Atheism

[Djevv]

Because if the Bible is such an incredibly important text (which it indisputably is) then it's important to know who wrote it, when and why.

I guess the crux of my argument is less about the scholarship of the bible (textual/higher/lower/whatever) and more to do with the perception of the Bible as an integrated work with precise knowledge of authorship. Christians tend to accept the Bible uncritically and are very reticent to admit that it is a fragmented, translated, disputed text pieced together over many centuries, translated and retranslated by literally hundreds of different people with different theological agendas.

What is the actual evidence that the higher critics are going on to divide up the Bible? From my readings is is simply stylistic differences and/or word use. Basically where there is a different style, the higher critic supposes a different author. They then suppose 'redactors' have cut and pasted and editorialised the texts into their current form at a later date. None of these people are known, but they are definitely not the people whom it is claimed wrote the text (either by internal evidence or tradition).

Now I think there might be many different explanations for stylistic differences. Perhaps the authors were skilled enough to use different styles for different purposes. Perhaps multiple scribes with unique styles were involved with the production of some books. Perhaps different parts of certain books were written by the authors in different times of life. Some of the books were definitely redacted and added to after the death of the author (eg Deutoronomy). Some books like Luke are the result of considering multiple souces by it's own admission (Luke 1: 1-4) and it also states there were multiple gospel accounts around in his time. Other books like Genesis are almost definitely the result of redacting earlier accounts.

So if there are other reasonable explanations for stylistic differences, why to skeptics believe rather in a century spanning conspiricy theory involving persons unknown for purposes unknown? Surely Occam's razor applies.

 

[Disco08]

I thought most skeptics believed that Christianity come into domination through the hands of Constantine who used it as a vehicle to further his dominion?

Tigertime, do you believe The Bible word for word?

 

[tigertime2]

Actually you have made one fundamental error there TT2.

Buddhism is not about worshipping a divine being. While the original Buddha is prayed to and respected, its because of what he achieved, enlightenment. There are actually a number of different Buddhas (I forget how many), because you become a Buddha when you achieve enlightenment.

so what benefits do you recieve at this point of enlightenment?

 

[Disco08]

If you're going to mock other religions, it might be a good idea to know something about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

 

[tigertime2]

If you're going to mock other religions, it might be a good idea to know something about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Disco, my sincere apologies I did not mean to come accross as mocking Buddism.

 

[Disco08]

No worries. You might want to reconsider belittling remarks like this in future if you don't want to give that impression.

Evidence of Bhuddism - look at the fat man who is made out of metal or stone

 

[tigertime2]

I thought most skeptics believed that Christianity come into domination through the hands of Constantine who used it as a vehicle to further his dominion?

Tigertime, do you believe The Bible word for word?

I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God

 

[tigertime2]

No worries. You might want to reconsider belittling remarks like this in future if you don't want to give that impression.

Again I apologize if this has offened you.

 

[Tiger74]

so what benefits do you recieve at this point of enlightenment?

You live without want, desire, suffering etc. You achieve nirvana.

Its a path, and for most its a very long one.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Just curious at what point in their lives jayfox, Djevv & tigertime2 found their enlightenment in God/religion?
Were they formed their beliefs from very early in life(say childhood) or whether they came to it later?

Just wondering how much of this 'belief' is due to conditioning.

Seems to me it has a pretty big part to play in the religious process.

 

[AngryAnt]

Surely Occam's razor applies.

No conspiracy theory, just the work of scholars who argue that many parts of the Bible were not written by the acknowledged authors. You've just yourself given a incredibly convoluted argument why we should disregard independent evidence of authorship even though you speak of "redacted" texts and the like.

Occam's razor? On one hand a work inspired by God with a small number of authors whose identities are beyond doubt (read "not to be questioned") or a historical work that existed in its own time and has many authors over the centuries with their own theological agendas.

Even leaving aside the "God" question, Occam's Razor comes down well on my side of the ledger old son.

Again, your appeal "not to question" casts grave doubts on your appeals to science for evidence supporting Biblical events. As I've said many times, Christians only appeal to science and scholarship when it suits them (which is not often).

You can't have it both ways - either you believe in science and the eternal questioning of knowledge, including established scientific knowledge, or you are a Christian, prepared to believe only what a bunch of guys in the Holy Lands wrote around 1700-2000 years ago.

 

[tigertime2]

No conspiracy theory, just the work of scholars who argue that many parts of the Bible were not written by the acknowledged authors. You've just yourself given a incredibly convoluted argument why we should disregard independent evidence of authorship even though you speak of "redacted" texts and the like.

Occam's razor? On one hand a work inspired by God with a small number of authors whose identities are beyond doubt (read "not to be questioned") or a historical work that existed in its own time and has many authors over the centuries with their own theological agendas.

Even leaving aside the "God" question, Occam's Razor comes down well on my side of the ledger old son.

Again, your appeal "not to question" casts grave doubts on your appeals to science for evidence supporting Biblical events. As I've said many times, Christians only appeal to science and scholarship when it suits them (which is not often).



You can't have it both ways - either you believe in science and the eternal questioning of knowledge, including established scientific knowledge, or you are a Christian, prepared to believe only what a bunch of guys in the Holy Lands wrote around 1700-2000 years ago.

Antman, that is quite an Interesting view, but i know many scientists that are Christians and established scientific knowledge is always being proved or disproved. When you look at the beauty of God's creation how can you not marvel at the mind that brought all things into existance - in fact it takes a much greater faith to believe in the Big Bang "Theory.

 

[Six Pack]

Hey TT2 can i ask about yr comment re the bible. Do you believe everything in it to be the inspired word of god? or are there dodgy bits?

We have thrashed about with this and it seems that some christians believe all of it, some pick and choose.

 

[AngryAnt]

Antman, that is quite an Interesting view, but i know many scientists that are Christians and established scientific knowledge is always being proved or disproved.

That's the point. Scientific knowledge changes. Scientific knowledge can change radically - read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Scientific knowledge is open to change, welcomes change. Change is good. A good theory is replaced by a theory that works better. Poor theories are disproved and discarded.

When you look at the beauty of God's creation how can you not marvel at the mind that brought all things into existance - in fact it takes a much greater faith to believe in the Big Bang "Theory.

Please, you need to contribute more than Christian platitudes in this thread. Make a real argument.

 

[tigertime2]

That's the point. Scientific knowledge changes. Scientific knowledge can change radically - read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Scientific knowledge is open to change, welcomes change. Change is good. A good theory is replaced by a theory that works better. Poor theories are disproved and discarded.

Please, you need to contribute more than Christian platitudes in this thread. Make a real argument.

Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of the universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist demands is terribly one sided. To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.
Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an improper way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to your criteria.

 

[Six Pack]

TT i dont understand what the soul is. can you explain?

 

[barty boy]

its a type of music sixpack :spin

 

[Tiger74]

its a type of music sixpack :spin

Nicely said 8)

 

[AngryAnt]

Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of the universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist demands is terribly one sided. To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.
Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an improper way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to your criteria.

I see you are familiar with the "copy" and "paste" facility of most web browsers. http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm

Science does not explain everything. I am an atheist and I too can appreciate love, a sunset, a good pint of beer and whatever. Big deal. Christians don't have a monopoly on the beauty of the world and the universe around us.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Ouch.
Maybe you should acknowledge your source next time tt2.

I see you are familiar with the "copy" and "paste" facility of most web browsers. http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm