Observations On Atheism Part II - God And The Bible

[allan175]

Mr Daystar, you are very wordy. You probably have a superiority complex.

That has definitely been my impression too.

He obviously has a good understanding of langauge and where words come from (etymology?) but his answers tend to be wordy but without any real substance (other than "I understand things better than you").

As for what "ahesists hate", I'm afraid I don't hate anything or anyone.

I'm not shouting "There is no god!" from the rooftops, but I will certainly say "I'm pretty sure there isn't a god".

You seem to be saying "religion is wrong, but my interpretation of the bible is right". Which is exactly what every follower of a religion is saying, as has been said in a better way, I'm only one more god agnostic than you.

[Daystar]

I don't know, actually. Not a class struggle, though, since believers and non-believers are spread out among "classes" (Although there is evidence that suggests that more educated people are less likely to believe). Myself, I've never really felt there needed to be a struggle, per se, between Atheists and Theists, although I feel that (as I've said before) the teaching of creationism (not biblical-specific, any origin myth) should be fought. Of course, it's often true that people with opposing views especially of a theological nature are bound to argue, and perhaps you could call that a struggle. But there is not, to my knowledge, an organized group of atheists (anti-theists?) who are actively struggling to "destroy" religion.

Consider the possibility that atheism and theism themselves are a class regardless of their class. It is a political struggle, really. Education is only a small aside. There is no organized group of atheists actively doing anything. Yet.

Yes. If you want to argue semantics, you're right. But in that you are implying that believed gods are real, which I feel undermines the whole point of a "God." I could say that there is a ghost following me around, and that would not make it right, that would not make it so. Maybe in my mind there is a ghost, and he's a nice guy, but for everyone else, is he real? I don't think so.

Your ghost doesn't apply in the same way. A god isn't defined in the same way. A god is anything that is venerated or mighty. A political hero, an idol. It doesn't have to be real to anyone else or exist in any other sense. The gods of mythology and pagan superstition are as real as the gods of the Bible. Zeus doesn't depend upon any observations other than that he was a god. It doesn't matter if he is real or not he is still a real god. Atheists tend to miss that point because they get caught up in the position of defending a belief in the non-existence of God and Allah only because those two pose a political threat. Zeus doesn't.

Why doesn't non-belief make sense? I know what I don't believe: I do not believe in a supernatural force, being, fate, entity which guides my life or has ever interfered with the universe. Plain and simple. Now if you can explain to me why I don't know what I am talking about, on a basic level, I'd be glad to hear it.

Well that is the point, isn't it? Belief isn't an issue. If you define atheism as simply not believing in any gods - that is to say, worshipping gods then it means nothing. There is no political or even rational position you can take there other than to make a statement of non-belief. Is that atheism? But to say that there is no gods is just ignorant of what the word god means and it doesn't specify God Jehovah or Allah which is the real problem anyway.

By the way - Jehovah God doesn't claim to guide your life. Which brings us to the point atheists always make regarding supernatural. Supernatural is only something that science can't test or prove. To deny the supernatural is only another means of saying you condemn what you can't understand. I am fascinated to discover that most atheist believe in extra terrestrial life.

It is really a question of control by specific Gods you reject and since those gods don't actually exist it is a political struggle with those who allegedly represent him.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the simple legislation bit- how would that be a problem exactly? Could you rephrase? Now, your definition of an atheist is "really nothing more than not believing what someone else believes while at the same time not bothering to educate themselves on what this is" and I strongly disagree. I do not believe in god. But, I am in the process of reading the bible, and the book of mormon, because I am actually trying to learn. Generalized statements which are not really founded in truth are a bit... useless, don't you think?

Legislation matters more than anything else. Christendom still has a tremendous political power. Raise the issue of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and even as you mentioned earlier Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in public schools with atheists and you have a heated debate.

You say that you do not believe in god but you can't even state that in a definitive way. You do not believe in which god? All gods? Believe in them? What does that mean, you don't think they exist? In the Bible there are many gods mentioned. I can show you pictures of gods. The apostle Paul said that even ones own belly could be a god. You don't believe in god? That means nothing. You don't even know what one is.

As for the other points you raise- why would an atheist care about these things? Well, for some of them I do care- important issues to me include tradition, culture, social ones (political? not really, I've never been a political-minded person.). Education, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research... these things are all issues that I think should be important to everyone. Education- it's important that the education system improves, and stays grounded in reason, and should not be teaching "fairytales" as facts to children. Homosexuality is another hot topic, but I think in a way only because it shouldn't be. The church, or religious people who are against homosexuals, are in the wrong. They shouldn't care what people do with their own lives, that's just silly. And the bible is the root of that homophobia for many christians, I think, which is a problem. Abortion is another issue where many religious people would be on the other side of the issue from me- I think that the mother should be given the right to choose. Stem cell research? Yeah, I'm for that too, although many religious leaders are not.

Homosexuality is an issue that until very recently was left to society (which decides what is morally right or wrong). The Bible only says that in order to be a Christian they must turn away from practicing homosexuality. I for example, have done this. It is a personal decision and homosexuality itself is only an issue with the Christian congregation. In other words Christian rules and regulations only apply to Christians; unfortunately Xians try and regulate things like homosexuality and abortion through legislation and political means. This isn't scriptural but when an uninformed atheist like you reads the Bible you see it as the root of their position on such things without realizing that the Bible is being misused in order to do that.

Oh, and what you think of as fairy tales other disagree and what you think are facts others might see as fairy tales.

I agree. Completely. A group should not be formed. But I come on sites like this because I know that it's not only atheists on here- there're people like you who I can talk to and get a different idea. This website is not the germ of a resistance group. It, and others like it, are simply places where like-minded people can meet. Before I started looking, I felt like I was one of the few atheists around, and it was nice to have some feedback and realize that other people felt the same way I did. But I don't see it as a group, more of a discussion. I don't meet on here and plan to do anything against religion, it is only a discussion. Where is the political agenda in that?

To be honest most places like this are devoted exclusively to mocking the Bible and religion. Me - I'm a Bible student who hates religion. My position is usually to try and teach the Bible to atheists so that they have a better understanding of it and if they are unreceptive I try and understand why and give my two cents.
[/quote]

---

Mr Daystar, you are very wordy. You probably have a superiority complex.

That has definitely been my impression too.

He obviously has a good understanding of langauge and where words come from (etymology?) but his answers tend to be wordy but without any real substance (other than "I understand things better than you").

As for what "ahesists hate", I'm afraid I don't hate anything or anyone.

I'm not shouting "There is no god!" from the rooftops, but I will certainly say "I'm pretty sure there isn't a god".

You seem to be saying "religion is wrong, but my interpretation of the bible is right". Which is exactly what every follower of a religion is saying, as has been said in a better way, I'm only one more god agnostic than you.

Religion never stays true, even to itself. The Hebrews waited two thousand years for a messiah and when he arrived they killed him. Why? Because their religion distorted his meaning into their own.

The apostle Paul foretold that Christianity would change into myth and fables and it did.

There are only two ways to interpret the Bible. Right and wrong. Is my way right? Increasingly so - which means that I have gotten it wrong in the past and will get it wrong in the future. Interpretation is accountable to the Bible itself. Testable.

No one who has ever lived will get it all right. That isn't even the point.

Edit: By the way I really don't understand your saying that I am too wordy. Do you mean pedantic or verbose? 'Cause, damn ... verbose I would give you but pedantic?! C'mon!

[allan175]

Yes. If you want to argue semantics, you're right. But in that you are implying that believed gods are real, which I feel undermines the whole point of a "God." I could say that there is a ghost following me around, and that would not make it right, that would not make it so. Maybe in my mind there is a ghost, and he's a nice guy, but for everyone else, is he real? I don't think so.

Your ghost doesn't apply in the same way. A god isn't defined in the same way. A god is anything that is venerated or mighty. A political hero, an idol. It doesn't have to be real to anyone else or exist in any other sense. The gods of mythology and pagan superstition are as real as the gods of the Bible. Zeus doesn't depend upon any observations other than that he was a god. It doesn't matter if he is real or not he is still a real god. Atheists tend to miss that point because they get caught up in the position of defending a belief in the non-existence of God and Allah only because those two pose a political threat. Zeus doesn't.

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!).

Why doesn't non-belief make sense? I know what I don't believe: I do not believe in a supernatural force, being, fate, entity which guides my life or has ever interfered with the universe. Plain and simple. Now if you can explain to me why I don't know what I am talking about, on a basic level, I'd be glad to hear it.

Well that is the point, isn't it? Belief isn't an issue. If you define atheism as simply not believing in any gods - that is to say, worshipping gods then it means nothing. There is no political or even rational position you can take there other than to make a statement of non-belief. Is that atheism? But to say that there is no gods is just ignorant of what the word god means and it doesn't specify God Jehovah or Allah which is the real problem anyway.

By the way - Jehovah God doesn't claim to guide your life. Which brings us to the point atheists always make regarding supernatural. Supernatural is only something that science can't test or prove. To deny the supernatural is only another means of saying you condemn what you can't understand. I am fascinated to discover that most atheist believe in extra terrestrial life.

It is really a question of control by specific Gods you reject and since those gods don't actually exist it is a political struggle with those who allegedly represent him.

You say that you do not believe in god but you can't even state that in a definitive way. You do not believe in which god? All gods? Believe in them? What does that mean, you don't think they exist? In the Bible there are many gods mentioned. I can show you pictures of gods. The apostle Paul said that even ones own belly could be a god. You don't believe in god? That means nothing. You don't even know what one is.

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).
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).

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.

Mr Daystar, you are very wordy. You probably have a superiority complex.

That has definitely been my impression too.

He obviously has a good understanding of langauge and where words come from (etymology?) but his answers tend to be wordy but without any real substance (other than "I understand things better than you").

As for what "ahesists hate", I'm afraid I don't hate anything or anyone.

I'm not shouting "There is no god!" from the rooftops, but I will certainly say "I'm pretty sure there isn't a god".

You seem to be saying "religion is wrong, but my interpretation of the bible is right". Which is exactly what every follower of a religion is saying, as has been said in a better way, I'm only one more god agnostic than you.

Religion never stays true, even to itself. The Hebrews waited two thousand years for a messiah and when he arrived they killed him. Why? Because their religion distorted his meaning into their own.

The apostle Paul foretold that Christianity would change into myth and fables and it did.

There are only two ways to interpret the Bible. Right and wrong. Is my way right? Increasingly so - which means that I have gotten it wrong in the past and will get it wrong in the future. Interpretation is accountable to the Bible itself. Testable.

No one who has ever lived will get it all right. That isn't even the point.

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?

[Daystar]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[CoxRox]

Daystar:

'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.'

Where does it mention these? I don't recall gods of luck or a ship etc??

[Daystar]

Daystar:

'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.'

Where does it mention these? I don't recall gods of luck or a ship etc??

Apostate Jews of Isaiah's time worshipped "the god of Good Luck" (Hebrew gadh) and the "god of Destiny" (Hebrew meni - Isaiah 65:11-12)

Assyrians and Babylonians also would prepare food and drink for their "Lord of Luck." Jerome commented on Isaiah 65:11: "in all cities, and especially in Egypt and Alexandria, there was an ancient idolatrous custom, that on the last day of the final month of their year they would spread a table covered with various kinds of foods, and a cup mixed with sweet wine, ensuring good luck for the fertility either of the past or the coming year." - Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, LXXIII A, S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera, Pars. 1, 2A, Tyrnholt, 1963, p. 754.

The scripture I referred to is Acts 28:11. Translations vary but some read it as the gods of Luck. From Greek and Roman mythology Pollux and Castor were the twin sons of Leda and offspring of Zeus (Jupiter) and called Dioscuri (Sons of Zeus). Among other things they were regarded as protectors of mariners. When Paul sailed as prisoner on the Alexandrian boat from Malta to Puteoli en route to Rome the ship bore the figurehead "Sons of Zeus."

[CoxRox]

Of course! It's been a while since I've read any of the Bible.....

[lukec]

Consider the possibility that atheism and theism themselves are a class regardless of their class. It is a political struggle, really. Education is only a small aside. There is no organized group of atheists actively doing anything. Yet.

Education is not a small aside- it is very important. How are people to know what is the result of natural happenings instead of a supernatural happening? Anyway, perhaps there is the potential for a political struggle between atheists and theists, but where is the struggle now? Online, in chatrooms? Or are you talking about battles over what should be taught in school? Because that, for example, is not a simple battle of atheist vs theist- there are creationists on one side trying to push creation into schooling, and on the other side are atheists and theists like, not a pure-atheist group. And I still don't think it's a class struggle- class implies different levels in a hierarchy of society, whereas, like I said before, atheists and theists are spread out along the continuum.

Your ghost doesn't apply in the same way. A god isn't defined in the same way. A god is anything that is venerated or mighty. A political hero, an idol. It doesn't have to be real to anyone else or exist in any other sense. The gods of mythology and pagan superstition are as real as the gods of the Bible. Zeus doesn't depend upon any observations other than that he was a god. It doesn't matter if he is real or not he is still a real god. Atheists tend to miss that point because they get caught up in the position of defending a belief in the non-existence of God and Allah only because those two pose a political threat. Zeus doesn't.

...

Well that is the point, isn't it? Belief isn't an issue. If you define atheism as simply not believing in any gods - that is to say, worshipping gods then it means nothing. There is no political or even rational position you can take there other than to make a statement of non-belief. Is that atheism? But to say that there is no gods is just ignorant of what the word god means and it doesn't specify God Jehovah or Allah which is the real problem anyway.

By the way - Jehovah God doesn't claim to guide your life. Which brings us to the point atheists always make regarding supernatural. Supernatural is only something that science can't test or prove. To deny the supernatural is only another means of saying you condemn what you can't understand. I am fascinated to discover that most atheist believe in extra terrestrial life.

is really a question of control by specific Gods you reject and since those gods don't actually exist it is a political struggle with those who allegedly represent him.

Okay... so you admit then that your god may not be real or exist in any other sense than that you believe in it? Because then we agree.
But that doesn't really make sense- the whole point of theism (although not deism, for example) is believing, fully, that there is a guiding "god." If you try to tell me that the many religious people who believe in god actually think that their God does not exist, then you need a reality check. But you're still arguing semantics. If you define a god as "anything venerated" then obviously there indeed are gods. So, by your definition, I don't deny that there are indeed many gods, all created by man. But I do not ascribe to them any powers, or any existence other than in the minds of others. So what exactly is your point?

You say that you do not believe in god but you can't even state that in a definitive way. You do not believe in which god? All gods? Believe in them? What does that mean, you don't think they exist? In the Bible there are many gods mentioned. I can show you pictures of gods. The apostle Paul said that even ones own belly could be a god. You don't believe in god? That means nothing. You don't even know what one is.

And here I think you definitely are being pedantic. Can you really not understand what I mean when I say I don't believe in god? Perhaps it would be simpler for me to say I do not believe in anything supernatural, because I have never seen any evidence for it myself. But do I need to go out of my way to tell you I don't believe that a belly is a god? Maybe by your "anything venerated" definition it is, but clearly, an atheist is not talking about this definition.

Homosexuality is an issue that until very recently was left to society (which decides what is morally right or wrong). The Bible only says that in order to be a Christian they must turn away from practicing homosexuality. I for example, have done this. It is a personal decision and homosexuality itself is only an issue with the Christian congregation. In other words Christian rules and regulations only apply to Christians; unfortunately Xians try and regulate things like homosexuality and abortion through legislation and political means. This isn't scriptural but when an uninformed atheist like you reads the Bible you see it as the root of their position on such things without realizing that the Bible is being misused in order to do that.

I guess this is the sort of thing you're talking about:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

These are from just a quick Google search, of course, taken from
http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm

Also, I find it odd that you say you hate religion, and yet say "The Bible only says that in order to be a Christian they must turn away from practicing homosexuality. I for example, have done this."

To be honest most places like this are devoted exclusively to mocking the Bible and religion. Me - I'm a Bible student who hates religion. My position is usually to try and teach the Bible to atheists so that they have a better understanding of it and if they are unreceptive I try and understand why and give my two cents.

Clearly this one is not dedicated to what you say, as you are here. Further, I don't mock the bible, I am trying to learn about it. I would be glad to learn more about the bible if you would teach me- but the way you do it now is very presumptive- you present what you believe is right without explaining or backing up what you mean, which doesn't help me at all.

[CoxRox]

Lukec, I commend your open-mindedness in reading the Bible. I'd be interested to know what you think, once you have read it. Your replies here are always level headed, sensible and courteous.

[Meatball]

The definition of God is the most important thing to the argument for or against atheism. You need to come up with a cut and dry definition of what 'God' is and what 'God' isn't before you can say anything meaningful.

A man who picks up a stick and calls it God has every right to do so. He's wrong, because we already have a word for a stick(and it's not 'God'), but that's not the definition we're discussing, and you know it.