So, do you accept some parts of the Bible and not others? If so, how do you decide which to accept as inspired and which to reject as man-made?
Many people, religious and non-religious, have changed their beliefs from those they were given as children. Growing up in faith makes it your default assumption, but that is not a good reason to not examine it as you get new knowledge.
At its worst the new wave of atheism is quieter than the old wave of Bible thumpers. Drive down your average main street and tell me if you get more religious messages or atheist messages.
I don’t accept any parts of the bible.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s not reasonable to assume it’s as easy for everyone else as it might have been for you though. It certainly isn’t something to belittle people over.
You completely missed the point if you think I was complaining about volume levels. It’s the message that’s being sent. It doesn’t achieve anything to be condescending and disrespectful towards believers. That just makes them less open to arguments.
Well, for this thread that’s the appropriate response: delving deeper is a nontopical hijack in terms of the OP. No problem – we’re on page 9 – but I was intentionally emphasizing the central arguments.
More generally, parables can be spun anyway you want and if you have a tome that mixes commands with stories it’s straightforward to give a benign interpretation to the stories and set the commands in historical context.
As for original sin, I’d say that sin is baked into any sort of adult dealings between imperfect humans and an imperfect world. Animals don’t sin and it’s understood that children are not entirely responsible for their actions. At the other end of the scale most adults are considered responsible entities, outside of purely deterministic conceptual frameworks.
And jeez, my take on original sin probably less extreme than that of John Shelby Spong who was the Episcopal bishop of Newark from 1979 to 2000. Realize his diocese covered 8 counties in New Jersey: he did not have an obscure position in the church. The former bishop (who retired and was not drummed out) said for example, “6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.” The point being is that if you want to assail moderate Christian theology, you will find it to be a pretty slippery ball of wax. See the wiki link for more.
[Continuing the multi-year conversation, I have to backpeddle somewhat regarding reports of my Episcopalean upbringing. I have memories of my attempts to square theological circles and since they were apologetics I didn’t notice any flack from them when I expressed them in church. But this was a young teen or pre-teen speaking, and I was and am a geek anyway. Memories dim. My theology was probably more influenced by the agnosticism of my father’s side of the family than anything else. So I have to cast some doubt upon the accuracy of my perceptions and memories of mainline Christian theology.]
Cite?
Cite?
Welcome to the Straight Dope! 
From my years on alt.atheism I think it fair to say that Bishop Spong is the atheist’s favorite theologian. I have not had a chance to read any of his work, alas, but my impression is that he recognized the dilemma I laid out, and his response is as you quoted. He may not have gotten booted, but he was quite controversial. If he were a Catholic bishop as opposed to an Episcopal one, how long do you think he would have lasted?
As I mentioned way back on the first page, I think, moderates, who have moral values far higher than the people who wrote the Bible, tend to change God to match what makes sense morally today. if you consider religion as a social force, that is a very good thing. If you consider religion as the representation of a long term connection to the divine, it makes very little sense.
A common criticism of historical fiction is that the main characters tend to have a modern view of ethics, not one suited to the times in which they are living. I think the historical character God suffers from the same flaw.
I’ve read most of the new atheism books, and I don’t find them condescending at all - unless it is condescending to point out issues which are not discussed in polite society. Certainly individual atheists exhibit all forms of behavior, but I’ve not seen anything in public as condescending as the kind of screechy Bible thumper who occupies college quads or fairs and tells everyone they will be damned without Jeezus. There was one at our town festival on Saturday, and I live in the middle of Silicon Valley.
The reaction to the new atheist books you typify doesn’t come from the rabidly religious. It is what is usually found in reviews of them in the NY Times Book Review, that hotbed of fundamentalism. These reviews never actually discuss the problem of the existence of God, but accuse the authors of thinking every Christian is a fundamentalist, and of being just so noisy about not believing.
Are there Christian theists who don’t believe this?
Greetings Scott Kaelen and welcome to the straight dope message board! I recognize that you said, “Most”, but by way of qualification I’ll note that not all Jews believe in an afterlife, AFAIK. Also, Buddhists don’t believe that the Buddha made us. True, some varieties posit that we were made by one god or another, but they also believe that such a creator provides no help in pursuing or achieving enlightenment. The Buddha can help, but he is dead. I agree that concepts of reincarnation may very well reflect a fear of death, or at least that is a reasonable hypothesis.
Growing up, I perceived that Catholicism was older and therefore somewhat more rigid than (mainline) Protestantism. Not that I noticed any meaningful difference among my friends. After encountering fundamentalism as an adult, I recognized that they had been leapfrogged insofar as rigidity is concerned. Heck, Jesuits are positively cosmopolitan!
Well I would turn the first paragraph on its head. Religion as a representation of a long term connection to the divine only has to make narrative sense, and that’s pretty straightforward. Heck, that conception makes a lot more narrative sense than most of the New Testament: Mark is a pretty crude template after all. But while I think the idea of non-overlapping magisteria is reasonably durable, I take issue with the polling on the share of Americans who believe earth or man to be 10,000 years old. One of the key functions of religion is to provide a ready made framework to teach morality to kids. I’m concerned that whatever they are doing might be giving people the wrong idea. There’s something immoral about a willful denial of the scientific process, given its success in promoting the human endeavor. Dysfunctional as well.
I can imagine New Age-types who, while self-identifying as Christians, also believe in reincarnation rather than “an eternal place for us after our bodies die.”
Good points.
It is certainly a very common view within, at least, the world’s two largest religion - Islam and Christianity - but “most religions”?
I don’t have a problem with the public figureheads. It’s the behavior I see come out from the base that creates topics like the one we’re commenting on, and it’s too widespread to attribute it to certain atheists.
I seem to recall that a few years ago a Cardinal who said something vaguely creationist got shushed. But Spong’s dissent from the standard view was not scientific but purely theological, and Catholics are bit less flexible in that arena.
I’m not sure what you mean by making narrative sense. A work of fiction should make narrative sense - that doesn’t mean it should be taught as factual.
Yes, out of laziness parents can say that morals come from God, but there are at least two problems with this. First, when kids read the Bible and see some of the nasty stuff that is considered moral within it they can doubt any moral teaching. And we’re back to the why do we listen to this part of the Bible but not that part problem. Second, if they reject God they might reject all the moral teachings.
We taught our kids morals and ethics without any religion, and it worked out just fine.
Do you have examples? The most obnoxious atheist I can recall was O’Hair, but she was mostly hated for having the nerve to say that the First Amendment meant something. She might have been less obnoxious if she had been treated well.
On message boards feelings run high. However horrible you consider the OP (and I don’t consider it very horrible at all, given that it expressed his opinions and gave reasons for them) I suspect it would pale versus the opinions expressed about atheists on religious message boards.
Like I said; It’s the general spirit of the new militant atheism, and not the figureheads, who are the most serious offenders. People who can’t act somewhat civil, rational, and attack the person rather than the argument normally aren’t backed to represent movements, but there are elements of single-mindedness and elitism towards believers in some prominent atheists that represent a problem with the base as a whole. Bill Maher openly states he sees religion as the world’s biggest problem; Not climate change, or poverty, or crime, or lack of education, or mental illness, but religion. If all you see is religion, then how might that play into how you see religious people? Then you have people like the most prominent Youtube atheist, who goes by The Amazing Atheist, who are just plain nasty.
I saw reasons not to accept religion, but none on why a person isn’t deserving of respect. Also, why judge behavior based on their standard? I would criticize them too if I ever cared to frequent a Christian message board (not likely). It’s only natural religious people are more sensitive (atheists are attacking their god; not the other way around). This is something that’s necessary to change minds, but it doesn’t even sound like most atheists even care about that. They just want someone to feel superior too.
If a person’s religion doesn’t get in the way of scientific progress or equal rights, then it’s not that functionally different than most atheist philosophies. It’s still a problem to make unnecessary assumptions, but if you go into it with Bill Maher’s type of secular dogma; I think you’re worse off than the moderate Christians.
Bill Maher is doing a bit. He is going to play things up as part of that bit.
To a certain extent people whose self-worth and worldview is tied to their religion (and they don’t have to be fundamentalists or evangelicals for this to happen) are going to feel personally attacked by attack on their God. Mention IPU sometime if you doubt me.
Many of the religious think you and are will be damned for all eternity. (I qualified from the beginning being Jewish.) Many others don’t accept this, which is nice of them. Why they don’t accept it - besides the secular reasons one picks up from living in a diverse culture - is not so clear. Is asking that question a lack of respect? So be it.
Having gone through graduate school and having done and managed research for like 40 years now, asking questions like this is something I do all the time. Very seldom is anyone offended - unless the questions concern God, that is.
With respect, this isn’t persuasive. Bill Maher is a comedian, and comedians use hyperbole. (Maher may really mean it for all I know, but if he said eg that any given entertainer was the biggest problem in the world I wouldn’t have batted an eye. Again: hyperbole.) And while the Amazing Atheist may be offensive, I wouldn’t know because no examples were given and I don’t care to visit the You Tube channel of someone I have never heard of.
You might get some traction with the FSM crew, though I frankly find them benign.
“Religion only has to make narrative sense.”
Putting it another way, apologetics are easy, because they aren’t tethered by empiricism. You can see the same thing with posters on this board who don’t bother with links or substantiation. Here they get smacked down with facts. But it’s hard to smack down a decent story - you only have to spin the interpretation in a new direction. I don’t doubt that I could handle any theological objections you throw at me at a rhetorical level, which is something different than demonstrating their utility. Rhetoric after all is easy: “Yes: the Problem of Evil is indeed a serious one: Job addresses with it.” ::nods solemnly::
I disagree that the concept of an evolving conception of God is an unworkable one. ISTM that it goes hand in hand with human progress. The most you can show is that it’s a problematic framework - but that’s not a sufficiently strong attack really.
Since you’re new here, I’ll add that we have a couple of paint-peeling atheists on this board. Just a friendly heads up. I find them entertaining, but tastes vary of course.
[quote=“Voyager, post:455, topic:693053”]
So you’re beyond criticism if you identify as a comedian? He doesn’t just do stand-up; He actually has a show where he discusses topics with elected officials and other public figures. This view is consistent in everything he says. He blames religion as the source of most of the world’s problems without it being intended as humor. He gets applause after these little rants; Not laughter. This secular dogmatism doesn’t tell people to behave rationally, but it creates an unnecessary assumption to combat another unnecessary assumption. This view isn’t prejudice or elitist, but is much more likely to influence people to behave irrationally than just atheism.
Asking that question is not a lack of respect and I never claimed it was.
“I have a hard time respecting the moderately religious.”
Do you support this statement?
Look to my previous answer.
I addressed Bill Maher; Look one post up. Like I said; It’s not the popular atheists who are the main culprits and I gave a solid reason as to why that might be. It’s difficult to demonstrate that many atheists in general are being single-minded and conflating belief, as any example I give of a particular person’s comments could be written off as just that individual. This is just an aggregate of what I have experienced on Youtube and message boards. If you haven’t experienced this then I don’t expect to convince you, but would you agree that it’s appropriate not to respect people who functionally behave in productive ways (probably many more productive than you or I), but hold separate beliefs from you? This, to me, is prejudice and irrational. This was my point in response to the comment, and the one I was attempting to demonstrate before you asked for more examples. I never said most atheists behave in this manner, but the phenomena is not limited to the original poster.
Thanks for the warning (genuinely), but this isn’t about my sensibilities. If anyone is being irrational they should be called out for it. Even if irrationality is what they purport to denounce.
Anyone that has strong feelings and convictions about what is right and wrong must somehow feel their ethics are superior to others. Otherwise how can they decalre some act is clearly wrong?
That said, I also object when people somehow think their opinion and attitudes are sanctioned and approved of by God above all others. {many of whom have the same attitude} I think you’d agree that tends to be the fundamentalists more than more liberal believers.
It depends on how they view the limits of their own humanity. More liberal believers will accept that although their ethics are informed by their belief and faith, they are still a work in progress and can still learn and change. I think more liberal believers also tend to appreciate the positive qualities of others regardless of their belief system.
Liberals who acknowledge that the Bible must be interpreted and how obvious it is that not all Christians interpret it the same way, are more less likley to use any passage as if it and their interpretation of it, has divine authority.
I don’t see any way to establish that someone’s God belief is building a moral foundation on sand any more than anything else. Believer , agnostic or atheist are very small aspects of a person’s overall belief system and morality. None of those labels tell you anything about a person’s overall character or values.
I’d like to coattail off of this for my point. You can make generalizations, but it really doesn’t tell you anything about a person’s character or values. If you believe it does then you’re past the point of atheism or secular humanism and into the realm of prejudice.