The Bible has credibility even among athiests? Hell idk

[professor goodstain]

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

 

[Aleph-One]

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.

 

[Oberon]

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.

 

[Aleph-One]

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

 

[nanook]

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.

 

[Aleph-One]

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.

 

[Oberon]

I don't think you know what the word "atheist" means.

Never mind... it was a literary reference.

 

[Aleph-One]

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*

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

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."

 

[nanook]

i have to pee badly. am i excused from the barfight?

btw: atheists, please get some individuality. don't talk like you are homogeneous group that holds common values. makes you look like a bunch of conformists, which is a pre-rational thing, btw. what's individuality again? well, it's that intrinsic thing, that is not defined by mere comparison to what it is not.

 

[Mole]

...we claim they are "just" metaphors for human life...

This claim is only made by those who don't know what a metaphor is.

A metaphor is a comparison of relationships and takes the form of -

A is to B as C is to D.

Metaphors form the basis of all language and mathematics.

And so far, no algorithm has been able to produce comprehensible metaphors.

So far, it is only us, homo sapiens, humanity, that can make metaphors.

 

[Oberon]

What's a metaphor you?

 

[Aleph-One]

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?

We weren't talking about the bulk. We were talking about "the atheist in question". The claim, which I took to mean "an atheist who is offended by the Bible will want to take it away" can be dispensed with by a counterexample. A claim which says "atheists who are offended by the Bible are trying to take it away" cannot be dispensed with by a counterexample (since it is intended to be a claim about tendencies of a group, rather than the behavior of each member of a group), but that claim was not made. Supposing it had been made, I would not have offered the rebuttal I gave, but simply demanded evidence that this was the case.

The argument was not irrational.

Now, I'm going to try to leave this a second time. Please refrain from hurling another rhetorical bottle at the back of my head while I do so.

 

[Totenkindly]

....Now, I'm going to try to leave this a second time.

I didn't know I was desirable enough to drag you back in.
(You know how to make a girl feel good.)

Please refrain from hurling another rhetorical bottle at the back of my head while I do so.

If I fill it with something good like Goldschlager or Absolut Vanilla vodka, would you reconsider?

 

[Oberon]

*AHEM*

I said, "What's a metaphor you?"

EDIT: I'm a little frustrated. Normally threads derail more easily than this.

 

[Totenkindly]

*AHEM* I said, "What's a metaphor you?"

EDIT: I'm a little frustrated. Normally threads derail more easily than this.

Maybe you're losing your touch.

I mean, you've been gone awhile -- maybe you're out of practice.

 

[ptgatsby]

I doubt you'll find an atheist who will argue against that point.

I would, but you mix two concepts here - the belief that the belief should die off and using force to make an ideology die off. Generally I only bring up the point when I hear that my beliefs are against the 'truth'... free game to tell them why their beliefs should be removed from the 'truth' pool entirely.

(To understand my POV, I hold a bayesian view of knowledge.)

There is no threat of this.

There is always the threat. However, I don't think Christians have much to fear at the present time, just as I find those that have the 'majority persecution complex'... out of touch.

However, 'no threat' and 'extremely small' threat are different... time scales, tail end events, etc.

btw: atheists, please get some individuality.

All definitions are groupings. Anyway, you do realize the irony in grouping all atheists as required individuality...? No need to stereotype me either.

 

[nanook]

Anyway, you do realize the irony in grouping all atheists

just those who are identified with the label (and it's meaning, which is mostly an irrational believe). they are/form a group by means of their own identification.

thinking/believing that there is no god is one thing (or no god as portrayed by mythic religion), being comfortable with calling one self a-theist is another thing. i realize there is no other word, so i forgive usage of the word in discussions, but when they write it on their t-shirts or create clubs or supersmart youtube circles ...

if you really have to identify with a position on the matter, it would prove style to call yourself something like rational or rationalist rather that antichristtheist. then eventually you will even understand that rationality can dismiss the mythic god, but not the holy aspects or reality, the mystic view. and you wont even have to get yourself a whole new set of t-shirts.

 

[ptgatsby]

just those who are identified with the label (and it's meaning, which is mostly an irrational believe). they are/form a group by means of their own identification.

All atheists are atheists, and as an atheist I will have commonality with other atheists, by virtue of the shared definition.

being comfortable with calling one self a-theist is another thing. i realize there is no other word, so i forgive usage of the word in discussions, but when they write it on their t-shirts or create clubs or supersmart youtube circles ...

If the norm is theistic belief, then the absence of such a stance is a stance in itself. The disagreement of policy/influence due to the theistic belief is also a pro-active position for any atheist to take. The definition does not limit such groupings or identities, especially not when they serve a real and tangible goal.

And I'm saying that despite how much I dislike 'positive' atheists.

then eventually you will even understand that rationality can dismiss the mythic god, but not the holy aspects or reality, the mystic view. and you wont even have to get yourself a whole new set of t-shirts.

That's irrelevant to my positive set of beliefs, especially considering I am distinctly against the 'mystic view' of reality.