Is belief in God a delusion? - Richard Dawkins

[Bible_man]

To whom it may concern:
Some of the Koran’s Jihad verses:
K002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194,216-218,244; K003:121-126,140-143,146,152-158,165-167,169,172-173,195; K004:071-071,084,089-091,094-095,100-104; K005:033,035,082:K008:001,005,007,009-010,012,015-017,039-048,057-060,065-075;K009:005,012-014,016,019-020,024-026,029,036,038-039,041,044,052,073,081,083,086,088,092,111,120, 122-123; K016:110;K022:039,058,078;K024:053,055;K025:052;K029:006,069;K033:015,018,020,023,025-027,050; K042:039; K047:004,020,035;K048:015-024;K049:015; K059:002,005-008, 014,K060:009;K061:004,011,013; K063:004;K066:009; K073:020;K076:008

Written examples from the above list:
K009:005 …slay the idolater wherever you find them…take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…
K009:029 Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
K009:038-039 …Go forth in Allah’s way (to Jihad)…If you do not go forth (to go on Jihad), He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you (to go on Jihad)…

[Musicat]

@Bible man

To whom it may concern:
Some of the Koran’s Jihad verses: {yadda, yadda…}

And your point is?

[Polycarp]

@tomndebb

cachet
cache

Inadequate snark to comply with the member request. Was that one of those “hypocritical pussy” posts?

[tomndebb]

Musicat, generally, we prefer that text excluded from a direct quote be noted by ellipses or by “snipped” or something similar. “Yadda, yadda” is not, per se the same as marking a deletion with “some blather” or “more nonsense,” but it has a bit of a bite to it. This is not a smackdown, just a mild reminder to all posters to use very neutral notations inside the quote-/quote tags.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

Bible man, given the way that you have seriously abused Christian and Jewish Scripture, insisting on your own odd interpretations with no support other than your own personal theology, I am not at all sure why anyone here should pay attention to your clipped renderings from the Qur’an, particularly when there is no reason to trust your translations.

And, of course, your odd interjection seems to have nothing to do with this thread, so you might want to consider not posting stuff just to interrupt a thread.

[Bible_man]

@tomndebb

Bible man, given the way that you have seriously abused Christian and Jewish Scripture, insisting on your own odd interpretations with no support other than your own personal theology, I am not at all sure why anyone here should pay attention to your clipped renderings from the Qur’an, particularly when there is no reason to trust your translations.And, of course, your odd interjection seems to have nothing to do with this thread, so you might want to consider not posting stuff just to interrupt a thread.

Since you repeatedly state that you don’t regard the Bible as authoritative - constantly quoting any and all sources as “proof” that it’s a book full of errors and contradictions, how could you know, and why would you possibly care if I had an interpretation that wasn’t supported? Besides, you’ve been shown repeatedly from the scriptures where your sources and your theology (or lack thereof) is completely wrong and heretical. As far as your comment about the Koran post, if you didn’t find it applicable to you ie, weren’t one of the “to whom it may concern” people and couldn’t verify the translations were accurate anyway, it makes me wonder why you felt driven to display your ignorance and blindnees regarding a discussion about Islam also. They must pay you on a per-post basis for your “moderating” - it doesn’t appear to have much to do with substance or accuracy. Not meant as an insult, of course, just an observation.

[tomndebb]

@Bible man

Not meant as an insult, of course, just an observation.

You lie again. You should read the bible; it has a commandment forbidding that.

Your view of scripture is not supported by anything you have posted except your claim that it means what you want it to mean and does not mean what other people say. Since other posters have provided different interpretations and your arguments have been both circular and error-ridden, your claim does not appear to have the support of the Holy Spirit.

Your claim for “authoritative” views of Scripture are, again, your own. I have never challenged the authority of Scripture, just your tortured claims for it.

And why you are whining about my Moderating when the last act of Moderation I submitted was to ensure that a quotation of your post was not misinterpreted I don’t know. If you are only here to post irrelevant nonsense in threads rather than to participate in them, then it is my business, regardless that I am not paid for havung to read your random posts of incoherence.

[Musicat]

@tomndebb

Musicat, generally, we prefer that text excluded from a direct quote be noted by ellipses or by “snipped” or something similar. “Yadda, yadda” is not, per se the same as marking a deletion with “some blather” or “more nonsense,” but it has a bit of a bite to it. [ /Moderating ]

That was pretty much my intention, and thanks for picking up on it.

[tomndebb]

If you intended the “bite” then I will make myself more clear:

Do not put anything that could be conceivably considered an editorial comment inside the quote tags.

[ /Moderating ]

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bible man

To whom it may concern:
Some of the Koran’s Jihad verses:
K002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194,216-218,244; K003:121-126,140-143,146,152-158,165-167,169,172-173,195; K004:071-071,084,089-091,094-095,100-104; K005:033,035,082:K008:001,005,007,009-010,012,015-017,039-048,057-060,065-075;K009:005,012-014,016,019-020,024-026,029,036,038-039,041,044,052,073,081,083,086,088,092,111,120, 122-123; K016:110;K022:039,058,078;K024:053,055;K025:052;K029:006,069;K033:015,018,020,023,025-027,050; K042:039; K047:004,020,035;K048:015-024;K049:015; K059:002,005-008, 014,K060:009;K061:004,011,013; K063:004;K066:009; K073:020;K076:008

Written examples from the above list:
K009:005 …slay the idolater wherever you find them…take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…
K009:029 Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
K009:038-039 …Go forth in Allah’s way (to Jihad)…If you do not go forth (to go on Jihad), He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you (to go on Jihad)…

you don’t know what the word jihad means in Islam and you are quote mining the Qur’an in a way which can be done just as easily for the Bible.

[Bible_man]

@tomndebb

I have never challenged the authority of Scripture.

Quite an amazing statement, since you do so at every opportunity both directly and indirectly. Here are just a few of your most recent quotes, all of which undermined the accuracy, inspiration and therefore the authority of the book of Daniel. All your comments undermined the book’s veracity and accuracy but I boldened the more direct attacks: .

@tomndebb

However, the claim, for example, **that there was ever a “Darius the Mede” is simply false ** and is not supported by archaeology or history.

• the historically “accurate” prophecies in Daniel tend to cluster around the turn of the third to second centuries B.C.E.;
• the prophecies that address matters following 167 B.C.E. tend to be rather less accurate;- while the historical information about the events that occurred at the time that Daniel is supposed to have been written (mid sixth century B.C.E.) has several glaring errors;
• there is no mention of Daniel among lists of the Prophets as late as 190 B.C.E. (and, indeed, Daniel is only included among the Kethuvim), whereas there are references to it in I Maccabees, written around 100 B.C.E;
• along with linguistic evidence such as using Greek names for musical instruments (more likely after the Greek hegemony that began with Alexander the Great than in some period of Persian domination that occurred 200 years prior to Alexander) has led **most scholars to “date” Daniel to the short period between 167 and 163 B.C.E. ** In other words, using the actual information in the book, **scholars find a date of the second century which bothers people who need to claim it as an accurate prophecy ** from the sixth century.

Further, at every opportunity you point out that some accounts in the Bible have no outside historical or archaelogical support, with the insinuation that they therefore can’t be trusted or relied on, for instance:

@tomndebb

There is no historical or archaeological evidence for the Exodus, the sojourn in the desert, or the Davidic kingdom extending to the reaches claimed in Kings and Chronicles. Passages in Daniel refer to Darius the Mede for whom there is no historical record (and for which there is no historically recorded Median interruption in the transfer of power fron the Chaldeans to the Persians).There is no historical record for a census of the whole (Roman) world ordered by Caesar Augustus and the implied terms of the census (that each man return to his ancestral home) not only make no sense but are not mentioned for any other census recorded by the Romans.In fact, while there are occasional places that the bible does reflect history, there are many more where there is no historical support.

I’ve heard that many now regard your posts to be so laden with hypocrisy, dishonesty and name-calling that they just disregard them completely. Instead of such name-calling myself, I believe that this poster probably has the best advice for you:

@tomndebb

You lie again. You should read the bible; it has a commandment forbidding that.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bible man

Quite an amazing statement, since you do so at every opportunity both directly and indirectly. Here are just a few of your most recent quotes, all of which undermined the accuracy, inspiration and therefore the authority of the book of Daniel. All your comments undermined the book’s veracity and accuracy but I boldened the more direct attacks:

Further, at every opportunity you point out that some accounts in the Bible have no outside historical or archaelogical support, with the insinuation that they therefore can’t be trusted or relied on, for instance:
I’ve heard that many now regard your posts to be so laden with hypocrisy, dishonesty and name-calling that they just disregard them completely. Instead of such name-calling myself, I believe that this poster probably has the best advice for you:

The statements you bolded and called “attacks” are just observations of fact. You call them “dishonest,” but you fail to point out anything tom said which was factually false. The things that tom said are not particularly controversial within historical scholarship or Biblical criticism and it’s virtually impossible to still argue that the Bible is either anything close to a perfect record of historical fact or that it does not contain human error and contradiction.

HOWEVER

You are mistakenly defining a belief that that Bible is authoritative, inspired or even inerrant as equivalent to a literalist interpretation. People can and do read many of the stories in the Bible as allegorical, metaphorical, parabolic or poetic and they can and do find “truth” in those stories which has little to do with the literal historicity of the stories.

Let me remind you that Jesus told stories as a means of conveying spiritual messages and that the import or truth of his messages had nothing at all to do with whether his parables had ever actually happened. Does it matter if there was really a good Samaritan?

I would argue that when you get hung up insisting on the literal truth of myth, you’re completely missing the point. To quote Bruce Lee, “It’s like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory.”

[badchad]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The statements you bolded and called “attacks” are just observations of fact. You call them “dishonest,” but you fail to point out anything tom said which was factually false

I might be wrong, but I think that Bible man’s quotes of Tom in this case are to demonstrate that Tom’s claim to “have never challenged the authority of Scripture” is false or dishonest. Not to say (in this instance at least) that Tom’s assessment about the particular scripture is false/dishonest. If this is what Bible man is arguing, then I think he scored, which I do think is kind of funny.

[tomndebb]

@Bible man

Further, at every opportunity you point out that some accounts in the Bible have no outside historical or archaelogical support, with the insinuation that they therefore can’t be trusted or relied on, for instance:

You are confusing your inferences based on your rigid and odd theology with implications that I have never made. I have neither stated nor implied that the bible cannot be trusted. I have, (which bothers you), noted that some of the “historical” stories were told to convey a theological point, not as a historical record. The fact that you conflate the two, however, only indicates your interpetations and you speak falsely when you claim that I have “insinuated” anything. I have not.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@badchad

I might be wrong, but I think that Bible man’s quotes of Tom in this case are to demonstrate that Tom’s claim to “have never challenged the authority of Scripture” is false or dishonest. Not to say (in this instance at least) that Tom’s assessment about the particular scripture is false/dishonest. If this is what Bible man is arguing, then I think he scored, which I do think is kind of funny.

Only if you think that recognizing ahistoricity or human error in the bible is the same thing as “attacking its authority.” Since those things are not equivalent, then no, tom was not “lying” from his persepective and Bible Man has not scored. What’s seems ironic to me is that you so often insist on trying to hold everyone to the same insanely literal interpretations of the Bible that the fundies do.

[badchad]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Only if you think that recognizing ahistoricity or human error in the bible is the same thing as “attacking its authority.”

I do.

What’s seems ironic to me is that you so often insist on trying to hold everyone to the same insanely literal interpretations of the Bible that the fundies do.

To each their own, I think it’s ironic that you cut your favorite nominal Christians such slack.

[Bible_man]

@Person it concerned

you don’t know what the word jihad means in Islam and you are quote mining the Qur’an in a way which can be done just as easily for the Bible.

Probably the clearest translation of jihad is “to struggle in the cause of God” ie, to exert oneself to the maximum in order to overcome evil within oneself and in the world. Progression of the term: While in Mecca, Mohammad began promoting Islam (610AD) and during that time he did not advocate fighting or retaliation of any kind. After he moved to Medina in 622 to escape persecution, fighting in self defense began to be permitted and shortly thereafter, defensive fighting was commanded as a religious obligation. After conquering Mecca in 630AD, offensive war was commanded to eliminate pagans and to humble Christians and Jews. This last meaning of the term is still in practice today.
Quote mining is absolutely necessary when studying the Bible. There are no separate chapters dealing with specific doctrines but they are diffused throughout the Book, all verses dealing with particular subjects must be assembled to obtain the clearest picture. That procedure applies somewhat similarly to the Koran and in the case of jihad, when the verse was written shows the progressive changes in the meaning of the term (the Koran is not in chronological order). And lest Tom be further confused by the discussion of this subject and then feel the need to do some more name-calling, this will be my last post about it .

[tomndebb]

@Bible man

And lest Tom be further confused by the discussion of this subject and then feel the need to do some more name-calling, this will be my last post about it .

It is well.
You appeared to be hijacking the thread for no purpose and your constant false accusation that I have indulged in name-calling is displaying your dishonesty more at each repetition.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@badchad

I do.

Then you have an erroneous understanding of how some people recognize scriptural authority. if someone says that he thinks that the Cain and Abel story is an allegory, do you believe that person is lying and that he really thinks it’s literally true? Or do you think that he doesn’t really believe the story has any symbolic “truth” value at all and that he’s lying when he says otherwise? Do you think it’s impossible to believe the Bible contains symbolic truth? You’re position seems not well thought out to me. Even if you think the reading of those symbols can be problematic or contradictory, it still doesn’t mean that the person doesn’t honestly believe that a text can ce authoritative without being literally true.

Can an individual believe that Jesus made up the story of the good Samaritan but still believe that the message of the story (and the storyteller himself) is authoritative.

To each their own, I think it’s ironic that you cut your favorite nominal Christians such slack.

It may seem that way to you but I’m not interested in trying to deconvert anybody, no matter where they are on the spectrum. I’m interested in keeping things on an empirical level and challenging assertions which are demonstrably false. “I believe in God” is not a declaration which, in itself, is anything I feel any particular desire to argue with (nor does it contain a falsifiable claim which could be empirically debated anyway). It’s only when people either make assertions about history or the universe which can be subjected to empirical analysis (especially when they claim to be able to prove those assertions), or when they make risible claims about those who believe differently that I become interested. It just so happens that the fundies are more likely to do that than the “liberal” Christians. Even with the fundies, though, I’m not trying to talk them out of believing in God but challenging statements they make about history, the Bible, the universe or other people.

[cosmosdan]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Then you have an erroneous understanding of how some people recognize scriptural authority. if someone says that he thinks that the Cain and Abel story is an allegory, do you believe that person is lying and that he really thinks it’s literally true? Or do you think that he doesn’t really believe the story has any symbolic “truth” value at all and that he’s lying when he says otherwise? Do you think it’s impossible to believe the Bible contains symbolic truth? You’re position seems not well thought out to me. Even if you think the reading of those symbols can be problematic or contradictory, it still doesn’t mean that the person doesn’t honestly believe that a text can ce authoritative without being literally true.

Can an individual believe that Jesus made up the story of the good Samaritan but still believe that the message of the story (and the storyteller himself) is authoritative.

It may seem that way to you but I’m not interested in trying to deconvert anybody, no matter where they are on the spectrum. I’m interested in keeping things on an empirical level and challenging assertions which are demonstrably false. “I believe in God” is not a declaration which, in itself, is anything I feel any particular desire to argue with (nor does it contain a falsifiable claim which could be empirically debated anyway). It’s only when people either make assertions about history or the universe which can be subjected to empirical analysis (especially when they claim to be able to prove those assertions), or when they make risible claims about those who believe differently that I become interested. It just so happens that the fundies are more likely to do that than the “liberal” Christians. Even with the fundies, though, I’m not trying to talk them out of believing in God but challenging statements they make about history, the Bible, the universe or other people.

Thus endeth lesson 1 for the not so bad. That was a pleasure to read.