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?

[Cathar1950]

I was once a believer, but I dont think this is any way made me the person you described above. We all have different experiences, this is what makes us unique. These experiences shape our beliefs in many, many ways. Sure, some people are just totally stubborn and are, indeed, moronic, however not everyone is.

I was a believer too and frankly, when I think back on that time in my life, I'm ashamed of myself. I believed wholeheartedly, but in retrospect, I cannot imagine how I could have ever been so intellectually dishonest and lacking in integrity that I would have fallen for such ridiculous ideas.

We need to take into consideration others experiences and that people react differently to many different things. Not everyone will respond right away to a rational argument. This is no reason for us to give up in despair and call them stupid. Perhaps it is us atheists who simply need to refine our argument!

It really has nothing to do with how someone comes to hold bad beliefs, but in the fact that they do hold bad beliefs at all. You can find all sorts of people who are racist for many, many different reasons, but none of the reasons excuse the belief. Absolutely none of the reasons are a valid justification to be racist.

I believed ans feel no shame. There was a time I was not potty trained and feel no shame. Many do live here lives believing and see little need to understand more. There are many believers that are wonderful people and their faith gives them hope and a connection to humanity that allows them to help others.
It isn't all bad or it would never have survived. Early Christian communities offered a better world then the Roman system that had displaced them.

[InTheFlesh]

cnorman18 wrote:

There are Messianic references in the OT, to be sure; but few, if any, apply to Jesus, and the passages that are alleged to refer to Jesus are generally talking about something else. In no case is the Messiah said to be sent to save us from our sins, to give us free entry into Heaven, or to be God incarnate. He is to be the Savior of Israel, not of individual souls, and an ordinary man. An anointed King, to be sure, but mortal and the son of human beings, not of God, and possessed of no supernatural powers or attributes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is there a reason why you think quoting the New Testament to a Jew would be persuasive?

This forum is for debate. That was preaching. It's neither appreciated nor taken seriously here.

Peace to you, and have a nice day.

I didn't even take notice that you were Jewish,
but how does one debate Christianity without the new testament?

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . but how does one debate Christianity without the new testament?

Notice that the scope of this debate forum extends far beyond Christianity (as clearly indicated by headers on various pages).

We do not all share a belief in any religious text or dogma; however, we all do share some understanding of the world we inhabit and we should share some ability to reason and learn. Thus, we should be able to discuss matters within our shared experience and a partially overlapping knowledge base.

Each of us probably puts our pants on one leg at a time. Can we communicate as human beings?

[cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

There are Messianic references in the OT, to be sure; but few, if any, apply to Jesus, and the passages that are alleged to refer to Jesus are generally talking about something else. In no case is the Messiah said to be sent to save us from our sins, to give us free entry into Heaven, or to be God incarnate. He is to be the Savior of Israel, not of individual souls, and an ordinary man. An anointed King, to be sure, but mortal and the son of human beings, not of God, and possessed of no supernatural powers or attributes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is there a reason why you think quoting the New Testament to a Jew would be persuasive?

This forum is for debate. That was preaching. It's neither appreciated nor taken seriously here.

Peace to you, and have a nice day.

I didn't even take notice that you were Jewish,
but how does one debate Christianity without the new testament?

1. I read over my post. How you could have read it and not noticed that is was written by a Jew, I have no idea.

2. We are not debating Christianity. We are debating the meaning of the Bible. Separate subjects.

3. I very clearly was speaking of the Old Testament without reference to the New.

4. My comments, including the ones you quoted, stand. If you'd care to debate them on their merits, feel free; but merely quoting from the NT without further comment--which implies that that quote is to be accepted as true and authoritative just because "Jesus said so"--is, as I said, not debate, but preaching.

The distortion, falsification, and out-of-context use of quotations from the OT in order to force them to carry a meaning they were never intended to hold, that being "prophecies" of Jesus, has been much debated here, and I don't intend to plow that already thoroughly broken-up ground again. It's pointless. When a given "prophecy" is restored to its context, examined, and proven to have nothing to do with Jesus whatever, the invariable Christian response is, "Yes, it does, and if you were as wise/holy/spiritual/knowledgeable/filled with the Spirit as I am, you'd understand."

Sorry. The meaning of the Bible's words is not always found on the surface, true; but that doesn't mean one gets to throw out the literal meaning of the words entirely. That is dishonest--and especially so, when one comes from a tradition which is noted for its insistence on looking at the literal meaning of Scripture and nothing else on other matters.

[Cephus]

I believed ans feel no shame. There was a time I was not potty trained and feel no shame. Many do live here lives believing and see little need to understand more. There are many believers that are wonderful people and their faith gives them hope and a connection to humanity that allows them to help others.
It isn't all bad or it would never have survived. Early Christian communities offered a better world then the Roman system that had displaced them.

It depends on whether or not you should have been able to know better, I suppose. If you were 12 and still not potty trained, then yes, you certainly should be ashamed.

The reality is that faith gives people nothing substantive, it's a hollow, empty fantasy that pushes people who cannot otherwise act on their own toward basic positive social behavior. Religion is like sickle-cell anemia, it's got one or two positives in a sea of negatives and certainly isn't something we need to survive, especially in the modern era when malaria isn't a major concern for most folks.

[cnorman18]

The reality is that faith gives people nothing substantive, it's a hollow, empty fantasy that pushes people who cannot otherwise act on their own toward basic positive social behavior.

Well, that seems substantive to me.

The metaphysics associated with a given set of religious beliefs may indeed offer nothing positive; the God-idea, supernaturalism, belief in miracles and divine intervention, and so on can be, and usually are (depending on details) negative in effect.

But the moral and ethical teachings of most religions are certainly of positive value. True, they can be obtained or derived elsewhere; but what difference does that make? That doesn't make them negatives.

Further; the positive effect of being grounded in a coherent, if often arbitrary, philosophy and worldview ought not be overlooked. The perspective of having a purpose, a reason for one's existence, and and understanding of the Universe and one's place in it shouldn't be discounted.

As I've said elsewhere, even a toxic belief like gross fundamentalism is probably better than no beliefs, convictions or philosophy at all. Total nihilism and aimlessness is about as toxic as it gets.

I would concede that the negatives involved in some varieties of religious belief may outweigh any of the above; but that would depend on the particular religion.

[Cephus]

But the moral and ethical teachings of most religions are certainly of positive value. True, they can be obtained or derived elsewhere; but what difference does that make? That doesn't make them negatives.

That's only true if you look only at the barest surface level of the moral code. Non-theists base their moral codes on internal empathy for other people, they determine that others deserve to be treated as they want to be treated. Theists base their actions solely on the supposed demands of a deity and those demands, or the interpretations thereof, can and do change over time or from person to person. There is quite a difference between "you shouldn't kill that guy because it's wrong and you wouldn't want someone to kill you" and "you shouldn't kill that guy because some imaginary friend in the sky says so". One has a real logical, rational basis, the other doesn't.

Further; the positive effect of being grounded in a coherent, if often arbitrary, philosophy and worldview ought not be overlooked.

How is religion coherent in any way? It's strictly a matter of "God says so, so there" and that's not coherent, rational or intelligent, it's purely authoritarian.

As I've said elsewhere, even a toxic belief like gross fundamentalism is probably better than no beliefs, convictions or philosophy at all. Total nihilism and aimlessness is about as toxic as it gets.

Luckily, you don't find many total nihilists around, but this is really like saying "cutting off your hand is a lot better than cutting off your arm". The reality is, not cutting off anything is vastly preferable than either of the other options.

[InTheFlesh]

cnorman18 wrote:

There are Messianic references in the OT, to be sure; but few, if any, apply to Jesus, and the passages that are alleged to refer to Jesus are generally talking about something else. In no case is the Messiah said to be sent to save us from our sins, to give us free entry into Heaven, or to be God incarnate. He is to be the Savior of Israel, not of individual souls, and an ordinary man. An anointed King, to be sure, but mortal and the son of human beings, not of God, and possessed of no supernatural powers or attributes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is there a reason why you think quoting the New Testament to a Jew would be persuasive?

This forum is for debate. That was preaching. It's neither appreciated nor taken seriously here.

Peace to you, and have a nice day.

I didn't even take notice that you were Jewish,
but how does one debate Christianity without the new testament?

1. I read over my post. How you could have read it and not noticed that is was written by a Jew, I have no idea.

Don't take it personally.
I didn't notice on your profile that you were Jewish when I posted.
BTW, what part of your post indicated that you were Jewish?

2. We are not debating Christianity. We are debating the meaning of the Bible. Separate subjects.

"Argue for and against Christianity"
Isn't this the sub header for this forum?
So I ask again, how does one argue for Christianity without the New Testament?
Am I in the wrong forum?

3. I very clearly was speaking of the Old Testament without reference to the New.
And?
Why can't I make reference to the NEW testament?
Once again, Am I in the wrong forum?

4. My comments, including the ones you quoted, stand. If you'd care to debate them on their merits, feel free; but merely quoting from the NT without further comment--which implies that that quote is to be accepted as true and authoritative just because "Jesus said so"--is, as I said, not debate, but preaching.

What's the difference between quoting from the OLD or NEW?
Is this a Jewish forum?
And why is the OT true, cause Moses said so?

The distortion, falsification, and out-of-context use of quotations from the OT in order to force them to carry a meaning they were never intended to hold, that being "prophecies" of Jesus, has been much debated here, and I don't intend to plow that already thoroughly broken-up ground again. It's pointless. When a given "prophecy" is restored to its context, examined, and proven to have nothing to do with Jesus whatever, the invariable Christian response is, "Yes, it does, and if you were as wise/holy/spiritual/knowledgeable/filled with the Spirit as I am, you'd understand."

You sound like a child.
I have the Spirit and you don't!
How old are you?

Sorry. The meaning of the Bible's words is not always found on the surface, true; but that doesn't mean one gets to throw out the literal meaning of the words entirely. That is dishonest--and especially so, when one comes from a tradition which is noted for its insistence on looking at the literal meaning of Scripture and nothing else on other matters.

[shorty1mc40]

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?

Ma'am/Sir. I am an athiest/former christian. On the contrary, many athiests do not look to the bible as a reliable source, as it is not all that accurate. There are quite many flaws about God. Many athiests look into the logic of the matter. Personally, the whole "God isn't there" fiasco didn't really phase me when I was a "believer", but as time progressed, I have studied into the history of the bible.

There are many flaws here. Personally, I'm not trying to tell you, "Stop believing in God." because it's not my place to be doing that. I'm only 17...a very well educated one at that. All I am saying is that there are plenty of flaws in this religon.

I believe religon is wrong to preach as it creates corruption. After all, the base of all war and crime is MOSTLY religion. Hencefourth the current War on Iraq. The Quar'an states, "Kill all infidels." I.E meaning non-believers, also meaning that there will be PLENTY of people trying to kill innocent people that do not believe in the religion or the god/gods that may believe in.

[InTheFlesh]

.

. . . but how does one debate Christianity without the new testament?

Notice that the scope of this debate forum extends far beyond Christianity (as clearly indicated by headers on various pages).

We do not all share a belief in any religious text or dogma; however, we all do share some understanding of the world we inhabit and we should share some ability to reason and learn. Thus, we should be able to discuss matters within our shared experience and a partially overlapping knowledge base.

Each of us probably puts our pants on one leg at a time. Can we communicate as human beings?

"Argue for and against Christianity"
This is the label for this forum.

Once again, if you exclude the New Testament.
Jesus does not exist.
If Jesus does not exist,
Christianity does not exist.
How does one argue for Christianity without the NT?

And by the way, I tried to post in the Holy Huddle,
but when I do,
I get a message saying that you need specail access to post in there?