Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[verisimilidude]

I think the answer should be yes.

However, I wonder if it is possible for the human mind to somehow effectively compartmentalize different ways of perceiving reality?

Have studies been conducted to determine if the nature or location of brain activity related to "rational thinking" is any way different than that related to "religious thinking"? Is that something that can be tested?

Just a thought. ;-)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?



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.

Are you really that poorly informed about what your Bible says?

Bible Gateway

Genesis 3:16 (New International Version)

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

Pain of childbirth and subjection to men was Eve's punishment for 'original sin'. The punishment was also to continue with all the daughters of Eve.

Revelation 1:6 (New International Version)

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

You sin, you have pain in childbirth, Jesus bleeds, our sins are washed away. So then what? It took another couple thousand years for that forgiveness to be put into effect?

 

[articulett]

I think the answer should be yes.

However, I wonder if it is possible for the human mind to somehow effectively compartmentalize different ways of perceiving reality?

Have studies been conducted to determine if the nature or location of brain activity related to "rational thinking" is any way different than that related to "religious thinking"? Is that something that can be tested?

Just a thought. ;-)

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=197496
http://www.slate.com/id/2165004/

 

[articulett]

Are you really that poorly informed about what your Bible says?

Bible Gateway

Genesis 3:16 (New International Version)Pain of childbirth and subjection to men was Eve's punishment for 'original sin'. The punishment was also to continue with all the daughters of Eve.

Revelation 1:6 (New International Version)

You sin, you have pain in childbirth, Jesus bleeds, our sins are washed away. So then what? It took another couple thousand years for that forgiveness to be put into effect?

Lets not forget stoning children... and blood atonement and "sins of the father" visited upon sons... and god killing his kid because of "original sin" in the magical garden of Eden where people were poofed into existence and then entrapped by a talking snake...

So what exactly do you believe, SC, and how do you decide what part is literal and what part is inspired and what part is historical and what part to just ignore?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Are you really that poorly informed about what your Bible says?

Bible Gateway

Genesis 3:16 (New International Version)Pain of childbirth and subjection to men was Eve's punishment for 'original sin'. The punishment was also to continue with all the daughters of Eve.

yep, but see below.

Revelation 1:6 (New International Version)

You sin, you have pain in childbirth, Jesus bleeds, our sins are washed away. So then what? It took another couple thousand years for that forgiveness to be put into effect?

Wrong - Eve sinned, women have more pain in childbirth. Not you personally sinning gives you pain in childbirth. And actually - it appears there already was pain in childbirth - the pains just been increased.

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

The section of Genesis this is from is one description of the human condition we all find ourselves in from birth. You also seem to be confusing 'sin' with 'punishment'.

But if you want to interpret it or think it means something else you are free to do so. I'm sure many other people have their own ways.

I would ask though, what makes you think your way is right?

In case you wondered - when you become a Christian your nerve endings don't cease to function - your body still feels pain when it gets hurt.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Lets not forget stoning children... and blood atonement and "sins of the father" visited upon sons... and god killing his kid because of "original sin" in the magical garden of Eden where people were poofed into existence and then entrapped by a talking snake...

So what exactly do you believe, SC, and how do you decide what part is literal and what part is inspired and what part is historical and what part to just ignore?

I sort of feel like I'm repeating myself here, but once again:

I look at the type of book it is, the style of book it is, so I know what kind of book it is. But regardless of the styles the Bible is a religious work so it all can teach me something about God.

I'm a Christian though so what Jesus taught comes first and everything is balanced with that.

 

[verisimilidude]

Re: Sam Harris' study:

His next task will be to study how the brain evaluates religious beliefs and he expects that his results will be much the same as his latest study.

The Harris study is fascinating, and quite the coincidence. I had no idea he was currently conducting a study. I must be psychic! ;-)

Anyway, I look forward to the next study. Interesting to see if it does meet his expectations.

Thank you Articulett!

 

[HghrSymmetry]

But regardless of the styles the Bible is a religious work so it all can teach me something about God.

There is the distinct possiblity that it can not teach you anything about "God."

 

[pchams]

There is the distinct possiblity that it can not teach you anything about "God."

And Niven's 'The Integral Trees' can teach one about integral trees, if such a thing existed.

It's possible the bible may teach them something about humanity, and themselves.

 

[Belz...]

I'm a Christian though so what Jesus taught comes first and everything is balanced with that.

So you must turn against your parents, right ?

 

[amb]

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

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

A collection of literature of religious importance, for whom?
For the gullible and naive, perhaps.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you must turn against your parents, right ?

If you take that part literally than I suppose you might think that way. Someone else who takes it literally might think differently. And still, someone else who takes it as Hyperbole will take it yet differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

A collection of literature of religious importance, for whom?
For the gullible and naive, perhaps.

Thanks. I really appreciate being called gullible and naive. And it really makes me want to listen to anything you say with any sort of credibility.

 

[GeeMack]

If you take that part literally than I suppose you might think that way. Someone else who takes it literally might think differently. And still, someone else who takes it as Hyperbole will take it yet differently.

The question which you've clumsily avoided answering was...

So what exactly do you believe, SC, and how do you decide what part is literal and what part is inspired and what part is historical and what part to just ignore?

Which parts do you accept as literal? Which parts do you take as allegory? Which parts do you discard as being silly, or unreasonable, or dangerous, or outdated, etc.?

And let's say you were trying to help someone else understand the Bible, someone who was considering joining your cult. How would you instruct them to determine which parts of the book are real and which aren't? What sort of objective method would you suggest they apply to their reading in order to obtain from it the same "truth" you apparently have discovered?

Can you give straight answers to those questions? Or will you have the decency and courage to simply admit that there is no objective method of sorting truth from fable, reality from fantasy, applicable lesson from ancient myth in your Bible?

 

[amb]

Thanks. I really appreciate being called gullible and naive. And it really makes me want to listen to anything you say with any sort of credibility.

Any critical study of the bible is quickly criticised by christian theology as not seen the true picture.
How can anyone ''see'' the true picture in a book written over more than a thousand years and by savages and primitive people be anything more than a collection of fables, legends, and myth.
That it spawned so many religions is the miracle, not the book itself.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

The question which you've clumsily avoided answering was...

Which parts do you accept as literal? Which parts do you take as allegory? Which parts do you discard as being silly, or unreasonable, or dangerous, or outdated, etc.?

You want me to go through the entire Bible and explain all this to you? I don't think I have enough time for that.

And let's say you were trying to help someone else understand the Bible, someone who was considering joining your cult. How would you instruct them to determine which parts of the book are real and which aren't? What sort of objective method would you suggest they apply to their reading in order to obtain from it the same "truth" you apparently have discovered?

Very briefly:
I would tell them that regardless of the style of the book in the Bible ask youself "What's the point being made here?" I would also tell them to find out what style of literature it is and read it like it's that style. Most importantly I'd tell them to figure out the fundamental Character of God and then if anything seems contradictory to that try to figure out why - is it an accurate representation of Him? Is it a misrepresentation of Him? Is it your own lack of knowledge that's causing you to read it a ceratin way? I'd also tell them they don't need to make a decision on every thing they read immediately or at all. If they can't figure it out then it's OK to say "I don't know yet." I'd also tell them they don't need to accept anyone elses opinions on things especially if it seems wrong or they haven't studied it enough. If they were interested in Christianity then I'd tell them to read the Gospels first and start with what they can understand there.

Can you give straight answers to those questions? Or will you have the decency and courage to simply admit that there is no objective method of sorting truth from fable, reality from fantasy, applicable lesson from ancient myth in your Bible?

Well - I gave you some answers so I suppose that means I don't have any "decency and courage" as you put it.

 

[Tricky]

I would tell them that regardless of the style of the book in the Bible ask youself "What's the point being made here?" I would also tell them to find out what style of literature it is and read it like it's that style. Most importantly I'd tell them to figure out the fundamental Character of God and then if anything seems contradictory to that try to figure out why - is it an accurate representation of Him? Is it a misrepresentation of Him? Is it your own lack of knowledge that's causing you to read it a ceratin way? I'd also tell them they don't need to make a decision on every thing they read immediately or at all. If they can't figure it out then it's OK to say "I don't know yet." I'd also tell them they don't need to accept anyone elses opinions on things especially if it seems wrong or they haven't studied it enough. If they were interested in Christianity then I'd tell them to read the Gospels first and start with what they can understand there.

That's a very honest and revealing answer. You are essentially saying, "decide for yourself". It underscores what many atheists say about the Bible as a source of wisdom, which is, you can interpret it any way you choose. There is not a "right" and "wrong" way. Because of this, various interpretations of the Bible are in direct contradiction with each other.

 

[Belz...]

If you take that part literally than I suppose you might think that way. Someone else who takes it literally might think differently. And still, someone else who takes it as Hyperbole will take it yet differently.

I agree, which is why the bible is useless as a tool to determine truth: any number of people can interpret it differently.

And since you claimed to follow Christ, I assume you'd think it was very important to determine which is and is not a metaphor.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

That's a very honest and revealing answer. You are essentially saying, "decide for yourself".

More important (to me at least) I'm saying I'm not going to tell you what to believe. And I'm definitely not going to force someone or even insist someone believe like I do.

Now - amongst other Christians I may have discussions with them, bible studies, share theories, experiences, ideas, etc. I've been in some unfortunately heated discussions (arguments?) because of some of these differing approaches. I didn't want to get into it, circumstances dictated otherwise though. I've found that if at least one side is Dogmatic (and religions aren't the only things / ideas people can be dogmatic about) then rarely does a discussion take place.

It underscores what many atheists say about the Bible as a source of wisdom, which is, you can interpret it any way you choose. There is not a "right" and "wrong" way. Because of this, various interpretations of the Bible are in direct contradiction with each other.

I would say there is a Right and a Wrong and varying interpretations are closer to Right than others. That's the journey I suppose. The basics of pretty much any morality or religion though usually are pretty simple and clear. (For example: The Golden Rule - it's in many religions and is pretty sound advice. It's not that hard to understand the point of it. Doing, though, is another matter.) It's when people start having opinions on certain broader things and insisting others have to believe that way that things start getting Wronger.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I agree, which is why the bible is useless as a tool to determine truth: any number of people can interpret it differently.

And since you claimed to follow Christ, I assume you'd think it was very important to determine which is and is not a metaphor.

Uh ... why do you think I don't? Of course I think this is important.