A few questions for fellow atheists

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Even a cursory reading of the Bible requires a spiritual interpretation. And Jesus himself said that his words are spirit and life. There is no way that one can pick apart scripture without a spiritual understanding of the contents.

That's just circular reasoning.

"You can't interpret the bible without spiritual understanding."
"Why?"
"The bible says so."

[Lincoln]

No Ranger, you have to partake of the same spirit in which it was written. Then the text makes sense just like a foreign language makes sense to those who know and practice it's use.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No Ranger, you have to partake of the same spirit in which it was written.

I think what Lincoln is saying is that in order to fully appreciate the writings of the Bible, you must first suspend your disbelief - the same way you do when reading any good fantasy novel. OK, I'll buy that.

[Jack the Bodiless]

This assumes that all of the Bible was written in the same "spirit", of course.

If you read each book in the spirit in which that book was written, it comes out very differently.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by gunkulator


I think what Lincoln is saying is that in order to fully appreciate the writings of the Bible, you must first suspend your disbelief - the same way you do when reading any good fantasy novel. OK, I'll buy that.

I sincerely doubt that was how Lincoln meant it, although I agree with you.

UR: Science has yet to rule out God's existence, since without knowing anything about the nature of God, it is impossible to scientifically prove or disprove his existence. Science has shown that the actions ascribed to Yaweh are either fictional or have scientific explanations, but they haven't disproved "God" in the absolute sense.

But that just goes back to the futility of trying to comprehend a being that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It does. How could science exist if pi is one value when you are measuring it but another if you aren't?

The word "bullsh*t" seems remarkably appropriate.

Your comment shows that you either don't understand Christianity or you don't understand science, or both.

[Frogman]

originally posted by Kontiki

I agree that science does not rule out the existence of God, or miracles, and I certainly don't think that "it" (in that science is not an entity or single theory) intends to do so. There are certainly things yet unexplained by science, and there are things that may never be explained, and certainly the "why?" of many things is up in the air. This is why I think it's probably wrong to completely disregard the notion of a higher power at this point (and perhaps forever). However, science has so thoroughly disproven so many parts of the Bible once widely taken to be literally true, and calls into question so many more aspects of Christianity in general (and all other religions as well), that, for me at least, there is no reason to believe that the God held out by Chistianity or any other religion is in any way indicative of what may or may not actually exist.

Well said. The fact is that the nature of God is unknown. No religion has the answer. If I treat others with kindness and love, if I seek the truth, if I act with humility, then my life is well lived. God if he exists can do what he wants and I have no fear.

Obiwan, what is your take on the nephilim, Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33? There might have been a flood, and some animals on a boat, but surely you don't believe it covered the whole world.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Considering the NT, we have historical documentaries, in the forms of the Gospels, followed by the Pastoral letters of various leaders of the early Church. The last book, Revelations falls into the category of apocalyptic literature, found also in parts of Daniel.

For the sake of this discussion, the important parts of the NT are the Gospels and the pastoral letters. Can these be submitted as historical documents on par with any other historical source of the time?

No. There are better historical sources from the time: Roman records and accounts from various historians who actually witnessed the events they wrote about (or there's no reason to assume they didn't).

Looking at the OT, there are 3 main divisions, historical accounts, wisdom literature, and prophecies. Again, for the sake of this thread, the primary section we are concerned with will be the OT historical section, comprising of most of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, both books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, Nehemiah and Ezra. May I submit these books as an accurate historical account?

I say part of the Pentateuch, because I want to gage the reaction to Genesis. Can I submit all of Genesis past Genesis 9 as an accurate historical account?

The Tower of Babel also belongs in the "clearly false" part of Genesis.

Not the Pentateuch. In fact, I'd discount pretty much everything written prior to the end of the Babylonian captivity, except the existence of cities mentioned (no need to invent cities). This marked a huge upheaval in Judaism, the Zoroastrian-induced transition from polytheism to monotheism, which must have involved heavy rewriting of older stories.

I would have been prepared to accept the exodus from Egypt (stripped of its miraculous elements) as probably fact, but that's becoming increasingly unlikely. Partly because of the lack of evidence from the Egyptian side (no record of Hebrew slaves or a sudden migration of slaves, not even one with pro-Egyptian "spin"), partly because of DNA test results showing no genetic difference between Israeli and Palestinian gene pools except the European genes they picked up after the Diaspora (i.e. no separate population arriving from elsewhere), and partly because of what we now know about the development of Judaism from Caananite religions (the god Baal, demonized in the Old Testament, was the elder brother of Jesus: another son of El).

Solomon and David probably existed, but have been greatly exaggerated (they ruled over a few tribes of goat-herders, not a great civilization). Every character prior to that is probably mythical.

[Frogman]

originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Solomon and David probably existed, but have been greatly exaggerated (they ruled over a few tribes of goat-herders, not a great civilization). Every character prior to that is probably mythical.

One thing I find in the Bible is that the faults of even the great ones aren't left out or covered up in the Bible. Both David and Solomon sinned greatly in their lives and there was no covering this up. I don't know why people discount the historical books of the Bible so readily. The rewriting Jack claims is pure speculation and amounts to as much fantasy as believing dinosaurs were on the ark.

[yavoon]

boris making up an entity that is unprovable. then trying to hold its legitimacy on the fact that its unprovable.

would be a complete joke if we were talking about NETHING but god. but somehow when we talk about god ppl give themselves these enormous leeways.

[gunkulator]

The time period usually attributed to Solomon and David and the following few generations are known to be a lull between the area's great conquering empires like the Hittites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, etc. So it is in fact likely like the petty kingdoms did exist.

There are also exhausting accounts in the Bible of things like the Temple of Solomon and various alliances and wars amongst the people of the region. There isn't any particular reason to reject them out of hand, especially since God is notably absent. He certainly doesn't help when Judah and Israel split apart.

The Temple is even more of a curiousity as it is mentioned in the Bible because even with God supposedly on their sides, the Jews had to bring in a Phoenician architect, Hiram, to build the thing. There are severals verses praising Hiram even though he is an idol worshipping gentile.

[Japher]

Be who chose TO BELIEVE are just as foolish as those who chose NOT TO BELIEVE... Taking a stance on something that one can neither disprove or prove is absurd. Especially since those from both walks of life measure their results off of different systems.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
Be who chose TO BELIEVE are just as foolish as those who chose NOT TO BELIEVE...

I disagree. There is a big difference between not believing and believing the negative.

To not believe God exists is reasonable, based on what we know. To believe God does not exist is less reasonable, as it is an absolute statement that is unprovable.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
To believe God does not exist is less reasonable, as it is an absolute statement that is unprovable.

Is your statement just as valid if we replace the word God with "Zeus", "leprechauns", "Cthulhu", "little green men from Mars" or "The CivII Foreign Advisor"?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Is your statement just as valid if we replace the word God with "Zeus", "leprechauns", "Cthulhu", "little green men from Mars" or "The CivII Foreign Advisor"?

Technically, yes, since we can pinpoint some definite characteristics/supposed actions of the above things and prove that they aren't/cannot be as described.

An omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is a bit slippier. Oh, we've proven Jehovah/Yahweh doesn't exist. But that isn't necessarily what God is.

At any rate, I do not believe because no one as proven to me any God exists, and I currently don't view it as something that fits in my worldview. However, I cannot believe God does not exist, because there is no evidence for such, either.