Uranium - 235 on 24/1/2007 at 02:18

---

First I will say 'shame on you'. You are deriving your idea of this book from a wikipedia article, and I hope I'm not the first to tell you that 'neutrality' on Wikipedia is a foreign concept when it comes to religion. Last I checked, the 'History of Christianity' article had three sentences written about Christian persecution, and an entire section describing how hard Christians have it. So your first mistake is lambasting a book based on what a handful of total strangers paraphrased it into.

Now, I have not read this book either, nor will I pretend I have. I *HAVE*, however, read a handful of other atheist writings, my most favorite, well-written, and convincing being "Atheist Universe" by David Mills. It's Amazon's #1 seller IIRC.

Back on topic, it's because using the scientific method it's almost impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one claiming something exists. Newton did not establish the Theory of Gravity by saying 'Prove gravity doesn't exist'. Einstein did not establish the Theory of Relativity by saying 'Just blindly believe it's true'. Darwin did not establish the Theory of Evolution by saying 'I just feel in my heart it's correct'. In fact, most scientific analysis of religion does not prove "there is no god".

Bible-thumpers say 'prove God doesn't exist.' They say 'just blindly accept it'. They say 'you can feel it's right'. Religion is fundamentally based on the mantra of 'ignorance is bliss'.

Scientific analysis in regards to religion does not attempt to disprove god, because god is a concept. I cannot prove Democracy is wrong, because it's a state of organization, not something you can 'prove'. Rather, in Atheist writings, typically what happens is science will analyze the religious arguments FOR a god. IE: That the flooding of earth is total fiction. That creationism / intelligent design is a sham. That key parts of the Bible are utter lies. Once you conclude your scientific analysis you arrive to a conclusion that given the evidence (or lack of) FOR god, a god therefore cannot exist, or rather, that it is scientifically improbable for a god to exist.

Atheism is about free-thinking. It is NOT just about worshiping science. For example, we KNOW that almost the entire Old Testament is fiction. We KNOW that many parts of the New Testament are fiction. If we assume that X% of the Bible is fiction, why should we assume that ANY of it isn't fiction? Many religious folks say that 'parts of the bible are not meant to be literal'. Unfortunately most of the passages that are in direct contradiction with everything we know about physics have absolutely no metaphorical interpretation. "In the beginning God created heaven and the earth. [Genesis 1:1]". How is THAT a metaphor? Assuming that the Bible is actually the 'word of god', why would he have his book written in such a way that can be interpreted so wildly? How come, for the last 1,900+ years, has the Bible been interpreted literally, and only recently is a metaphorical basis coming forward? And once again, if X% of the Bible is 'metaphorical', then how do we know that ANY of it is literal? How do you know that Jesus (of which, I should add, for being such a significant person, there is disturbingly little third-party historic documentation about) is not just a metaphor? Why do parts of the Bible suddenly become 'metaphorical' once they're proven wrong?

Up until the Theory of Evolution was widely proven a scientific fact, carbon dating showed that the earth is many billions of years old, and the 'geological column' showed the progression of evolution through millions and millions of years, why was 'Genesis' considered the literal sequence of events?

How many Christians believe that Jesus was actually born on December 25th (the same exact day that Pagans held their Winter Solstice celebration on the Roman calender)?

Science will say that a god's existence is improbable based on defeating the flimsy evidence in support of one. Logic analyzes the conclusions derived from this evidence, and the LOGIC says that there is no god.

fett on 24/1/2007 at 03:19

---

Stuff? It's not just 'stuff' - you'll have no problem throwing statistics around when it serves your point b/c, well... they reflect trends.

Not sure what you mean by 'the real fett' - have I not called you an idiot before? No surprise there... There's no blind fury - I'm pointing out that if you don't understand the basic political and expansionary reasons behind the Crusades (which had fuck all to do with Biblical christianity) you're not really qualified to point fingers at Western christianity now are you?

Nicker on 24/1/2007 at 03:37

---

What's to analyze? It's a catalogue of arbitrary cruelty. Do a psychological profile of Jehova and tell me it paints a picture of glowing mental and emotional health.

You can't have it both ways. It's either allegory / metaphor or it is documentary. It’s either musings on an abstract archetype or biography.

fett on 24/1/2007 at 04:18

---

Why does it HAVE to be one or the other of those? You do understand that this is a COLLECTION of 66 different books, written in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents over thousands of years by 40 different authors? Can you fathom for just a second that maybe they all had a different reason for writing? Newspapers are comprised of reported news, editorials (opinions), letters from readers, etc. - you don't call the whole thing 'bullshit' because it's not all 'hard news' - you know what to expect from the different sections of a newspaper because you're culturally conditioned to do so. Believers are also conditioned to approach different (and quite distinct) sections of the Bible in different ways. It's obvious that the Psalms aren't meant to convey history or doctrine. The books of prophecy are clearly stated to be such, and as a result, do not follow a strict chronological timeline, and use culturally identifiable symbols to communicate the messages contained therein. Throwing a tantrum because the allegory is 'too vague' or the poetry contains figurative language that differs from the books of history is ridiculous. It betrays a bias (rather than cool-headed objectivity - the 'hallmark' of atheism) because of the way the book has been used/abused or because of the claims it makes. It has to be approached like any other collection of literature, and if you don't do so, you've missed the boat right at the beginning when trying to debate it with christians.

This is what I've been trying to explain - why guys like Dawkins are falling on deaf ears in the church. Basic concept of the christian belief on the Bible is that it is a book that is both human and divine. The principals being 'heavenly', but couched in human language, emotions, and experience. Some of these guys were scholars, some were blue-collar guys, some were artists and musicians. For that reason, the book IS a biography, a history, a songbook, an allegory, etc.

In other words nobody's trying to 'have it both ways' - it simply is what it is as it has come down through history. You're chasing a windmill by expecting it to be something it's not, then attacking your expectation. Christians look at that and think, "Why should I listen to anything this guy says - he doesn't even understand the literary nature of the Bible?" It discredits you in their eyes because you've obviously not even taken the time to understand what you're attacking.

Have you guys considered that by simply labeling the whole thing 'bullshit' without having even read it, you're doing exactly the same thing christians do when they're confronted with Dan Barker, or Dawkins, etc.? Hell, if I'd done that with Dan Barker (Losing Faith in Faith) my posts here would be entirely different. I wanted to understand the atheist (free-thinking) standpoint, tried to approach it objectively, and whatderyerknow? The guy actually made some sense.

fett on 24/1/2007 at 05:53

---

Well, I've noticed that just as it's kinda rare to find an average person who actually thinks, christianity is no different. Most of the actually intelligent ones are in archeology and higher education - you probably don't work with them or bump into them on the street. But I guess that's true for intelligent people anyway lately (especially in the U.S.). Or I'm just cynical.