Question for atheists

[GreyGhost]

gggmork said:

Eating competing predators into extinction

Sharks [check], dolphins [check], salmon [check], tigers [check], dogs [check] and crocodiles [check]. Yep - it's all going according to plan.

Also, in case this whole post was off topic (but doesn't appear to be relative to the last few replies), jesus and l ron hubbard and the flying spaghetti monster are coooool.

L Ron Hubbard is a false god and nowhere near as cool as His Noodliness.

[DuckReconMajor]

What about L Ron Hubble?

[Skeletor]

The idea that a deity has to step in and explain what we cannot

Believing that god is a god of explanation is...misplaced faith? See Dawkins' interview with George Coyne.

I wonder if sometimes our sense of entitlement, especially Americans, has a factor in our age of skepticism today. We want to do this, and we want to do that, and we want this and we want that, but do not because of our religious beliefs, or because of our assumption that the Bible supposedly says so, when in fact everything is permissible, just not everything is beneficial :)

DarkX, your exegesis of the seven deadly sins is extremely shallow. You didn't even skim the surface. I'll expound on it later after I get off work.

[Quast]

Skeletor said:

I wonder if sometimes our sense of entitlement, especially Americans, has a factor in our age of skepticism today.

I'd would say it's not, but rather the maturation of scientific study and methodology, increased learning opportunities and most importantly the internet. Yes, I almost hate to say it, the internet. The most basic function of the internet, the free exchange of ideas across the globe allows a scattered group of people to find like minded people. Because of this, the internet is almost certainly one of the main reasons for the faithless to come out of the closet so-to-speak.

And I'm saying this as a person that does not know of another person IRL that shares my views. I may have possibly met an atheist once or twice, but the subject was certainly not brought into discussion. To know one is not alone in their thoughts and opinions is incredibly powerful for the faithful and faithless alike.

[Aliotroph?]

Do you live in a small community with a nearly uniform religious life? Those are the only places I've ever been that didn't have atheists arguing with somebody.

Ultimately half my family are obviously atheists and a large number of my friends are too. The rest of the people I know have a pretty big range of religions. The ones that bother me the most are the ones who project superstitions onto everything and the ones who say they belong to a certain religion, but can't tell you much about it.

[Quast]

Aliotroph? said:

Do you live in a small community with a nearly uniform religious life?

Oh yes, lived my entire life in very small towns.

Possibly funny anecdote: Actually one time maybe 4 or 5 years ago the subject was brought up with a coworker and his girlfriend, the two I had known for a fair bit and thought they were reasonable. I forget how it came into the discussion or my exact words. But when I mentioned that I didn't believe in god, I got wide eyed blank stares, open mouths and silence from both for about 20 seconds and then a barrage of questions. It was almost as if I had unzipped and and hung it out right then and there. And these people weren't church going by any means.

[Aliotroph?]

LOL You caused a BSOD and forced them to reboot!

I've had a couple funny ones myself. One was when I was working at Dell configuring MP3 players and file associations for a couple in rural Nebraska. I thought of these people as "techno-redneck." They were oddly good at computers for people who lived in the middle of nowhere, but when the wife decided to ask me about music I just about died laughing. Her question: "So, what kind of music do you like -- country or Christian?" And I'm thinking, "there are ONLY TWO?!?" I listed off half a dozen-genres, but one of the electronic ones caused her to yell to her husband, "he likes that computer-generated stuff!" *facepalm*

[Technician]

Quast said:

But when I mentioned that I didn't believe in god, I got wide eyed blank stares, open mouths and silence from both for about 20 seconds and then a barrage of questions.

Did they ask you where you get your morality from?

[DuckReconMajor]

Well, I don't have any funny stories, mine are more just kind of depressing. Even though I've lived in the Bible Belt almost all my life, when I was Christian I assumed everyone was an atheist out to get me. Then when I lost my faith the people I "joined" started coming out of the religious woodwork, so to speak.

On the bright side, one guy I assumed was religious came out in defense of atheism when, in response to New York's recent lift of gay marriage ban, a guy I assumed was "normal" quoted scripture against homosexuality and said it shouldn't matter that some people don't believe in the Bible because "atheist don't have a brain anyway".

[magicsofa]

gggmork said:

You can take out the top rungs of the ecological food web pyramid a lot safer than the base without it collapsing.

I think your understanding of ecosystems is terribly incomplete.

Did't you watch The Lion King? It's the CIRCLE of life, not some silly pyramid.

Let me tell you a story. Long ago in Massachusetts, people decided that they would hunt wolves. They weren't using their meat or anything, rather they were killing off wolves because they were preying on the deer. And, of course, we really wanted to hunt the deer and eat them.

People were successful in nearly exterminating the gray wolf. And guess what - the deer population skyrocketed. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, people did not realize that nature isn't so cut-and-dry. Because there were so many deer, they foraged the forest like crazy*. This has all sorts of negative effects - it brings forest succession to a grinding halt, and invites invasive species and increases in other species, resulting in an out-of-balance food chain. Scientists have also suggested that predators eliminate the weakest and/or sickliest members of the prey population, which actually helps the population stay healthy.

Besides, it takes a lot more time and effort to hunt an animal than it does to produce meat in a factory farm, and recreational hunting is decreasing IIRC. I'm not saying factory farms are good (worst idea ever) but its unlikely that people would all of a sudden be like "yeah let's just hunt all of our meat!"




*This shot is not in Mass, it was a study done near washington DC I think

gggmork said:

Eating competing predators into extinction would be ethical in my opinion because predators are obviously a major source of pain

Pain? Give me a break. There will be no end to suffering.

[hex11]

magicsofa said:

One part of the bible that really gets my goat is when god says that man has dominion over the plants and animals of the earth. He forgot to mention exactly how we should manage these things that we dominate.

That's the catch right there: man doesn't dominate jack squat. We're only a very small part of a huge cosmos that potentially stretches in countless dimensions that we may forever be unable to perceive or deduce with our tiny ape brains. And even on this tiny, hostpitable blue ball, we're at the mercy of weather patterns, natural disasters, man-made disasters (environmental, economic, political, or otherwise...), viruses, other humans, etc.

A better attitude might be the one native americans once had: they didn't consider themselves dominant but simply a small part of the earth, and treated it and their fellow creatures with utmost respect. Their way of life was vastly different than modern man's and much more primitive in some ways (though they did have intricate cultures), but it was also vastly more sustainable.

The thing is, I don't know if that kind of attitude can be reconciled with our modern lifestyle, which is incredibly short-sighted on many levels. Our current economic woes are a pretty good reflection of that.

[Technician]

magicsofa said:

One part of the bible that really gets my goat is when god says that man has dominion over the plants and animals of the earth. He forgot to mention exactly how we should manage these things that we dominate.

Combine that with most Christian's belief that the Earth is inevitably going to end, well, you get a bunch of assholes lacking in foresight.

[Skeletor]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the difference between how atheists and conservative fundamentalist christians read the bible; both are experts at reading the passage they want to use for their purposes, literally.

Nowhere in the bible or extra-biblical literature does it say that all of the bible needs to be read literally or all of it needs to be read metaphorically. You read the bible, study it, examine it, criticize it with methods used by historians and linguists (source, form, redaction criticism, although these always aren't perfect methods). You take into account context: historical, cultural, lingual, the authors personal history, etc.

A poem by Ezra Pound:

The tree has entered my hands,
The sap has ascended my arms,
The tree has grown in my breast-
Downward,
The branches grow out of me, like arms.

Tree you are,
Moss you are,
You are violets with wind above them.
A child - so high - you are,
And all this is folly to the world.

Now, is Ezra Pound really saying that a tree has entered into her hands, and that the sap has ascended her arms, and that a tree is growing on her boobs?

Well, no. Of course we don't think that. Why? Well, it's a poem. As children we've been taught that poetry is a creative form of writing. Oh, so the author must be using poetry to convey some kind of message. Now what is she talking about then? Well, you study the author's history, and you examine anything else that will help you and try to examine what she was saying when she says that trees are growing on her boobs.

One thing that both non-christians and christians don't seem to understand is that the bible is not a science textbook (although both atheists and christian fundamentalists view it that way). Is not, never was, never will be. And although the bible may contain SOME specific guidelines as to how humans should live their lives, it main purpose was never meant to be a reference guide to morality, to be taken off the shelf, opened to a certain passage to be used(usually used out of context)), closed shut, and then put back on the shelf.

The bible, as many christian scholars/theologians (correctly) view it, is a STORY; a grand narrative that tells a very specific story, with SOME of it literal, and SOME of it metaphorical. That story is the story of god redeeming a fallen creation through god's chosen people, the israelites (Old Testament), and ultimately through Jesus Christ (New Testament).

It's unfortunate that there's a huge gap between christian scholarship and the church. Most lay christians have no idea why they believe what they believe. Many just believe what they've been "taught" at church. Although just believing is not in itself a bad thing, it often can lead to living a life based on ever-shifting morals and principles.

This gap is also unfortunate in that many youth who start to discover things on their own grow disillusioned because they have no guidance when they find something that contradicts their (often incorrect) beliefs. For example, the church rarely talks about how the bible came to be in the form it is today. When an exploring believer comes upon a book by someone like Bart Ehrman, because the church has never talked about the formation of the bible and textual variants, most likely that person will jump to the conclusion that there is some sort of conspiracy in the church to repress the "truth" whatever it may be. Which is quite funny when for eons the catholic church and eastern orthodox traditions have included the deuterocanonical books in their bibles that they take to church every sunday.

Now, I don't expect pastors to teach greek and hebrew, and give 2 hour, 3-month long lectures on biblical exegesis at the pulpit, but churches should start "in-depth" classes that take place outside of sunday worship.

Ok, I'm done with my church/christian/atheist rant.

Call the bible bullshit, whatever you want, but don't be a fundy on either side by reading a few passages of the bible literally, and brushing the bible off saying it's either all literally true or fairy tales, depending what side you're on. At least do some personal thoughtful "in-depth" study and then make conclusions. No, I'm not talking about reading a Dawkins book and regurgitating what he says. Be a little bit more in-depth than that.

[DuckReconMajor]

I don't think anyone here said that the entire Bible is false/fairytale. If I remember correctly I think some Old Testament passages were used to help understand Mediterranean trade routes. Archaeologists have found many parts that were inaccurate as well. Yes, there are atheist "fundys" who will say that sort of things you've mentioned but people who've posted seem a lot more thoughtful than you've given them credit for.

I'm quite aware that many religious people see their religious texts as metaphorical too. However, at least where I live, having enough faith to say you believe the absolute literal truth of the Bible is a bragging right.

[Phobus]

Slayer, in "New Faith" from the album "God Hates Us All" says:

I reject all the biblical views of the truth
Dismiss it as the folklore of the times

That is roughly my view of the Bible itself. Same goes for a lot of other holy scriptures too.

[magicsofa]

Skeletor said:

Call the bible bullshit, whatever you want, but don't be a fundy on either side by reading a few passages of the bible literally, and brushing the bible off saying it's either all literally true or fairy tales, depending what side you're on. At least do some personal thoughtful "in-depth" study and then make conclusions. No, I'm not talking about reading a Dawkins book and regurgitating what he says. Be a little bit more in-depth than that.

Maybe if lay christians did so, they would be able to argue some better points about their religion. However, as you said, they don't. I'm not going to just say "oh well, you're ignorant of what your own belief system is supposed to be, I can forgive that." What matters is what they believe and the actions that stem from it.

Besides, you also said that some parts are in fact literal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a passage in Genesis where god literally says, man shall have dominion over all the plants and animals. I don't see any other interpretation for that.

You shouldn't regard the fact that people have issues with certain parts of the bible as a wholesale rejection of the book. I'm sure most of the people who outright reject Christianity still follow most of the ten commandments. I certainly do, it's just that other parts of the bible are totally bullshit in my opinion.

There's a lot of stuff about surrendering yourself over to Jesus Christ so he may cleanse you of your sins and all that hoo-ha. Now, I could interpret that in a metaphorical sense to fit my own view of the world. I could say that a person should surrender themselves to the chaos of the universe, or "go with the flow" if you would. When a person stops thinking they should have control over everything in their lives, it allows them to be less resistant to the circumstances of life. I have found this to be very helpful in my life. It can also help you be a better person - with that belief I think I have become more forgiving of others, and more patient.

The problem is, why would I stretch that interpretation? It's obviously pretty far from the bible's words. I don't think the universe died for my sins, and I'm not sure how I could incorporate that. The whole idea of everyone being born a sinner is ludicrous to me. I think we're all born as natural living organisms like everything else, just trying to make our way. There is nothing wrong with that. Can this idea of everyone being a sinner in need of forgiveness from god be interpreted some other way? Perhaps I could say, you are a sinner if you resist the circumstances of life. That is, it is bad for someone to think when shit goes wrong, they lose some material possession, they get in a fight, so on and so forth, that there is something wrong with the world around them.

Again, now I feel like I am stretching the bible more than was intended. I'm not just going to accept stuff like this just because I think the ten commandments are a pretty good idea. And, I don't think I need to do any further study of the bible to form an opinion about these concepts. Honestly, I don't want to spend the time reading through the entire old-english bible, nor do I want to read the bhagavad gita. I'd rather learn more about the things that have actually sparked my interest, such as the workings of nature, than the religious teaching that would most likely just make me angry and give me more fodder to argue against Christians with.

DuckReconMajor said:

I'm quite aware that many religious people see their religious texts as metaphorical too. However, at least where I live, having enough faith to say you believe the absolute literal truth of the Bible is a bragging right.

Heh...this reminds me of some of my relatives on my mother's side of the family, who I've witnessed getting into crazy debates about the bible. It sounded exactly like any philosophical and/or scientific debate, but it was all about Jesus. It was actually kinda cool. Then one of them had a bumper sticker that said "Marriage - one woman, one man" and I was like damn, that ain't cool.

[kristus]

Belial said:

Atheist, agnostics are fence-sitters, religious people should keep to their own.

Not true.
It's simply honest to admit that you just don't know. You can't exclude the possibility of a god.

I really really don't believe in any form of god or higher being or spiritual nonsense. But I can't say I KNOW that none of that excist. That would be presumptuous of me and I would be just as intellectually dishonest as the religious.

Being an agnostic atheist is what is generally considered the default position. It doesn't make any unsubstantiated claims about anything and it merely observe the evidence that we got before us. And those don't say anything about any forms of deities.

[Wagi]

This thread is great and all, but it's spelled "fundie".

[DuckReconMajor]

I know. It is a slang word though, so I don't think it matters that much anyway.

[Sharessa]

kristus said:

Not true.
It's simply honest to admit that you just don't know. You can't exclude the possibility of a god.

I really really don't believe in any form of god or higher being or spiritual nonsense. But I can't say I KNOW that none of that excist. That would be presumptuous of me and I would be just as intellectually dishonest as the religious.

Being an agnostic atheist is what is generally considered the default position. It doesn't make any unsubstantiated claims about anything and it merely observe the evidence that we got before us. And those don't say anything about any forms of deities.

This. I'm an agnostic atheist with a few "spiritual" beliefs. It's just easier to call myself a UU. :P I may be agnostic, but I'm still no less firm in my beliefs than anyone else.

[I'myourtarget]

magicsofa said:

"Marriage - one woman, one man" and I was like damn, that ain't cool.

See, I think this is the part that makes me hate Christianity instead of being indifferent. It's basically saying "THIS is who you're allowed to fall in love with, and if you don't you're going to be sent to eternal misery. WHY do people CARE? Unless they're out in public doing their various... things... it should be no different than with a straight couple. Just deal with it, not like you have to be gay just because someone else is.

Just like how the other person doesn't have to be straight because you want him to.

[Sigvatr]

You can't play Doom if you are a Christian. God doesn't approve, and Jesus didn't play Doom.

[Wagi]

You can't play Doom if you are a Christian. God doesn't approve, and Jesus didn't play Doom.

Wasn't Sandy Petersen a Mormon or something?

[Sigvatr]

Wagi said:

Wasn't Sandy Petersen a Mormon or something?

He's going to hell.

[jointritual]

Phobus said:

That is roughly my view of the Bible itself. Same goes for a lot of other holy scriptures too.

More importantly why are you listening to that shitty album?

[Quast]

I'myourtarget said:

It's basically saying "THIS is who you're allowed to fall in love with, and if you don't you're going to be sent to eternal misery. WHY do people CARE?

Because people have a tendency to want others to live the exact same lifestyle as them. Also, humans really enjoy marginalizing a minority group. Dominion over others can make one feel quite powerful. I mean the entire structure of the judeo-christian system is built upon patriarchy, that is, god as an eternal sky daddy figure with dominion over us and the dominion of men over women.

[magicsofa]

I'myourtarget said:

WHY do people CARE?

As one jock in high school put it, "It's bad for the tribe!"

[GreyGhost]

magicsofa said:

Then one of them had a bumper sticker that said "Marriage - one woman, one man" and I was like damn, that ain't cool.

Who wants to have more than one mother-in-law - or am I missing the point?

[magicsofa]

GreyGhost said:

Who wants to have more than one mother-in-law - or am I missing the point?

OUCH...never thought about it that way before!

[Phobus]

jointritual said:

More importantly why are you listening to that shitty album?

Because I like it?