Philosoft

What is a "presupposed disdain for religion"? 'Presuppositionalism' is usually used to refer to a specific type of epistemology. I don't see how it's possible to pressupose a disdain for anything.

Amaranth

I can't speak for the atheist in question, but here's my take:

The hypothesis of god has been put forth many times, in many different fashions, and never proven, or in my veiw, even well defined. As such, it is completely rational to disbelieve this hypothesis, in much the same manner it is rational to disbelieve that eating a victims heart will give you magic power. Neither a negative nor a positive can be proven absolutely true, but they can be tested to the point that one shows consistancy enough to be more rational than the other.

Lack of belief in god is knowledge, as god has never been proven despite it's many times being hypothesised. Belief in god is faith for the exact same reason. Knowledge is rational, faith is not.

Oh, and I'm casting "Ward vs. Equivocation", so everyone stay back!

Amaranth

CJD

Toto, your post is so God-awful boring, but I'll give it a go. I do not presume to stretch anything. Such-and-so atheist cannot read properly. I have shown him this. He will continue in his futile understanding. This has nothing to do with God and his existence, it has everything to do with blatant disregard for rational discourse. And that, dearest Toto, is inexcusable hogwash. I need not, and did not, attempt to prove that atheism is faith. I find it indisputable, nay, absolutely unassailable that we all rely on "sources" to some degree or another: credo ut intelligam.

Philosoft, refer to the last sentence. The statement you engage could have just as easily read, "presupposed hatred for God." Listen to Mike, he makes my point (partially): "Conceding error can be difficult when debating someone you fundamentally disagree with." Sounds like many fundies out there, no?

Amaranth, have you ever eaten another's heart? Did pre-modern man know that germs existed?

philechat

Don't understand the love/hate dualism. Could not there be even more choices in between? Why, is it that if one did not love God, then one must hate God (assuming he existed)? I simply assume the possibility of God's existence as of similar probability as that of Greek gods---and hell I love the Greek gods (again, assuming they existed)!

Amaranth

Sure Heart is actually decent eatin', done up right. Better than tongue, that's for certain.

Yes, depending on how you define modern Anyways, this seems like a red herring - How are germs relevant to gaining magic powers through eating a victims heart?

Amaranth

Hawkingfan

Wow, started a new thread about it.
When I was saying "to me" I am trying to be honest about my interpretation. I am saying that when I approach the bible, I approach it as if I was someone who has never read it before, in order to NOT have any pre-conceived notions about what I am reading (I know that would be hard to believe). When I read the OT quotes, how am I supposed to know what is meant by "wisdom" other than what it means in my everyday reality? If it means something else, then it should be clear. It is not. If it is so important for one to have "wisdom of God" and important to not have "wisdom of man" (because it is foolish), then the Proverbs have not made that clear, except for super-intelligent biblical scholars like yourself. But if the Bible is meant to only be understood by super-intelligent biblical scholars like you, and not to be understood by the common man who reads things at face value, than it is definitely not even worth the paper it is printed on.

Starboy

As an atheist why should I care about anything in the bible? Sure, it is an historical document, but the world is lousy with such documents. Arguments from scripture only matter to people that have faith in scripture as a "true" description of reality. As an atheist I have no such faith. Such people are very tiresome.

Starboy

Toto

<yawn>

I beg to differ. You have resolved an apparent contradiction. Certain parts of the Bible speak highly of "wisdom", Paul in one section disparages the "wisdom of this world" and upholds true wisdom based on the fear of God.

You resolve this by imputing Paul's definition of wisdom to the Old Testament. "H" responded with the charge that you are relying on an ambiguity in the Bible, and he disagrees with your attempt to read Paul's definition back into the Hebrew scriptures and selected parts of the NT.

So you have a disagreement over the text, and since you are unable to put yourself in your opponent's position, you assume that he is operating from a "blind faith" perspective. This does not follow. Perhaps he is mistaken or stubbornly holding to his position, or perhaps you have not been persuasive. Or perhaps you are wrong. But you have not shown that he is operating from faith.

I see that you are so much in love with the sound of your own words that you cannot hear what your opponents are saying, so let me try again.

The Bible contains documents written from differing traditions, with differing worldviews. To simplify things a little, the ancient Hebrews who wrote the OT tended to see God as the creator of the world, and the world as good. Wisdom, understanding of the world, are good, and there is no division between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world, although there may be instances when men misread God or act stupidly. There is some recognition of the limitations of men's understanding in Job and Ecclesiastes, but there is still no division between two types of wisdom.

Paul, however, is a later Hellenized Jew. The passage in question shows a great deal of influence from Platonism or gnosticism. In the gnostic tradition, the world is corrupt and/or illusory. The wisdom of this world, or "this age", is mere foolishness. Everything is a shadow of its true Platonic nature, nothing is what it seems. Wisdom is folly, folly is wisdom.

I imagine that Paul found that intelligent, inquring minds did not buy into his new religion, so he (or someone) wrote this denunciation of worldly wisdom, contrasting it to the wisdom that comes from God. He had to pick through the OT to find support, ignoring Psalm 94 8 "Take heed, you senseless ones among the people; you fools, when will you become wise?"

So, it is true, a casual attempt to find a contraction in those passages is too simple, and if you read everything in context, you can harmonize all of the above passages on wisdom. But I contend that this harmonization overlooks an underlying contradiction in world views, which would be more obvious if you took a more historical view of the Bible.

Philosoft

In which case it would be doubly wrong.

Lots of people have this problem, me included. But what does it have to do with presupposed hatred? My disapprobation of religion is not a result of a belief system that holds that disapprobation of religion is necessary to be an atheist.

CJD

Toto, your post is strangely infuriating yet acutely boring. I don't know what to make of it.

Really, though, allow me to speak plainly this time so we can leave this thread behind us. Try to adopt my perspective for a moment:

I have sat under atheists, Jews, and Christians--all scholars in various biblical fields. I cannot with a straight face be "taught" by a (per his bio) computer professional who fancies classical Greek. I mean, that's not what this thread is about, man. Don't presume to teach me all that stuff I'd rather not waste time barking about. Suffice to say that you are entirely incorrect about the Tanak's Folly/Wisdom contrast, and how at every turn that folly is compared to the proud, puffed-up "wisdom" of the wicked. Saint Paul is no Philonic do-boy. To simplify things, Toto, I might suggest we respect the Division of Labor.

There is one obvious discrepancy, however. You are right to mention the bit about bringing a historical view to the bible, etc. I am not as unsophisticated as you might think regarding biblical history. My choice to engage the text itself is willful. History need only be mentioned when it bears directly upon it. That is the approach I have taken specifically to show folks like H_____ that just because it's the bible does not mean you can read it any old way you want, and then pretend to fault my faith based on some fanciful reading of your own. I live in a world where I cannot call a stupid reading "stupid." This is my hell.

What's more, by writing that H____ "stubbornly holds his position" is to give me the argument, Toto. What does he have invested in conceding? The answer is "everything."

Hey, philosoft, I am no different. And it has a lot to do with a priori committments. Forget about the disapprobation of religion, and focus on the invested interest you have in the notion that God does not exist, that was my main point.

Hawkingfan, a tabula rasa reading of Scripture is impossible. But please understand that I am trying to deal with the text as a text. In other words, I am trying to show why one reading is more plausible than another. One need not be a biblical scholar to do so. One need only read with the proper guidance (and it's not, I repeat, not the Church of Christ!).

Starboy, bravo! You speak some truth: "Arguments from scripture only matter to people that have faith in scripture as a "true" description of reality." I was, of course, not arguing anything at all from Scripture except to show (I must reiterate) that one reading is more plausible than another. And besides, it's okay for someone to be wrong. I know it's not a very popular concept these days, but it nonetheless happens all the time. It reminds of a t-shirt I saw once that spoofed the Sixth Sense: "I see stupid people everywhere. They don't even know that their stupid." It is an unfortunate consequence of life that we all find ourselves in this camp at one time or another.

Regards all,

CJD

p.s. But philecat, do you love the biblical God?