian you're already past that stage, you already have the club card.

It's called cherry picking. That is how you cling to that comic book and pretend it is still relevant.

Even some of the very first/early and most renowned Christian scholars and Saints had a similar understanding of scripture, it's even in the scripture itself. This isn't a modern reinvention in response to modern criticism it goes all the way back.

Now, unless you have scientific evidence that either the birth story or death story are even physically possible, just like you rightfully reject Genesis, maybe YOU need to scrap the entire book as being fact.

Don't worry about the birth narrative if you don't want to believe that but if you want a good objective debate on the historicity of the resurrection from both sides here's a good book to read.



If you want an alternative view on the Virgin birth, you don't have to be dogmatic about these details.

Truth hurts sometimes, but you will feel lots better not having to defend such claptrap.

I'd believe in God in some shape or form anyway but Christianity you have to admit would seem to have the most going for it and the best God, this is the only one who will give you grace and he loves everyone including yourself. The Islamic God would hate you something proper for denying his existence like this.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So, what, the biblical literalists of Westboro aren't proponents then?

Do they look like they're following Christs example love even toward your own enemies? They're proponents of their own hate cult not what Christianity is meant to be about, or most other religions for that matter. How many of them are there? 50? You can ignore them.

Translation: They don't have the same interpretation as me so they're wrong.

You've already pretty much dismissed atheism and atheists right off the bat, and judged us based on a warped perspective as to what 'we' are. you've called us ignorant among many other things based purely on the fact we disagree with you.

So, you talk about hate cults and how we can ignore them. I put it to you that your only purpose for being here is to argue, and be disruptive both with your faulty reasoning and constant strawmanning as to what atheism is and who atheists are.

And because of that, utilising your own reasoning, we can be forgiven for ignoring you, too.

The countless numbers of people from times gone by who have used a literalist interpretation of biblical texts to denounce (and often kill) their enemies aren't proponents either?

They were already accounted for in advance.

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"

"I am Megatron" Megatron

Are you actually saying that the bible was written, initially through its formation and collation of texts, not as a literal interpretation of how those events occurred (from Genesis right through) but as some sort of allegory?

Some parts of it were most definitely, particularly when you get into some the symbolic and dream imagery that's all meant to mean something. And take a look at some of the early Christian interpretations of Genesis.

http://biologos.org/questions/early-inte...of-genesis

The 6000 years literal 6 days of creation business was a relatively modern day interpretation. I think it was first formulated in the 17th century.

I agree that it's all pretty much tosh. But, that wasn't my point. I was raising the issue that some people actually believe that the Earth was created by some sort of god, and that that god did that creating 6000 years ago.

This was raised against your point that the bible isn't meant to be taken as historically accurate. Which, of course, it isn't, but some people do.

In effect,you're admitting that the bible is just a fiction?

Certainly not it's an attempt of describing a reality beyond our normal everyday understanding. There are some dubious tales and whatever else you like to pick out from there as well it is a bit of mixed bag in Old Testament, you have to read it in the cultural context of it's time.

I agree, again, but, also again, that wasn't my point. I am all for contextual analysis of claims, and also for recognizing that people will cry doom based on the stories of revelation today in the contemporary realm. Some of them are here on this very forum! Perhaps you've read their posts?

I know a few people on this very forum who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal and accurate description of the truth of how man first walked this 6000~ Y/O earth. I invite them to debate you on this point now. There are quite a few hundred million more out there in the real world too (depends on ones definition of real I guess).

YEC is essentially a conspiracy theory I wouldn't worry about it. Before you say modern Christians are just yielding to science I gave you some examples of very early Christians who believed the same kind of thing long before Darwin and modern science. It's the kind of thing you know who likes to point out.

I don't worry about it. Their delusions mean little to me. But they do exist, and in very large numbers.

As to theists that posit the scientific method and its role in the advancement of a fluid society, I say kudos to them. I wasn't ever going to make that point, but whatever.

What is the bible going to rebuke, then, as Timothy supposedly points out, if there is no real historic substance to it? Or is only some accurate history, and the other parts are just filler?

It's the history of God creator of the universe breaking into human life, culture and civilization, changing it for the better for the most part I think. The ancient Jews prepared the groundwork. I'm somewhat open to other religions as well if someone wants to ask why the Hindu Vedas or Zoroastrian Avestas aren't the word of God. Perhaps they are to some extent who knows? As long as it isn't hard polytheism or the worship of idols that would be purely man made.

Ok. Some might argue that Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are all about worshiping idols, but that's another point for another debate.

Don't get me wrong, SOC, I admire someone who agrees with 'us' mean old atheists that the bible isn't really a good conveyor of anything when talking about historic accuracy.

It's a conveyor of God to humanity compiled over historical time by real people who encountered God in their lives whatever form that took. It's not a book of pure history nor is it a pure work of mythology. As Timothy said the scripture was God breathed.

I don't believe they encountered anything except their own imaginations or, perhaps something more nefarious (desire to control, being one notion). I don't believe them because no evidence has ever been forwarded to convince me to the contrary.

[Doubting Thomas]

OK so if you as a Christian don't believe in any of the myths in the bible except one, then why should I also accept that one particular myth? I honestly don't know which is worse, a Christian who claims that the bible is 100% irrefutably true down to the last word, or a Christian who says that all the stories in it are made up horseshit except for that one about Jesus dying for people's sins and being resurrected.

It's like you're so close to understanding that the bible, the entire source document for Christianity, is just a false collection of myths invented by superstitious bronze age goat herders, but you're still hung up on that one particular story being true.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'd believe in God in some shape or form anyway but Christianity you have to admit would seem to have the most going for it and the best God, this is the only one who will give you grace and he loves everyone including yourself. The Islamic God would hate you something proper for denying his existence like this.