Bible: tl;dr edition

[Skeptic]

@anon61221983

Again, there is a wide variety of belief within the faith. Some are literalist straight down the line, others are not. A catholic, is not a Episcopalian, is not a Quaker, is not a Lutherian, is not a Coptic, etc. Take the Quakers, for example, which exhibit a pretty wide variety of believes:

What Do Quakers Believe? | Quaker Information Center

Also, keep in mind that religion can be used as much for resistance to oppression as it can for oppression…

Indeed, religion is a tool that can be used for good or for ill - however, religion, especially Christianity and Islam, is a tool for getting people to turn off their brain and uncritically accept bald assertions and authority. It is a tool that promotes backwards logic, starting with the inviolable premise that God is true, and then force fits everything into that mold. It warps people’s abilities to follow evidence where it leads. Religion is a tool that institutionalizes ignorance and enshrines it as a virtue, a virtue called “faith.”

Religion is not the only thing with an ability to promote uncritical group think, however, it is a tool that can transcend national boundaries and race. And it is a tool that even people like you try to exempt from criticism, unlike nationalism or politics, making it especially insidious.

[anon61221983]

@Skeptic

especially Christianity and Islam, is a tool for getting people to turn off their brain and uncritically accept bald assertions and authority

Of course it can be, but so can just about anything else. For some people you throw the word science around, and it’s likewise as authoritative. Again, I’m more interested in what people are doing, not in their beliefs, necessarily (I say that with some caveats).

@Skeptic

it is a tool that can transcend national boundaries and race

Same with just about any other ideology.

@Skeptic

it is a tool that even people like you try to exempt from criticism, unlike nationalism or politics, making it especially insidious.

I think it’s perfectly fine to criticize religion, like anything else. Nothing should be immune. I’m glad that there are plenty of people who are out there making criticisms of religion, especially since we have enough people here in the US who are keen to use religion to push very backwards agendas. But likewise, when you paint all people of faith with the same brush, which I feel you are doing, you are going to get no where. The people who would likely agree with the argument that a separation of church and state is good for everyone, because it allows us to treat people more equally in public forums, will be turned off by this new atheist - frankly, dogma - that all people who are religious are not only “stupid” but “evil”, “retrograde”, and “bigoted” and that’s because those things just aren’t true. All you do with that is turn off a whole lotta people who might otherwise be allies in an attempt to make our world freer, fairer, and more peaceful.

Honestly, if you think that winning people over the atheism by insulting them is going to work, then you need to rethink your strategy. I understand that there are some people you’re never going to be able to have a conservation with (Kirk Cameron, etc), but there are plenty of people who you can have a civil conservation with and move things forward in a positive direct that benefits ALL of us. There is nothing wrong with being compassionate and trying to understand others who do not share your world view.

Overall, I guess it depends on what your goals are here - to create a better world? To make atheists more visible and accepted? Or to create a world free of religion? I like the first 2, but getting to the third is not going to be achieved in anyway peacefully in the near future. We honestly need to figure out what our goals should be here.

[MBD]

[quote=“Skeptic, post:49, topic:46812”]
Except that Genesis was supposed to be the literal truth.[/quote]

[citation needed]

Note: this will require some statement that provably comes from “the Yahwist” (or whoever actually wrote it) that it was supposed to be literal truth.

[quote=“Skeptic, post:55, topic:46812”]
Tell us your reliable, objective method of separating biblical “facts” from metaphor?[/quote]

That’s asking a lot, considering that he would first have to somehow prove that objective reality even exists. Philosophers have been struggling with that one for centuries. As a capital-S “Skeptic,” I assume you’re familiar with skepticism.

[quote=“anon61221983, post:80, topic:46812”]
Is that a thing now? If we don’t openly disagree and mock people of faith and actually try to understand them, we’re accomodationists? That’s kind of dogmatic, no?[/quote]

Yes, it is. This is classic new atheist dogmatism and purism, they’re guilty of projection in a big way. In the same way that gamergate is every bit as guilty of hypersensitivity, misinterpretation, and dogpiling as any SJW, new atheists are as guilty of dogmatism, purism, intolerance, and lack of critical thinking as any fundie.

[quote=“Skeptic, post:102, topic:46812”]
Not to mention that a non-literal bible would mean that even Yahweh and Jesus are merely metaphors for, er, something.[/quote]

The problem being? Have you never read poetry?

[quote=“anon61221983, post:113, topic:46812”]
For some people you throw the word science around, and it’s likewise as authoritative.[/quote]

Exactly. The new atheists fail to understand some absolutely critical things. Believing that god doesn’t exist is an act of faith. In fact, it requires greater faith than believing god exists because it’s impossible to prove a negative. This means that I will never be able to have proof that god doesn’t exist. If god does exist, however, it’s conceivable that one day there will be proof. Whereas a theist can at least hold out hope that, one day, they will be vindicated, I will have to live with knowing that I never can be. That’s faith. This is why I try not to look down on theists (I don’t always succeed) because simply living requires some form of faith, of believing unproven (and even unprovable) things.

Belief in science also requires similar faith because it relies on, as far as I can tell, at least 3 articles of faith that cannot be proven: 1) there is an objective reality, 2) our senses give us accurate data about that reality and don’t lie to us (How do I know the geiger counter is giving the reading it appears to be giving or that I’m even looking at a geiger counter at all?), and 3) that our minds draw rational conclusions from that data (How do I know the conclusions I draw about the data my senses give me is any more rational than the conclusions a paranoid schizophrenic draws to support his delusions?). This is the most basic Philosophy 101 stuff and the fact that few of the new atheists seem to grok it is telling.

New atheists give atheism a bad name and I don’t appreciate it.

[Skeptic]

@MBD

[citation needed]

Note: this will require some statement that provably comes from “the Yahwist” (or whoever actually wrote it) that it was supposed to be literal truth.

Not really, “supposed to be” can be applied to anyone who used the story, not just Yahwist. But what do you claim Genesis is a metaphor for? Do you claim that the point of Genesis is that we are not descended from Adam and Eve. What’s next, are you going to claim that Zeus was a “metaphor”?

Let me refer you again to this quote:

Believers constantly attribute all sorts of qualities to
their gods and have a list of doctrines as long as your arm. It is only
when the questions get tough that, suddenly, their God disappears in a
puff of mystery. Ineffability becomes a kind of invisibility cloak, only
worn when there is a need to get out of a bit of philosophical bother."

-Julian Baggini

Just as believers suddenly declare god ineffable when convenient, so to do they declare the bible “metaphor”.

There is no sound reason to believe that the Israelites, nor early Christians, took Genesis as anything but a literal story of creation - that’s what creation myths are.

But, if you disagree, tell me your reliable, objective way of telling “facts” in the bible from metaphors? Is the commandment to kill men who lie with men a “metaphor”? Or the rules about it being ok to beat your slave to death as long as they take a few days to die?

[shaddack]

@MBD

How do I know the geiger counter is giving the reading it appears to be giving or that I’m even looking at a geiger counter at all?

Test source! Does it click more when closer to it? By the known amount?

Good practice is to not trust entirely both the senses and the instruments, and have verification methods on hand. That includes various calibrators.

[redesigned]

@MBD

Believing that god doesn’t exist is an act of faith. In fact, it requires greater faith than believing god exists because it’s impossible to prove a negative.

BS. Sorry, but this is about as wrong as it gets. People aren’t “believing in a not existing god” they are not believing in a god that doesn’t exist, which takes zero faith. not believing in something isn’t believing in a negative, that is a complete logical fallacy and failure to understand basic reasoning. for that very reason the burden of proof is never on the negative. if we followed your convoluted logic, then it would take more effort/faith to not believe in every single made up thing there is, from the easter bunny, to the coolaid guy that smashes through walls, to smurfs, to every god from every single religion and every fairy tale and myth in existence. if your assertion was correct it would take less to believe in every single thing for which there is zero evidence, which is frankly just plain stupid.

not believing in something does not mean you believe in the negative of that thing. it takes zero faith. in fact it is the only logical and intelligent thing to do if there is no evidence that something exists.

@MBD

Belief in science also requires similar faith

No, it does not and that is the very point of science. There is a reason that scientific facts are independently verifiable and such techniques as double blinds are often employed. They eliminates the need to rely on the subjective senses and “reality” of any one individual. It verifies results that are consistently repeatable and quantifiable. You seem to understand very little about either science or philosophy. Its best not to down talk from a position of ignorance, imho. it undermines any point you might be trying to make.

The very reason you can even have this discussion on a computer based forum is because the three things you incorrectly assume about science are wrong. If they weren’t this very discussion would be impossible.

PS. It is good to see an account that has only commented on and been a gamer gate apologist up to this point, actually comment on another subject. glad to see you diversifying and finally finding another subject worthy of your attention.

[shaddack]

There is a major difference between science and faith. Let’s use a flowchart…

Edit: As of the philosophy, that’s why philosophists babbled themselves out of much of the scientific discourse.

[MBD]

[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
People aren’t “believing in a not existing god” they are not believing in a god that doesn’t exist, which takes zero faith.[/quote]

You seem to be confusing belief with lack-of-belief and, possibly, atheism with agnosticism. There are three possible options with regard to the veracity of a proposition: 1) believe it’s true, 2) believe it’s false, 3) have no opinion either way. Applying this, there are three possible options with regard to the proposition “god exists”: 1) believe that it’s true (believe god exists), 2) believe that it’s false (believe god does not exist), 3) have no opinion on the matter (I don’t know if god exists or not). Number 1 is theism, number 2 is atheism, number 3 is agnosticism.

[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
it would take more effort/faith to not believe in every single made up thing there is[/quote]

Actively disbelieve is not the same as “not believe,” it’s the difference between certainty and uncertainty, between belief and lack-of-belief.

[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
not believing in something does not mean you believe in the negative of that thing[/quote]

I never said it did. You’re the one confusing agnosticism and atheism.

[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
There is a reason that scientific facts are independently verifiable and such techniques as double blinds are often employed. They eliminates the need to rely on the subjective senses and “reality” of any one individual.[/quote]

You are always relying on the senses of one individual: yourself. How do I know someone repeated my research? I use my senses to hear them say they did or read their study or look at their instruments. I’m assuming my senses aren’t lying to me about any of that, that the scientist is really standing in front of me really saying what he appears to be saying, that the study is really in my hands and that it really has the text on the page that it appears to have, that the instruments are really in front of me giving me the readings they appear to be giving. I’m assuming that I’m not hallucinating, that I’m not being taunted by Descartes’s demon, that I’m not a brain in vat, that I’m not living in a computer simulation. This assumption is an act of faith because you can’t prove that your senses are in fact telling you the truth. I was talking about philsophical skepticism (see the link in my previous post), hence my remarks about Philosophy 101.

I guess I’m going to have to spell it out using a matrix analogy. If you were plugged in, the matrix could be telling you that the geiger counter shows an increase in radiation when in fact not only is the radiation decreasing but you’re not even holding anything in your hand at all, let alone a geiger counter. The matrix could be showing you a study confirming your research when there in fact never was a study at all. Independent verification is impossible in such a situation where everything can be fake. Science assumes, among other things, that we’re not in such a situation. It has to, it can’t work otherwise. The necessity of such assumptions doesn’t make them any less assumptions nor any more proven. They are still acts of faith.

[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
a gamer gate apologist up to this point[/quote]

You should really read more carefully if you think I’ve been a gamergate apologist. Few people on this planet have done as much research debunking gater talking points as I have. But what else would one expect from a new atheist?

[daneel]

Atheism vs Theism vs Agnosticsism vs Gnosticism

[redesigned]

@MBD

You seem to be confusing belief with lack-of-belief and, possibly, atheism with agnosticism.

NO. I am quite familiar with the differences and I am NOT confusing terms, what a silly assertion.

You quite obviously replied without taking the time to assimilate or understand my rebuttal.
Your logical fallacy is highlighted by your very own example of three states “belief” which is wrong. I strongly suggest enrolling in a basic logic class. Not believing in something isn’t its own kind of negative belief. Not believing in something is the default state where no belief exists. Just like dark isn’t negative light, it is simply the absence of light and a vacuum isn’t negative matter, it is a space devoid of matter. That is a crucial basic understanding that all logical though is built upon and where you go wrong from the start.

Like I explain earlier if your “logic” were true, it would be an argument for believing every single imaginary thing and cockamamie story every concocted. you haven’t even though out the logical conclusion and repercussion of your own assertion.

The logical and intelligent stance is a state of non-belief in anything for which there is zero evidence or proof, and unless you believe in absolutely everything ever, it is also the default position you actually take without realizing when not justifying a belief in a non-existant deity of your personal choosing.

@MBD

You are always relying on the senses of one individual: yourself. I’m assuming that I’m not hallucinating, that I’m not being taunted by Descartes’s demon, that I’m not a brain in vat, that I’m not living in a computer simulation.

I’m quite familiar with this classical thought experiment and arguments for and against an empirical universe existing and the ramifications of both possible conclusions.

If the empirical universe exists then scientific observation makes sense and we can have things like computers and the internet, and discussions like we are having, and your argument is moot. If it doesn’t exist then any discussion about it is pointless and you are wasting your own time arguing with yourself.

You also forget that any simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, is for all intents and purposes reality, and that even if this is a simulation it obviously has a consistent set of rules that can be measured, verified, and repeated, which makes it indistinguishable from an empirical universe from the perspective of anyone within the simulation. of course all theories that this is a simulation are contrary to the theism you started off defending, which makes this the worst batch of cherry picked internally inconsistent arguments i’ve ever encountered. you really should think out the ramifications and explore the repercussions of various thoughts before presenting a mixed hand of self contradicting, half understood arguments.

you sure do spend a lot of time hallucinating that you are involved in a discussion using these “faith based” simulated matrix technologies. LOL.

@MBD

You should really read more carefully if you think I’ve been a gamergate apologist. Few people on this planet have done as much research debunking gater talking points as I have. But what else would one expect from a new atheist?

Are you sure you are one of the most important GG researchers on the planet? for a brain in a vat in a simulation being run by a judeo-christian god you sure do have a panoply of self contradicting assertions and ideas.