Never trust a religion that comes from the mind of a Sci-Fi writer as bat shit crazy as that one. I had the misfortune of reading one of his books before I understood how crazy he was. He's the kind of crazy that writes Tactical Roar.
I take issue with the idea that belief is a choice. One cannot choose to believe what one does not believe. If you don't think that's true, I'd challenge you to go outside and believe, for one day, that the sky is green.
Secondly, to say that a book is useful when taken metaphorically is true, but it's also arbitrary. Any book is useful when taken metaphorically. That is, the Bible is just as valid as, say, One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish, since you can ascribe any meaning at all that you wish to it. This is why I contend that, even though the Bible is inconsistent both in regard to reality, and internally with itself, it is meant to be taken literally.
I disagree that any religion is equally viable, mostly because I am a metaphysical naturalist, and therefore I don't think that certain god concepts can exist - that is, one can prove that certain gods don't exist. For example, the omnimax Christian god cannot exist since it has attributes that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. So, yes, some gods can be disproven.
I do agree that beeing 100% sure of faith is BS, but I disagree with the idea that faith - in the religious sense - can be examined critically without rejecting it, because faith is the antithesis of reason, and one must use reason to critically examine anything.
*Edit* I tried to post this several hours ago, but it seems the site was down. I apologize if the rest of you have moved on from this topic.
Sky is green isn't the best analogy when it comes to belief. Anyone not blind can see the sky is blue, so getting someone to believe something contradictory is difficult. Nobody can see the presence or absense of gods.
Telling someone there is a god is like telling them that the frog can sing and dance. You all saw that cartoon right? The only difference is that in that cartoon the people are smart. They demand to see the frog sing and dance before they believe it. But for some reason if someone claims there is a god nobody demands to see the singing and dancing.
First I’d like to Congratulate GothFather, if it wasn’t for your comments this discussion would have died out long ago. (I’m not trying to be smart or anything, it’s great that someone is raising conflicting points to keep the discussion going) Without you we wouldn’t have the longest running thread in the forum.
Second, it’s hard to make claims as to the motivations of a writer that existed at the earliest 1800 years ago. We have enough trouble figuring out which fried chicken recipe was Elvis’s favorite. Let alone if the writers of the bible wanted a passage or the whole set of stories to be taken literally. So anyone that is making a claim that the bible was to be taken literal (true or not) doesn’t have a lot of evidence from these writers outside of the bible, discussing why they wrote the bible in other texts. To my knowledge the writers of the bible (old and new) don’t have a lot of texts that fall outside of the bible that we have today to help us interpret the meaning. Obviously there are tons of scholars, biblical apologists and the like that have fallen one way or the other on different passages. It’s hard to claim that the book should be taken literally when you seldom find to biblical scholars that agree. Then again you never can find two scholars that agree on anything.
Secondly, to say that a book is useful when taken metaphorically is true, but it's also arbitrary. Any book is useful when taken metaphorically. That is, the Bible is just as valid as, say, One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish, since you can ascribe any meaning at all that you wish to it. This is why I contend that, even though the Bible is inconsistent both in regard to reality, and internally with itself, it is meant to be taken literally.
That arbitrariness is, more or less, my point. It's the nature of any permanent media. We cannot make broad, accurate statements about the "intent" of a work unless we're the author, because any intent we read into it is as much a construct of ourselves as of the author. And here, this fact is aggravated because the Bible has been subject to so much revision and reinterpretation over the years. The unknown intent of numerous authors affects the final text you see. It almost doesn't matter what the authors' true intent was, because it's the perception of other readers that actually has an effect.
There is (disturbingly high) percentage of the population that tries to take the Bible as a literal, historical document. A strong case can also be made for the Bible as allegory and myth, based on the dictations of morality it contains and the structural similarities to other myths. The "generally accepted" interpretation has changed over time, and if you disagree with a certain interpretation you should take issue with those who foment that interpretation rather than with the work itself. Any damage you feel comes from the work should instead be laid at the feet of those who took action to cause that damage based on their interpretation.
You (and I) tend to disagree with those aspects of the Bible that contend to relate history. This is based upon an understanding of other historical texts. The authors of those texts have their own agenda and beliefs, which they necessarily push by those details they choose to omit, if nothing else. The goal of a neutral point of view, while worthy, is totally abstract and can never be perfected. A set of events occurred, but without having experienced them we cannot be certain of them; everything else we are told is a story, no more and no less. Whether or not we agree with certain versions of the story says nothing about their absolute truth.
In short: relativism's a bugger.
(Incidentally, I echo Cremlian's sentiment about keeping this thread going; I'm having a grand old time here.)
(Incidentally incidentally, is there a way to properly quote someone in this forum?)
(Incidentally incidentally, is there a way to properly quote someone in this forum?)
Why, yes there is. This forum fully supports both BBCode and HTML. You can use one or the other in any post, but not both combined. You might noticed the radio buttons above the submit button below your text input box.
The only thing is that this forum does not help you with either BBCode or HTML. You must know them. Google will show you the way.
>>Sky is green isn't the best analogy when it comes to belief. Anyone not blind can see the sky is blue, so getting someone to believe something contradictory is difficult. Nobody can see the presence or absense of gods.<<
That's my point. One cannot choose what they believe. Since I don't believe in gods (or any other supernatural entity), it would take a great deal of evidence to sway me to belief in those things. A person can't just arbitrarily make themselves believe one thing or the other.
>>anyone that is making a claim that the bible was to be taken literal (true or not) doesn’t have a lot of evidence from these writers outside of the bible, discussing why they wrote the bible in other texts.<<
True, but the literal interperetation is the simplest interperetation. That's why I tend to go with that. It avoids any kind of ad-hoc rationalization for the flaws contained within the text. If it's wrong, it's simply wrong, and by taking it literally, I don't have to go through any kind of intellectual gymnastics to make it fit with reality when it simply doesn't.
And thanks for the congratulation. I'm glad that y'all see that I'm not trying to be a dick. Usually, these sorts of conversations have a tendency to get out of hand.
*edit* Sorry for the weird quoting style. The BBCode doesn't seem to be working for me for some reason.
Comments
Secondly, to say that a book is useful when taken metaphorically is true, but it's also arbitrary. Any book is useful when taken metaphorically. That is, the Bible is just as valid as, say, One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish, since you can ascribe any meaning at all that you wish to it. This is why I contend that, even though the Bible is inconsistent both in regard to reality, and internally with itself, it is meant to be taken literally.
I disagree that any religion is equally viable, mostly because I am a metaphysical naturalist, and therefore I don't think that certain god concepts can exist - that is, one can prove that certain gods don't exist. For example, the omnimax Christian god cannot exist since it has attributes that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. So, yes, some gods can be disproven.
I do agree that beeing 100% sure of faith is BS, but I disagree with the idea that faith - in the religious sense - can be examined critically without rejecting it, because faith is the antithesis of reason, and one must use reason to critically examine anything.
*Edit* I tried to post this several hours ago, but it seems the site was down. I apologize if the rest of you have moved on from this topic.
Telling someone there is a god is like telling them that the frog can sing and dance. You all saw that cartoon right? The only difference is that in that cartoon the people are smart. They demand to see the frog sing and dance before they believe it. But for some reason if someone claims there is a god nobody demands to see the singing and dancing.
Second, it’s hard to make claims as to the motivations of a writer that existed at the earliest 1800 years ago. We have enough trouble figuring out which fried chicken recipe was Elvis’s favorite. Let alone if the writers of the bible wanted a passage or the whole set of stories to be taken literally. So anyone that is making a claim that the bible was to be taken literal (true or not) doesn’t have a lot of evidence from these writers outside of the bible, discussing why they wrote the bible in other texts. To my knowledge the writers of the bible (old and new) don’t have a lot of texts that fall outside of the bible that we have today to help us interpret the meaning. Obviously there are tons of scholars, biblical apologists and the like that have fallen one way or the other on different passages. It’s hard to claim that the book should be taken literally when you seldom find to biblical scholars that agree. Then again you never can find two scholars that agree on anything.
That arbitrariness is, more or less, my point. It's the nature of any permanent media. We cannot make broad, accurate statements about the "intent" of a work unless we're the author, because any intent we read into it is as much a construct of ourselves as of the author. And here, this fact is aggravated because the Bible has been subject to so much revision and reinterpretation over the years. The unknown intent of numerous authors affects the final text you see. It almost doesn't matter what the authors' true intent was, because it's the perception of other readers that actually has an effect.
There is (disturbingly high) percentage of the population that tries to take the Bible as a literal, historical document. A strong case can also be made for the Bible as allegory and myth, based on the dictations of morality it contains and the structural similarities to other myths. The "generally accepted" interpretation has changed over time, and if you disagree with a certain interpretation you should take issue with those who foment that interpretation rather than with the work itself. Any damage you feel comes from the work should instead be laid at the feet of those who took action to cause that damage based on their interpretation.
You (and I) tend to disagree with those aspects of the Bible that contend to relate history. This is based upon an understanding of other historical texts. The authors of those texts have their own agenda and beliefs, which they necessarily push by those details they choose to omit, if nothing else. The goal of a neutral point of view, while worthy, is totally abstract and can never be perfected. A set of events occurred, but without having experienced them we cannot be certain of them; everything else we are told is a story, no more and no less. Whether or not we agree with certain versions of the story says nothing about their absolute truth.
In short: relativism's a bugger.
(Incidentally, I echo Cremlian's sentiment about keeping this thread going; I'm having a grand old time here.)
(Incidentally incidentally, is there a way to properly quote someone in this forum?)
The only thing is that this forum does not help you with either BBCode or HTML. You must know them. Google will show you the way.
That's my point. One cannot choose what they believe. Since I don't believe in gods (or any other supernatural entity), it would take a great deal of evidence to sway me to belief in those things. A person can't just arbitrarily make themselves believe one thing or the other.
>>anyone that is making a claim that the bible was to be taken literal (true or not) doesn’t have a lot of evidence from these writers outside of the bible, discussing why they wrote the bible in other texts.<<
True, but the literal interperetation is the simplest interperetation. That's why I tend to go with that. It avoids any kind of ad-hoc rationalization for the flaws contained within the text. If it's wrong, it's simply wrong, and by taking it literally, I don't have to go through any kind of intellectual gymnastics to make it fit with reality when it simply doesn't.
And thanks for the congratulation. I'm glad that y'all see that I'm not trying to be a dick. Usually, these sorts of conversations have a tendency to get out of hand.
*edit* Sorry for the weird quoting style. The BBCode doesn't seem to be working for me for some reason.