RE: Observations On Atheism Part II - God And The Bible
November 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm
(This post was last modified: November 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm by Daystar.)
(November 24, 2008 at 11:51 am)allan175 Wrote: I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. I'm as happy defending the non-existence of Zeus as the bible god or Allah! It does tend to be one of the "current main" gods that are discussed but only because those are the ones bandied about the most. I may use the word "god" when answering questions but in my mind that covers *all* gods current and old (and future!).
Okay, but a god doesn't have to be a real person. It can be a real person, but it can also be a wood carving or mythological figure. For example. Zeus wasn't a real person he was a myth, but he was a god to many people. Not you, but a god none the less. To say Zeus wasn't a god is not true. To say he didn't actually exists other than as a myth doesn't make him not a real god. So to say there is no such thing as Zeus the god isn't correct.
(November 24, 2008 at 11:51 am)allan175 Wrote: Definitely, because *no one* understands the supernatural! People make up beliefs based on their interpretation of events ("I won because I wore my lucky underpants!" etc).
No one understands the supernatural so your saying it is just people making up beliefs based upon their interpretation of events is only your own interpretation and opinion. Not fact. Because you don't know the supernatural any more than anyone else.
By the way, in the Bible there are two gods of luck. One for good and one for bad. In the Bible there was a ship with a god of each which was common for that period. Do you believe in luck?
(November 24, 2008 at 11:51 am)allan175 Wrote: I have said before, the word "atheist" doesn't really cover things properly but it is the word we are stuck with. If I started calling myself "non-supernaturalist" no one would know what I mean (and it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily).
Fair enough. I only point out the flaws in the word and belief system.
(November 24, 2008 at 11:51 am)allan175 Wrote: As for life on other planets, I say there is *probably* life on other planets, but not in the same way as "there is probably no god(s)". In fact, being an atheist would make you more likely to expect life on other planets merely because life is not a special case "made in god's image" etc. We are probably here due to natural processes which are, more than likely, happening in other places. Not necessarily in the same way though.
Well the Bible doesn't indicate there isn't life on other planets so I couldn't say for sure. It is interesting that life on other planets is always perceived as being superior to our own. They are always far more advanced than we are.
(November 24, 2008 at 11:51 am)bozo Wrote: I'm not sure what you are getting at there. You say there are only two ways, right & wrong, but then say you are getting more right and you were less right before. Surely that means there is not just two ways...
How is your interpretation testable?
The Bible is subject to the test of any interpretation. Some Bibles have the words "Easter" in them, for example, which is a blatantly false interpretation of a Jewish festival that had nothing to do with Easter. I can actually check a translation based upon what I know by evaluating the original language and the overall harmony of scripture with historical references etc.
That is how I test it. The word "Easter" and "Cross" never appeared in the Bible except through poor translation. The word hell and soul is misunderstood.