Richard Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament..."

[Pleonast]

@hotflungwok

But how did you decide to start from there? What criteria did you use to select that passage and not Proverbs 20:30?

I thought/prayed/meditated/talked about it. More seriously, the Greatest Commandment self-identifies.

Religion may not be rational, but morality is.

Why must morality be rational? I just posted the basis of my beliefs and morality. Would you agree it is an irrational basis? (I don’t disagree that morality could have a rational basis.)

It isn’t the Bible that athiests reject, it’s the supernatural. The Bible does have some good stuff in it, regardless of whether you believe it was divinely inspired. But that’s the whole point, you don’t have to believe it was divinely inspired to benefit from it. All the supernatural stuff is unnecessary. Just take the good stuff for what we can show it to be: ideas from people. You can take your morality from the book without god being involved at all.

I agree completely. I don’t believe in the supernatural, either. To paraphrase Einstein: God doesn’t need to break the laws of nature.

[Polycarp]

You know, Diogenes, who does not share the delusion you all feel that Sunrazor and I are trapped in, has posted at length for several years on the proper methodology for deconstructing the Bible for examination of its contents.

What Hentor is sneering at is the equivalent of archaeology, major parts of ethnology, glottochronology, palynology, and several other “reconstruct it from the available data” disciplines.

And what you all are doing is equivalent to indicting Dawkins for writing on the evolution vs. “scientific creationism” debate when everyone knows that the fundamentalists have Scripture on their side. (Rolleyes omitted out of respect for forum rules – but that’s exactly what it sounds like is going on here.)

[Voyager]

@Polycarp

You know, Diogenes, who does not share the delusion you all feel that Sunrazor and I are trapped in, has posted at length for several years on the proper methodology for deconstructing the Bible for examination of its contents.

I read Diogenes’s posts, and I can tell the reasons he accepts or rejects certain Biblical passages as being factual. I can’t tell that from your posts, except that you reject passages which you consider as being contradictory to the Bible’s true morality - and your’s too. This is different from a statement about which of you is correct, just the clarity of your sorting process.

What Hentor is sneering at is the equivalent of archaeology, major parts of ethnology, glottochronology, palynology, and several other “reconstruct it from the available data” disciplines.

I’m at a loss to understand what you think Hentor is sneering about. Is it that he agrees with you that literalism is not to be taken seriously, and would like for you to admit that he agrees?

And what you all are doing is equivalent to indicting Dawkins for writing on the evolution vs. “scientific creationism” debate when everyone knows that the fundamentalists have Scripture on their side. (Rolleyes omitted out of respect for forum rules – but that’s exactly what it sounds like is going on here.)

This I don’t understand at all. Do you think we object to you not being a literalist, or don’t accept that you aren’t? What font size is required for you to see that this isn’t true? Or do you consider atheism a brand of literalism, and haven’t noticed the evidence-based arguments for it?

[Voyager]

@Pleonast

I don’t believe in the supernatural, either. To paraphrase Einstein: God doesn’t need to break the laws of nature.

Unless you believe in God as a powerful alien, you do believe in the supernatural. Do you believe God created the universe from outside of time? Bingo. You might reject that God has supernaturally intervened, but that doesn’t make god natural?

And do you believe in the Resurrection? If you do, then you believe in the supernatural.

[Voyager]

@Pleonast

To add my own answer: you think/pray/meditate/talk about it. I start with the Greatest Commandment and work my way from there.

In my opinion, the essence of liberal Christianity is that there are no clear-cut answers to anything. You have to think about it and decide for yourself. You go to church for the social aspect, and also to help you figure out what it all means to you.

If you really mean this, then you are an atheist who likes church services. Nothing wrong with that. The Greatest Commandment is a fine premise from which to build a moral system, which can be done without invoking God at all.

Lenny Bruce talked about “Reform Jews. So Reform they’re ashamed they’re Jewish.” Are you a Christian so liberal that you don’t buy the central premise of Christianity?

[Pleonast]

@Voyager

Unless you believe in God as a powerful alien, you do believe in the supernatural. Do you believe God created the universe from outside of time? Bingo. You might reject that God has supernaturally intervened, but that doesn’t make god natural?

No, no super-aliens for me. Yes, I believe God is outside the universe. Science does not describe things outside the universe. No contradiction. Yes, God is an extra entity that can be justly excised by Occam’s Razor. That doesn’t prove he’s not there. And I’m certainly not trying to prove he is.

And do you believe in the Resurrection? If you do, then you believe in the supernatural.

Eh, just a matter of interpretation.

If you really mean this, then you are an atheist who likes church services. Nothing wrong with that. The Greatest Commandment is a fine premise from which to build a moral system, which can be done without invoking God at all.

And no reason why it can’t be used build a moral system with God.

[Apos]

@Polycarp

And what you all are doing is equivalent to indicting Dawkins for writing on the evolution vs. “scientific creationism” debate when everyone knows that the fundamentalists have Scripture on their side. (Rolleyes omitted out of respect for forum rules – but that’s exactly what it sounds like is going on here.)

You are grossly mis-characterizing what we “are all doing” and frankly, it’s disappointing to see you do it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

I’m not sure what I’m “sneering” at either, but I am very surprised at how difficult an issue it seems to be to respond to rationally for several posters here. It seems pretty straightforward to me, and I think I have a legitimate right to ask about the content of a book that, as I’ve repeatedly noted, has insinuated itself into official capacities in the government of my country.