God gods what? Really an atheist?

[Abdul Alhazred]

To say that God or the gods do not exist requires one to define one's terms.

I do not believe in any religion that I know about, nor any claimed God or god.

But what precisely do I claim not to believe in?

OK, so the believers are slippery about what exactly they believe, what am I denying?

I'm not talking about the easily refutably fundie here.

Let's hear it folks! Refutations of non-fundie religion!

The prophet Jonah existed, he wrote the book of Jonah. Did he believe or expect to be believed that he was really swallowed by by a fish? Or was he making a point somehow?

The Bible was not written by fundies. Remember that when reading the Bible and appreciate it as you would reading the Iliad.

 

[Zep]

Aaaah!

AS WRITTEN, it would seem that much of the Old Testament was derived from word-of-mouth tales and history, some of which was actually true, some embellished to some end, some being morality stories, some pure legend, some even poetry and love songs. And realising as much, there is much to be said for studying what was written and passed down, and little to be gained in simply dismissing it.

The New Testament is a much more political writing, a product of its time and events. As such it should be considered just as much a "political manifesto" as much as a "religious guideline," even though its historical accuracy is a bit of a muddle. Again, in that context, it is a document worthy of considerable study.

So bearing these issues in mind, discussion can indeed proceed in a lively and useful fashion - the concepts or morality and societal behaviour espoused in the Christian Bible as we get it to day are worthy of respect and discussion.

Personally, I find the Christian concepts of goodness worthy of upholding, although I'm very well aware that they are definitely not unique to Christian thought.

The problem is that NONE of the Bible is a reliable historical accuracy, nor is it an all-encompassing encyclopedia of ancient times, a fact that seems to entirely escape the fundies who rely on that being the case. This is where their situation falls down - a house built on very shifting sands!

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Aaaah!

AS WRITTEN, it would seem that much of the Old Testament was derived from word-of-mouth tales and history, some of which was actually true, some embellished to some end, some being morality stories, some pure legend, some even poetry and love songs. And realising as much, there is much to be said for studying what was written and passed down, and little to be gained in simply dismissing it.

The "Old Testament" is not a single unified work. Each separate part of it is to be analysed separately.

All of it much older, but it was not all pronounced scripture by the Rabbis until the council of Jamnia in 90 CE.

Of course the five books of Moses were law much earlier than that.

The five books of Moses as we have them were cobbled together from previous writings by priests at the time of Ezra.

Later writings such as Jonah are clearly the works of single individuals.

Other parts are a mixed bag.

Historically there is no such thing as the Bible.

 

[LeFevre]

Yes, Dave Lister, creator of the next universe, is an atheist.

 

[Keneke]

What am I denying? I am denying the existence of supernatural effects of any sort. Everything else is just details.

 

[Brown]

The problem is that NONE of the Bible is a reliable historical accuracy....

That goes a bit too far. There is a great deal of historical inaccuracy in the Bible, true. Some of what appears in the Bible, however, is historically accurate. Certain ruler successions, for example, are presented correctly in the Old Testament and are confirmed by independent sources. Certain facts pertaining to the exile are also presented correctly. These are matters of which the authors may have had first-hand knowledge.