User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 28

  1. #1
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default The Bible has credibility even among athiests? Hell idk

    Pretty simple (maybe?). Psychotherapy was born from people who lived among the influence of such text. Perhaps Yom Kippur just didn't cut it for old brother freud.

    My propaganda idea here is that maybe some text should be kept around as influence to generate invention at the very least. And also bring one to a higher awareness of the teachings of God or Ala and so on.

    History of psychotherapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sigmund Freud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    My Jewish Learning: Confession
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Aleph-One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    My propaganda idea here is that maybe some text should be kept around
    I doubt you'll find an atheist who will argue against that point. This does not mean that the book has credibility among atheists any more than the Ramayana does. And it is not necessary to think that a mythology is credible in order to use its symbols as a convenient description or as inspiration.

    I would assume you are making a case for "keeping" the Bible because you are under the impression that someone is trying to take it away. There is no threat of this.
    Aleph-One, you look like the kind of person who would spend his spare time building a giant robot to hold the government for ransom. -Some Guy on the Internet

  3. #3
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    I doubt you'll find an atheist who will argue against that point.
    I disagree. I think your point depends on whether the atheist in question is the kind of atheist who genuinely doesn't believe in God, or the kind of atheist who is just offended by Him personally.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Aleph-One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    155

    Default

    I don't think you know what the word "atheist" means. But, as a matter of fact, I do find the Bible offensive. I think it's a genocidal, misogynist, dehumanizing triablistic and racist screed. I think it may be the most vile compilation of bloodthirsty doctrines ever compiled. And I'm not alone in thinking this. Hector Avalos is another such atheist. So is Christopher Hitchens. But they don't argue that the book shouldn't be "kept around", and neither do I. There is a very big difference between thinking that the contents of a book are immoral, or even revolting, and thinking it shouldn't be "kept around". So, no, it has nothing to do with whether someone finds the book offensive or not.

    Who is arguing that it shouldn't be "kept around"? Surely there must be several of these people, if we're going through all the trouble of making the case that it should be kept around for at least its cultural significance and the fact that its symbolism has been used, even by nonreligious thinkers.
    Aleph-One, you look like the kind of person who would spend his spare time building a giant robot to hold the government for ransom. -Some Guy on the Internet

  5. #5
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    I don't think you know what the word "atheist" means. But, as a matter of fact, I do find the Bible offensive. I think it's a genocidal, misogynist, dehumanizing triablistic and racist screed. I think it may be the most vile compilation of bloodthirsty doctrines ever compiled.
    Well, then.

    And I'm not alone in thinking this. Hector Avalos is another such atheist. So is Christopher Hitchens.
    Since there's three of you, I think we should all reconsider.

    But they don't argue that the book shouldn't be "kept around", and neither do I. There is a very big difference between thinking that the contents of a book are immoral, or even revolting, and thinking it shouldn't be "kept around". So, no, it has nothing to do with whether someone finds the book offensive or not. Who is arguing that it shouldn't be "kept around"? Surely there must be several of these people, if we're going through all the trouble of making the case that it should be kept around for at least its cultural significance and the fact that its symbolism has been used, even by nonreligious thinkers.
    I agree. Some things might be widely offensive, some things in it are offensive depending on your particularly held beliefs, and other things are damned good, actually.

    And it's had such a profound influence on Western culture for so many years, it's hard to understand why our society is the way it is without access to it. Our culture is saturated with its symbolism and language. We need it as a key to understanding.

    And after all, this is an open society, is it not? Everything is accessible, and we claim that people should take responsiblity for their own choice to read or not read something rather than merely banning it. So even on that grounds, it seems ridiculous to suggest removing it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #6
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    yes religion and psychology come from the same place. they come from wondering about the subject. the subject is that part of the human experience of the world, which has not jet been objectified. we have just objectified our body and maybe some math skills. so the rest, the unobjectified, the subject is most of our monkeymind, psyche and soul and god, also much aspects of our interactions, partnerships and love-life. for instance, by definition, no typical person has objectified his so called super-ego. but we have myths about all that stuff. some of which were created from interpretations of external observations. some of which come from states of intuition, introspection in very bright moments.

    understand this pre-trans fallacy, though....:
    myths were invented on low stages of development. they were descriptive of the world at that time. at the time they were taken as literally true. now we think we are smart and interpret them from a rational level, or a transnational level. we claim they are "just" metaphors for human live (as we know/see it). but that is often nonsense. we would have to look at the actual rational and trans rational levels and invent new myths (or methaphors). the original myths tell nothing about the rational or trans rational world we live in, because when they were envisioned by wise men, all of the structures of modern man's psyche and culture did not even exist yet. they can not be reinterpreted and applied to the modern world. they just are what they are. they could be applied to the world of a kindergarten to some degree. now, there are few exceptions: few of the myths are not about the relative world, but about the Absolute world. they still hold merit and can be reinterpreted from any level. but most are not like that. so, bottom line is: we can not create a new religion or philosophy that "learns" from the old, by merely reinterpreting. naturally we learn something by knowing where we came from, but for the most part, we need to be inventive/visionary to understand present and future.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Aleph-One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Since there's three of you, I think we should all reconsider.

    You should all reconsider what? I hope there isn't a consensus around here that an atheist who finds the Bible offensive will try to take it away. And if that is the consensus, then you should reconsider. Three counterexamples are two more than is necessary.

    Did you perhaps think that I was trying to make a case that the Bible is offensive by citing three people who believe that it is? I wasn't, and that should have been clear.
    Last edited by Aleph-One; 04-18-2009 at 09:31 PM. Reason: Typospree.
    Aleph-One, you look like the kind of person who would spend his spare time building a giant robot to hold the government for ransom. -Some Guy on the Internet

  8. #8
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    I don't think you know what the word "atheist" means.
    Never mind... it was a literary reference.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Aleph-One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Ok. Well, this is a nonargument. Nobody thinks that the book should be taken away (or if anyone does, they're such a minority as to be totally inconsequential). It is an integral part of western civilization, and has acted as an inspiration to many people (including nonreligious and antireligious scholars) and it is in that respect extremely valuable.

    So I'm punching out. There's no sense in having what is bound to be a heated argument when everyone is in agreement about the topic on the table.

    I think you're right!
    Oh yeah? Well I think you're right!
    *barfight breaks out*
    Aleph-One, you look like the kind of person who would spend his spare time building a giant robot to hold the government for ransom. -Some Guy on the Internet

  10. #10
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    You should all reconsider what?
    I don't know.
    So I specifically chose not to clarify.

    (Cuz it was a joke.)


    I hope there isn't a consensus around here that an atheist who finds the Bible offensive will try to take it away. And if that is the consensus, then you should reconsider. Three counterexamples are two more than is necessary.
    What, out of a million? Or are we talking 100,000 atheists?
    Why would three mean the rest of the bulk of atheistdom wouldn't want to get rid of the Bible?

    (Sorry, I was part of no consensus before; but I feel obligated to nitpick an irrational argument when I see one. Three out of a million, or 500,000, or 10,000 is not statistically significant, is it?)

    Did you perhaps think that I was trying to make a case that the Bible is offensive by citing three people who believe that it is? I wasn't, and that should have been clear.
    Hope you're not feeling defensive.

    But I'll clarify: No, I didn't think that at all, you sounded fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    So I'm punching out. There's no sense in having what is bound to be a heated argument when everyone is in agreement about the topic on the table.

    I think you're right!
    Oh yeah? Well I think you're right!
    *barfight breaks out*
    Wait, does that mean I win?
    (If this is some secret strategy to baffle me and achieve victory, well, it's working!)

    ... maybe I should move this thread into "101 Ways an NP can tick off an INTJ without trying."
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Fed announces that it will resort to printing money: the collapse has begun...
    By Venom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 06:21 PM
  2. How literally should the Bible be interpreted?
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 07:32 PM
  3. Joelle, the prankster, has arrived!
    By Mempy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 04:51 AM
  4. The Creature has Arrived
    By Varelse in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-26-2007, 12:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO