My Problem With Biblical Literalism

[Andara Bledin]

Therefore, we have no basis for a discussion. Thank you, and good night.

I told you this very thing about two months ago.

^-.-^

[Andara Bledin]

Apologies for the double post, but I feel that there needs to be some clarification on a particular point. (note: all uses of the word "you" are generic and not aimed at anyone specific)

The subject of faith, at least how I approach it and how it seems others also approach it, doesn't require that the object of our faith actually exists so much as that we are willing to believe that it does.

This is a subject where logic doesn't really apply and trying to treat it as a science problem is just proof that you don't understand the point of the exercise, which isn't wrong, merely different.

It may seem completely illogical, and it may be, but it works for us. You don't have to understand it, but we would appreciate it if you'd at least extend the same amount of respect that you expect to receive.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I expect to have any incorrect ideas I have challenged. That is the way forward - logical debate and reasoning. I'll change my points if my views are shown to be incorrect.

That's the sort of respect I expect.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I expect to have any incorrect ideas I have challenged.

Rapscallion

If that is true, then would you be offended at someone challenging your atheism? If someone came to your door and tried to sell you their religion, how would you feel about that?

Because the main gripe I commonly hear from atheists about Christians is that they resent it when said Christians try "shove their beliefs down your throat." When it's been my experience that it's more often the other way around.

And don't tell me that your belief system in unassailable because it's the correct one and it should only be challenged if it's incorrect. Christians think the exact same thing about their belief system.

It's terribly ironic that the only people on this thread trying to disregard the beliefs of others are not the Christians.

[Ipecac Drano]

It may seem completely illogical, and it may be, but it works for us. You don't have to understand it, but we would appreciate it if you'd at least extend the same amount of respect that you expect to receive.

How about explaining it so that we can understand it?

[Lachrymose]

Hmm...this post may be all over the place, so forgive me.

I realize there has been some rather...militant..stances on both sides in this thread. It's basically become attack-and-defend here.

Anyway, I try to keep middle ground. "Try" being the keyword. It certainly is tough when it comes to something as personal as religion (or lack thereof).

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

I would not be offended if someone challenged my beliefs in a respectable, logical way. I may even re-evaluate my own if something you say strikes a chord with me.

But, to paraphrase what Penn and Teller stated in their Bible episode of Bullshit, if you have faith in something, I can't touch that. I can try to logically point out where you may be incorrect, but if it comes down to pure blind faith, nothing can refute that.

However, what I personally consider to be shoving down one's throat is more of a societal thing and less of a personal thing. In other words, if you were to try to convince me, even beligerantly, that I need to believe in your god, I wouldn't consider that to be shoving down my throat.

Just to name some examples, past and present:
- Forced to say the Lord's Prayer in public school (past)
- "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (yes, I know where this came from). I personally don't even think that schools should be able to force kids to pledge their allegiance to their country, but that's a whole other thread).
-"In God We Trust" on money (I personally don't give a rat's about this one, although it still is kind of blatant)
-All the issues regarding the ten commandments on state property.

I mean, these things don't truly, truly bother me (with the exception of the Lord's Prayer deal. But that's long passed.). But I still think it is blatant.
I'm sure I'll think of other things, but it really does happen day in and day out, it's just everyone, including me, has gotten used to it.

Thing is, keeping one's religion personal is never going to happen entirely. The world would be a better place if it did.
That being said, I understand why it doesn't stay personal. If you truly believe I am going to hell then I guess I can't blame you for trying to save me.

And that's where the waters get muddy with me.

Sorry for the rambling and disjointedness. It's hard to put down how I feel on this issue in a nice and neat way. Just know I totally posted this with a calm demeanor, and if responded to, would appreciate the same.

As I said, I'm always willing to re-evaluate my position. And I will never purposefuly disrespect your position without feeling attacked.

[Rapscallion]

RK? I've had that - people trying to convert me on the doorstep. I've sat down and discussed things with JW's before now. I've bought colourful books from those professing the more Indian type religions (hare krishna or something). I was sent to methodist Sunday school. I explored the concept of religion.

I've yet to have anyone come up with anything to make me think they were right about their faith.

As I've said before, bring proof - solid, tangible proof - that your god is actually there, or that there's any divine force of whatever flavour in action, and I'll bend my knee in worship as directed by said being. I'd rather live in a world where I can say the right prayer and feed people who are starving, or heal wounds, than this where things start when born and finish when you die. Given the choice, I know which I'd prefer. Given the evidence, I know what there is.

I'd like there to be magic. I'm content to accept that there's nothing other than us, that we are all there is for each other. It's not what I'd prefer, but until someone shows me that their particular divinity is both there and worthy of praise, then I'll continue in my opinion. There's enough magic in the world without expecting more.

My views are quite assailable. If your god was able to feed the five thousand or the starving tribes in the desert, speak from a burning bush, turn people into salt, destroy towns, or any other miracles proclaimed, then fine, but I'd need to see and experience it. It's been quiet on that front for nearly two thousand years.

If you really think I would benefit from a closer relationship with god, have a word with god and get him to come and speak to me. I don't mean as a voice in my head, I'm talking letters of fire ten feet high, or walking in the door and saying, "Hi!" Something like that. Maybe a press conference? A host of angels coming down and doing their singing praises in Hyde park before a public appearance?

I'm not seeing it.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm sorry if I've been misinterpreted. I have not meant to say you would benefit from a closer relationship with my God. I have meant to say that /I/ have benifited (sp?) from my faith.

I have also meant to claim that other people have benefitted from their faith, and that we should not get rid of religion, because it DOES benefit people.

I apologize if I've come off as telling you what to believe, that was not my intent at all.


Edit: Lach, I also apologize if I have come off as militant. Could you point out to me where I seemed militant, so I could avoid that in the future/explain?

[Lachrymose]

Militant was probably the wrong word. I apologize.

Extreme defensiveness leading to some offensiveness and generalization...maybe is more what I'm looking for. Militant was shorter.

And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure that includes you. I'd have to wade through 21 pages to figure it out exactly.

(And yes, I realize I'm generalizing here, too..heh)

[Gravekeeper]

I don't think of it as raging asshole at all, just as "My House, My Rules." Assuming that any of that allegorical hoo-ha has any basis in fact and aren't parables with a moral lesson. From an allegorical perspective, it's no worse (and a lot better) than any other mythology.

...No, it was definately raging bipolar asshole, sorry and yes, it is worse than a fair amount of other mythologies. If they're suppose to be parables with moral lessons, they're pretty shitty ones. Old Testament God did not fark around. Even if you did obey him, he might randomly smite you to prove a point.

Though to clarify I'm not saying that because you believe in God, you believe in that particular asshole version of him. I'm just objectively pointing out that in that collection in particular the character of God was pretty much a raging bastard. I would honestly question anyone following that particular version of him.

This is a subject where logic doesn't really apply and trying to treat it as a science problem is just proof that you don't understand the point of the exercise, which isn't wrong, merely different.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as their are faiths ( Buddhism ) where logic does apply and where this is a science problem so to speak. Unless you were speaking exclusively of Abrahamic religions.

Because the main gripe I commonly hear from atheists about Christians is that they resent it when said Christians try "shove their beliefs down your throat." When it's been my experience that it's more often the other way around.

Your experience is not the entire picture. I'm not saying it doesn't happen the other way around, but down the throat shoving is in the mainstream public discourse in the US when it comes to Christianity. There's always a push somewhere to actually have some supposedly Christian belief shoved down the throat of others so to speak in an official capacity. To the point where they try to literally alter the education cirriculum.

Besides, statistically speaking, there's no way Atheists are the majority when it comes to throat shoving in that particular match up. You're looking at around 30% of the world's population vs 2.5% or so. When you look at the US by itself, the match up is 76% vs 6%. The scoreboard is kind of bleak on that one ;p

And don't tell me that your belief system in unassailable because it's the correct one and it should only be challenged if it's incorrect. Christians think the exact same thing about their belief system.

...Raps didn't say his beliefs were unassailable, quite the opposite. However, again, Raps is coming from a realistic perspective. You cannot lay science vs religion down like that and say that religion holds equal footing. It doesn't work that way no matter how much you or anyone else that holds any sort of faith ( myself included mind you ) might want it too. One is "I can prove" the other is "I believe". They do not hold equal merit in a logical argument. Sorry.

Which honestly is the entire crux of this argument at this point. Science demands proof. Religion does not have it. That's fine. But, Religion cannot demand equal footing with Science just because it believes it should. That said, I'm not an atheist, and I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in whatever the hell you want. You're free to do whatever you want and anyone that thinks they're being forced or persecuted to do otherwise on an Internet forum needs to take a step back from the keyboard.

[FArchivist]

I expect to have any incorrect ideas I have challenged. That is the way forward - logical debate and reasoning. I'll change my points if my views are shown to be incorrect.

Except that, as pointed out, anything based on belief cannot be subjected to logical debate or reasoning successfully. For instance, which tastes better? Chocolate or vanilla ice cream? The answer is purely subjective. As long as you treat religion (and philosophy, and ideology) the same way, there are no problems.

How about explaining it so that we can understand it?

My answer to that is the same that I give to people who keep asking me to educate them on the 101 of sexism, racism, and other -isms:

"It’s not my job to educate you — do your own homework."

There are comparative theology classes you can take. There is the internet to draw information from. There are God knows how many officials of many, many different faiths to confer with, if you so feel like.

But as a Catholic? It's not my job to proselytize. Or explain. Go ask a missionary.

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

That's a really contradictory position to take.
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable.
How do you reconcile that?

But, to paraphrase what Penn and Teller stated in their Bible episode of Bullshit, if you have faith in something, I can't touch that. I can try to logically point out where you may be incorrect, but if it comes down to pure blind faith, nothing can refute that.

That's the truth. For instance, try arguing with a die-hard Marxist. Oh Jesus Jumped Up On A Pogo Stick, you get SO tired of the term "dialectical materialism" real quick.

I've yet to have anyone come up with anything to make me think they were right about their faith.

I explored just about every variant of Christianity out there and all the major non-Christian religions. About the closest I got was Confucianism. Finally I just went back to the faith of my birth. Either I secretly love pedo priests or I just have a thing for ritual.

As I've said before, bring proof - solid, tangible proof - that your god is actually there, or that there's any divine force of whatever flavour in action, and I'll bend my knee in worship as directed by said being.

The amusing part is, according to the Catholics, they wouldn't want you to bend knee if there was solid, tangible, proof. Seeing may be believing, but it isn't faith. Your kneeling wouldn't be worth anything because it wasn't voluntary.

I'd rather live in a world where I can say the right prayer and feed people who are starving, or heal wounds, than this where things start when born and finish when you die. Given the choice, I know which I'd prefer. Given the evidence, I know what there is.

Except that answering those prayers and not leaving it up to random chance would be a violation of free will, and thus a symbol that Satan has won.

My views are quite assailable. If your god was able to feed the five thousand or the starving tribes in the desert, speak from a burning bush, turn people into salt, destroy towns, or any other miracles proclaimed, then fine, but I'd need to see and experience it. It's been quiet on that front for nearly two thousand years.

Yup. And it's supposed to stay that way, at least until Revelations happens. Which, according to Jesuits, probably won't be for another 10,000 years. Or 100,000. Or whenever. There's no actual timescale that Catholics have developed for that.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

If you really think I would benefit from a closer relationship with god, have a word with god and get him to come and speak to me.

Rapscallion

Well, here's the thing. I don't have an opinion on that. As arrogant as I am, I'm still not arrogant enough to judge what spiritual path would benefit you. God does not need my blessing to come speak to you, should he deem it appropriate.

I cannot give anyone proof. That's why it's called "faith" and not "exhibit A". I personally have proof. But it's my proof. It's personal to me. It will not be proof for you. You have to find your own proof. As much as I hate to bring up trite, bumper sticker philosophy, believing is seeing.

Which is why this is futile debate.

[Lachrymose]

That's a really contradictory position to take.
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable.
How do you reconcile that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

However, you are using the term agnostic in the correct way, and not the popular way that both I and the wiki did.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as their are faiths ( Buddhism ) where logic does apply and where this is a science problem so to speak. Unless you were speaking exclusively of Abrahamic religions.

I was speaking specifically of my own approach to religion, which I thought I made clear one line prior.

Your experience is not the entire picture. I'm not saying it doesn't happen the other way around, but down the throat shoving is in the mainstream public discourse in the US when it comes to Christianity.

While I agree that out among the masses, you generally get the annoying god-pusher types.

However, this forum seems to be the complete opposite with pretty much all of those claiming to be religious quite happy to coexist with everybody else and agree that the god-pushers need to stop it, while a number of self-identified atheists are trying to "sell" their position as the "one true way" and not seeing why anyone should think they're acting like hypocrites for it.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

...No, it was definately raging bipolar asshole, sorry and yes, it is worse than a fair amount of other mythologies.

You think? Because off the top of my head, I would say that the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Sumerian gods, the Egyptian gods, and the pagan deities of the Rus were much, much, more douchey.

.Old Testament God did not fark around. Even if you did obey him, he might randomly smite you to prove a point.

I know. That's what makes Him awesome like sauce.

.I'm just objectively pointing out that in that collection in particular the character of God was pretty much a raging bastard. I would honestly question anyone following that particular version of him.

You see, what you call 'raging bastardy', I call Magnificent Bastardy. God in the Old Testament is like Lord Vetinari in Discworld.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, seeing as their are faiths ( Buddhism ) where logic does apply and where this is a science problem so to speak. Unless you were speaking exclusively of Abrahamic religions.

Buddhism may have logical elements, but there remains the central problems of reincarnation, Nirvana, what is really meant by "right" in the Eightfold Path and so on...

Science demands proof. Religion does not have it. That's fine. But, Religion cannot demand equal footing with Science just because it believes it should.

And never should anyone say that it should

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

However, you are using the term agnostic in the correct way, and not the popular way that both I and the wiki did.

And as a side note, which is why Wikipedia is only good for general referencing, but not for sourcing. *sigh* Idiot Wikipedians.

Let's lighten up the thread!
See! This is JESUS VS THE ATHEISTS!