|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 16, 2017 2:13:31 GMT
And I mean this purely as a way to provide you to feel the sheer WTF reaction we express when you quote bible passages and think that things like life are evidence of a god.
Imagine please, a person who professed a strong belief in the truth of his "holy" book, that contains the inspiring tale of Jack & The Beanstalk, the sheer awe this believer receives from the truth of Aesop's Fables, the bravery displayed in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, etc. And how he is inspired to stand up for right and virtue from the teachings of Beowulf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, and Sinbad. The old testament is comprised of The Silmarillion, telling of the formations of the earth by the gods, and of the days of miracles, which slowly faded as god called his chosen people the elves home to Valinor. Only the god of the Silmarillion could explain the universe and life he tells you. And then of course a modern sect has adopted the Matrix as the prophesized new new testament, which the oldschool and traditional believers don't accept naturally.
Imagine somebody who believed all that, and then just take a moment to realize your rejection of those as true beliefs. That's what you sound like when you discuss your religion. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2017 2:25:16 GMT
I have no reason to feel concerned for how I sound to an atheist.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
 
|
Post by althea on Mar 16, 2017 2:27:19 GMT
You seem to equate all theists everywhere with the believers in the major three religions of the world.
...but then, you think "you're delusional because you can't rationally justify your beliefs, so you should convert to a belief system that I can't justify rationally either instead" is what passes for convincing proselytisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 16, 2017 2:28:52 GMT
Yeah, that's what many religions seem like to me. I've never been religious, and even when I was a kid the Bible stories stories like Noah Ark struck me as very silly. However, in my experience, most believers reduce the absurdity somewhat by adopting nonliteral interpretations of the texts. Many of the Christians that I've met, when pushed, don't seem to believe much more than that there's some sort of god-like being and that this being was connected in some way to Jesus. I live in a relatively secular area though; I know there are many places where the religious belief is stronger and more literalist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 2:33:14 GMT
And I mean this purely as a way to provide you to feel the sheer WTF reaction we express when you quote bible passages and think that things like life are evidence of a god.
Imagine please, a person who professed a strong belief in the truth of his "holy" book, that contains the inspiring tale of Jack & The Beanstalk, the sheer awe this believer receives from the truth of Aesop's Fables, the bravery displayed in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, etc. And how is inspired to stand up for right and virtue from the teaching of Beowulf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, and Sinbad. The old testament is comprised of The Silmarillion, telling of the formations of the earth by the gods, and of the days of miracles, which slowly faded as god called his chosen people the elves home to Valinor. And then of course a modern sect has adopted the Matrix as the new new testament, which the oldschool and traditional believers don't accept naturally.
Imagine somebody who believed all that. That's what you sound like. You should give up trying to seem sincere. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 16, 2017 2:39:09 GMT
You should give up trying to seem sincere. I'm quite sincere.
Claiming the bible or quran are true and believing gods sounds just like somebody trying to claim the stories of Arthur and Sinbad were true and the world began in Middle Earth with the creation of the elves and will end at the hands of the machines. It's like that.
I sincerely don't take the ideas seriously. That's what I'm telling you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Mar 16, 2017 2:43:27 GMT
Oh, sort of like the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 16, 2017 2:45:35 GMT
Yeah, that's what many religions seem like to me. I've never been religious, and even when I was a kid the Bible stories stories like Noah Ark struck me as very silly. However, in my experience, most believers reduce the absurdity somewhat by adopting nonliteral interpretations of the texts. Many of the Christians that I've met, when pushed, don't seem to believe much more than that there's some sort of god-like being and that this being was connected in some way to Jesus. I live in a relatively secular area though; I know there are many places where the religious belief is stronger and more literalist. I generally agree, and the weird part here is, they recognize that those stories aren't literal, and yet they still accept the jesus part, and haven't realized it's just as nonsensical as the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2017 10:59:19 GMT
Yeah, that's what many religions seem like to me. I've never been religious, and even when I was a kid the Bible stories stories like Noah Ark struck me as very silly. However, in my experience, most believers reduce the absurdity somewhat by adopting nonliteral interpretations of the texts. Many of the Christians that I've met, when pushed, don't seem to believe much more than that there's some sort of god-like being and that this being was connected in some way to Jesus. I live in a relatively secular area though; I know there are many places where the religious belief is stronger and more literalist. I'm more than happy to be pushed when asked by random atheists about my beliefs. A person only knowing the shallows of something is not a condemnation of the religion any more than a person thinking the beliefs silly somehow has added weight because of that view. |
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 16, 2017 12:23:18 GMT
Yeah, that's what many religions seem like to me. I've never been religious, and even when I was a kid the Bible stories stories like Noah Ark struck me as very silly. However, in my experience, most believers reduce the absurdity somewhat by adopting nonliteral interpretations of the texts. Many of the Christians that I've met, when pushed, don't seem to believe much more than that there's some sort of god-like being and that this being was connected in some way to Jesus. I live in a relatively secular area though; I know there are many places where the religious belief is stronger and more literalist. I'm more than happy to be pushed when asked by random atheists about my beliefs. A person only knowing the shallows of something is not a condemnation of the religion any more than a person thinking the beliefs silly somehow has added weight because of that view. I'm not sure what your point is here. All I'm saying is that (1) in my view, the Bible is completely absurd if taken literally but (2) many Christians, if asked to clarify their beliefs, don't take the Bible literally, so their actual beliefs aren't so absurd. If you're saying that I only "know the shallows" of Christianity, well yeah. I'm certainly no expert on Christianity or the Bible. (Though when I was a kid, I read the Bible in its entirety. I don't remember much of it now, but my impression at the time was that almost all of it was ridiculous and very badly written.) Perhaps if I understood the religion better, it wouldn't seem so absurd to me. You're welcome to try explaining why it isn't absurd if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2017 14:32:52 GMT
I'm more than happy to be pushed when asked by random atheists about my beliefs. A person only knowing the shallows of something is not a condemnation of the religion any more than a person thinking the beliefs silly somehow has added weight because of that view. I'm not sure what your point is here. All I'm saying is that (1) in my view, the Bible is completely absurd if taken literally but (2) many Christians, if asked to clarify their beliefs, don't take the Bible literally, so their actual beliefs aren't so absurd. If you're saying that I only "know the shallows" of Christianity, well yeah. I'm certainly no expert on Christianity or the Bible. (Though when I was a kid, I read the Bible in its entirety. I don't remember much of it now, but my impression at the time was that almost all of it was ridiculous and very badly written.) Perhaps if I understood the religion better, it wouldn't seem so absurd to me. You're welcome to try explaining why it isn't absurd if you want. My point is that:
1. It doesn't matter if many Christians suck at explaining their views. Most people are not scholars of anything in relation to their opinion on something. For example, many atheists I come across have no idea how to explain evolution, but all it takes is a handful of them to make the points valid.
I would go to Eva Yojimbo before I would go to ArArArchStanton to learn about evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean ArArArchStanton actually discredits the knowledge Eva Yojimbo has.
It's exactly the same with religious people. Don't make assumptions based on the least knowledgeable, but on the most knowledgeable.
2. The only weight an individual opinion has is on the person holding the opinion. The opinion itself does not make the opinion factual.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 16, 2017 14:39:35 GMT
you left out the self-righteousness topped by two large scoops of ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 16, 2017 14:49:21 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is here. All I'm saying is that (1) in my view, the Bible is completely absurd if taken literally but (2) many Christians, if asked to clarify their beliefs, don't take the Bible literally, so their actual beliefs aren't so absurd. If you're saying that I only "know the shallows" of Christianity, well yeah. I'm certainly no expert on Christianity or the Bible. (Though when I was a kid, I read the Bible in its entirety. I don't remember much of it now, but my impression at the time was that almost all of it was ridiculous and very badly written.) Perhaps if I understood the religion better, it wouldn't seem so absurd to me. You're welcome to try explaining why it isn't absurd if you want. My point is that:
1. It doesn't matter if many Christians suck at explaining their views. Most people are not scholars of anything in relation to their opinion on something. For example, many atheists I come across have no idea how to explain evolution, but all it takes is a handful of them to make the points valid.
I would go to Eva Yojimbo before I would go to ArArArchStanton to learn about evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean ArArArchStanton actually discredits the knowledge Eva Yojimbo has.
It's exactly the same with religious people. Don't make assumptions based on the least knowledgeable, but on the most knowledgeable.
2. The only weight an individual opinion has is on the person holding the opinion. The opinion itself does not make the opinion factual.
I don't understand how either of those things relate to anything I've said. Are you under the impression that I think that, because some Christians are bad at explaining their views, this discredits other Christians who aren't bad at explaining their views? Because I don't think that, and I never said anything that implies that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 15:28:07 GMT
A lot of people think of the Bible as a "flat" book that was written at one time and for one specific audience. It's actually more like a portable library that contains a variety of different genres. Included in that library is Jewish mythology. Like other forms of mythology, it may or may not be rooted in some actual history, but the point of those books wasn't to record LITERAL history. Literal history wasn't very important to ancient people. History was only important inasmuch as it related to their current circumstances. So they were looking to convey spiritual lessons more than what they believed to be 100% scientifically accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2017 15:36:42 GMT
The point was not Jewish mythology. If it is mythology, the intent was to get the reader to mix it with reality. No one in Scripture ever confused the two and the notion that none of the stories in OT happened was a later circumstance.
The writers of the Bible were not writing a newspaper though. Some of the stories were written down several centuries after the history which means there's no way the writers would have gotten the details just like we do not have all the details for even recent historic events.
That doesn't change the notion that the writers of the time didn't believe that which they wrote down. So their intent was t write down literal history even if they didn't necessarily have the complete understanding to explain it. It is in no way written like other mythologies which is why there is so much discussion on something that isn't nearly as important as the message presented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 15:55:59 GMT
Ancient people did not treat history the way modern people do. They weren't interested in getting all the meticulous details correct (which, as you said, wasn't even possible). They often put a "legendary spin" on a historical event to drive home a point that related to their contemporary audience.
It's mythology in the sense that it's not necessarily literal history. You don't need to believe that a snake literally talked to Eve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 16, 2017 16:06:06 GMT
And I mean this purely as a way to provide you to feel the sheer WTF reaction we express when you quote bible passages and think that things like life are evidence of a god.
Imagine please, a person who professed a strong belief in the truth of his "holy" book, that contains the inspiring tale of Jack & The Beanstalk, the sheer awe this believer receives from the truth of Aesop's Fables, the bravery displayed in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, etc. And how he is inspired to stand up for right and virtue from the teachings of Beowulf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, and Sinbad. The old testament is comprised of The Silmarillion, telling of the formations of the earth by the gods, and of the days of miracles, which slowly faded as god called his chosen people the elves home to Valinor. Only the god of the Silmarillion could explain the universe and life he tells you. And then of course a modern sect has adopted the Matrix as the prophesized new new testament, which the oldschool and traditional believers don't accept naturally.
Imagine somebody who believed all that, and then just take a moment to realize your rejection of those as true beliefs. That's what you sound like when you discuss your religion. I'm sure you think we sound like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, "Wah wah wah, wah wah wah wah wah." |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2017 16:16:05 GMT
Ancient people did not treat history the way modern people do. They weren't interested in getting all the meticulous details correct (which, as you said, wasn't even possible). They often put a "legendary spin" on a historical event to drive home a point that related to their contemporary audience. It's mythology in the sense that it's not necessarily literal history. You don't need to believe that a snake literally talked to Eve. I don't think people overall are interested in detailing history now.
Outside of scholars on a particular topic, what has always been important in history is getting the basic information since that is likely all that will be carried on throughout time.
It is difficult to see this happen while we experience and especially now, but eventually everything gets boiled down to the essentials.
The essentials regarding Biblical history is not details of a global flood since there is no way a Bible writer would even know how big a global flood would have to be for the entire thousands of years it took the Bible to be completed.
The important thing was why there was a flood and that there was a flood substantial enough to be recorded as historic in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 16:20:05 GMT
Ancient people did not treat history the way modern people do. They weren't interested in getting all the meticulous details correct (which, as you said, wasn't even possible). They often put a "legendary spin" on a historical event to drive home a point that related to their contemporary audience. It's mythology in the sense that it's not necessarily literal history. You don't need to believe that a snake literally talked to Eve. I don't think people overall are interested in detailing history now.
Outside of scholars on a particular topic, what has always been important in history is getting the basic information since that is likely all that will be carried on throughout time.
It is difficult to see this happen while we experience and especially now, but eventually everything gets boiled down to the essentials.
The essentials regarding Biblical history is not details of a global flood since there is no way a Bible writer would even know how big a global flood would have to be for the entire thousands of years it took the Bible to be completed.
The important thing was why there was a flood and that there was a flood substantial enough to be recorded as historic in the first place.
I would agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 16, 2017 19:04:11 GMT
The important thing was why there was a flood and that there was a flood substantial enough to be recorded as historic in the first place.
In no way does that mean such floods were caused by a god, or that there was a purpose to them of any sort.
So the biblical account is just a tall tale unless there is some sort of evidence that a god was involved, or that there was a divine purpose to them.
The movie Cliffhanger for instance, is based on a real plane crash in 1977 in Yosemite park which was carrying a lot of drugs. But as you know being based on something doesn't mean the rest of it is real.
|
|
