TWDuke, that’s really lovely. I’m quite serious.
How I WISH Genesis really read like that!
I’m a strong atheist (I actively affirm that there is no supernatural authority looking over the universe), and I don’t really see the point in trying to argue a believer out of his faith. It’s a waste of effort akin to wrestling the proverbial pig: You both get dirty and the pig still thinks he’s going to heaven.
Let him have his fairy tale. It’s a powerful comfort to him, and to millions and millions of other people. But don’t be smug about knowing you’re right (as I would certainly agree you are); you have to work to understand why the myth is so powerful and has such staying power. If you’re too superior, you risk coming off as a sanctimonious bastard, and your listener shuts down before two words come out of your mouth. In other words, you commit precisely the same sin you’re trying to combat. Besides, the study of of religious faith is in many ways the study of humanity: In understanding religion, you understand the overwhelming ubiquity of human irrationalism.
And if you want some really good arguments in favor of atheism, see this
thread. Remember, though, that you’re never going to argue him into agreeing with you. The best possible outcome is convincing him you’ve thought about the issue more than he has, so continuing the argument will be difficult and stressful for him, with the result that he leaves you alone. That’s the closest thing to a victory you can hope for.
That does suggest a pretty good start to the dialogue, though: Why does the mere expression of someone’s atheism strike the average fundamentalist as an attack? If the fundamentalist’s belief system cannot tolerate even a single person saying, uh, no thanks, does that suggest it’s a strong philosophy, or a weak one? You’d think that a robust faith would be able to withstand the odd person saying, yeah, thanks, but I’d rather not have any, if it’s all the same to you. I mean, hardly anybody eats circus peanuts, but they’re in no danger of disappearing. Christianity in all its multivarious forms is the largest religion in the world; you’d think it could bear up without trouble to a tiny minority of nonbelievers. But no, the fundamentalist hears somebody trying to opt out, and suddenly he’s a brave Texan hunkering down behind the walls of a metaphorical Alamo, preparing to fight a hopeless battle against an overwhelming enemy horde. Begin with that, and see what he says.
Remember: Don’t go after his faith, at all. Number one, you won’t shake it, and number two, you aren’t really doing him a favor anyway. You win if you convince him that your own beliefs are unassailable.
Very, very true Cervaise.
(BUT) Remember, evangelism is part of many Christians practices. They (we) believe that by showing you the light, we are doing Gods work, and will be rewarded. What reward is there for an atheist to show a Christian their (the atheists`) “light”?
By the way, that thread you linked is my all time favorite.
An excellent debate.
Excellent post, Cervaise.
Thanks for the link too.
I agree with nearly all that you say and thanks for your wise advice. I will try to refrain from condescension towards anyone’s belief. It was not my intention to ridicule anyone. My words above were only aimed only at the particularly sactimonious opponent in my story, NOT at people of faith in general.
However, part of your argument precedes from a misconception of my intention here. I tried to make this point clear above, but I will reiterate it for emphasis:
My intention here is NOT to disprove anyone’s faith, nor to prove the superiority of atheism. My intention here is ONLY to argue against the notion that the Bible contains no errors and is the infallible word of God.
There is an important distintinction here, since many individual Christians & even many Christian denominations do not contend that the Bible is 100% literally true. IMHO, most Christians today do not believe that the Bible is infallible. Even most Christians that hold to the doctrine that Biblical scriptures are “divinely inspired”, nonetheless IMHO would still agree that the texts were written by fallible humans whose knowledge might have been incomplete or not intended certain passages not to be read literally or that they might have editorialized a bit and/or added their own biases to what they regarded to be ‘the Truth’.
But, I am not trying to convince anyone of MY beliefs. This is merely a theological debate regarding evidence for or against infallibility of Biblical texts - a highly contentious debate even among different Christian denominations. One need not accept my personal beliefs (nor do I need to accept yours) in order to participate.
Now in order to disprove the doctrine of Biblical infallibility I must either show:
A) That the Biblical teachings are wrong (which IMHO is impossible to prove).
OR
B) That the Bible is self-contradictory.
OR
C) That the Bible describes physical phenomena in ways that are irreconcilable with our more complete modern understanding.
It is B & C that I have attempted to do here - which is partly why I chose scripture from Genesis.
If I prove B, then the Bible contains at least one error (or at least my text of it does). Though the faithful could still argue for infallibility by pointing to an earlier text that does not contain this contradiction OR they might challenge my interpretation of it - but they must also show how the corrected text or understanding contains no self-contradiction.
If I prove C, then the faithful can still argue for infallibility by denying the truth of the observation of the phyisical phenomena to the contrary.
This was the choice of th Catholic Church 400 yrs ago when they forced Galileo to recant his observation of the moons of Jupiter in favor of their Biblical evidence that Jupiter had no moons, since everthing revolved around the earth. (Finally, 4 years ago they apologized to Galileo & admitted that he was in fact correct.) This is also the path taken by Creationist who attempt to “prove” that the earth is less than 600 years old.
I also stated above a sort of “corollary” to my ad hoc “proof” above that if one accepts that the Bible may contain errors, then how might one claim Scripture as proof of anything, since if the text contains one error it may contain others. The mere “fact” that errors exist within the text allows one to always allege about any doctrine that it is based on error.
IMHO, it is for this reason that although maintaining that EVERY part of the Bible is literally true is nonsensical, certainly with regard to many parts of it, this doctrine still continues to this day, so that, more fundamental aspects of the Faith will not be directly challenged by Christians.
One more thing just to be clear, IMHO, atheism is as unproveable as is belief in the existence of God. No one can logically prove the existence of God nor disprove it, beyond all doubt. Holding either view requires a leap of faith that what you believe to be true, is in fact the Truth. Agnosticism is mere skeptism coupled with the idea that one should not live one’s life based on major assumptions that are fundamentally unproveable either way. IMHO agnostics are wimps. 
I am an atheist, because it is what I choose to believe, because it is what I feel to be correct. This is admittedly a leap of faith on my part. Though, I am a devout atheist - i.e. confident in my beliefs for reasons too numerous to list (so please don’t try to convert me.) However, I do not believe in trying to impose my atheism on anyone else. And, I would apreciate it if others refrained from trying to impose their beliefs on me, as a courtesy. If you want to prove me wrong, show me how the texts are not self-contradictory nor conflicting with common knowledge of well understood physical phenomena, as I have asserted.
I would prefer that the discussion in this thread be mostly confined to questions of:
Do Biblical errors exist, and if so where, and why?
And, secondarily, if they exist, how do we know that other doctrines are not equally suspect?
Plus, whatever other tangents arise from these.
But, I really have no interest in trying to prove to anyone that their belief is incorrect or that mine is more correct. Most Christians don’t believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old, but if you choose to disbelieve all scientific evidence to the contrary that’s fine with me. I’m not interested in arguing the point.
Any other evidence of Biblical errors or nonsensical dogma that anyone might feel is proveable by A, B, or C above would also be a welcome addition to this thread.
I have no problem with anyone contending that the Bible is absolutely true in a metaphorical sense. But, I think I make some good ad hoc arguments against 100% literal truth of the Book.
So if you disagree, show me how these seeming contradictions in the text can be reconciled. Don’t tell me that my Biblical scholarship is not as good as yours (because you really have no basis to claim this), nor that my beliefs are foolish, nor that as a non-believer I am pursuing some hidden agenda against Christians. Just address the question at hand, if you please. Believing that one passage is literal & another is metaphorical does not make one less of a Christian - anymore than a non-believer admitting that the Bible contains much wisdom discredits their belief in atheism.
One more thing just to be clear, IMHO, atheism is as unproveable as is belief in the existence of God. No one can logically prove the existence of God nor disprove it, beyond all doubt. Holding either view requires a leap of faith that what you believe to be true, is in fact the Truth. Agnosticism is mere skeptism coupled with the idea that one should not live one’s life based on major assumptions that are fundamentally unproveable either way. IMHO agnostics are wimps.
I am an atheist, because it is what I choose to believe, because it is what I feel to be correct. This is admittedly a leap of faith on my part. Though, I am a devout atheist - i.e. confident in my beliefs for reasons too numerous to list (so please don’t try to convert me.) However, I do not believe in trying to impose my atheism on anyone else. And, I would apreciate it if others refrained from trying to impose their beliefs on me, as a courtesy. If you want to prove me wrong, show me how the texts are not self-contradictory nor conflicting with common knowledge of well understood physical phenomena, as I have asserted.
I would prefer that the discussion in this thread be mostly confined to questions of:
Do Biblical errors exist, and if so where, and why?
And, secondarily, if they exist, how do we know that other doctrines are not equally suspect?
Plus, whatever other tangents arise from these.
But, I really have no interest in trying to prove to anyone that their belief is incorrect or that mine is more correct. Most Christians don’t believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old, but if you choose to disbelieve all scientific evidence to the contrary that’s fine with me. I’m not interested in arguing the point.
Any other evidence of Biblical errors or nonsensical dogma that anyone might feel is proveable by A, B, or C above would also be a welcome addition to this thread.
I have no problem with anyone contending that the Bible is absolutely true in a metaphorical sense. But, I think I make some good ad hoc arguments against 100% literal truth of the Book.
So if you disagree, show me how these seeming contradictions in the text can be reconciled. Don’t tell me that my Biblical scholarship is not as good as yours (because you really have no basis to claim this), nor that my beliefs are foolish, nor that as a non-believer I am pursuing some hidden agenda against Christians. Such acusations are baseless and insulting. Just address the question at hand, if you please. Believing that one passage is literal & another is metaphorical does not make one less of a Christian - anymore than a non-believer admitting that the Bible contains much wisdom somehow discredits their belief in atheism.
IMHO, many Christians simply repeat the doctrine of 100% literal truth of the Bible, without really considering the implications of holding such a belief in the modern world. Others, were never taught this in their denomination, so would likely be one my side - at least on this one issue.
Oooooops, looks like that last bit got posted twice.
Just wanted to add, great poetry Duke.
If Genesis said those things, it would have been both technically correct (accept for the time scale) & intelligible to ancient minds.
Plus, if it predicted that sun was the center of the solar system, then that would have been a good argument FOR divine inspiration. Though since it doesn’t say those things, it must be counted as evidence AGAINST the notion that God dictated the text to its human authors. Unless, of course, one gives up their insistence on a literal interpretation of all text.
Furt, this is not simply a matter of semantics. The text specifically mentions morning & evening on day 2 & 3. This is a self-contradiction, since the sun isn’t created until day 4. What does it mean to have a morning & evening without the sun existing yet? There is also specific mention of “light” & “dark” and “day” & “night”, before the sun has been created. What does this mean? Why specifically talk about the of creation of “day & night” on day 1 and creation of the sun, moon, and stars on day 4? What possible meaning might this have?
Well…At this time, Galileo had no clear evidences to back his statements. His heliocentric system was flawed (I believe he assumed circular orbits) and didn’t match exactly the observations. Beside, the astronomical theories used at this time with the assumption that Earth was the center of the solar system were pretty well develloped though quite convoluted (it’s not like nobody had noticed that the others planets couldn’t just being orbiting the Earth), and included the planets following complicated movement patterns (I totally forgot how it was supposed to work, but I read some explanations about these theories in the past). These proposed patterns didn’t exactly match the observations, but were pretty close.
So, it wasn’t, as most people assume, a case of a new theory which explained correctly the astronomical observations facing a silly theory only based on scriptures and totally at odds with observed facts, but of two astronomical theories, both being consistent with the observations to an extent, but not totally so. What Galileo proposed was a simpler system, but on the other hand, its opponent’s system was backed by the scriptures.
The Galileo’s case was a less clear cut case at his time than it is usually assumed.
I think you’re contradicting yourself here, to some degree. You’re forgetting that Biblical inerrancy is a belief. In fact, it is a fundamental aspect of the faith of the (hence) “fundamentalists.”
My question to you: Who is the target of your argument? Whom are you trying to convince?
Because, hey, I agree with you. While the Christian Bible (and every other religious text) may capture certain wisdom and relate useful truths about living in the world, no doubt arrived at by trial and error, in my opinion trying to label the text “holy scripture” as received from some supernatural authority who is beyond error and reproof is ludicrous. I see all of the contradictions you point out, and I’d wager to say the overwhelming majority of people on this board would as well.
But here’s the kicker: Those who do not agree will never agree because it is central to their faith to believe that everything in the Bible is literally (or “literally metaphorically,” whatever that means) true and accurate.
If you’re trying to formulate an argument that will convince the individual described in your original post that the Bible contains contradictions and mistakes, then you are doing exactly what you said you weren’t doing: trying to argue somebody out of his beliefs. If you’re trying to convince people other than fundamentalists of this, then, well, you’re preaching to the choir, so to speak.
Let’s hypothesize a religion that demands belief in a flat Earth. (I don’t doubt it exists somewhere, but I’m using a hypothetical version so as to avoid debating an actual sect’s specific dogma.) They reject the physical evidence as being either misguided or deliberately misleading. They say, “I don’t care what the horizon looks like. It says right here in The Book of Steve that the Earth is flat, and that’s it.”
You could take an adherent up in an antigravity platform that allowed him to look out at the planet constantly while ascending from ground level to high orbit. He would get an uninterrupted view of the world as it receded from “apparently flat” to “obviously round.” You could take him around the entire globe, showing him how everything fits together.
And he’d still say, “Nope, this is just an illusion placed before my eyes by the Anti-Steve. What I’m looking at doesn’t look anything like the world I live on. I don’t know where the transition between reality and deception occurred, but I assume it did somewhere, because what I’m looking at is obviously wrong. The Earth is flat. Period. Now take me home before I wave my Holy Peanut Butter at you and make you burst into tadpoles.”
This is what’s happening when you argue with a fundamentalist about Biblical inerrancy. You can open the Bible and point to various verses and say, “Look at these passages. Says here in black and white, in this Gospel, a man and a woman can never, ever dissolve a marriage and get divorced under any circumstances whatsoever. But in this other Gospel it gives specific scenarios in which a divorce can be permitted. What gives?” And the fundamentalist will respond, “O you of small mind, God is not limited by your puny reasoning, I am certain all will become clear when we bask in his glowing love in the forever-and-after, except you, who’s going to hell, which I’m not supposed to enjoy but I secretly do anyway because I think God also hates you and agrees with me, praise Jesus.”
You and I can agree about the stupidity of that position. But that’s all you and I can do. The fundamentalist’s faith in Biblical inerrancy is utterly unshakeable, because it is a core tenent. Attempting to argue against it is, again, attempting to argue somebody out of a religious belief.
I ask again: With whom are you debating?
Replace “tenent” above with “tenet.” Duh.
Cervaise:
Not everybody is either fundamentalist or rational atheist. There are many inbetween. There may be several people reading this very thread that fall towards creationism, but know how to drop blind irrational belief, and accept things that make more sense. They may learn doubt in their belief that the bible is inerrant. They may try to learn, because this thread fought ignorance and won a small battle. While the two hardcore sides fight, much of the gray area learns a whole lot.
Another good point raised in this thread.
Christianity is not black or white. You dont have to be a fundie to beleive most of what they preach. You dont have to be a liberal to yada, yada, yada. You get the point. Many of us ARE in the middle.
Someone in the middle would believe that the Bible is inspired by God and most of it written with his help. The overall message/s of the Bible are what attracts us to it. That, and the whole Jesus Christ thing.
Of course. What a boring world it would be otherwise.
Maybe it’s because I’m so cynical on the subject, but I find myself reacting with skepticism. People with this mindset tend to be fairly entrenched about it. Now, I can think of one person on this very board who went from defending even the more ridiculous aspects of her faith all the way to complete atheism, so I have to admit I’m probably being more cynical than is warranted, and that your assertion has merit.
But I still want to hear from the OP an explanation of the contradiction. He says he isn’t trying to argue anybody out of his belief, and yet that’s exactly what he’s doing. For fundamentalists (who are indeed the subject of this thread, not the greater majority who fall short of the extreme), Biblical inerrancy is almost as much (and for some, perhaps as much) a central element of their philosophy as the resurrection of Christ.
Maybe part of my reaction, also, comes from my distaste for evangelism in any form, either Christian or atheist. I regard with disdain any aggressive effort to win philosophical converts; at the same time I avoid the recruiting efforts of missionary types, I also distance myself from atheist “witnessing.” I regard both as simple-minded and strident. People will believe what they want to believe; just because I think one side is totally wrong doesn’t mean I want to change their minds. I have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to the Big Issues, and I politely deflect religious arguments when they come up in my day-to-day experience. On these boards, I will represent my own position, but countering somebody, telling someone he’s wrong to believe in God: that I do not do. Re-read my posts in the “why don’t you believe” thread.
So yes, the Bible is clearly riddled with contradictions and errors. Some people refuse to see them, for whatever reason, and use various rationalizations, which are impervious to logic, to get around that awkward reality. What’s the debate?
**
Fortunately though, disbelief requires no “proof”.The burden of proof(as you no doubt already know) falls squarely on the person making the the positive existential claim.Therefore what you said above is irrelevent.
**
Wrong.I NEVER in any way shape or form rely on “faith”.Never touch the stuff.I do not assent to god claims I have heard thus far for the same reason I do not assent to the idea that I am the president of Zimbabwe.I can elaborate if you are unclear on any of this.
**
Agnostics can be either atheistic or theistic.Agnosticism is the conviction that, regardless of whether you assent to a god claim or not, one could never KNOW of God’s existence even if he did exist.He could have no impact or effect on US.
There are other usages that have been trotted out over the years of course(i.e. “One who isn’t sure” or "one who thinks maybe God exists etc.) but that is beside the point.
Skepticism has little, if anything to do with agnosticsm(though most Huxlian agnostics tend to be skeptics).
**
Minor nitpick here but this is wrong.One cannot simply choose what they believe(try choosing to believe in fairies or gods right now and tell me how it works out).We can choose to admit or lie about what we think sounds rational or sensible but that is as close as it gets.
**
Perhaps you are a different breed of atheist than most that I encounter.Most philosophical atheists tend to employ croitical thinking/skepticism to come to the conclusion that God’s inference is unwarranted and unlikely.No faith is required for this.If you are totally unaquainted with skepticism/critical thinking though I suppose it is possible to just “believe there is no God” simply on a leap of faith, but this is not necessary.
**
I think being a “devout” ANYTHING is somewhat dogmatic.It suggests that you are not open to hear any new information which may contradict what you believe.I am not saying you are wrong to believe this way but when you do, you put yourself at the same plateu with the devout christian or devout moslem(re: fundementalist).
**
There are a million ways to do this, which is why Biblical errancy is hardly worthy as a basis for atheism.A believer can continue to defend the most ludicrous positions imaginable through logic-twisting and rationalizations.Nostradameus said nothing but what amounts to bad poetry and gibberish and to this day his followers will argue that he accurately predicted the coming of Hitler, the holocaust and even 9/11.People like Sylvia Browne and John Edward depend on this powerful belief mechnism we have for their livelihood adn careers.
**
Of course they exist.Throughout the entire Bible they exist.The point is however that you will not be able to convince people who are “devout” Biblical literalists of such a thing even if God himself came down to earth and said “Who is responsible for this load of BS?”(*pointing to the Bible).
**
A good rule of thumb is that if it was written by human beings then it contains errors.The Bible just happens to contain a LOT of errors(especially for an allegedly divinely inspired book).
**
Again, a minor nitpick but one cannot have a “belief in atheism”.Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.It is a response to the question “Do you agree that God/gods exist(s)?” or “Do you worship any gods?”.You cannot have a positive belief in such a negative response(positive adn negative in the philosophical sense, not the moral or emotional sense).
Cervaise:
It seems you are painting those of us who defend our atheist positions as being the atheist equivalent of “evangelicals”.You are free to think anyone participating in these debates is being “simple-minded” or out to “convince others that they are wrong”, just as I am free to think that pinball is a stupid game and those playing it are wasting their time.However, if I go to a forum that pinball fans frequent and start posting these opinions of mine and some pinball fan disagrees with me, well…it is not the pinball fans doing the “witnessing” is it?
Not at all. I make a careful distinction between the individual who says only, “I believe thus,” and the individual who says, “I believe thus and I must convince you to join me in my belief.” In the thread I linked previously, I describe at length the thinking process that led me to my atheism. But I stop short of asking anyone to share my philosophy. If someone finds my position appealing, and adopts it, that’s their choice. But I make no attempt to recruit.
However, as I discuss in the other thread, it is difficult for an atheist to articulate his philosophy without its seeming like an attack on the faithful. This, I think, is where we get the terminology of “defense,” inasmuch as we all hunker down behind our walls of belief. Obviously, it’s a quirk of human conceptualism that a religious believer should perceive the atheist’s affirmation of godlessness as a negatively intended attack on his own faith. Nonetheless, that is the way it is, and it’s why I take such a dim view of evangelism in all its forms. As should be clear from the other thread, when I put forward my atheism, I am careful to couch it in such a way that only the most rabid fundamentalist would be threatened.
That’s a big part of why this issue is so difficult to discuss dispassionately, and it’s why I’m focusing on the OP’s apparent desire to argue the individual out of a core tenet of his belief. It’s one thing to convince the faithful that a lot of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, because the scholarship is relatively clear and because the idea doesn’t really contradict anything other than vaguely-held but uncorroborated language chauvinism. It’s another thing entirely to contradict something considered by many to be at the heart of the faith.
Here’s how it is, and shall be.
When the evolutionary process of enlightening all beings reaches its point of perfection, God will exist, as of that moment. Being God, He is unhindered by the mundane constraints of time and space, because He will exist then, He does exist now.
That may very well be tin-foil hat theology. On the other hand, what isn’t? Applying the rational mind to spiritual matters is hunting butterflies with a hammer. You might succeed, but the result is hardly worth it.
Blake-- In the same way that my newspaper this morning reported that the US Army was pulling out if parts of the DMZ in Korea and on another page mention the US Army being in Iraq. Both those reports are true. Despite being able to be everywhere on this planet at once, the US Army is rightly described as being in Iraq.
Our military isn’t capable of being everywhere on this planet at once. It‘s as if you‘re comparing the US military as having the same omnipresence as a God. Our military might be capable of being just about anywhere at different times, but “everywhere on this planet at once“? Blasphemy, I tell you, Blasphemy!
Blake–Or at least no sun visible form the Earth. If I say to a waiter ‘I want cake’ do you take that to mean that the cake never existed before I ordered it?
Not sure why you used the cake analogy either. That particular cake might not have existed before you ordered it, but the ingredients such as flour and other parts would have existed to make it. Detroit doesn’t produce a car first, then go back and invent the steel and other materials next. You don’t explain away this sun discrepancy at all.
JZ