Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Why do atheists spend so much time talking about religion?

123457»

Comments

  • #182
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    ColmDawson wrote: »
    Argh, and if I remember correctly, Dawkins just said "It doesn't?" but didn't point out any specific passages. I would've like to see the pastor's reaction to the obvious contradictions.

    I'd assume Dawkins just wasn't arsed, shooting fish in a barrel isn't as funny as it sounds. :pac: The pastor had said how the bible was written over hundreds of years by 40 authors and when Dawkins asked "It doesn't?" the pastor said "You can't show me two people working in the same field whose results agree completely" or something along those lines. A nice rebuttal I thought. :pac:


  • #183
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    ColmDawson wrote: »
    Argh, and if I remember correctly, Dawkins just said "It doesn't?" but didn't point out any specific passages. I would've like to see the pastor's reaction to the obvious contradictions.

    They have a series of prepared answers for the contradictions. None of them holds much water, of course, but it would have been dull and pedantic.


  • #184
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    amacachi wrote: »
    I'd assume Dawkins just wasn't arsed, shooting fish in a barrel isn't as funny as it sounds. :pac: The pastor had said how the bible was written over hundreds of years by 40 authors and when Dawkins asked "It doesn't?" the pastor said "You can't show me two people working in the same field whose results agree completely" or something along those lines. A nice rebuttal I thought. :pac:
    It would be a nice rebuttal if the Bible were as coherent as he made it out to be.


  • #185
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    They have a series of prepared answers for the contradictions. None of them holds much water, of course, but it would have been dull and pedantic.

    Indeed. When Judas dies by falling over in a field and having his guts come out and then in another book hangs himself because of the guilt of having betrayed Jesus, this isn't a contradiction because in theory Judas could have hung himself and then his guts could have fallen out as the body decomposed. The fact that the former mentioned nothing about hanging or guilt and the latter mentioned nothing about guts or falling doesn't matter. If you stretch credibility beyond all recognition the stories can be interpreted in such a way that they can both have happened and don't directly contradict each other and that's all that matters.


  • #186
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    When Judas dies by falling over in a field [...]
    Been reading our Ehrman recently, have we? :)
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    the stories can be interpreted in such a way that they can both have happened and don't directly contradict each other and that's all that matters.
    Ehrman puts it quite well by saying that you can almost always find a way of reconciling two contradictory stories by producing a third story that is written down nowhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    In the Bible, Jesus said that one of his disciples would betray him at the last supper. That one is generally accepted to be Peter. Why is Judas called the betrayer so? Surely it's more likely he was doing what Jesus had asked so that he could free us from our sins?

    Bible is so open to interpretation it's ludicrous to try and use it as a moral guide.


  • #188
    mehfesto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭mehfesto


    Urge to start a bible contradiction thread...


  • #189
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    In the Bible, Jesus said that one of his disciples would betray him at the last supper. That one is generally accepted to be Peter. Why is Judas called the betrayer so? Surely it's more likely he was doing what Jesus had asked so that he could free us from our sins?

    Oh man, I've just now realised how similar the circumstances of Dumbledore's death were, Dumbledore was Jesus, Snape was Judas.
    Of course in the Harry Potter version there was much less plot-holes and it actually had a coherent message about morality.


  • #190
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    robindch wrote: »
    Been reading our Ehrman recently, have we?
    Um, no I've seen it in a few other places. Can't remember where I first heard about it now.
    robindch wrote: »
    :)Ehrman puts it quite well by saying that you can almost always find a way of reconciling two contradictory stories by producing a third story that is written down nowhere.

    That's certainly true. Or at least we can make up a story that makes it look like it's true :D


  • #191
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Heres one. Why do athiests spend so much time talking about Dawkins?

    Personally I've never read anything by him or seen any of his programs. It seems a lot of theists use him as an athiest pope of sorts.
    'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Elisha Quaint Yard
    Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Elisha Quaint Yard


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Heres one. Why do athiests spend so much time talking about Dawkins?

    Personally I've never read anything by him or seen any of his programs. It seems a lot of theists use him as an athiest pope of sorts.
    'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.

    Atheists or theists?


  • #193
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Atheists or theists?

    athiests.


  • #194
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    sensibleken wrote: »
    'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.

    Sounds to me more like a criticism of Dawkins.


  • #195
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Heres one. Why do athiests spend so much time talking about Dawkins?

    Personally I've never read anything by him or seen any of his programs. It seems a lot of theists use him as an athiest pope of sorts.
    'Dawkins said this, which is wrong' as being a criticism of athiesm etc.
    Theists? It is usually theists who describe him as an atheist pope, alright. I guess it furthers the tired line that atheism is a religion of sorts.

    You should read some Dawkins rather than watching his TV stuff. He's a better scientist than he is a personality.


  • #196
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Dades wrote: »
    Theists? It is usually theists who describe him as an atheist pope, alright. I guess it furthers the tired line that atheism is a religion of sorts.

    You should read some Dawkins rather than watching his TV stuff. He's a better scientist than he is a personality.

    Ive personally found the best books to read supporting athiesm are the ones by the christian philosophers, especially when they try and make ontological arguements


  • #197
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Indeed. When Judas dies by falling over in a field and having his guts come out and then in another book hangs himself because of the guilt of having betrayed Jesus, this isn't a contradiction because in theory Judas could have hung himself and then his guts could have fallen out as the body decomposed. The fact that the former mentioned nothing about hanging or guilt and the latter mentioned nothing about guts or falling doesn't matter. If you stretch credibility beyond all recognition the stories can be interpreted in such a way that they can both have happened and don't directly contradict each other and that's all that matters.

    Too much emphasis is put on the bible. God is not tied to the bible..i.e. another person's interpretation of events. Search for our own truths.


  • #198
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that you find the tone in the forum intimidating, but if you made a serious effort to understand why many of the forum posters -- myself included -- are unhappy with the effects of religion on our society, then perhaps you might have more sympathy for the way in which some of the points of view are expressed here.

    Furthermore, you most certainly are welcome in this forum to post as you wish, once you do so within the forum guidelines. You should find it, as most posters do, a forum with an uncommonly wide-ranging set of interests and should amply repay any time that you invest here.

    Finally, on the admin side, if you feel that any post by any poster is having a go at you personally (rather than a point of view that you're putting forward) then please report the post by clicking on the little red-and-white hazard warning symbol towards the bottom-left of the offending post, and one of the forum moderators will take whatever administrative action is appropriate -- up to and including a permanent forum ban of the offending party if necessary.

    And thanks. And I don't think I was being that melodramatic, as Ive seen atheists on the Christianity forum saying they were hurt and upset. But you're right, it is inevitably going to happen, and if I'm going to "run the gauntlet' I need to toughen up.

    And Zillah you know me! Have you forgotten? How's Canada?


  • #199
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Too much emphasis is put on the bible. God is not tied to the bible..i.e. another person's interpretation of events. Search for our own truths.

    The general idea of a god is not tied to the bible but the christian god is. Without it the whole story of Jesus ad Yahweh falls apart. We may well find a god by discounting the bible as just another person's interpretation but the god we find won't be the christian one


  • #200
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The general idea of a god is not tied to the bible but the christian god is. Without it the whole story of Jesus ad Yahweh falls apart. We may well find a god by discounting the bible as just another person's interpretation but the god we find won't be the christian one

    What do you think of certain books being left out of the bible by the catholic church?


  • #201
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    What do you think of certain books being left out of the bible by the catholic church?

    I think that they picked the bits that suited the slant they wanted and most likely cut out the most glaring contradictions. But I can't say anything about them for certain because I've never read them. Because they cut them out. That's the thing about searching for your own truths without having any way to externally verify them: you have no way of knowing if whatever conclusions you've drawn are actually the truth or if you're miles off


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    because religion is ruining the world, simple


  • #203
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think that they picked the bits that suited the slant they wanted and most likely cut out the most glaring contradictions. But I can't say anything about them for certain because I've never read them. Because they cut them out. That's the thing about searching for your own truths without having any way to externally verify them: you have no way of knowing if whatever conclusions you've drawn are actually the truth or if you're miles off

    Au contraire. Some of the books are available on the internet if you search. Of course there is no way of proving they are legitimate, but there is other info out there. And there is info on why they kept those books out.


  • #204
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Au contraire. Some of the books are available on the internet if you search. Of course there is no way of proving they are legitimate, but there is other info out there. And there is info on why they kept those books out.

    Indeed, no way of proving they are legitimate. And there's no way of proving if the info on why they were left out is legitimate. And there's no way of proving that the books they left in are legitimate either. There's no way of proving that any of the bible is legitimate but pointing out glaring errors and inconsistencies in a book that's supposed to be inspired by a perfect being, not to mention all the vicious and spiteful immorality from this supposedly moral being goes a long way towards proving it's illegitimate.

    What's the first thing that comes to your head as something that's in one of these books and why was it left out? I vageuely remember hearing something about Jesus turning people into goats as a child or something but I have no idea where I heard that.


  • #205
    drifting
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭drifting


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    What do you think of certain books being left out of the bible by the catholic church?
    The ancient Old Testament Jewish Canon as defined by Sirach circa 200BC contains far fewer books than the bible, and does not include Daniel and Esther. Most of the discrepancies arise with the books written in the two hundred years immediately before Christ when the prophetic inspiration was believed to have been curtailed somewhat, although the number of pseudo-biblical works was fairly extensive in that era.

    Interestingly, the real issue that the RCC has to deal with is why they left the prophetic book of Enoch out of the Canon. If they included Daniel, they should have included Enoch as it was written in a similar era and is of a similar style and more theological. Possibly the reason is that it tended to detract from the centralized view of religion that the RCC wanted to inculcate; so it was a political decision.

    However as regards the core books of the bible, there really isn't that much argument, as they were referred to by Christ himself, and the early pre-RCC church identified most of the NT writings that we have today.


Advertisement