Most atheists have never read the bible

[McCulloch]

Most atheists have never read the bible and so I believe that if they had, the basics would be the same. Clearly they do not speak as if they have this knowledge.

I throw down the gauntlet. Faith has made a positive claim. Either back up this claim with evidence or withdraw it.

On a less confrontational note, do atheists reject religion and God because they are ignorant of religion as many staunch religionists claim?

[Beto]

I personally believe that, having the read the bible, it should be used as atheist propaganda, due to its innate fallacies and overall incredulity. I've read the bible, and I've read the Origin of Species, and I've read the Cat in the Hat, and out of those three, the Bible made the least sense.

For instance, the book of Job always provokes a certain jubilant feeling in me- just to witness such suicide of divinity gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I rather enjoy how all of these "sheep" are not in any way discouraged by their dictator's cruelty and callousness. The theologians take this book as a test of Job's faith, while, in reality, it is the mere childishness of a supernatural dictator, a celestial "nuh-uh" to his adversary, or counterpart, in the subterranean kingdom of hell.

If you'd like to present me with a passage of the bible that has not been proven contradictory (and, please, be sure that it is of significance, not some description of a bronze-age, middle-eastern city) I'd be happy to further said discussion.

Well, the "Devil" isn't always considered a counterpart, so much as a mere servant of "God", but... I guess that makes it worse. It's not even a power struggle that might justify (somehow) poor Job's suffering.

[kozimoto]

I'm an atheist and I've read the entire bible, both before and after "de-converting". I found it just as comforting, confusing, frustrating, beautiful and incomprehensible both times.

I've also read the Bagadavita, the Qur'an and some Deepak Chopra hahahah!

I think that the atheist people I have contact with have read more widely if not more comprehensively.

[earl]

Cephus,
You say I am using a logical fallacy-argumentum ad populum.
If it is a fallacy then why did you call it logical?

What is fallacy is based on individual opinions and when the unexperienced has not the experience making assumptions without experience then could this be a fallacy ?
I asked if these millions of travelers are confused?You state you do not know about their clarity.How then can you tell if they have not been proven the existance of God by their experiences they have had from which you believe they have not had yet you having no experience at all?
So you say clarity is clouded by saying,"not been proven'.How do you define another's clarity when experience is required?
You say "no " to you positively concluding no one has had a spiritual experience but say you conclude no one has ever demonstrated objectively they have had a valid experience.
What is there to demonstrate?Is this the same as saying you need a sign ?By what demonstration of authority or power will you believe give you assurance of a spiritual reality?Will you believe in a sign if you were given a demonstration?
I asked is it true that evidence within the self is self evident.
You reply "true" but reject your own statement by saying it does not make any of them real or valid.Is not the interpretation of real or valid only yours alone?After all is it not self evident you have no evidence within the self for experience to become self evident.
If you then ask for a sign then are you not asking God for a spiritual experience?
It is interesting that a person requests another person to prove -give a sign -that God exists.
Would it be less problematic that a person be given proof-a sign- from the one who the person is asking the proof of -a sign from-God?
But wait,you say that you have no evidence that or any reason to think that any God(s) are real and the golden rule therefore is first spoken by man and recorded by man.
If you ask for a demonstration and then reject the source from which it may transpire then this may be called fallacious.

[cnorman18]

So secular Jews don't deny the religious aspect? I don't think so.

Of course they don't. Secular Jews don't deny that religion is an aspect of Judaism. They just don't participate in that aspect of it.

More a matter of the community declares him a member than he is actually one.

Correct. If they declare him a member, he is one. The alternative, of course, would allow individuals to declare themselves members when they aren't so accepted, and that makes no sense. The community gets to decide who is a member, not the individual. That's why a formal rite of conversion is determinative, not a declaration of belief.

First, the Bible's literal truth is not so much rejected in liberal Judaism as held to be irrelevant, as I have showed you.

I don't see that it can possibly be irrelevant.

Of course you don't. You only have the one perspective that much of your argument depends on. There are, obviously, others. You've been ignoring not so much my arguments, but the hard information that I've been giving you, probably because it doesn't fit your preconceptions. What I'm telling you is how the Jewish approach to the Bible actually does work. The fact that you either don't understand it or disapprove of it doesn't make us wrong or our approach invalid.

Many modern Jews, perhaps most, don't bother to think about that question. It's of no importance. If you can't get your head around that, it's not my problem.

More a matter of they choose to ignore the question because it's problematic.

Okay. Now you're mindreading the entire community of modern liberal Jews.

Really, I thought I'd seen arrogance before, but this is absolutely breathtaking. You are here accusing an entire religious community of colluding in gross and deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

Whatever, dude.

Second, the process of determining what lessons or principles can be drawn from those accounts is extremely rational.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion since different people can read the same passage and come to different conclusions. How is a Jewish reading more rational than a Christian reading or a Muslim reading or an atheist reading?

Those can be rational, too. Do you think "rational" equals either "always the same" or "correct"? I have news for you; scientists can look at the same data set and come to different conclusions, too.

I know, I know. "But they're not talking about God!" What difference does that make? You don't even understand your own arguments.

Consider this; if there are contradictions of principle within the Torah, as there are, the question of origins doesn't help resolve them. What remains but rationality? The question of origins, then, is not only of no religious importance, it is of no practical importance either.

It is not rational to take a book that is supposedly divine in origin and just toss away the parts you don't like or can't reconcile.

There it is again. I've dealt with that several times now, and all you do is repeat the same mantra. You have not even approached the propositions, which are inarguable, that (1) taking a text seriously, even in a religious context, does not require taking it literally; and (2) not taking a text literally is not the same as "throwing it out."

Ignoring an argument is not the same as refuting it, either. Can you defend those hugely flawed assumptions, or will you just repeat them as you have so far?

If the book is not supposedly divine, then why bother living by it at all? Beyond that, why bother having a religion at all, why bother with the tradition and the ceremony and the ritual, if it's just a book? It's not rational to base a religion on a non-religious book.

You see? If it's not literally the Word of God, it's "non-religious" and therefore worthless. Sorry. You keep insisting on that false dichotomy, but that doesn't make it any less false.

The Bible is not "the whole reason for having the religion in the first place"; God is. The Bible is not God, nor is it the reason we believe in God. Again, if you can't get your head around that, it's no problem of mine.

But without the Bible, you have no God.

Really? Then who did the guys who wrote it worship?

Even if one did read the Bible literally, that wouldn't make sense. The Patriarchs obviously had a God without the Bible.

More to the point--again, and yet again and again--not taking the Bible literally is not the same as being "without the Bible." you keep repeating that same false dichotomy without even attempting to defend or prove it.

The Bible is the only "accurate" description of God you have,

Evidently you are not aware of the enormous mass of Jewish religious literature, much of which is not based on the Bible but on an oral tradition that is independent of it--which accounts for much of the thought that you are dismissing here.

I've said it over and over; the Bible, even the Torah, is not the ultimate authority in Judaism. It is human reason as expressed in the tradition.

if you decide the Bible is wrong, then why isn't everything you believe about God wrong as well?

There it is again; "Not literally true" = "wrong." False dichotomy.

You keep saying it's not your problem but it is. I'm pointing out logical problems with your religion and you're pretending it's not your problem. If you're just going to ignore the real problems that your beliefs pose, then why bother talking about it?

Sorry, but that's inaccurate. You keep trying to "point out logical problems" that don't exist outside your own severely limited assumptions. These "problems" are based on false dichotomies that you haven't managed to defend, only repeat.

If you can logically prove that the only way to take a text seriously is to read it literally, let's see you do it.

If you can logically prove that reading a text with attention to the principles it teaches, but without accepting it as literal, historical truth, is synonymous with "throwing it away," let's see you do it.

I doubt very much that you can do either.

Sorry. Trying to force the complex, nuanced and definitely non-standard and non-standardized spectrum of Jewish beliefs and approaches to Scripture in to a simplistic set of deeply faulty assumptions doesn't constitute cogent criticism. It's just a misunderstanding or a mistake, at best.

[Goat]

Cephus,
You say I am using a logical fallacy-argumentum ad populum.
If it is a fallacy then why did you call it logical?

The term 'logical fallacy' basically means false or bad logic. There are a number of different one, one is the arguement to popularity. People use it, but it isn't valid to use it.

[Cephus]

Of course they don't. Secular Jews don't deny that religion is an aspect of Judaism. They just don't participate in that aspect of it.

They don't deny that it exists, they just deny that it is valid or true.

Correct. If they declare him a member, he is one. The alternative, of course, would allow individuals to declare themselves members when they aren't so accepted, and that makes no sense. The community gets to decide who is a member, not the individual. That's why a formal rite of conversion is determinative, not a declaration of belief.

Which makes it little more than a social club. If you follow the beliefs, you are a believer whether or not a group of believers likes it or accepts you or not. Being formally accepted into the group is really irrelevant, otherwise Judiasm isn't all that different from, say, Freemasonry.

Of course you don't. You only have the one perspective that much of your argument depends on. There are, obviously, others. You've been ignoring not so much my arguments, but the hard information that I've been giving you, probably because it doesn't fit your preconceptions. What I'm telling you is how the Jewish approach to the Bible actually does work. The fact that you either don't understand it or disapprove of it doesn't make us wrong or our approach invalid.

No, because I've been pointing out the problems with the beliefs and you're ignoring them and not answering the questions posed. This has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with logic. One simply cannot get from point A to point B in your view of Judiasm logically.

The sad part is that you, and apparently the entirety of liberal Judiasm, are too deluded to even see it.

That's just sad.

[Cephus]

Cephus,
You say I am using a logical fallacy-argumentum ad populum.
If it is a fallacy then why did you call it logical?

The term 'logical fallacy' basically means false or bad logic. There are a number of different one, one is the arguement to popularity. People use it, but it isn't valid to use it.

I didn't respond because a) he's either a troll and talking to him is pointless or b) he's so stupid that anything you say will go over his head. In either case, it's like talking to a brick wall... a particularly stupid, drooling brick wall without the mental tools to handle a reasonable conversation.

[cnorman18]

Of course they don't. Secular Jews don't deny that religion is an aspect of Judaism. They just don't participate in that aspect of it.

They don't deny that it exists, they just deny that it is valid or true.

That was not your contention. We were speaking of what Judaism is, and even atheist Jews would agree that religion is an aspect of Judaism whether they agree with it or not.

In any case, not all "secular Jews" are atheists. Many Jews retain casual vestiges of belief, but do not choose to be observant.

Correct. If they declare him a member, he is one. The alternative, of course, would allow individuals to declare themselves members when they aren't so accepted, and that makes no sense. The community gets to decide who is a member, not the individual. That's why a formal rite of conversion is determinative, not a declaration of belief.

Which makes it little more than a social club. If you follow the beliefs, you are a believer whether or not a group of believers likes it or accepts you or not.

One may certainly declare that one follows or adheres to Jewish beliefs without converting. That is not the same as actually being a Jew. There is even a formal name for Gentiles who do that: they are called "Noachites," and they acknowledge their beliefs and their status as non-Jews. There was at least one posting on this forum not long ago.

Being formally accepted into the group is really irrelevant, otherwise Judiasm isn't all that different from, say, Freemasonry.

Can you name any religious organization--or any organization of ANY kind, for that matter--that doesn't reserve the determination of who is or is not a formal member to itself? One may be a generic "Christian" without belonging to any specific church, but one may not be recognized as a Baptist, for instance, if one has not been baptized in a Baptist church by a Baptist minister. Even the Democratic Party recognizes the difference between one who regularly votes Democratic and a registered member of the party.

If an organization chooses to recognize anyone who shares its beliefs or convictions as a member, fine; but the decision to do that is still in the hands of the organization, not the individual.

Of course you don't. You only have the one perspective that much of your argument depends on. There are, obviously, others. You've been ignoring not so much my arguments, but the hard information that I've been giving you, probably because it doesn't fit your preconceptions. What I'm telling you is how the Jewish approach to the Bible actually does work. The fact that you either don't understand it or disapprove of it doesn't make us wrong or our approach invalid.

No, because I've been pointing out the problems with the beliefs and you're ignoring them and not answering the questions posed.

Showing that the "problems" you allege are based on false dichotomies is hardly ignoring them. That IS an answer, and you have not responded to it.

This has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with logic. One simply cannot get from point A to point B in your view of Judiasm logically.

You want to talk about logic? Show me some.

You have still not attempted to show how the false dichotomies upon which all of this "logic" is based are true or valid.

Again, and for the third or fourth time:

(1) Prove that taking a text seriously requires that it must be taken literally.

(2) Prove that taking a text seriously, but NOT literally, is equivalent to "throwing it away."

Those have consistently been the basis of your "logical analysis." I said that I doubted that you can prove either. Apparently I was right.

The sad part is that you, and apparently the entirety of liberal Judiasm, are too deluded to even see it.

That's just sad.

If you can't prove your premises, above, I would say that you have little basis for pitying anyone.

For myself, I feel a certain sadness for one who is totally and arrogantly confident of the rationality and logic of an argument with holes in it that one could sail an aircraft carrier through.

Prove your premises or drop your argument.

[earl]

Cephus,
It appears your post 117 indicates you are posting highly charged criticism towards another.In view of post 117 are you to clarify to whom your criticism is directed to?

[Cephus]

That was not your contention. We were speaking of what Judaism is, and even atheist Jews would agree that religion is an aspect of Judaism whether they agree with it or not.

Which is ridiculous because an atheist Jew would not recognize that a religon that they reject is part of their Judiasm.

Can you name any religious organization--or any organization of ANY kind, for that matter--that doesn't reserve the determination of who is or is not a formal member to itself? One may be a generic "Christian" without belonging to any specific church, but one may not be recognized as a Baptist, for instance, if one has not been baptized in a Baptist church by a Baptist minister. Even the Democratic Party recognizes the difference between one who regularly votes Democratic and a registered member of the party.

One can register Democratic without any regard for the party's "acceptance" of them whatsoever. Hell, I'm a registered Republican, have been all my life, that doesn't mean that the current Republican party would lay any claim to me at all, considering my views and my utter contempt of the party, that's not surprising. It doesn't stop me from being a registered Republican though.

But I'm talking about belief, you're talking about club membership. Who cares if someone "accepts" you as a member so long as you act, for all intents and purposes, as one. If you follow all the beliefs and rituals of the Baptists, whether any particular Baptist church considers you a member, you're a Baptist. If you've got to pass tests and pay dues to be a member, it's not a religion, it's a club.

(1) Prove that taking a text seriously requires that it must be taken literally.

If you're going to take it as the basis of your belief system, you have to be able to trust what it says. If you cannot trust your source, then how can you rationally decide which parts of it are true and which parts are not? I keep asking you that and you keep ignoring it.

For myself, I feel a certain sadness for one who is totally and arrogantly confident of the rationality and logic of an argument with holes in it that one could sail an aircraft carrier through.

Then you should stop having such an argument and try actually using some reason for once.