are you an atheist?

Bill Maher is not a fair representation of atheists, as if any particular atheist is a fair representation.

I can't imagine someone having a life-changing personal experience that concludes with them not changing a single thing about their life, god or no god.

You've defined the possibility out of existence by citing both "a life-changing personal experience" and "not changing a single thing about their life". So, it is no wonder you cannot imagine it.

This reminds me of last week on Bill Maher, he was going off on the Arizona law, saying it was all due to religious ferver. A Christian woman on the show responded by saying that isn't so, those are politicians perverting the Bible to their own needs. He wasn't hearing any of it, and wouldn't let her view be expressed, because it does not fit into the atheist worldview of what religious people believe.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:53 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

man, that's not what I'm getting at. I posted on that very topic last week and said one major reason the law was absurd was that it purported to protect 'religious freedom' whereas the majority of religious followers likely did not agree with or want said law. It was pandering to a very small minority of fringe believers.

also what Shakey said about Maher, etc.

But you can see my point about not generalizing? If you want to generalize Christians then you shouldn't be upset if they generalize atheists.

What makes you the arbiter of what is true in a holy book?

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, March 5, 2014 5:01 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

considering the fact that the Bible was put together piecemeal from a large collection of writings, the canon of which was determined by several councils based on a vote, I'm not certain why you're so confident that it is all allegory, as all of the authors did not have the same aims.

Also, while the Gnostics certainly existed, most of the Early Christians considered the various books or stories they subscribed to, canonical or no, were eyewitness accounts of actual events. It isn't as if this religion started out as one big fable and then later over time Fundamentalists showed up.

You're acting as if we're misrepresenting Christianity by saying that most Christians believe at least a large portion of the shit described in the book happened and that there's a lake of fire and an afterlife and some shit. I mean these are core beliefs, not fringe ones.

No, not all Christians are Fundamentalists who believe in inerrancy but that was never who I or anybody in this thread was describing.

ya but here's the thing they believe in a lolgod and atheists don't so i mean xp

Adam, I'm asking if nothing at all in the holy book describes literally "how", than what at that point separates a deist from a theist?

It isn't as if this religion started out as one big fable and then later over time Fundamentalists showed up.

"Fundamentalists" as we understand the term today showed up about the time the canonization happened, which is not coincidental - those early Xtians/gnostics who insisted on the allegorical nature of various Christian tenents/stories were thrown out as heretics and their work was banned/destroyed. and as we all know (I assume) this was more about consolidating power, Irenaeus et al wanted Christians who all agreed about what it meant to be a Christian, but more importantly all agreed that the CHURCH would be a final arbiter of what it meant to be a Christian. It's similar to how cults operate today - the true faithful are those who swear that whatever the guru/boss/messiah figure says is true is actually true. This weeds out dissent, consolidates power, and results in a bunch of idiots swearing that demonstrably impossible things are literally true. Whatever actual spiritual value could be gleaned from an allegorical interpretation of source material gets wiped out.

xp

btw lot of papists in the street today, got me thinking about all this again

xxxpost Who is generalizing? Is it that controversial an idea that most Christians believe much of, if not most of the Bible is a literal truth, even if many or most of them are also wise enough to recognize that much of it is also allegory and not literal?

I mean yes, the faith isn't merely made up of inerrantists, but it's also not made up of purely liberal Christians who think the story is a good fable either. I went to both a Methodist church and a Fundamentalist when I was a kid, attended Bible school at an Episcopalian one, attended services in Catholic churches...I know they're all different. Part of what I've been reading over the last several months has specifically focused on the differences in core beliefs between each sect. That's not where I'm coming from, assuming an organized religion is a homogeneous entity made up of a singular-minded stereotype is boring.

Also realize the examples I provided weren't just conjured up, but were pulled from real life experience, as well as from various debates I've read/watched over the past few months.

Irenaeus et al wanted Christians who all agreed about what it meant to be a Christian, but more importantly all agreed that the CHURCH would be a final arbiter of what it meant to be a Christian.

and he also originated the falsehood that the four synoptic Gospels were written by the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John....as apostolic gospels were seen as superior at the time.

I totally feel Shakey's paragraph 100%.

assuming an organized religion is a homogeneous entity made up of a singular-minded stereotype is boring.

Also feel this! Everyone have a great day!

everyone gets to ignore or overrule those parts of their chosen religion that they deem inconvenient, demonstrably untrue, etc. It's big reason why, say, Xianity is still going strong. No no, it's all allegory, you see! No no, shellfish is ok, and you guys missing a testicle, come on into the Lord's house. And then, rather than this lack of agreement/cohesion being a knock against a religion, can turn around and say hey you can't criticize me (and my sect), that only applies to THOSE people, they're doing it wrong.

how dare you try to lump me in with everyone else who calls themselves a Christian, you got some nerve!

Otm! The problem isn't god or no god, it's tolerance vs. intolerance.

That one-testicle thing is just common sense if you ask me.

and you guys missing a testicle, come on into the Lord's house

tbf there is no third temple to deny entry to

think I agree, but don't think I'll ever be convinced that religion doesn't give rise to more insidious intolerance than would exist without it

xp to Adam

For me, it's just about evidence and experience. I have my experience of the world, and God. Then there is an account of God in the Bible. They don't perfectly overlap - the parts of the biblical account that do not match my experience of God or the universe I of course reject. It's not cherry-picking, it's just like any other evaluation of evidence. The role of the Bible for me is that it is an account of God by people who had a closer relationship to Him than I have, who can help explain what I experience, or just supply me with language to express such.

I'm an unreliable witness, of course (not least because I have severe mental health problems), and I don't expect anyone to accept claims of religious experience, and I have no interest in evangelism. But I'm not irrational. I think people often think that faith in God emerges from the Bible somehow, that it is it's source, so are understanable confused when that faith doesn't match the source. But for me that's not the case; faith exists independently of the Bible, which helps you to understand your faith.

good post. the idea that the holy books of each religion are the sole or even the main expression of those religions is a big mistake imo.

this religion isn't that, it's THIS! your criticisms of it are invalid, whamo!

the bible is THE WORD OF GOD...who are you to reject ANY of it?

Me? I don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

why not?

why believe it's an "account of God by people who had a closer relationship to Him"? Why God and not Allah or Ganesh or Thor? Why Him not Her or It?

Well, it's the book that most closely matches my experience of God. I believe that other holy books were written by people who had insight into God too, and can sometimes inform my faith, or provide insight into it. But the God of the Bible is closer to the evidence I have available (and the only evidence I will ever have): my subjective experience.

isn't it odd how there was this flurry of accounts of God by people who had a close relationship with him during such a brief span of human history? nothing for a couple hundred thousand years, and then coinciding with ability to leave behind written record there's God everywhere, then He goes away, not to be heard from once his blessed children developed the ability (in large part through people rejecting Him) to have not just written records but audio and visual records, which can be beamed around the world into people's homes almost instantaneously. mysterious ways and all eh

http://intentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/20111220144241_1323535423003.jpg

I suppose I don't see the prophets as privileged. I think Paul, or Elijah, or other prophets are by nature much different from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Desmond Tutu, The Dalai Lama, or your local priest. They write about the nature of God. I don't believe that God dictates books to people.

funny how they all existed around the same era and locale, and no one around like them before or since

Same era here is covering quite a long period, prom the Pentateuch to the Koran is not exactly a blink of an eye.

it is when compared to the time span humans have been around

Sure, but it also coincides with the spread of writing. Anyway, I have more doubts than answers when it comes to these things. And, as I said, mental illness has a role in that - I recently had a manic episode that crossed into psychosis where I felt I had been specifically blessed as a prophet to distribute a new message. What I wrote was pretty hilarious, and meandering, and often wildly off topic. I never felt that words were being dictated to me (this can be an important distinction in psychiatry), but I did feel that a special sense of grace meant that my writings would be an accurate account of God. Of course, I'm better know and recognise my delusions; this raises an obvious objection - how do I know the prophets weren't crazy like me? Well, I don't. But their writings are beautiful, and help me understand my relationship with God, and that's all I want them to do. I'd be surprised if some of them weren't loopy.

Sure, but it also coincides with the spread of writing. ----exactly, now all these kooky myths could be written down, and given validity through their permanence, circulation, and the mists of time.

it's a fair point, there has been zero writing about Christianity or work that claims to be divinely inspired since the 1st century AD

once the Bible was established that was definitely the end of the process and all the faith that's existed since then has been people unquestioningly acknowledging its absolute authority

of course they might have quibbled a bit about its "true" meaning because lol

unless it turns out that the concept of Biblical inerrancy is largely a very late one, say mid-19th century or something

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."

you're on a fucking roll bro

the Bible isn't that, it's THIS, whamo

I think the normal view (certainly my Church's stance) is 'inspired' rather than dictated.

let me know when they've figured things out exactly

and there are Bibles, not just in the sense of translation but in broader chains of context. interesting to think about the Catholic Bible vs the Bible as a key American text in 2014

how bout that Book of Mormon eh? what a load of nonsense! unlike the Bible, which is totally "divinely inspired"

i mean Granny, you said you weren't just kneejerkly rejective of every opinion bar your own, and yet i identify as more or less an atheist, and i don't think i've said anything that bends the truth, and yet here we are

and Scientologists and their Dianetics, whoo boy, karazeees

I quite like the Book of Mormon. :)