Topic: Atheism

[Corkboy]

Well one could argue that the recent history of Christianity - at least in democratic countries - has been to cherry-pick like mad.

True, but they won't acknowledge that's what they're doing. Cherry picking is, to my mind, picking the bits you like and ignoring the bits you don't, as a matter of simple preference. Religious people convince themselves that there is some overarching method to their selection, one based on sound principles. As you point out, the only real principle they need is, "well, that's clearly bollocks", but that leads to all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the soundness of relying on what remains.

In that respect, the thing that modern religious people really worship is cognitive dissonance.

[Yorkykopite]

True, but they won't acknowledge that's what they're doing. Cherry picking is, to my mind, picking the bits you like and ignoring the bits you don't, as a matter of simple preference. Religious people convince themselves that there is some overarching method to their selection, one based on sound principles. As you point out, the only real principle they need is, "well, that's clearly bollocks", but that leads to all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the soundness of relying on what remains.

In that respect, the thing that modern religious people really worship is cognitive dissonance.

Yes, I agree with that. And you won't be surprised to hear me say that my suggestion was a bit cheeky really because I want those "uncomfortable questions" to be asked. And they are being asked of course, which is good for everyone.

At the same time it was quite a significant landmark in the history of western Christianity when the (now deceased) Bishop of Durham admitted that the Resurrection was not real. (Did he use the word "bollocks"? Probably not).  It was a "metaphor" for general renewal I think he said. The point being that he could only make this admission because the cherry-picking was already a century old (in England at least).

[Purple Red]

Christians usually tend to place their focus on the NT, but the NT doesn't make any sense without the OT, original sin being an example.

If you ask most Christians if they follow the 10 commandments they will usually say yes, that is from the OT. There is the usually cherry picking that goes on with any religion in an attempt to discard the particularly awful bits.

The problem with that interpretation, on a theological basis, is that the birth of Christ and Christianity was to herald a new Covenant between believers and God. Many of Christ's teachings involved examining the old Covenant (i.e. the Ten Commandments and subsequent teaching) and revising it for adherents to the new Covenant. For example, off the top of my head I remember that there's a passage in which Jesus refutes the "Eye for an Eye" teaching in order to say it is better to turn the other cheek. So while things like "Thou Shalt Not Murder" remained a constant there were other aspects of the old teachings that Christ encouraged needed to be revised. Does that make Jesus himself a 'cherry picker'? Possibly, but to say Christianity cherry picks teachings is a bit disingenuous. The Bible in its entirety is not the basis of Christianity, the New Testament is. The problem of course is that many demagogic preachers over the years have misused the Old Testament as well. That said, I am not a Theologian so I'm sure plenty of posters in this thread will be able to pull this post to bits.

[Inpeace]

Cherry pick like mad but then still openly chose to keep the anti Gay and anti birth control mantra - so that means that (at the top) they chose these policies rather than believing this is the word of god.

[Corkboy]

The problem with that interpretation, on a theological basis, is that the birth of Christ and Christianity was to herald a new Covenant between believers and God. Many of Christ's teachings involved examining the old Covenant (i.e. the Ten Commandments and subsequent teaching) and revising it for adherents to the new Covenant. For example, off the top of my head I remember that there's a passage in which Jesus refutes the "Eye for an Eye" teaching in order to say it is better to turn the other cheek. So while things like "Thou Shalt Murder" remained a constant there were other aspects of the old teachings that Christ encouraged needed to be revised. Does that make Jesus himself a 'cherry picker'? Possibly, but to say Christianity cherry picks teachings is a bit disingenuous. The Bible in its entirety is not the basis of Christianity, the New Testament is. The problem of course is that many demagogic preachers over the years have misused the Old Testament as well. That said, I am not a Theologian so I'm sure plenty of posters in this thread will be able to pull this post to bits.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". Matthew 5:17

[electricghost]

So while things like "Thou Shalt Murder" remained a constant there were other aspects of the old teachings that Christ encouraged needed to be revised.

I think you missed a "not" out there, unless it was that time where he was talking to himself.

[Purple Red]

I think you missed a "not" out there, unless it was that time where he was talking to himself.

Good point - edited!

[Yorkykopite]

Possibly, but to say Christianity cherry picks teachings is a bit disingenuous. The Bible in its entirety is not the basis of Christianity, the New Testament is.

Corkboy has quoted one verse from the New Testament that shows Jesus affirming the Old Testament. There are others too. I think you're being disingenuous if you're really suggesting that Jesus "revised" the Old Testament away. Sure, Jesus is fluffy in some moments. At other moments he comes over as a raving zealot.

There's also plenty of hellfire and blood and thunder in the New Testament to keep the warriors happy for generations. And, as others have pointed out, the New Testament is not kind to gay sex, to put it mildly. Unbelievers have a truly rotten time of it too.

[thejbs]

Even the ten commandments are mostly nonsense or redundant. 1-4 are daft and redundant. 5-8 are pre-existant or maybe self-evident. The lowest common-denominator of morality and decency. And ten punishes thought-crime.

If you really need faith to keep 5-8, you need therapy.

As Christopher hitchens said, there's nothing there about not taking slaves, or hurting a child. His take made decent reading.

I: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color.
II: Do not ever use people as private property.
III: Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
IV: Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
V: Do not condemn people for their inborn nature.
VI: Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly.
VII: Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
VIII: Turn off that fucking cell phone.
IX: Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions.
X: Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

[Corkboy]

Corkboy has quoted one verse from the New Testament that shows Jesus affirming the Old Testament. There are others too. I think you're being disingenuous if you're really suggesting that Jesus "revised" the Old Testament away. Sure, Jesus is fluffy in some moments. At other moments he comes over as a raving zealot.

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me". Matthew 10:37

[TepidT2O]

Even the ten commandments are mostly nonsense or redundant. 1-4 are daft and redundant. 5-8 are pre-existant or maybe self-evident. The lowest common-denominator of morality and decency. And ten punishes thought-crime.

If you really need faith to keep 5-8, you need therapy.

As Christopher hitchens said, there's nothing there about not taking slaves, or hurting a child. His take made decent reading.

There's an obvious reason for that of course..

When they were written it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves and bugger kids...

[classycarra]

There's an obvious reason for that of course..

When they were written it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves and bugger kids...

And the reason it's not acceptable now, outside of fundamentalists, isn't down to Jesus or any religious institution

[TepidT2O]

And the reason it's not acceptable now, outside of fundamentalists, isn't down to Jesus or any religious institution

Yep.

The bloke who write the Ten Commandments just used morality of the time..

[RedRabbit]

Even the ten commandments are mostly nonsense or redundant. 1-4 are daft and redundant. 5-8 are pre-existant or maybe self-evident. The lowest common-denominator of morality and decency. And ten punishes thought-crime.

If you really need faith to keep 5-8, you need therapy.

As Christopher hitchens said, there's nothing there about not taking slaves, or hurting a child. His take made decent reading.

There's far more than 10 commandments. Limiting it to 10 is cherry picking ad well.

[TepidT2O]

There's far more than 10 commandments. Limiting it to 10 is cherry picking ad well.

But there are glaring absences ...

[thejbs]

There's far more than 10 commandments. Limiting it to 10 is cherry picking ad well.

But only those ten were transcribed by the hand of God. Supposedly. The all loving God who cared more about you worshiping him and keeping the sabbath holy than abusing kids.

[Golden_Child]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

[Inpeace]

I think I could be persuaded towards religion, it must be nice to have faith. My biggest issue is why is yours right and every one else's wrong.

We laugh at scientology but is it any more unbelievable than Christianity + 1000 years

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I believe the poster below could benefit from your tolerant example:Clearly. Though I think the inability to see one's own faults and to "practice what you preach" on the part of the religious might also play a part.

Oh I say!

[RayPhilAlan]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

Probably take too long to go into what I believe, but the why question is indeed easy - I met God, without any shadow of a doubt.

[vagabond]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

I've always found that calling somebody's deeply held beliefs "random bullshit" is a surefire way of encouraging them to be open about them...

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

Why do you believe it should be pretty straightforward?

To turn it around, let's look at a simple, straightforward topic like Football. In one sentence, combining everything you've done and seen in Football and every experience you've had related to football, tell us what you believe about football and why.

Once you've written that one straightforward sentence about football, would you say that this statement completely sums up what you think. Do you think it covers the depth, emotion, the things you've learned? The people you've spoken to? The experiences that you've had and shared? Does it cover the history of the game and your understanding and knowledge and ideas and hopes and dreams and empathy for the subject?

[TepidT2O]

Probably take too long to go into what I believe, but the why question is indeed easy - I met God, without any shadow of a doubt.

What did he look like

[Corkboy]

What did he look like

Did you just assume God's gender?

[electricghost]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

The question of what you believe and why is actually a very good question, and it should be the starting point of any discussion on this subject.

What you shouldn't do is then pass a flippant judgement on answers you have not received yet.


The question can be answered in a basic way to begin with, it doesn't require a single line or paragraph to answer it in it's entirety, it is a means of starting a discussion.

Here are perhaps some more specific questions, which god do you believe exists ?, what are some of it's attributes ?, did it create the universe ?, does it interfere in human affairs ?

And then of course comes the why do you believe this.

[Corkboy]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

I wonder if we could find anyone who was never exposed to any sort of religious notions until they were half way grown up, and what they thought of the notions then. That's an answer to the why question, by the way. People who believe in a god do so because they were told there was a god at a very early age.

[TepidT2O]

Did you just assume God's gender?

I did indeed, I can't imagine a woman who was so murderously vengeful.

But also because all the abrahamic faiths portray him as a man and pictures always have him with a beard.  And women don't have beards...  Although saying that, I once taught a girl with a beard.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I wonder if we could find anyone who was never exposed to any sort of religious notions until they were half way grown up, and what they thought of the notions then. That's an answer to the why question, by the way. People who believe in a god do so because they were told there was a god at a very early age.

Sounds like quite an assumption about quite a few things.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I did indeed, I can't imagine a woman who was so murderously vengeful.

But also because all the abrahamic faiths portray him as a man and pictures always have him with a beard.  And women don't have beards...  Although saying that, I once taught a girl with a beard.

You've obviously never met my missus after Everton have been hammered by Liverpool.

[TepidT2O]

You've obviously never met my missus after Everton have been hammered by Liverpool.

[Purple Red]

Let's put our cards on the table and ask the important questions towards theists.

What do you believe and why???

Should be pretty straightforward..........(apparently)

PS, lots of random bullshit to come

I believe in God yes. It has been a comfort in difficult moments of my life. I am no expert on the Bible and recognise that there are contradictions that are impossible to explain all the same. Faith is a personal thing though and can't really be rationalised for those who don't have it.

[Yorkykopite]

I believe in God yes. It has been a comfort in difficult moments of my life. I am no expert on the Bible and recognise that there are contradictions that are impossible to explain all the same. Faith is a personal thing though and can't really be rationalised for those who don't have it.

That's a very dignified response.

[Corkboy]

I believe in God yes. It has been a comfort in difficult moments of my life. I am no expert on the Bible and recognise that there are contradictions that are impossible to explain all the same. Faith is a personal thing though and can't really be rationalised for those who don't have it.

That's an answer to what you believe but not why.

[Purple Red]

That's an answer to what you believe but not why.

As I said it's a comfort. You were of course right with your earlier point that it is partly a result of upbringing. I am not an unthinking believer though. I re-evaluated what I've always believed a few years ago. I re-read the Bible and made my way through the Qu'ran as well out of curiosity. Despite the aforementioned difficult things to understand and rationalise in the text, I concluded that my personal faith benefited me more in its presence than its absence. That said, I'm in no position to say whether theists or atheists are on the correct side of the argument. For me there is no correct side, in the realms of spirituality everybody is entitled to believe what they want.

[Corkboy]

I concluded that my personal faith benefited me more in its presence than its absence.

You sound like you choose to believe.

[Purple Red]

You sound like you choose to believe.

I do.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

As I said it's a comfort. You were of course right with your earlier point that it is partly a result of upbringing. I am not an unthinking believer though. I re-evaluated what I've always believed a few years ago. I re-read the Bible and made my way through the Qu'ran as well out of curiosity. Despite the aforementioned difficult things to understand and rationalise in the text, I concluded that my personal faith benefited me more in its presence than its absence. That said, I'm in no position to say whether theists or atheists are on the correct side of the argument. For me there is no correct side, in the realms of spirituality everybody is entitled to believe what they want.

The other day in a different topic, I mentioned Faith Schools. Do you think they are a good thing?

[Purple Red]

The other day in a different topic, I mentioned Faith Schools. Do you think they are a good thing?

What's your definition of a Faith School? I feel it may be different in different parts of the UK. (I'm from NI).

[Corkboy]

I do.

That puzzles me. I can't figure how one would choose to believe in something. I get why but not how.

[Pistolero]

As I said it's a comfort. You were of course right with your earlier point that it is partly a result of upbringing. I am not an unthinking believer though. I re-evaluated what I've always believed a few years ago. I re-read the Bible and made my way through the Qu'ran as well out of curiosity. Despite the aforementioned difficult things to understand and rationalise in the text, I concluded that my personal faith benefited me more in its presence than its absence. That said, I'm in no position to say whether theists or atheists are on the correct side of the argument. For me there is no correct side, in the realms of spirituality everybody is entitled to believe what they want.

good post mate...nice to have a balanced and honest pov in a thread full of point-scoring intransigence ...