I became an atheist about a year ago and started following these posts. I soon discovered that discussions between hard core theists and atheists do not go well. When one side argues from emotion and belief and the other from logic and reason, the sparks fly, somewhere along the way the word “epistemology” is thrown into the mix and batted about, the meanings of faith and belief are discussed in minutiae and eventually the discussion peters out from exhaustion.
As a scientist with 40 years of data-driven experience, such discussions are very frustrating. Scientists have disagreements over dogma and interpretation of data all the time. Then everybody goes off, designs some fresh experiments, gathers new data and then reconvenes another meeting where the new data are aired. As a result, the discussion moves forward, and the envelope of knowledge is expanded. Such a process cannot happen between atheists and theists because there are no new data and have not been for thousands of years. The same tired arguments are rehashed ad nauseum, with no progress, which I find very frustrating.
I also think that we atheists damage ourselves when we use the bible to justify anything. Consider the following:
The bible is not the word of god. It is the words of men intent on imposing belief in their version of an imaginary deity. The bible is not self validating. The bible is a collection of propaganda, hyperbole, mythology, wishful thinking, contradictions and some dubious history. In summary, the bible is garbage.
If we acknowledge that the bible is garbage, then we, as atheists cannot use it to argue with theists about anything religious. It is a case of GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. It is the intellectual equivalent of using a set of random numbers to argue, for example, for or against the existence of a tenth planet in the solar system. We would not do that, so why do we try to use the bible to justify that god is cruel/kind/callous/unjust/loving/etc/etc? It is all GIGO.
By extension, why do we waste time and mental effort discussing questions such as: “Why does god allow suffering/starvation/pestilence/etc?” Just reframe such questions in their exact intellectual equivalent of “Why does the blue-spotted pink unicorn allow suffering, etc.etc?” and the answer is self-evident.
In summary, I am frustrated with atheist/theist discussions because:
There are no new data.
The bible is garbage and not the basis for rational discussions of the existence of god.
We waste time discussing irrelevant questions.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Very well put.
Since Theists use the Bible (or another holy text) in their arguments and as a justification, it keeps getting argued. I also think Atheists like to argue these scriptures because of their own exploration of the texts and to try to show the Theists how obviously wrong they are. We keep doing this without realising the futility of it.
From a bigger perspective, it is exactly as you say: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
People can debate the scriptures, morality, evidence and creation science forever, without making any progress. Simply because the position of the Theists can continue to ignore obvious evidence, continue to "move the goalpost" and continue to interpret everything through their personal lens of faith. It's only an exercise in debating and will not change the position of the Theists, except perhaps in a few individual cases.
I would recommend a book by Peter Boghossian: "A manual for creating atheists".
I know, the title sounds corny. But he has seen this problem and moved past it. I'm not saying it is in any way an ultimate solution, but it's well worth reading.
@ Alembé,
I have wondered how many of the people here are actually atheists.
It seems to me that most are disenchanted theists. Arguing about the bible is idiotic. The only thing that the bible proves is that someone compiled a bunch of writings and termed it the bible. Pointing out other peoples hypocrisy by trying to disprove their religious book which has no credibility to begin with is ridiculous.
@ Alembe / Anser ....
Opening lines of a recent post by Alter2Ego ....
"There are various types of religions in existence with their own sacred books called bibles. The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing it was inspired by Almighty God Jehovah."
If you have a problem with challenging scripture head on, can I ask how you would recommend responding to this type of opening ??
I would respectfully ask: "Please prove, using evidence acceptable in a modern-day court of law, that "Almighty God" exists. Please also note that the Judeo-Christian Bible is not acceptable as evidence."
This request is unprovable, and has been for several thousand years. If "Almighty God" really did exist, then i) belief and faith would not be necessary components of religion and ii) the existence of God would be in the realm of knowledge, just like e.g. Force = Mass x Acceleration.
Unless and until a theist can prove that God exists, then everything else (religious texts, miracles, heaven and hell, etc.) is just hand waving. As always, the onus is on the theist (or prosecutor) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something exists (has happened), not on the atheist (defense) to demonstrate a negative.
"The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing it was inspired by Almighty God Jehovah."
If you have a problem with challenging scripture head on, can I ask how you would recommend responding to this type of opening ??
By asking for said "EVIDENCE".
I've been down this road a time or two.
No "holy book" can stand as evidence of it's own veracity. They only provide evidence that they, the books, exist. In order to prove "divine inspiration" the existence of God must be proved prior to the writing of the scriptures.
Depending on the audience I've also countered by asking them if L.Ron Hubbard's books or The Book of Mormon are divinely inspired and if not, prove it.
Unless you are really into debate for debates sake arguing scripture with a theist is pointless.
@ Anser & Alembe ...
Yes..asking for evidence is a good start...but have you ever had a theist even try to provide anything even remotely like evidence..... In my experience they generally turn to bible/quran quotes ,or the "so many people believe this or that line" ....then some will pull in so-called biblical/quran scholars books....
Personally I take the line that the only connection that a theist can actually have with their deity of choice is through their holy book.
Their faith can only be based on belief in these arcane writings...and that alone makes them an obvious target.
Over the years I've found that for me it is simpler to manoeuvre them into untenable positions on their own scriptures rather than hammer away at the "show me the evidence" line.
Bearing in mind that we are never going to change the views of active theists like Alter2Ego... but we may well give those who watch ,follow or just dip into the forums pause for thought..... (Anser is right....when he says "Depending on the audience" ...it is there that we may find the most fertile soil)
I remember once asking an ex theist what it was that "turned" him....and he said it started when he was reading an exchange on a forum regarding contradictions....
in particular an exchange on Mathew 27:27-28...."the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus" and Mark 15:16-17 ..."“they clothed Him with purple"
For him his doubts began with the simple fact that they couldn't get their facts straight over the colour of the robe...... hardly a deep ,esoteric point of theology but in this guys case .... just enough to kick start the thought process's.
Any way ..I digress..... for me ....attacking the texts is a valid and often useful avenue of approach
@ Watchman,
You (and Anser) have raised an important distinction. As I originally stated, my frustration concerns dialog between hard core theists and atheists, their respective entrenched positions and no foreseeable change in that dynamic.
For those theists with doubts, pointing out the contradictions in the Bible may be a way to sow doubt. I will leave that task to others.
Speaking from personal experience, my vestiges of faith were shattered when I researched the earliest history of Yahweh. I discovered that from a historical perspective, he was originally just a minor warrior god in a pantheon of gods, (equivalent to Baal at that time) and had a wife, Asherah. Hardly the One God Almighty, eternal and unchanged! His subsequent rise to prominence demonstrates that PR people are a bane on society.
@ Alembé,
"Speaking from personal experience, my vestiges of faith were shattered when I researched the earliest history of Yahweh. I discovered that from a historical perspective, he was originally just a minor warrior god in a pantheon of gods, (equivalent to Baal at that time) and had a wife, Asherah. Hardly the One God Almighty, eternal and unchanged! His subsequent rise to prominence demonstrates that PR people are a bane on society."
I find that fascinating. Over the years I've told others that originally the Jews wrote themselves a book that justified killing, raping and stealing in the name of their God in order to make their society dominant. I came to that conclusion from their own history but Yahweh being a warrior god really confirms my observations. If possible, can you point me towards your research?
Dear Anser,
Thanks for your response. If you drop “History of Yahweh” into Google, a number of responses come up that you can scan.
However, for a more considered early history of the Hebrews and the evolution of their Gods, I recommend Bidstrup’s essay: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
This also considers the whole Bible, so pack a lunch and a Thermos of coffee before you sit down to read it.
@ Alembe...
Excellent source .....complete and cogent if a little on the wordy side.......Try this shorter essay which "fleshes out" where some of the "stories" roots lie and how they were subsumed into something else.....it also points to some of the remaining traces of the origins ,and where they show through in the bible.
Profound apologies ..... find URL below...
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982snake.html
Hi Watchman,
"Try this shorter essay..." Please add the URL.
Thanks, ?;-)
Sorry Alembe.....
Missing link added above....(perhaps missing link is not the correct phrase...but you know what I mean.)
Nice assay watchman, not too long and indeed it does tell the correct conclusions of the history of the Jewish religion.
After reading and knowing about the Mesopotamian myths, it is quite obvious to see where the OT took it's inspiration.
After the Babylonian exile one would find the Jews inserting prophecies in long dead prophets in scripture to inspire the Jews after the complete defeat and exile from Jerusalem.
Propaganda is key here, combined with prophecies inserted in scripture.
The Jews through propaganda manged to effectively convince everyone that woman are inferior and that one god was the only god.
This concept was copied wholesale by who invented the Christianity myth because it works.
@ Alembé.
Thanks for the info.
In the discussions I've had with religious people I have found it to be pointless to argue using their dogma against them. However, I have got some traction with the Judeo-Christian crowd not by discussing the contradictions in their books but by pointing out that Judaism had a god that promoted violence and if the Christian god is that same god then their god promoted/promotes violence while supposedly advocating for peace. Recently in a discussion about "radical Islam" I mentioned that everything that Christians find to be wrong with Islam can also be found in Judaism. That stopped 'em dead in their tracks.
You really have to give the Jews high marks for promoting the idea of Judeo-Christianity. If it wasn't for the mind-numbed "Christians" protecting them their religion would be long gone.
..................... this sums up the sides well enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRNhNHXbUmk
@ Vincent Paul Tran,
That video would make an excellent philosophical treatise.
However, listening to a speed freak who just inhaled helium recite it diminishes its impact for me.
Anser, laugh out loud. The speaking style originate because the guy did a youtube video for a school project. Instead of cutting stuff to fit the time limit, he just sped up his voice :P
When I heard that voice I thought it was going to be Stan Marsh from South Park speaking.
I wonder if they offer any classes on this, without bias in either direction
Maybe they can do a South Park about it.
Anser, I think they already did. Cartmen went to the future where atheists fight over. something......... then stuff happened.
Also, The Book of Mormon
You said without bias. so far I haven't seen anything on South Park about religion that was without bias.
It would be a new challenge for them.
You mentioned The Book of Mormon, I hope you saw "What Scientologist Actually Believe".
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104274/what-scientologist-actually-believe
well south park always has bias :P