Sounds better. Except that I wouldn't say that there is a "general atheistic mentality". It's a bit like dividing the world into people who play football and people who don't play football and then saying that since you can ask "what are the rules of football?" you can also ask "what are the rules of not-football?". It's best to ask them if they play any other sport and ask for the rules of that.How does "As a former atheist, I understand some of the thinking behind the general atheistic mentality" sound?
The God Theory
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Theory
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: The God Theory
Well said.Steve3007 wrote:Sounds better. Except that I wouldn't say that there is a "general atheistic mentality". It's a bit like dividing the world into people who play football and people who don't play football and then saying that since you can ask "what are the rules of football?" you can also ask "what are the rules of not-football?". It's best to ask them if they play any other sport and ask for the rules of that.
This is a common issue with theists who insist non-theists must have an ideology and beliefs, i.e. non-theism.
It is that 'zombie parasite' and its desperate psychology that theists must pin non-theists with some ideology and beliefs [like 'not-football'] so they have something to condemn non-theists.
As with your example, it is like theists insisting 'not-football' is some type of sport with its own rules. I will try to remember this example when I encounter theists accusing me of non-theism as some thing evil.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Theory
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The God Theory
Yes, but it was people who wrote the Bible. And people who "put it together" by selecting 66 scrolls from a collection of far greater than 66. It's the authors themselves who claim God was speaking through them, both in the works included in the Bible as well as in those works that were not...Speedyj1992 wrote: I feel the need to understand some of your comments more - what do you mean when you say that you "need to be more dismissive"? And I'd like to know what you're getting at with the "symbolic mythos of Jesus", because while I think I know what you're getting at, I would rather hear it from you than assume. But I do want to address one comment that you made, which is that last sentence of the big paragraph in the middle - the Bible does not claim to be "put together" by people, but by God, because it was God who wrote it through different people over the years. Whether or not you agree with that, this is what the Bible claims.
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Re: The God Theory
Ok, take 3, how about "I understand aspects of your experience as a former atheist"?Steve3007 wrote:Speedy:Sounds better. Except that I wouldn't say that there is a "general atheistic mentality". It's a bit like dividing the world into people who play football and people who don't play football and then saying that since you can ask "what are the rules of football?" you can also ask "what are the rules of not-football?". It's best to ask them if they play any other sport and ask for the rules of that.How does "As a former atheist, I understand some of the thinking behind the general atheistic mentality" sound?
-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 4:45 pm to add the following --
"Far" is a bit of an over-statement, but you're of course right that there were books that were left out. Part of that is that there were drastically more copies of the manuscripts used in both Testaments with greater consistency between the documents (I'm not talking about the material, I'm talking about the documents literally saying the same things like different books) that were actually included. Then, from there, there's greater internal consistency that can be understood based on what we know of cultural factors at the time, the author's message, consistency with the other books - the point is, there's more to it than most of us can realize sometimes.Atreyu wrote:Yes, but it was people who wrote the Bible. And people who "put it together" by selecting 66 scrolls from a collection of far greater than 66. It's the authors themselves who claim God was speaking through them, both in the works included in the Bible as well as in those works that were not...Speedyj1992 wrote: I feel the need to understand some of your comments more - what do you mean when you say that you "need to be more dismissive"? And I'd like to know what you're getting at with the "symbolic mythos of Jesus", because while I think I know what you're getting at, I would rather hear it from you than assume. But I do want to address one comment that you made, which is that last sentence of the big paragraph in the middle - the Bible does not claim to be "put together" by people, but by God, because it was God who wrote it through different people over the years. Whether or not you agree with that, this is what the Bible claims.
Does that help clarify things?
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The God Theory
No. I got your point.Speedyj1992 wrote:"Far" is a bit of an over-statement, but you're of course right that there were books that were left out. Part of that is that there were drastically more copies of the manuscripts used in both Testaments with greater consistency between the documents (I'm not talking about the material, I'm talking about the documents literally saying the same things like different books) that were actually included. Then, from there, there's greater internal consistency that can be understood based on what we know of cultural factors at the time, the author's message, consistency with the other books - the point is, there's more to it than most of us can realize sometimes.
Does that help clarify things?
My point was that it seems silly to think that there is a sort of a special "holy book" which a God created as a means of communicating with people.
The motive for that was Emperor Constantine's desire to establish Christianity as a state sponsored religion. To unite the political and religious forces of his Empire.
But the real truth is that those 66 scrolls are often less about real Christianity than many texts outside of the Bible...
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Theory
I appreciate your patience with my pickyness!Ok, take 3, how about "I understand aspects of your experience as a former atheist"?
But you're still talking as if atheism is "a thing" which, as I said, is a bit like treating not-football as "a thing". But it doesn't matter too much.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: The God Theory
That would surely be a very minority view; the Bible is not meant to be like the Koran. There is no claim within the Bible that it was created bv God. Isn't the claim rather that it is a record of people's dealings with God, that teaches us about God?Atreyu wrote:
My point was that it seems silly to think that there is a sort of a special "holy book" which a God created as a means of communicating with people.
The claim that the Bible is the work of God is more in the sense that this record demonstrates God's purpose, and this theory requires that it was written by men. There is the idea that when we look at the OT and NT now we can see a continual narrative, the progressive development of a message - something that the many individual humans over the ages who wrote the various parts of the Bible could not have planned.
- Kathyd
- Posts: 59
- Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm
Re: The God Theory
In your opinion, is this progressive narrative one of the best proofs of the Christian God?Londoner wrote:The claim that the Bible is the work of God is more in the sense that this record demonstrates God's purpose, and this theory requires that it was written by men. There is the idea that when we look at the OT and NT now we can see a continual narrative, the progressive development of a message - something that the many individual humans over the ages who wrote the various parts of the Bible could not have planned.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: The God Theory
My point was about the way in which the Bible is supposed to prove it; if you read Victorian protestant type 'proofs of God' then they will (usually) be of the kind I have described, not that the Bible in itself is a kind of miraculous object.Kathyd wrote:In your opinion, is this progressive narrative one of the best proofs of the Christian God?Londoner wrote:The claim that the Bible is the work of God is more in the sense that this record demonstrates God's purpose, and this theory requires that it was written by men. There is the idea that when we look at the OT and NT now we can see a continual narrative, the progressive development of a message - something that the many individual humans over the ages who wrote the various parts of the Bible could not have planned.
Not sure what you mean about 'best' proofs. I do not think the existence of God can be proved at all, most obviously because we are not clear what the 'existence of God' would mean; it would not be 'existence' in the sense we say physical objects exist, or dreams exist, or ideas exist...
On the other hand, the Bible (and other works) do demonstrate how enduring religious ideas are in humans. That is a fact. And I do not see that there is any way we can show that seeing the world via a religious framework is inferior to any other - we all need some metaphysic and there is no way to 'prove' any of them.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: The God Theory
So I have never been attracted to religion. I am pragmatic and try to form my beliefs on the basis of utility. Aside from the much mentioned, and quite obvious, objectioned to religious passions in society that results in great miseries and frightful violence, when basic understandings of how the universe inter-relates and functions are attributed to an unknown agency presumed only by faith, there is a large neglect to discover how the known basic forces interact that create the actuality we observe. There is no analysis required once one accepts that an unknowable supernatural agent has arranged the way things are.
There is also a language factor in my discomfort with descriptions of a deity. The word "perfect" seems to me undefinable in its application to an unknowable being. And even the word "evil" strikes me as most peculiar. Is it evil or good when one person wins a lottery and everybody else loses? Is it evil when innocent creatures are killed for food but when predators gain nourishment? The word is poorly conceived. Language is always a difficulty in abstract discussions and much of philosophy must wrestle with that problem.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023