Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

I'll take your word for the number of prophecies, NOG, but not their significance.

The point with bringing up Nostradamus was that some people (myself included) believe his "prophecies" are BS, while others steadfastly believe in them, and that is also the case with biblical prophecies: others are certain they've accurately predicted something, others view them as meaningless, vague rantings.

Felinoid: Love the quote!

About the great flood...I've been under the impression that it has been scientifically proven that there was one roughly around the time the Old Testament is believed to have been written, but it was localized around the biblical areas. It's not just a case of it having been documented somewhere, it's been proven by geologic research or something.

 

I used to think of myself as an atheist. But that was until I found that most athiests push there beliefs on people as badly as fundamentalists.

 

Benan - how does that stop you from being an atheist? Actually, how can it stop you from being an atheist - unless your opinions on life the universe and everything can be swayed my something as meaningless as what other people who also happen to be atheists do?

 

The great flood is a rather confusing issue. There was a massive flood around 3000? BC when a natural barrier between the Mediteranian and one of the large bodies of water in that region, which wasn't a body of water beforehand, collapsed and permanently flooded a large number of cities, but this was hardly the known world at the time and no rain was associated with it. Also, the oldest record of a "Great Flood", the Babylonian myth of Gilgamesh, predates this event.
Also, scientists have also 'proven' that, until ~15000 BC, there was a shell of water in low-earth orbit. Something caused it to collapse, causing drastic ammounts of rain world wide. Geneticists have found, using mitochondrial DNA, that, at roughly the same time, the global population of humans was reduced to less than 1000! We don't know how much less, but this may well have been the Great Flood of the Bible. Or it could have been something completely different, we really don't know.

 

The Great Flood of the Bible says the human population was reduced to about 6 or 8 people -- right? Far short of 1,000, I'd say. Are you not a Biblical literalist, NOG?

 

I highly recommend everybody read the First letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11 - especially those who condemn homosexuality based on what apostle Paul has said. Great stuff. It says the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. It goes on to say that if a woman doesn't cover her head when praying, she is dishonoring her head, and it is the same as having her hair cut off. A woman must cover her head when praying, but a man doesn't, because he is the image of God and reflects His honor. A woman reflects the man's honor. Man hasn't been created of woman but the other way around, and man wasn't created for the woman but woman was created for man.

Also as a curiosity, it mentions that nature teaches us that having long hair is disgraceful for a man.

This book just gets better and better the more I study it...

 

Hmm, I think I have found a better definiton of me: a nihilistic atheist. I don't believe in any religion (thus nihilistic), but I'm not completely nihilistic, in the sense that I don't abandon morals, or the definition of life, etc.

I don't believe in God, but I also do not believe in any other religion. So, I am slightly nihilistic, but not even close to being a complete nihilist. Although, nihilist sounds cooler than atheist.


And by the way, how would you define a nihilist? I looked it up on dictionary.com and wikipedia, and I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nihilist

 

Don't confuse atheism as some sort of philosophy. Atheist simply means "one who doesn't believe in any gods." A theist, conversely, is one who belives in gods or a single god.

You shouldn't assume that an atheist is amoral, immoral, or even non-religious. There are religiouns which are atheistic (Buddhism, Taoism, et. al.) and there are theists who would call themselves non-religious.

Nihilism, existentialism, solopsism and the like are philosophies and are unrelated to atheism, though it's safe to assume that most existentialists are atheists. But let's not confuse the two.

 

No, I don't confuse the two... I do not assume that an atheist is amorl, immoral, etc.

However, I, personally, am non-religious. I don't believe in anything. That is why I said perhaps I was a nihilistic atheist.

 

Whomever:
Ok, the Bible is the only text known to have survived such an extensive period of time unaltered, it said that Noah, his wife, their children, their children's spouses, and all their decendants, when Noah was over 100 years old, survived on the Arc. Considering families at the time averaged around 12 children, that sounds closer to 40 to 100 people, also the report said less than 1,000 people, we couldn't get any more detailed than that. Its kind of like carbon dating only being accurate if the sample is a certain age or older, the tests can tell it's less than that, but not by how much.
Susipaisti:
When reading any of Paul's letters to the churchs, you really have to understand the society he was writing to. Many of the things he tells them to do/not to do, he does so for a reason specific to them and them only, which is why he doesn't tell anyone else to do it. I don't know the details in this case, I'll have to do some research, but I'll bet I Corinthians is the same.

 

This is the argument very often used when one runs into something unpleasant in a religious text. It's always divine truth until one finds something unagreeable in it, then it becomes tied to a specific time and place. Then people are picking and choosing which parts are still relevant and which aren't. Applying some new moral standards to the old texts that were a moment ago claimed to *be* moral itself.

People could just as easily pick and choose differently. The ban on homosexuality could be considered an outdated hygiene thing, and that universal love overrides it. The Catholic church could allow women to be priests, deciding like protestants (at least in some places) have - that the rules of who can be a priest and how a priest must live are tied to a specific time.

The reason I brought out that Bible section is that some religious people like to forbid or allow things that Jesus did not even speak of, based on what apostle Paul or some other disciple said later on. Yet the apostles said a great many things that are not upheld and revered by those same Christians. Hence, "Apostle Paul said so" is not a very solid argument.

 

Ok, taking anything, especially the Bible, out of context is bad. Argueing that context is an unimportant detail that can be ignored is even worse. This is especially true when you are reading a letter written to a specific group of people.
And don't even get me started on priests. The only thing the Bible says about priests is that they must be male Levites, and that's the OT. I haven't a clue where Catholics got their priests from.
Also, realize that when Paul says "God told me," he means some thing VERY different from when he says "God didn't tell me, but I think and He hasn't corrected me yet." (which does happen)
You might as well take the quote "God is dead." (biblical) and ignore that it actually says, "The fool says in his heart, 'God is dead.'" because it's context.

 

I agree. If you look at what Paul says in that Bible passage about the relations between men and women, you can always say it was just the way of the times that the society was male-dominant. But you could use the same kind of rationalizations to any part of the Bible, explain away everything except the most basic parts (love God, treat others like you wish to be treated yourself). This was done to the purity rules of the Old Testament, and it could be done to other things too. Many Christians, churches and communities have made quite different judgement calls over the years as to the context of various parts.

Well that would be pretty absurd. I sure hope you're not implying bringing up the Corinthians letter was similar to that. I haven't read the entire letter, but several chapters anyway - just so I would know what I'm talking about.

By the way, if the book needs so much interpretation and context and can't be taken "as is" - and therefore people mostly make their own decisions about its contents in accordance with the times - can the book really be used as an authority?

 

There are large portions of the new testament for which you need an understanding of the society they were written in and to. This does not in any way invalidate the texts, but rather suggests that people should actually learn before trying to interpret it themselves. The recent (and maybe American) tendancy to do everything quick and on the surface is what has lead to so many misunderstandings.
As for the old testaments, there's a lot you need to know in order to really understand whats going on, but this doesn't invalidate anything.
The "God is dead." bit was an example to people who don't understand the importance of context. You have no idea how many people I see every day that think a random quote taken entirely out of context ammounts to a decent arguement. Or, at least, I hope you have no idea. No one should have to suffer such consistent stupidity.

 

Okay, here's the argument about context: All or nothing. Either you can look at the Bible as something which was written for people hundreds of years ago and does not apply to "modern man", or you can claim that ALL the rules are just as true today as they were when they are written. You cannot simply pick and choose what you do not like and claim to be following it. Saying that some things no longer apply because of their context, but others do despite their context, is simply ridiculous.

If you're not willing to claim the Bible as a whole, then don't quote any of it as truth, and simply follow common sense. Most of the things in the Bible were based off of that, including what was right and wrong for people of that time, so let the guiding principle of the Bible be your guide, not an old book that was primarily a go-between for gullible people and sense. It's overdue for a re-writing, IMO.

 

Beautifully stated, Fel. You can't pick out parts as they suit your cause, and perhaps abandon them in years to come because they do not apply to the current day anymore...

 

And what if the re-write still condemns homosexuality and some other things that some want legitimized?

 

That's absolutely fine; just don't expect your little cult to thrive well in the centuries to come. I imagine a number of people will leave and form their own version of Christianity that isn't so harsh. Gay christians, for example. (They're out there. )

 

I'm not saying anything should be viewed without context, especially not in spite of it, but viewing something in context doesn't mean you throw it out. All it means is that you understand the meaning of what was written. The VAST majority of the Bible is applicable today if you understand the context it was written in. If you don't you'll try to apply some things that you shouldn't, ignore things that you should, and totally misunderstand what's left. This is part of what happened to the Catholic church in the middle ages.
The general rule of thumb, or rule period, is to get the context of anything you're using as a source for anything. If you're citing research data, find out the conditions the research was done under. If a survey of american gun owners only covers 100 people, it's probably not that accurate. If it covers 10,000 but only asks loaded questions, its still not accurate.

 

Okay, so how would you view the things Paul says about the relations between men and women in the letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11? Does it still apply - if so, why, and if not, why not? And use the same kind of reasoning to examine what he says about homosexuality (I think it's in Corinthians as well).

If those "the head of every woman is the man" -parts don't apply anymore, what is the reason? That times have changed, the society has changed? Then what is the reason the parts about homosexuality still apply (if they do)? That the times haven't changed?

I agree that the context of things is an important issue, but it can easily be used as a loophole to dodge any old rule and make whatever you wish of the faith, because a lot of it is subject to interpretation.

On another subject: I know this was dealt with earlier, but about the prohecies about Christ... It should be noted that the Jewish people, who firmly believe in the Old Testament, don't think Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. So it can't be all that clear that he did, really.