Nov 01
God is imaginary
“Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn’t a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn’t you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author?”
Quote from GodIsImaginary.com.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Now, I’m no religious scholar, but I don’t think that most Christians believe that God actually /wrote/ the Bible. Certainly not the New Testament. But even the Old Testament is accepted as being written by humans recording the actions of God. And humans are, of course, fallible.
Of course, there are probably fundamentalist who take a different line.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I was glad to see some stickers on the London underground saying :
“Relegion is superstitious nonsense”
November 1st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
That’s the thing, though. A good many people believe it to be infallible. If you don’t believe it to be the word of a god, what’s the point of it?
November 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
I agree with Tony. Theologically, for a Christian, the Bible is inspired by God (”God-breathed”) but he didn’t actually write it down.
In fact, some modern-day theologians will argue that much of the current church has, in fact, turned the Bible into an idol, by revering it more than God himself. God speaks through ‘His Word’ by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Without said inspiration, it’s just words. And sadly, for many churches, they’re only interested in those words.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I’m sure Mr. Ben will be able to answer that better than I can, Matt.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
MrBen - I’m sure you must acknowledge that starting a sentence with the phrase “Theologically, for a Christian” condemns the rest of what you say to be incredibly vague. What sort of Christian? What denomination? Evangelical? Liberal Anglican? Roman Catholic? Born again, baptised in the Spirit and eagerly awaiting rapture?
I understand that almost every Christian makes some acknowledgement of the human hand in creating the Bible. The point still stands that the Bible is a weird and less than wonderful collection of contradictory texts, particularly when many Christians hold it up as the ideal basis for life.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Dammit - should’ve written more in that first comment
Sometimes an analogy helps. If I read a letter from a friend, part of my experience as a reader is developed from my relationship with the friend. The better my relationship, the better my understanding of what is written, and my attachment to said letter. However, even without relationship with the person, I might still find interesting and/or knowledgable things in the letter, but my experience will not be the same.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Ah, well, I’ve read said letter both with the (imaginary) relationship and without.
Neither through the lens of modern Christianity, or without, could I justify the mysoginy, homophobia and fantasy that you’d expect of a book written by a bunch of blokes two to three thousand years ago.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Many years of Sunday School has left me agnostic, but knowledgeable. The first five books of the Bible are generally understood to have been written by Moses, and the New Testament by the Apostles.
Agnosticism - it’s the way forwards
November 1st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Walster - not particularly knowledgeable, it would seem, if you reckon the NT was written by the Apostles.
The four Gospels, for example, were written long after any of the Apostles were dead.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
“The point still stands that the Bible is a weird and less than wonderful collection of contradictory texts, particularly when many Christians hold it up as the ideal basis for life”
I think you’ve fallen foul of the same problem you accuse Mr Ben of namely :
“What sort of Christian? What denomination? Evangelical? Liberal Anglican? Roman Catholic? Born again, baptised in the Spirit and eagerly awaiting rapture?”
Evangelical fundamentalists may well hold up the bible as a whole to be the literal word of god. Catholics have a whole catechism of an additional “official” basis for the way of life for a Christian. Other more modern born again Christians would hold up the life of Jesus and his actions as being what you should use as a basis for your life. ( Hence the WWJD bracelets).
If you look at the words Jesus said as being more important, indeed some bibles have these words picked out in a separate red typeface, you’ll find a more coherent and consistent set of moral principles.
However you can do the same with the words of Buddha and, though I have no direct experience probably the words of Mohamed.
Fundamentally they are saying the same things, be nice, be compassionate, love thy neighbour etc. As a creed per se it’s something anyone could reasonably sign up to, humanists and atheists included.
The differences lie in why you should sign up to those values. With religions it usually the threat of something bad happening otherwise i.e. damnation, or missing out on relief from bad things already happening e.g. Nirvana.
Humanists would argue you should ascribe to those values because they are “good” in and of themselves.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
“The four Gospels, for example, were written long after any of the Apostles were dead.”
That’s a little debatable.
The oldest copies that we have on record are good deal after the apostles died. But then - these were copies. And, for want of a bit of clarity, the breadth and quality of available texts, as well as the number of years since the ‘original’ was written, far surpasses that of any other known ancient text.
“Ah, well, I?ve read said letter both with the (imaginary) relationship and without.”
And herein lies the truth of the matter. We all come with our own bias. You’re never likely to believe it because of your own personal situation. For all the logic, reason and science in the world, a good number of atheists still come with a huge amount of bias clouding their thinking.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
“And herein lies the truth of the matter. We all come with our own bias. You?re never likely to believe it because of your own personal situation. For all the logic, reason and science in the world, a good number of atheists still come with a huge amount of bias clouding their thinking.”
Based on that premise everyone has a bias and so you’re never likely not to believe it because of your own situation Mr Ben. So any debate on the matter is pointless? That would seem to be what you are suggesting and yet surely with religion such a key influence in world affairs at the moment it’s more important than ever to debate it.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:02 pm
” ?The four Gospels, for example, were written long after any of the Apostles were dead.?
That?s a little debatable. ”
Sorry, I fell into the trap of making bold statements about things we can’t possibly know
“We all come with our own bias. You?re never likely to believe it because of your own personal situation.”
Faith is just a particularly form of bias: i.e. a belief based not on evidence but instinct. I’ve been there - as a born again Christian - and thought through my beliefs to the point of freedom. Certainly, some events in my life acted as a catalyst to speed the process. However, I can rationally justify my atheism, whereas I couldn’t rationally justify any form of religion. So, my atheism is not based on prejudice, but careful thought. The same can’t be said of most people who have some form of faith.
“For all the logic, reason and science in the world, a good number of atheists still come with a huge amount of bias clouding their thinking.”
I find it surprising that logic, reason and science should be used as a defence for Christianity. I look at the evidence available and draw the conclusion that there are no gods. There is nothing logical, reasonable or scientific about religion. Not even Christian Science
November 1st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Simon - I have no problem with the debate. I have a problem with either side suggesting that they have no bias.
Matt - You personally can’t rationally justify faith, because of your particular situation . Logic, reason and science can easily be used as a defense of Christianity. Many top scientists have believed in God. Many don’t. There are many people who were vociferous in their opposition to Christianity, but circumstances and experiences caused them to change their minds. In your case, it would appear that the opposite is true.
For a lot of people who cease to believe, they do so because it is less painful to not believe in God, than it is to believe that God exists and has allowed , or sometimes because their belief revolved around a set of thoughts and actions, and not necessarily a ‘living relationship’ (to use a horrible Christian cliche).
The other big problem in this kind of debate is that people often confuse religion with faith, and assume that the two always equate, when they quite obviously don’t.
Meh - ultimately I hate this kind of discussion, because it ultimately leads nowhere. People rarely back down on something as personal as faith, whether that is a belief in God, or in that there is no God. All that happens is that everyone gets really defense and/or offended.
Hopefully I haven’t made things worse.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:36 pm
“People rarely back down on something as personal as faith, whether that is a belief in God, or in that there is no God. All that happens is that everyone gets really defense and/or offended.”
Isn’t that true of most debates you see on the ‘net or in person? I think the benefit of these discussions is it helps other people see arguments for both sides which they can either use to make up their own mind or bolster their own position if they already have one.
Isn’t there a “law” of the internet that goes along the lines of “The longer an internet debate goes on the probability that someone will be called a Nazi tends towards 1″
November 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
It is Godwin’s Law , apparently:-
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/30/33339/3949
November 1st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I wrote that it was “generally accepted”, what I should have written was “I have been lead to believe that the original source for the NT was the Apostles, at least part of which was written by Paul and John.”
Still it’s a funny old thing, religion. The faith in which people hold in a particular concept is a peculiar thing - I have some quite interesting discussion with my Jehovah’s Witness Aunt, I can tell you!
November 9th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Matt,
If you’re looking for a book to leave you “in awe”, as you put it, then I’d suggest you try one that does itself make the claim that it is written by an omniscient being, “the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe” to use the words from your quote. Such a book is called the Quran.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:27 am
If it doesn’t involve the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn’t bear mention to be published.