Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[skeptic griggsy]

I think Gardner does not practice skepticism in regards to God.His mere feeling is his shield of faith that grips one so tright that even if one like John Hick can fault arguments for God and still advocate Him and Bishop John Shelby Spong who can lament most of the Bible and embrace our covenant morality for humanity- humanism- yet still believe that in that execrable book there is the omnibeneficient God.
And some atheists believe in the future state and in the paranormal.So, I call myself a naturalist who thereby objurates both the paranormal and the supernatural!

 

[amb]

I think Gardner does not practice skepticism in regards to God.His mere feeling is his shield of faith that grips one so tright that even if one like John Hick can fault arguments for God and still advocate Him and Bishop John Shelby Spong who can lament most of the Bible and embrace our covenant morality for humanity- humanism- yet still believe that in that execrable book there is the omnibeneficient God.
And some atheists believe in the future state and in the paranormal.So, I call myself a naturalist who thereby objurates both the paranormal and the supernatural!

I have read numerous books of John Shelby Spong, including his last '' Jesus for The Non Religious''. I would class him as a left leaning agnostic at best.
The man was a bishop, how on earth can he deny the existence of God with all the seminary schooling and training he has had. It shows in his books. His belief that people perceived God in Jesus's life is a sign that he can't let go of the theistic god. Nevertheless, I enjoy his books but mindful of where he's coming from.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

short answer: YES

 

[skeptic griggsy]

I cannot admire Yeshua whatsoever! See Jim Walker's essay "Should we admire Jesus"@ nobeliefs.com/jesus.htmAlso his '" Did Jesus exist?"
Spong can so deny in that he uses his reason.However, he makes a distinction from his notions of God and those of theism. That seems just a say so. Anyway, that shield has him in its grip.He bases his beliefs on the mere feeling that there has to be a super mind beyond Existence that cares for us in the manner of pareidolia- like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla,thus Fueurbach's projection of human traits onto divinity.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I cannot admire Yeshua whatsoever! See Jim Walker's essay "Should we admire Jesus"@ nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

Interesting link. That guy's apparently as literal and narrow-minded in his readings of Jesus as many Fundamentlists I know. But if his arguments work for you ...

 

[Belz...]

"I am a sword" and "go against your parents" does it for me.

 

[KingMerv00]

Interesting link. That guy's apparently as literal and narrow-minded in his readings of Jesus as many Fundamentlists I know. But if his arguments work for you ...

I never understood how religious moderates justify anything but a literal read of the Bible. You know, the way it is actually written?

Also, why is it that the figurative parts always seem to be the immoral or flat out incorrect ones?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I never understood how religious moderates justify anything but a literal read of the Bible. You know, the way it is actually written?

Also, why is it that the figurative parts always seem to be the immoral or flat out incorrect ones?

KingMerv00, You don't really read everything literally either, do you? Every single thing you ever read you read literally just because it's written down?

 

[Mobyseven]

KingMerv00, You don't really read everything literally either, do you? Every single thing you ever read you read literally just because it's written down?

If I believed that something was the immutable divinely inspired word of the creator of the universe, then yes. It would be very difficult to justify another position, especially given the very literal style of much of the bible.

 

[articulett]

KingMerv00, You don't really read everything literally either, do you? Every single thing you ever read you read literally just because it's written down?

I don't think Kingmerv believes that an invisible creator of the universe inspired any texts. The people who do seem to go in for their own random interpretations... why is there so much disagreement and differing interpretations if this book is the word of someone so magical and powerful and omniscient. Surely, he would know that people like you would interpret it as they wish and others would interpret it differently. It makes no sense to believe a book is divinely inspired and then think you can determine what parts are literal and what parts are parables doesn't it?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't think Kingmerv believes that an invisible creator of the universe inspired any texts. The people who do seem to go in for their own random interpretations... why is there so much disagreement and differing interpretations if this book is the word of someone so magical and powerful and omniscient. Surely, he would know that people like you would interpret it as they wish and others would interpret it differently. It makes no sense to believe a book is divinely inspired and then think you can determine what parts are literal and what parts are parables doesn't it?

Why is it so many Athiests insist on the entire Bible as being literal? You'd think people detached from the religion itself would have an even easier time discerning the writing styles used. As for writing styles in the bible there are myths, histories, parables, hyperbole, sayings, poems, songs, prophecies, and letters. (Probably even more styles I can't think of.)

I find English literature courses and reading all sorts of writing styles have helped me in determining what anything I read anywhere is.

 

[schlitt]

Why is it so many Athiests insist on the entire Bible as being literal? You'd think people detached from the religion itself would have an even easier time discerning the writing styles used. As for writing styles in the bible there are myths, histories, parables, hyperbole, sayings, poems, songs, prophecies, and letters. (Probably even more styles I can't think of.)

I find English literature courses and reading all sorts of writing styles have helped me in determining what anything I read anywhere is.

What do you use for your guide to determine what is intended literally and what was not, considering the bible itself does not state?

The bible is constantly cherry picked, and interpreted to mean multiple things to multiple people. How do you determine who is correct?

 

[articulett]

What do you use for your guide to determine what is intended literally and what was not, considering the bible itself does not state?

The bible is constantly cherry picked, and interpreted to mean multiple things to multiple people. How do you determine who is correct?

--And, CS, why would you think your interpretation is more correct than the Amish or Fred Phelps... see that's the problem with subjective truths that people claim come from a "higher source"--

If it's not divinely inspired... what makes you think it's worthy of following?... if it is, what makes you think you've got the "true" interpretation and how do you account for a god that was so unclear?

To atheists it seems that everybody picks the assorted truths they want from the assorted texts they claim to be inspired and then proffer those interpreted "truths" as words of wisdom or messages from god. To us it's the same as someone who interprets the Quoran loosely or literally... or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. if faith is good-- why is it so nebulous and prone to varied interpretation? You're the ones claiming faith is useful for finding truth... so why doesn't anyone agree on what these truths are or how to interpret them and why should we take any of you seriously when everyone is clearly cherry picking what they want to believe from their respective specially translated books.

 

[JoeEllison]

Why is it so many Athiests insist on the entire Bible as being literal? You'd think people detached from the religion itself would have an even easier time discerning the writing styles used. As for writing styles in the bible there are myths, histories, parables, hyperbole, sayings, poems, songs, prophecies, and letters. (Probably even more styles I can't think of.)

I find English literature courses and reading all sorts of writing styles have helped me in determining what anything I read anywhere is.

We don't... I think that, because it is very obviously mythology, it should be treated as such. We don't treat Zeus or Thor as real, so there is absolutely zero reason to treat the Biblical myth as real either.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

We don't... I think that, because it is very obviously mythology, it should be treated as such. We don't treat Zeus or Thor as real, so there is absolutely zero reason to treat the Biblical myth as real either.

I didn't ask why treat it as real - I said why the insistance it all needs to be literal regardless of the style of writing? Take a look at that link above that I replied. That's what that guy is doing - taking all verses from all the many bible's books literal and then saying "see - look here how silly this verse is, or how evil this verse is, or how stupid this verse, etc."

If you don't believe there is anything worthy in the Bible don't worry about it, but don't insist other people need to interpret it the way you do. If you do care then look at the style of literature it is, read it, and try to figure out for yourself what the point is.

 

[articulett]

I didn't ask why treat it as real - I said why the insistance it all needs to be literal regardless of the style of writing? Take a look at that link above that I replied. That's what that guy is doing - taking all verses from all the many bible's books literal and then saying "see - look here how silly this verse is, or how evil this verse is, or how stupid this verse, etc."

If you don't believe there is anything worthy in the Bible don't worry about it, but don't insist other people need to interpret it the way you do. If you do care then look at the style of literature it is, read it, and try to figure out for yourself what the point is.

But why wasn't your god clear... why is he leaving it up to assorted mortals to decide what it means and what he was serious about? That's what we want to know. How do you explain that to yourself. Why should we take your interpretation of your scripture more seriously than others take their interpretation of their holy books? And why do you?

 

[amb]

Why is it so many Athiests insist on the entire Bible as being literal? You'd think people detached from the religion itself would have an even easier time discerning the writing styles used. As for writing styles in the bible there are myths, histories, parables, hyperbole, sayings, poems, songs, prophecies, and letters. (Probably even more styles I can't think of.)

I find English literature courses and reading all sorts of writing styles have helped me in determining what anything I read anywhere is.

Doesn't that make the whole thing irrelevant and fit only as a door stop?

You can't take some portion of the bible literal and discard the rest. It's all or nothing.
We are after all talking about a book inspired by god, so there cannot be any mistakes, can there?

 

[Mobyseven]

The problem with saying, "Some of the bible is a metaphor," or even, "Most of the bible is a metaphor," is that instead of having scripture that tells us what is true, we instead then have scripture may be partly true, and that we know is at least partly metaphorical or symbolic. We don't, however, know which parts are supposed tobe taken literally and which parts are supposed to be symbolic. There is no Guide to the Metaphors of the Bible that forms the appendix after Revelations, written by Jesus or John or Moses or whoever.

For example, is the creation story a metaphor? Or is it literal? If it is a metaphor, then what is it a metaphor for? What about Jesus? Did he actually exist, or are the books written about him merely symbolic? Perhaps this 'god' character is a metaphor too - rather than an actual being 'god' was used as a metaphor by the authors to symbolise and emphasise the existential angst associated with being a mortal being unsure of his or her purpose?

If you are going to say that the Bible is not entirely literal, you are then also going to have to explain how one can tell the metaphorical sections from the literal sections. Otherwise, while a fascinating piece of literature, it is absolutely useless as the basis for a religion, or for one's beliefs actions.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Doesn't that make the whole thing irrelevant and fit only as a door stop?

Why? I can learn some truth from a poem, even though it's a poem. I can learn some truth from a myth, even though it's a myth. Jesus uses lots of parables and stories -these weren't literally true, but they still teach important lessons. Something can be True and not need to be Literal.

You can't take some portion of the bible literal and discard the rest. It's all or nothing.

I never said this. I think if you discarded all but the literal you would have a very small and very boring Bible.

We are after all talking about a book inspired by god, so there cannot be any mistakes, can there?

I think you are confusing inspired with dictated.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

The problem with saying, "Some of the bible is a metaphor," or even, "Most of the bible is a metaphor," is that instead of having scripture that tells us what is true, we instead then have scripture may be partly true, and that we know is at least partly metaphorical or symbolic.

Something doesn't have to be literal or even factual to be true. Look through any Science textbook. Often they will explain what they are teaching you and then use a fictional example to demonstrate. If that fictional example was only made up by the author is it any less true? Of course that event is not fact, but the point is true. Jesus used lots of parables to make points - the stories were only stories, but the points are still true.

If you are going to say that the Bible is not entirely literal, you are then also going to have to explain how one can tell the metaphorical sections from the literal sections. Otherwise, while a fascinating piece of literature, it is absolutely useless as the basis for a religion, or for one's beliefs actions.

I'm not going to explain every book in the bible to you, but how about you try this. Find a book in the bible, find out what style scholars consider it, then read it like it is that style, and throughout it ask yourself "What's the point of this book?" And maybe "Why did the author feel it was important to write this book?" This is assuming you are reading it as an unbeliever. That should start you in the correct direction at least.