Having trouble wording my response...

[InevitableCheese]

So, wrote a blog post about why science can comment and disprove religious claims, and got this response:

"Very interesting post.

First of all, when you talk about tolerance and saying that you are fine with people believing whatever they want to, I have to say that atheism has crossed the line even further than any religious group out there (except maybe Shiiete Islam). Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennet (especially Dawkins) are easily the most militant group out there who care nothing about forcing their beliefs on other people and they even extrapolate it out into our education system and governmental procedures. If anything, Christianity is doing a bad job at forcing their beliefs on other people, aside from a select few.

The second thing is you say it is a bold claim to say that an ancient text is infallible and inspired as the “Word of God” but what many people have done is taken the text out of context and overcomplicate it with false interpretations. The Bible is not that easy to understand as infallible if you take it in the sociocultural context that it was meant to be taken in. Also, you have a bigger problem on your hands because science and history does not even come close to having the ability to answer certain questions on the “how” and “why” of really anything, simply because science and history are not able to answer those kinds of questions. You are leaving yourself with a lot of unanswered questions, which I think is a very uncomfortable step of faith.

Thirdly, on the point of evolution and its compatibility of the Bible is to be taken from a completely different vantage point than what you presented. The length of the days in Genesis and the historicity of Adam do not matter, as the Genesis text is an account of functional origins, NOT material origins. You are presenting scientific concordism, and I believe in non-concordism, which takes care of these “issues” that you see in the text.

Finally, your history on the exile and Egypt is just simply not true. We have overwhelming amounts of evidence in ancient artifacts and cities and other items and literature absolutely confirm that this event took place. So we have found TONS of credibility to this story.

Good post, however I do feel there is still much to disagree with here."

TL;DR - 1. Atheists force their beliefs more. 2. You don't look at the Bible in context. 3. Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally anyways 4. The Jews were slaves, etc.

I could go into a whole spiel about Christian missions taking advantage of less developed cultures and the helpless, and how the old archaeology used to support Jewish early history was done biasedly by Israeli archaeologists (who have since been disproven and disregarded)

I'm having a spot of trouble wording a response, since I'm new to openly speaking my atheism. Any help you smart people could give me?

---

Sorry for a double post, but this is what I came up with:

1. I support people believing what they want as long as it's a private matter. But as long as it pervades itself into the public and into politics, people like Dawkins and other atheists have every right to speak out against it. And we only voice our opinion. I don't seek to convert anyone, unless they were interested. There isn't a "belief system" to inflict on people with atheism, it's just that I have no beliefs. I believed in science just as much as I did when I was a Christian. And if you want to regard that as faith, then we must mean different things by the word. I don't see atheists at doorsteps at 7.A.M handing out tracts, with P.A systems preaching to the public, or proselytizating the ignorant/helpless/despairing by telling them they'll go to hell if they don't believe. I care about their well-being and trouble of course, but as for using it as a position to spread my beliefs, it doesn't even cross my mind.

2. If I had a nickel for every different biblical opinion created out of "context". Of course we don't take Genesis literally. And if science wasn't able to comment on these things, how come you and me changed our interpretation of it in light of evolution? History can comment on if an event DID happen and WHEN. And I don't need a how or a why when it is shown to have not happened anyway. And if those questions are "unanswered" then we are both left with them, not just me.

3. This is my whole point. We pick and choose what to believe as literal in the Bible based on history/archaeology/science, and which parts to write off as symbols or allegories. This is a matter of personal decision, choosing what your comfortable with no absolute foundation. And despite your own opinion, the majority DO take these stories literally. I hear older, educated men saying a global flood happened, and evolution is "just a theory" and probably false, and it just makes me laugh and ignore them. And hell, these people take up a good percentage of our elected officials.

4. I have my books now, so I was able to find the names of the archeologists I had told you about a while back. I haven't read or seen a single shred of anything that supports pre-exile Israeli history. I never mentioned the exile as false, either. I referred to the Moses story, and to Genesis. Events like this leaves lots of archaeological evidence, but none has been found. Modern archeology regards them as myths, even the conservative Jewish archaeologists. Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology department at Tel Aviv University (Israel's largest university), in collaboration with Neil Silberman, have done a lot of work on this, and wrote a layman's book about it. I also think they did a four part documentary. Another prominent archaeologist to work on this is Donald Redford, Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Penn State.

[FlyingNarwhal]

It'd be nice to have your post too so as to reference it to what this person is talking about.

First of all, when you talk about tolerance and saying that you are fine with people believing whatever they want to, I have to say that atheism has crossed the line even further than any religious group out there (except maybe Shiiete Islam). Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennet (especially Dawkins) are easily the most militant group out there who care nothing about forcing their beliefs on other people and they even extrapolate it out into our education system and governmental procedures. If anything, Christianity is doing a bad job at forcing their beliefs on other people, aside from a select few.

First I would ask him to expand on what specific educational and government programs are being directly influenced by atheism in such a way that it favors atheism and atheists. Most likely he will respond with something along the lines of "taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance" or "removing commandments from government buildings." Instill the difference between laws/programs that favor atheism and laws/programs that are secular. A secular Pledge of Allegiance would be a pledge without a reference in favor to any god or no gods, where as a pledge favoring atheism would have reference to god not existing. Same with the government buildings. A government building that has the Ten Commandments outside is obviously favoring Christianity. A government building that has a plaque that says "God does not exist" would be obviously favoring atheism. A government building with no references to any belief/disbelief is secular.

The second thing is you say it is a bold claim to say that an ancient text is infallible and inspired as the “Word of God” but what many people have done is taken the text out of context and overcomplicate it with false interpretations. The Bible is not that easy to understand as infallible if you take it in the sociocultural context that it was meant to be taken in. Also, you have a bigger problem on your hands because science and history does not even come close to having the ability to answer certain questions on the “how” and “why” of really anything, simply because science and history are not able to answer those kinds of questions. You are leaving yourself with a lot of unanswered questions, which I think is a very uncomfortable step of faith.

I would rather have unanswered questions than false answers. Point out the many fallacies of the Bible that we know because of science today. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. The sky is not a dome, above which is Heaven. Ask him why other peoples' interpretations of the Bible are incorrect but his are poignant and accurate. He may say that the Bible is supposed to be read within the context of the time, society, and culture it was born in but there are plenty of other Christians that believe that the book's message is timeless.

Thirdly, on the point of evolution and its compatibility of the Bible is to be taken from a completely different vantage point than what you presented. The length of the days in Genesis and the historicity of Adam do not matter, as the Genesis text is an account of functional origins, NOT material origins. You are presenting scientific concordism, and I believe in non-concordism, which takes care of these “issues” that you see in the text.

This is where a reference to your post would make things a bit easier. I would like to know what you are presenting but essentially I can tell you this is just a load of horse shit. The functional origins/material origins and scientific concordism/non-concordism is all ways to split hairs and throw you off your track. Concordism isn't even a real fucking word. I Googled the word after spellcheck told me it was wrong, the only place you see it are in Christian scientific journals. They teach people this shit like it's real fucking science terms and then they go out and use it thinking they are sounding real fucking smart saying it.

Finally, your history on the exile and Egypt is just simply not true. We have overwhelming amounts of evidence in ancient artifacts and cities and other items and literature absolutely confirm that this event took place. So we have found TONS of credibility to this story.

What fucking evidence? Guess what, I have overwhelming evidence that at one point the planet Jupiter sprouted legs, squatted down, and shat out Pluto. From Wiki:

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins. The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.

Until he can provide you with that overwhelming evidence instead of just talking about it, and it should come from a peer reviewed journal, tell him he can blow it out his ass.

[Minimalist]

First of all, when you talk about tolerance and saying that you are fine with people believing whatever they want to, I have to say that atheism has crossed the line even further than any religious group out there (except maybe Shiiete Islam).

He is a delusional fuckwit, or simply a liar. Suggest that he learn something about history and the massive murders of the religious and then get back to you.

And get yourself this t-shirt.

[FreeTony]

1. If a belief is backed up by evidence then it will stand up to any kind of honest scrutiny. It's only when people have beliefs that aren't backed up by anything apart from faith that they start getting worried by people questioning them. Criticism of a belief is a good thing and helps everyone learn more and discern whether a belief is valid or not. This is not in the interest of religion, which is why they hate it.

If someone is sufficiently skeptical, the only way to force a belief onto that person is by providing evidence to support it. I would never worry about say a flat earther trying to convince me of his/her beliefs. If he/she had a decent point and enough evidence then I may investigate further. I care about what is true, not what I want to believe.

Atheism isn't even a positive statement. It is just saying to the Theist "Why should I believe your claim as I can't see any evidence to support it".


2. Far better to leave something unanswered than make something up with no evidence to back it!

Normally the Theist says "Science answers the how, Religion answers the why" or some other bollocks like this. "Why" is a really loaded term, essentially coding for "What is the reason for", implying there must be a reason. They may come up with an argument like "Bad people must be punished after they die or otherwise it would be unfair" which implies all sorts of things with no evidence whatsoever, just an appeal to a persons sense of justice.


3. What's the point of Genesis. If it is meant to be a laymans version of what actually happened it would at least get the order of events right (plants/light/sun etc). If it had turned out to be correct through science then I doubt any Theist would have come up with the idea it isn't meant to be taken literally.

The person writing it could have just written "God created everything" to replace pages of drivel.


4. Not my area so I can't really comment.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. Point out to your respondent that he is painting with too broad a brush. Yes, some individual atheists are clearly intolerant, but atheism is not.

2. On the context issue, simply ask your respondent to explain why his/her context is appropriate, but yours is not. Biblicists use this all too often when they get uncomfortable with what are clearly statements of fact in the Bible. I mean, how is it even possible to take something like 'The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord' out of context?

3. This is almost exactly the same issue with #2 above - the most common defense that Biblicists make is that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. S/he concludes that Genesis conforms to biological evolution by simply asserting that all the bits in Genesis which do NOT so conform 'do not matter'. WHY don't they matter?

4. This is the easiest one. I'm an historian (by education, not by profession) and the evidence for the exile and Egypt is sparse at best. ASK for the evidence, and sources, and the qualifications of those sources.

Boru

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Only going to comment on the first point.

Inform him that in many muslim countries, evolution is kept completely out of schools just because of religious beliefs. Inform him that in those places, LGBTs fear to out themselves because even if the government doesn't get them, the culture fostered by religion is quite adequate to make their lives hell, if they get to live. Inform him that in many places of the world you get killed for being an atheist. Inform him that Christianity tells children they will go to hell if they do not believe. Inform him that Christianity is so good at shoving their shit down others throats that they built creation museums JUST SO they can lie to everyone, including kids. So don't fucking get cute and pretend to be persecuted just because atheists are saying a few things on tv. They have been saying a lot more for decades. Learn the difference between freedom of expression and persecution.

[InevitableCheese]

My original article/post:

In American culture, we do not see the religious war that many other parts of the world sees, but in it’s place we have what is called “tolerance”. While definitely better than religious war, it doesn’t come without it’s issues. Religious tolerance has removed the ability to criticize and discuss religion openly within our culture. The problem with letting everyone keep to their own beliefs (which is perfectly fine with me), is that religion can never keep to itself. Evangelism is ALWAYS a part of religion. It seeks to convert those that do not believe. I believe we have an obligation to criticize ideas that are being spread and adopted, not in a totalitarian sense, but in the sense that we personally criticize and work through facts and beliefs, for the betterment of our society and global culture.

Most major religions claim allegiance to a certain ancient text, usually described in the majority as the “Word of God” and that it is infallible. A rather bold claim. In these ancient texts we read stories that are taken to be historically and scientifically accurate. However, we find that most of these stories are highly improbable, and at worst a lie. For example, take the history of the early Jews. We all know the highly inspiring (and at times gruesome and evil) story of Moses, who liberated the Jews from slavery with supernatural plagues, and moved them (with the help of Yahweh) into a land “God gave them” and proceeded to commit genocide on entire populations of peoples, such as the Canaanites. God told them not to leave anyone alive; man, woman, or child, as not to pollute their culture with false gods. What we see in history and archaeology is in fact the opposite. The Jews were probably Canaanites themselves, breaking away from their people because of a disagreement. This probably explains why the Canaanites were so poorly regarded in the Old Testament. Other studies of Egypt show that the Jews were never slaves, thus eliminating the story of Moses in it’s entirety. Egypt was also the large power of the day, and protected it’s region very well. If the Jews did attempt to wipe out the Canaanites or any other group, it is very likely that Egypt would have stepped in and dealt with it. We have yet to find any sort of credibility in this story.

In the world of science, progress has commonly come at the expense of religious dogma. In a more modern example, I know of many people who wholly deny evolution because of the Genesis creation story. They believe there is no way the bible could be wrong about such things. It’s easy enough to believe in evolution as a Christian: just call the story “metaphorical”, a common Christian synonym for false, and spiritualize it. If the story was a fabrication, then why keep it? I know so many who twist words and push it even further in madness to justify their belief. The word for “day” doesn’t mean “day”, it means “age”. Oh, and here’s a fossil with a human footprint beside it. It puts it in the place of any other religious story we don’t believe. This doesn’t mean that we can’t learn something from these stories, like any other fairy tale, but it removes any credibility to the dogma it holds to push forward. If this story was metaphorical, then it destroys the doctrine of us inheriting original sin from Adam, because there never was an Adam. There are many foundational, historical stories to the Jewish and Christian faiths in question, and almost all of these have yet to put forward any amount of evidence besides from religious fabrication and “personal experience with Jesus” to convince us otherwise.

There are many other examples that led to my disbelief. The liberating point for me was when I finally figured out to ask, “What if the Bible was wrong?” instead of asking, “What did God mean to say instead?”. I stopped making excuses for it’s inaccuracy, read the Bible objectively, and in the end relieved myself of a lot of work and headache trying to justify my faith. Christianity is false and irrational.

[Esquilax]

Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennet (especially Dawkins) are easily the most militant group out there who care nothing about forcing their beliefs on other people and they even extrapolate it out into our education system and governmental procedures.

Ah yes, those militant atheists, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennet, with their main weapons being books and discourse! Clearly, they're so much more militant than all those violent religious groups who, say, kill folk for apostasy, threaten violent action over cartoons depicting religious figures, and kill abortion doctors.

Because this:



Is far less aggressive than this:



DAMN THOSE MILITANT ATHEISTS!