Richard Dawkins and The Ignorance of The New Atheism

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Archa

So what? Real people are mentioned in fiction all the time. Real people are also mentioned in lies.

 

[ding]

LOL

I always find it amusing when Christians can't answer my simple questions about large errors in the bible.

Carry on with the bogus attack on Richard Dawkins if that will make you feel better.

The bible is not a science book. Only fools act as if it is.

The Bible is fiction. Only fools act as if it isn’t

Archaeology Confirms 53 people mentioned in the Bible
53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically



Reliability of the Old Testament

Amazon product ASIN 0802803962

I have known that for years, but it doesn't establish that god exist at all.

Remember it is the religious that runs on FAITH not reality.

Given that I have tested it, I would have to disagree. I believe that one of the central themes of all religions is to die to self to confront reality.

The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self (i.e. dying to self). If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Funny you say that, I been Atheist for 31 years now, zero criminal activities, never used illegal drugs, never threaten people, never own a forearm, never harmed or disrespected women, have helped people for free, helped a black man by hiring him to do small jobs in my yard, now helping a woman dealing with Breast cancer.

Meanwhile I know of church going people committing crimes........

Again why would an awesome universe wide creator, the all knowing, most powerful being in existence be so concerned about needing to be worshipped by small clump of cells beings on a small mudball in a massive universe?

The argument I am making is that faith in God - when properly applied - leads to objectivity and objectivity leads to seeing reality.

 

[ding]

Again why would an awesome universe wide creator, the all knowing, most powerful being in existence be so concerned about needing to be worshipped by small clump of cells beings on a small mudball in a massive universe?

Because when done the right way for the right reason, it makes you better.

 

[Meriweather]

Can't you see because you are a Republicans

This is where I stopped. Libertarian.

 

[Meriweather]

The church first brought evolution into the fold in 1950

Catholics learned to read long before 1950... And even in 1950 the Church position was when it came to evolution people could choose what they would believe. (Quite unlike the libs and dems, right, who insist that all believe man causes global warming...or did they quickly change that to "climate change".) Catholics are big believers in people thinking for themselves. Many non-Catholics ignore that....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Quite unlike the libs and dems, right, who insist that all believe man causes global warming...or did they quickly change that to "climate change".

Excuse you. Scientists insist that. See: IPCC. And it is still global warming, which is just part of climate change. Given that you did not know this basic idea, you should probably read up on that topic before commenting on it again.

 

[Meriweather]

Surely you agree Aesop's Fables are fiction.

You forget I teach English. Fables teach a moral lesson, in other words, they teach a truth. Those truths are not fictional. The characters chosen to represent that truth reflect it. Fables have a purpose. The characters are almost always fictional; the lesson never is.

 

[Blues Man]

One can learn a lot from Aesop's fables

Which is my point. There is a lesson, moral, theme to each fable. It is no harder to identify the theme, moral, lesson in a Bible story. So why get tangled up in things like, "Snakes don't talk." No they don't. So move on. What lesson is being taught?

So is the bible a book of fables?

I think it is

 

[Blues Man]

is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God

Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.

If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.

Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.

No. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.

You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.

What's fucking funny is you calling someone dishonest for doing the exact same shit you do

 

[sealybobo]

LOL

I always find it amusing when Christians can't answer my simple questions about large errors in the bible.

Carry on with the bogus attack on Richard Dawkins if that will make you feel better.

The bible is not a science book. Only fools act as if it is.

The Bible is fiction. Only fools act as if it isn’t

Archaeology Confirms 53 people mentioned in the Bible
53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically



Reliability of the Old Testament

Amazon product ASIN 0802803962

This probably doesn't prove as much as you think it does.

None of the 53 people mentioned in the bible wrote the bible.

So what a bunch of Pharaoh's and kings were mentioned?

How many people in the Book of Mormons and Koran can be confirmed archaeologically?


There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Why there is no god

Responses to common theist arguments

whynogod.wordpress.com

 

[sealybobo]

LOL

I always find it amusing when Christians can't answer my simple questions about large errors in the bible.

Carry on with the bogus attack on Richard Dawkins if that will make you feel better.

The bible is not a science book. Only fools act as if it is.

The Bible is fiction. Only fools act as if it isn’t

Archaeology Confirms 53 people mentioned in the Bible
53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically



Reliability of the Old Testament

Amazon product ASIN 0802803962

I have known that for years, but it doesn't establish that god exist at all.

Remember it is the religious that runs on FAITH not reality.

Given that I have tested it, I would have to disagree. I believe that one of the central themes of all religions is to die to self to confront reality.

The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self (i.e. dying to self). If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Funny you say that, I been Atheist for 31 years now, zero criminal activities, never used illegal drugs, never threaten people, never own a forearm, never harmed or disrespected women, have helped people for free, helped a black man by hiring him to do small jobs in my yard, now helping a woman dealing with Breast cancer.

Meanwhile I know of church going people committing crimes........

Again why would an awesome universe wide creator, the all knowing, most powerful being in existence be so concerned about needing to be worshipped by small clump of cells beings on a small mudball in a massive universe?

Because these are the things that get gullible people to join churches. It's a recruiting tactic. God is a jealous god. No other gods but him. Don't forsake him. Don't deny he exists. Don't use his name in vein.

Instead of be a good person, the golden rule, love thy neighbor. Instead of all the good things he could have told us to do instead he focused on what we were doing wrong. Don't fuck your neighbors wife, don't lie, cheat, steal, murder. His goal wasn't to make good people. It was just to make sure they didn't become pure evil.

Republicans are a great example. They aren't good people. They don't care about life once outside the womb. They are racists, greedy, mean, prejudice, mean,. DING is the perfect example. Doesn't have to be a good person. That's too much to ask. The church wouldn't have very many members.

No, all you have to do is believe in this god and you get into heaven. You get to be a god yourself one day when you die. By being good? No. Just believe.

 

[sealybobo]

What did h3 say? You keep posting he said something pro pedophile but can’t tell us what he said?

Dawkins did not defend pedophilia. Dawkins condemns pedophilia. Dudley here is trying to smear Dawkins, because Dawkins said mean things about Dudley's favorite gods.

That's the feeling I got too. I guess it's ok to lie if you are lying for god.

 

[Meriweather]

Do you say the same about the Bible myths?

I seldom, if ever, use the word 'myth' in relation to Bible stories just as I never refer to a fable as a myth. Words have meanings, and I tend to be precise. Myths tend to focus on heroic events or legends embroidered into heroic events. When I ask a class to write a fable, submitting a myth will not make the grade (and vice-versa).

Bible stories do not all fall into the same category. The first thing to determine is the author's purpose and who was the original audience. The one thing I do take for granted is that the story was not set in its present day. For example, if the story is about a prediction of something that will happen, that something already happened. The Book of Revelation is a great example of this. This book is not about future events, but about events that had already happened. It was written in style popular at that time (apocryphal). Some of the stories are apologetics, Esau and Jacob; David and Saul are examples. Exodus is a great example of two political parties of that day and age. Some stories, Noah's Ark for example, use an old, well-known setting to teach a lesson about the power of words. All you are interested in is proving a certain tortoise couldn't have made it to the ark on time, or that there wouldn't have been enough food to feed the lions and the elephants and further silliness.

Many rather everyday or expected events are embroidered with legendary qualities to make the story more interesting. My best friend could do that--an every day trip to the grocery store or the doctor was turned into a great adventure. The facts were always there--just highlighted. I could make a great adventure boring; she could make the boring adventurous--the mark of all great storytellers.

Fort Fun, your purpose for reading the Bible is to find something--anything--wrong. You are passionate about showing there is no God. Go for it.

My purpose is different. I know God exists and my purpose is to learn about encounters others have had with God. When an Old Testament experience does not match my own experience with a loving God, I do not dismiss the story, I research, going back through rabbinical commentary far through the ages. Turns out the love is always their--it just doesn't present itself as well in the English language as it does in the original Hebrew. It certainly doesn't present itself accurately in modern cultures as it does in Biblical cultures.

Too many dismiss our Biblical ancestors as superstitious and not too intelligent. I've found the opposite. Many were more highly intelligent than we, and not at all superstitious. This does not mean they had our knowledge, because of course they did not. Finally, they were in touch with their spiritual health and well-being, with the spiritual world. Many have lost touch with that side of the human condition, believing science is all.

Basically, you and I have nothing--or extremely little--to discuss with each other. I know both the science and spiritual and I will not give up either. You are convinced absolutely there is only science, that only science matters. Since that is what you want, that is fine with me, but as for me, I'm sticking with both.

 

[sealybobo]

The church first brought evolution into the fold in 1950

Catholics learned to read long before 1950... And even in 1950 the Church position was when it came to evolution people could choose what they would believe. (Quite unlike the libs and dems, right, who insist that all believe man causes global warming...or did they quickly change that to "climate change".) Catholics are big believers in people thinking for themselves. Many non-Catholics ignore that....

Well half of you who are thinking for yourselves are wrong. Fact is if American Christians were alright with Donald Trump, then that alone tells me organized religions are just bullshit. Now I see how Catholics went along with Hitler and American Christians went along with slavery. But then hundreds of years later claim that Nazi's were not Christians and that it was Christians who freed the slaves.

 

[Meriweather]

So is the bible a book of fables?

I think it is

Technically, you would be wrong. The talking snake and the donkey who spoke might qualify, but I wouldn't give either very high marks as fables because these two characters purpose is not in teaching a lesson. More setting.

 

[Blues Man]

So is the bible a book of fables?

I think it is

Technically, you would be wrong. The talking snake and the donkey who spoke might qualify, but I wouldn't give either very high marks as fables because these two characters purpose is not in teaching a lesson. More setting.

Either the bible is the true word of god or it isn't.

So choose.

 

[Meriweather]

Well half of you who are thinking for yourselves are wrong. Fact is if American Christians were alright with Donald Trump, then that alone tells me organized religions are just bullshit. Now I see how Catholics went along with Hitler and American Christians went along with slavery. But then hundreds of years later claim that Nazi's were not Christians and that it was Christians who freed the slaves.

I am betting that President Trump and I agree on many political issues and disagree on many issues of faith. Are you thinking that people of faith are cookie cutter stamps of one another? If so, think again. The people in my parish--even in my smaller church groups--are as different as night is from day. What bothers me is our arrogance after the fact. You are so certain that had you lived in the antebellum South or in Hitler's Germany, you would have single-handedly brought both to their knees. As for me, I know for a fact, I cannot get one person to change his/her mind about abortion--which I feel is ten times more horrible than both slavery and Hitler.

 

[Meriweather]

So choose.

I have. And so have you.

 

[Blues Man]

So choose.

I have. And so have you.

What did you choose?

The bible is the true word of god or not?

 

[Meriweather]

The bible is the true word of god or not?

Live it, then decide.