Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So God made up the part about the Moon being the night light because people wouldn't understand what reflected light was?

The problem with your explanation, ACS is that most of the falsehoods in the Bible are not presented as examples, just the stories you cherry picked that could reasonably be examples.

 

[articulett]

So God made up the part about the Moon being the night light because people wouldn't understand what reflected light was?

The problem with your explanation, ACS is that most of the falsehoods in the Bible are not presented as examples, just the stories you cherry picked that could reasonably be examples.

And he's not treating it like a poetry book but the inspired work of the invisible creator of the universe that he believes in...

Does he not see the irony... what would he think of a Muslim that cherrypicked the Quoran in such a manner--that there were less or more convinced than a more literal Muslim? Does either make the book more likely to be inspired or true? Why would a deity or multiple deities be so prone to varying interpretations of his inspired word or words or messages or language translations and so forth. It makes no sense. Of course nothing about religion makes sense.

 

[amb]

And he's not treating it like a poetry book but the inspired work of the invisible creator of the universe that he believes in...

Does he not see the irony... what would he think of a Muslim that cherrypicked the Quoran in such a manner--that there were less or more convinced than a more literal Muslim? Does either make the book more likely to be inspired or true? Why would a deity or multiple deities be so prone to varying interpretations of his inspired word or words or messages or language translations and so forth. It makes no sense. Of course nothing about religion makes sense.

You'r wrong that religion doesn't make sense. Just ask the heads of the hierarchy of any religion who are kept in the lap of luxury if it makes sense, with their own private jets, mansions, etc. Not to mention the millions of dollars rolling in monthly from the gullible who think their buying a ticket to heaven.

 

[plumjam]

You'r wrong that religion doesn't make sense. Just ask the heads of the hierarchy of any religion who are kept in the lap of luxury if it makes sense, with their own private jets, mansions, etc. Not to mention the millions of dollars rolling in monthly from the gullible who think their buying a ticket to heaven.

hmm... heads of the hierarchies..
Really speaking I guess that would mean Jesus, Mohammed, Moses (?), Buddha, Guru Nanak, Zoroaster, Krishna etc..
Last I heard they all lived very modest lives.
In fact the Buddha gave up being a prince and swapped it for a robe, a pot, and a stick.

 

[amb]

hmm... heads of the hierarchies..
Really speaking I guess that would mean Jesus, Mohammed, Moses (?), Buddha, Guru Nanak, Zoroaster, Krishna etc..
Last I heard they all lived very modest lives.
In fact the Buddha gave up being a prince and swapped it for a robe, a pot, and a stick.

The originators probably did live as paupers.
But the Pat Robertson's of this world are laughing all the way to the bank.
The pope is supposed to represent the first apostle of christ. He certainly doesn't appear that way does he, with all the funny hats and costumes that cost a small fortune alone. The whole city of the vatican and all the wealth the church hold thruout the world could feed half the people of Africa for years.

 

[Big Les]

I think PJ needs to watch Life of Brian. The inspirations for religions are not the same people who actually go on to establish heirarchical organisations based on their teachings.

"We are all individuals!".

 

[Belz...]

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?

Why don't you answer the question, bloke:

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

You get to pick which ones are litteral and which ones aren't ?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So God made up the part about the Moon being the night light because people wouldn't understand what reflected light was?

Apparently.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

And he's not treating it like a poetry book but the inspired work of the invisible creator of the universe that he believes in...

Wrong. I treat it like both when it is both. When it's something else I treat it like that.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why don't you answer the question, bloke:

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

Where I have I said the figurative parts are always the immoral or flat out incorrect ones only?

You get to pick which ones are litteral and which ones aren't ?

Why can't I?

It seems odd many of you love to make fun of the "sheeple" of religions, but then when a religious person says he looks at things himself and makes up his own mind you seem to insist it's wrong and that the only right way is to blindly follow someone elses teachings and opinions.

I'd think that regardless of whether I am wrong you'd try not to convince me to believe something bad. Why do you want me to believe that non-Christian guys points are correct? Would you rather have me believe that way? You want me to be a Fundamentalist in my Christian beliefs?

And if I do base my decision on which are which on someone else's reasons why should it be an Anti-Christian Athiest like the guy in the link over some other better educated person?

To sum up: I don't take the Bible literally and I do try to look at each Book from the approach of the style it is in. I do believe they are all inspired and important regardless of the style. And, no, I don't think that guys conlusions are largely correct because he is being more literalist than most of the Fundamentalist (as you'd call them) Christians I know. If you agree with him then that's fine, but be a little honest and admit it's because you are being a literalist too.

Where the heck is the issue here?

 

[Belz...]

Where I have I said the figurative parts are always the immoral or flat out incorrect ones only?

You didn't. Answer the question.

Why can't I?

Because the truth isn't determined by personal preference.

It seems odd many of you love to make fun of the "sheeple" of religions, but then when a religious person says he looks at things himself and makes up his own mind you seem to insist it's wrong and that the only right way is to blindly follow someone elses teachings and opinions.

Because there can't be two truths, CS.

I'd think that regardless of whether I am wrong you'd try not to convince me to believe something bad. Why do you want me to believe that non-Christian guys points are correct? Would you rather have me believe that way? You want me to be a Fundamentalist in my Christian beliefs?

We're trying to show you that religious beliefs are incoherent.

I do believe they are all inspired and important regardless of the style.

Even Esther ?

Where the heck is the issue here?

Litteralism is an impossibility, but non-litteralism has its own problems. That's the issue.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

You didn't. Answer the question.

You're question was this:
why is it that the figurative parts always seem to be the immoral or flat out incorrect ones?

This question doesn't apply to me because I think what you perceive as "the immoral or flat out incorrect ones" aren't the only figurative parts of the bible. I don't even know what you consider immoral or flat out incorrect to begin to even decide if I want to or can answer this in any larger sense.

We're trying to show you that religious beliefs are incoherent.

By insisting I read the Bible the same way you do? That's just showing me you are trying to make it incoherent for some reason.

Even Esther ?

It's in the Bible isn't it?

Litteralism is an impossibility, but non-litteralism has its own problems. That's the issue.

It mustn't be an impossibility since so many, including the guy in the link above, do it.

Why do you prefer I take it all literal instead of only some?

 

[boojum]

Wrong. I treat it like both when it is both. When it's something else I treat it like that.

This reminds me of the old joke about a baseball umpire -- when asked to explain how he distinguished balls from strikes, he said "If I call'em balls, they're balls; if I call'em strikes, they're strikes."

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

This reminds me of the old joke about a baseball umpire -- when asked to explain how he distinguished balls from strikes, he said "If I call'em balls, they're balls; if I call'em strikes, they're strikes."

At least he's not calling them Field Goals.

 

[Belz...]

You're question was this:
why is it that the figurative parts always seem to be the immoral or flat out incorrect ones?

This question doesn't apply to me because I think what you perceive as "the immoral or flat out incorrect ones" aren't the only figurative parts of the bible.

Fair enough, but it's a habit of Christians to interpret the passages we see as immoral or incorrect as being "allegorical" and the others as being "factual".

By insisting I read the Bible the same way you do?

I read the bible as a representation of people's beliefs in the days when it was written.

It mustn't be an impossibility since so many, including the guy in the link above, do it.

What I mean is that the bible CANNOT be taken litterally, because it contradicts itself and several known facts.

Why do you prefer I take it all literal instead of only some?

I never said that. You presume too much.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Yes, science textbooks use fictional examples, but they clearly deliniate between what is fact and what is fiction. The bible does not - hence my question as to what method one can use to figure out which parts of the bible are fact and which are fiction.

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.

You're doing it again - instead of answering my question you've gone and told me to do the research myself. It's insulting, okay? Kindly stop presuming that just because I disagree with you I don't know anything about the bible. I was raised Jewish and had to study the Torah and also some of the Nevi'im and Kethuvi'im for my Bar Mitzvah. Following that I went to a private Uniting Church school, with chapel services every week. For some time I was very interested in the bible as a piece of literature. So how about instead of being so damn condescending, you actually answer my questions?

To respond to what you wrote - what you are talking about is essentially doing a literary analysis of the bible. This is all well and good - but it has nothing to do with the question I asked. I'm more than happy to treat the bible as though it is no different to Harry Potter or David Copperfield (i.e. As a piece of pure fiction), but obviously you and a large percentage of the world's population feel somewhat differently about things. If you want me to treat the bible as fiction and go from there - fine. But a book of fiction written two-thousand years ago by people who hadn't yet discovered germs, evolution, or calculus makes a piss poor basis for a person's moral and metaphysical beliefs, and as the basis for the decisions they will have to make in their life.

So once again I'll ask: By what method can you differentiate between the literal and metaphorical parts of the bible?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently.

Why do you suppose God left the germ theory out of the Bible? Couldn't come up with a hand washing parable?

The story of Eve says all her daughters were to suffer the pain of childbirth. And we were supposed to be able to seek forgiveness after Jesus died.

So how is it that women had to wait until the 20th century for anesthesia with childbirth and why is it I as an atheist was able to have that anesthesia while many good Christian women in the third world have no such access?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

You're doing it again - instead of answering my question you've gone and told me to do the research myself. It's insulting, okay? ... So how about instead of being so damn condescending, you actually answer my questions?

Why do you insist I tell you everything? I think it would be better if you discover something for yourself.

So once again I'll ask: By what method can you differentiate between the literal and metaphorical parts of the bible?

The same way you use when you read any other literary work. Very often the context and the type of literature it is. The Psalms are songs / poems for example. Isaiah is a prophecy. This is pretty common knowledge isn't it?

Do you want me to go through the entire bible verse by verse or something?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

If you want me to treat the bible as fiction and go from there - fine. But a book of fiction written two-thousand years ago by people who hadn't yet discovered germs, evolution, or calculus makes a piss poor basis for a person's moral and metaphysical beliefs, and as the basis for the decisions they will have to make in their life.

No - it makes a "piss poor" science book.

Last I checked the Bible was a collection of literature of religious importance.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why do you suppose God left the germ theory out of the Bible? Couldn't come up with a hand washing parable?

The story of Eve says all her daughters were to suffer the pain of childbirth. And we were supposed to be able to seek forgiveness after Jesus died.

I'm not sure what you are asking or pointing out here. All the women I know say childbirth still hurts. Are you saying when you become a Christian it should stop hurting or something?

So how is it that women had to wait until the 20th century for anesthesia with childbirth and why is it I as an atheist was able to have that anesthesia while many good Christian women in the third world have no such access?

According to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia
Opium was used as an anesthesia at least around 1500BC. Was it used for childbirth? - I don't know. Why don't Christian women in the third world have access to it? - I suspect it has something to do with the fact they are in a third world country.