Peter Watts

I'm not making any sweeping generalizations about the world's population. I've been careful to say I'm describing what I, personally, have encountered. I don't know how to be more clear on what I describe anecdotally.

spin

That, of all the atheists one might come across, you of all people strike one who says, "I don't want there to be a God".

This is not my experience of any atheist I've ever had to deal with. It's always the certainty that there is no god, not a matter of wanting there to be no god. And as you can see by the other responses you've received about your comment, other people have a similar experience to mine.

Taking you at face value, you seem to have met an atypical atheist.


spin

sorompio

Well somebody dared to compare the Bible with Homer, that's a pretty high literary standard. But, anyway, we are not saying that the Bible is the worst thing ever written, just that it is pretty lame for its fame and completely overrated by its religious effect. One example: you mention Genesis and "its highly sophisticated creation". How so? Compared to what? What other myths of creation do you know to affirm that the most basic "God said be, and it was" is "sophisticated".

spin

"[D]ared" is a strangely indicative word to use here.

Homer is much more self-consciously literary than the literary efforts in the bible and is from quite a different literary context.

For you to call the bible "pretty lame", you need a reasonable comparison against which the bible is seen as "pretty lame". You haven't indicated any comparison at all and a fear that you are judging based on false modern expectations.

How does divine fiat get to be "most basic"? The notion itself is quite sophisticated: the god doesn't need to be physically involved in the creation; it is sufficient that he enunciate his conception and it comes into existence. The second creation has god having to roll his sleaves up and molding and making.

This creation is from chaos to order. At the beginning of the creation the world was without form and void. Through a series of separations this god gives form to the cosmos, days 1 - 3. This is followed by a series of populatings of the realms just created. For example light and dark were separated on day 1, while they were populated on day 4, the sun for the light and the moon and stars for the night, and so forth for the other days.

There is nothing haphazard in this creation and to prove the point, not only does it explain how the cosmos was created effortlessly through divine fiat by god, but it also institutes the sabbath from the beginning of the existence of the world, for after the six days of creation god rested! Very convenient that the creation was over six days wasn't it? This omnipotent god has created the world, shown his omnipotence and instituted the sabbath, all at the same time. (This is all without going into the interesting linguistic issues in the passage.)

I can't twist your arm and make you see that the passage is highly sophisticated. You need to see what others were doing in similar conditions.


spin

Amaleq13

Glad to hear it. However, that really doesn't change the fact that the observation is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply to anyone involved in the discussion and it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It supports no argument and undermines no opposing argument.

motorhead

But these religious based atrocities would not have occurred if there was no religion behind them. You stated these are things that would've happened even if the books of the Bible were never written and compiled but I disagree. Those books of the Bible are the basis for the religion that caused people to commit these atrocities. Explain to me how the inquisition or crusades would've happened without the religion behind them, which is based on the writings in the Bible?

In answer to the OP, the bottom line is people give the Bible relevance. The Bible itself is just a collection of ancient writings. If everyone in the world decided tomorrow the Bible is worthless and shouldn't be read, the Bible would still exist, it just wouldn't be that important to people. It'd be like any other collection of ancient writings.

I could decide tomorrow to start a religion based on the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I could turn that collection of writings into a Bible and create a religion based on it. In other words, I (as a human) could give this collection of writings importance and could possibly persuade many others to give it the same importance.

Peter Watts

I guess I should start living by other people's experiences and ignore my own. Sounds like what you would hear from religious people: "Don't believe what your senses tell you, believe what MY senses tell you!"

JamesBannon

I don't see why people hold the bible in such esteem. 99% of it is nonsense and of the remaining 1% only about a quarter of that says anything significant. The bible only contains one ethical rule I would be happy with (the Golden Rule) and even then it's not uniquely biblical. The rest of it is just mysogenistic, nationalistic and barbaric, especially the Old Testament. Of course, this is only the opinion of an agnostic-atheist who is strongly egalitarian

BTW: If the Abrahamic God did exist I for one wouldn't have anything to do with him. I will not worship, respect or obey a tyrant. If he gets angry with me for this then that's his problem, it is nothing to do with me.

Peter Watts

I think pretty much anything written in the time period of the Bible will contain the elements you mention. It was a different world back then, full of barbarity, nationalism, mysogyny.

spin

No. It is about perspective. I made no claims about ignoring your experiences. I did indicate that those experiences didn't fit those of others. That under normal circumstances would trigger a reevaluation of those experiences.

Sounds like what you want to hear.


spin