Comments on: Which Part of the Bible Should be Ignored Next? http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/ Just another WordPress site Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Elling Eidbo http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-2533 Elling Eidbo Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:18:53 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-2533 then the skeptics point of view is that those obervations should be thoroughly investigated. The athiest point of view, however, is that every one of those observations is incorrect. Every single person is mistaken or lying, and therefor investigation is a waste of time. Lets use a different example; Bigfoot. Of all the thousands upon thousands of fake or false pictures of bigfoot, what is the significance of the one that is real? Among the thousands and thousands of mistaken spiritual experiences, what is the significance of that one true experience, logically, inductively? The skeptics point of view is that they haven't the evidance to make a descision, not that they dismiss the possibility of evidince they don't immediatly have. Finally, Id like to say relax. The truth is inevitable as long as you keep looking for it. To those Christians out thier, I think you'll find that all things are ultimately mundane. To you atheists, give the universe a little more credit. There may be some spectacular explanation for the experiences of all these people that you have yet to understand. It can't be any crazier then alternate dimension theory. then the skeptics point of view is that those obervations should be thoroughly investigated.
The athiest point of view, however, is that every one of those observations is incorrect. Every single person is mistaken or lying, and therefor investigation is a waste of time.
Lets use a different example; Bigfoot. Of all the thousands upon thousands of fake or false pictures of bigfoot, what is the significance of the one that is real? Among the thousands and thousands of mistaken spiritual experiences, what is the significance of that one true experience, logically, inductively? The skeptics point of view is that they haven’t the evidance to make a descision, not that they dismiss the possibility of evidince they don’t immediatly have.

Finally, Id like to say relax. The truth is inevitable as long as you keep looking for it. To those Christians out thier, I think you’ll find that all things are ultimately mundane. To you atheists, give the universe a little more credit. There may be some spectacular explanation for the experiences of all these people that you have yet to understand. It can’t be any crazier then alternate dimension theory.

]]> By: Elling Eidbo http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-2532 Elling Eidbo Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:59:47 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-2532 I'd like to make the point that as long as athiests approach religious people with contempt and disgust, all they're is strengthen the view that you are all smarmy know-it-alls, that think you've got a perfect bead on everything. Atheists revert to the skeptical model to reinforce thier argument without really understanding the skeptical model. One: Lack of proof is not proof of lack. Rogue waves did not exist to science until very recently, and every captian that was sunk by them was a drunk halucinating idiot. As this example applies to religion, billions of people around the world have profound spiritual experiences. The stance that the athiest takes is the same as the stance that those scientist did. Such that those who have experienced this are mentally ill and those who believe them are gullible idiots. Two:Observation requires investigation. For arguments sake, lets say that only a few hundred thousand people make a spiritual observation I’d like to make the point that as long as athiests approach religious people with contempt and disgust, all they’re is strengthen the view that you are all smarmy know-it-alls, that think you’ve got a perfect bead on everything. Atheists revert to the skeptical model to reinforce thier argument without really understanding the skeptical model.
One: Lack of proof is not proof of lack.
Rogue waves did not exist to science until very recently, and every captian that was sunk by them was a drunk halucinating idiot. As this example applies to religion, billions of people around the world have profound spiritual experiences. The stance that the athiest takes is the same as the stance that those scientist did. Such that those who have experienced this are mentally ill and those who believe them are gullible idiots.

Two:Observation requires investigation.
For arguments sake, lets say that only a few hundred thousand people make a spiritual observation

]]> By: Graham http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-242 Graham Tue, 04 May 2010 19:32:35 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-242 Hi, I'm a christian and I think this particular article is so true. The idea that christians can pick and choose the bits they like is a nonsense. However, I disagree with you about evidence being against creation. I'd recommend the book 'Who made God?' by Edgar Andrews as a good case for believing in a creator. Another thing I should mention is that there are plenty of atheists who have very little to back up their views other than listening to a few comments from others and trotting out the same tired old stuff such as: 'If there is a God why is there so much suffering...'etc. Hi,

I’m a christian and I think this particular article is so true. The idea that christians can pick and choose the bits they like is a nonsense. However, I disagree with you about evidence being against creation. I’d recommend the book ‘Who made God?’ by Edgar Andrews as a good case for believing in a creator.

Another thing I should mention is that there are plenty of atheists who have very little to back up their views other than listening to a few comments from others and trotting out the same tired old stuff such as: ‘If there is a God why is there so much suffering…’etc.

]]> By: The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-241 The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:55:02 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-241 [...] The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy There’s been a phrase around for a while now that goes along the lines of “The Bible is the atheist’s greatest weapon against Christianity” (paraphrased as I can’t find the original at the moment). I’m not a fan of the wording, specifically citing the Bible as a weapon, it suggests were in a war, or a battle with Christians. I’m no more in a war with Christians than I am in a war with the field mouse that lives in my garden. Regardless, the point remains. Many Christians have never fully read the Bible, and out of those that have, they typically choose to simply ignore that bits that don’t fit their lives. [...] [...] The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy There’s been a phrase around for a while now that goes along the lines of “The Bible is the atheist’s greatest weapon against Christianity” (paraphrased as I can’t find the original at the moment). I’m not a fan of the wording, specifically citing the Bible as a weapon, it suggests were in a war, or a battle with Christians. I’m no more in a war with Christians than I am in a war with the field mouse that lives in my garden. Regardless, the point remains. Many Christians have never fully read the Bible, and out of those that have, they typically choose to simply ignore that bits that don’t fit their lives. [...]

]]> By: Jordan P http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-240 Jordan P Tue, 26 May 2009 02:16:25 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-240 I wish I could edit my comment.. But ill just add: Take the story of Genesis. A Rational Interpretation: Even God needs to rest once in a while. Don't work 24/7, do amazing things, but then don't feel guilty if you want to kick back for a day or two. Literal Interpretation: God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and stopped on the 7th day. Memorize that and ignore anything to the contrary. I wish I could edit my comment.. But ill just add:

Take the story of Genesis.

A Rational Interpretation: Even God needs to rest once in a while. Don’t work 24/7, do amazing things, but then don’t feel guilty if you want to kick back for a day or two.

Literal Interpretation: God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and stopped on the 7th day. Memorize that and ignore anything to the contrary.

]]> By: Jordan P http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-239 Jordan P Tue, 26 May 2009 02:12:16 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-239 Yeah. Any sane, rational, logical person should accept the beliefs which have the most hard factual evidence behind them. Most religious people I know take the word of god to be explanation for things formal logic and science does not have explanations to. The word of "god" is really no difference than the word of any philosopher. The Bible gives people reason to get up in the morning and toil in their monotonous jobs. Some people do not find pleasure in thinking about how the universe began, some people find it scary to envision what lies outside of the universe, or "where" the big bang occurred. If you choose to believe in god and creation, you get a nice (understandable) story explaining [i]why[/i] we are here. Explaining why you go to work, explaining why you should be good to other people. When people turn to religion to fill in philosophical gaps, to inspire and encourage them to work hard and be good citizens, then who can blame them? Religion only becomes a problem when people start to ignore reason and take it literally. The bible is a story. It is meant to help people understand their place in the world. If you leave it at that, nobody has any problems. Yeah. Any sane, rational, logical person should accept the beliefs which have the most hard factual evidence behind them. Most religious people I know take the word of god to be explanation for things formal logic and science does not have explanations to. The word of “god” is really no difference than the word of any philosopher. The Bible gives people reason to get up in the morning and toil in their monotonous jobs. Some people do not find pleasure in thinking about how the universe began, some people find it scary to envision what lies outside of the universe, or “where” the big bang occurred. If you choose to believe in god and creation, you get a nice (understandable) story explaining [i]why[/i] we are here. Explaining why you go to work, explaining why you should be good to other people.

When people turn to religion to fill in philosophical gaps, to inspire and encourage them to work hard and be good citizens, then who can blame them? Religion only becomes a problem when people start to ignore reason and take it literally.

The bible is a story. It is meant to help people understand their place in the world. If you leave it at that, nobody has any problems.

]]> By: What Happened Before the (Young) Earth Existed? http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-238 What Happened Before the (Young) Earth Existed? Mon, 25 May 2009 22:24:23 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-238 [...] As you can see, we achieved allot before God created us, and there was an awful lot going on in the world before it was even a twinkle in God’s eye. I know that not all Christians choose to accept the Bible as a literal interpretation of events, but that begs the question of which bits of their holy book they will choose to ignore next. [...] [...] As you can see, we achieved allot before God created us, and there was an awful lot going on in the world before it was even a twinkle in God’s eye. I know that not all Christians choose to accept the Bible as a literal interpretation of events, but that begs the question of which bits of their holy book they will choose to ignore next. [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Baker http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-237 Jonathan Baker Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:44:01 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-237 Could we just clarify that "creation" means making something "out of nothing". The question of creation is: "where did <b>everything</b> come from" not "where did the horse come from". Long before Darwin there were evolutionary sorts of theories. For example St. Augustine way back 1400 years before him had the idea of <i>semines rationes</i> (like a blueprint just read to unfold) buried somewhere inside creatures that allowed new species to come about. The problem of evolution is a scientific one principally, but also a philosophical one. Where Darwin ran into difficulties is the idea that "random mutations" could allow species to become gradually more complex. This is unreasonable because no effect can be greater than its cause. Augustine's theory required an intelligent being (God) to plant these 'DNA-type' messages in the first place. I'm not saying Augustine was right, but that his theory is <i>more</i> reasonable. In any case, my main point is that evolution and creation are separate questions. Could we just clarify that “creation” means making something “out of nothing”. The question of creation is: “where did everything come from” not “where did the horse come from”. Long before Darwin there were evolutionary sorts of theories. For example St. Augustine way back 1400 years before him had the idea of semines rationes (like a blueprint just read to unfold) buried somewhere inside creatures that allowed new species to come about. The problem of evolution is a scientific one principally, but also a philosophical one. Where Darwin ran into difficulties is the idea that “random mutations” could allow species to become gradually more complex. This is unreasonable because no effect can be greater than its cause. Augustine’s theory required an intelligent being (God) to plant these ‘DNA-type’ messages in the first place. I’m not saying Augustine was right, but that his theory is more reasonable.

In any case, my main point is that evolution and creation are separate questions.

]]> By: Out of the Mouths of … Comedians at The Atheist Blog http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-236 Out of the Mouths of … Comedians at The Atheist Blog Thu, 29 May 2008 23:44:13 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-236 [...] on the actual content of the Bible.  I think it’s always interesting to ask a Christian why they choose to believe certain parts of the bible (God, creation, miracles) but not others (slavery, adult circumcision, oppression, violence, abuse [...] [...] on the actual content of the Bible.  I think it’s always interesting to ask a Christian why they choose to believe certain parts of the bible (God, creation, miracles) but not others (slavery, adult circumcision, oppression, violence, abuse [...]

]]>