Ignorance and the Bible

[Ross Dolan]

Odd, isn’t it, that true Biblical scholars, many of who were true believers at one time, many of who went through divinity schools and who possess their PhDs in a variety of Old Testament, New Testament, Early Christianity studies are atheists.

And they only came to their conclusions based on years of intense study. Hardly a group that one would classify as idiots.

That is in contrast to those who were indoctrinated into whatever religious dogma they were born into from the time they were old enough to walk.

Me? I’ll take study and reflection over dogma indoctrination every time.

You seem to think you have.

You haven't, Domer. You are merely making a blind guess...and insisting it is the result of study and reflection.

If you truly were doing the intellectual thing, you would come up with the truth: I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

In some form...THAT is where intellectualism would lead you on this question.

I do not know if there are no gods...or if there is at least one God...and I do not know if it is more likely that that there are none or if there is at least one. All I can do is guess...and then, if I abandon the reasonable stance, I will guess one is correct...and insist that is the reasonable position to take.

 

[Based Chad]

Sure. Plenty of good messages. That is no evidence or proof of a god, however. I get plenty of good messages from the Dao or the Stoics. No god there.

isn't the moral living the important part?

 

[Based Chad]

You seem to think you have.

You haven't, Domer. You are merely making a blind guess...and insisting it is the result of study and reflection.

If you truly were doing the intellectual thing, you would come up with the truth: I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

In some form...THAT is where intellectualism would lead you on this question.

I do not know if there are no gods...or if there is at least one God...and I do not know if it is more likely that that there are none or if there is at least one. All I can do is guess...and then, if I abandon the reasonable stance, I will guess one is correct...and insist that is the reasonable position to take.

but aren't pro-social moral codes apparently valuable, even sans a punishing god?

 

[Based Chad]

Odd, isn’t it, that true Biblical scholars, many of who were true believers at one time, many of who went through divinity schools and who possess their PhDs in a variety of Old Testament, New Testament, Early Christianity studies are atheists.

And they only came to their conclusions based on years of intense study. Hardly a group that one would classify as idiots.

That is in contrast to those who were indoctrinated into whatever religious dogma they were born into from the time they were old enough to walk.

Me? I’ll take study and reflection over dogma indoctrination every time.

they're masonic saboteurs of human morality.

they work for Satan.

 

[gmark77]

I think mocking Christianity does happen frequently, and I've been guilty of it myself.

When you mock Christianity on the internet, the odds almost certain you are going to acquire the habit of mocking it in public. I participate in a public discussion group where Christians are routinely the butt of jokes, and Christianity is openly mocked.

The accumulation of that kind of attitude over the years and decades is ultimately going to cause liberalism a reputation of intolerance towards religion.

You might not care about winning elections. But I am dead certain Democrats are now losing socially conservative states they should be winning because of the perception a vocal minority has hijacked the party into a type of uncompromising secularism and moral relativism that just doesn't sell in formerly blue and purple flyover and rust belt states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania

I am somewhat confused as to why "winning elections" has now become part of a discussion of the Bible in this thread. No one was talking politics.

 

[gmark77]

Atheism is simply a word...a self-descriptor word. A person chooses to use it as a self-descriptor...and damn near EVERY person who chooses to use it to describe self...uses it because of a "belief"...a guess about the reality of existence.

Atheism is as much a product of "belief" as is theism...although atheists want to view themselves as being without beliefs, so they pretend the reason they use the word as a self-descriptor is because they lack belief.

Apparently you are not prepared to see the truth on this at this time. Okay...that happens. The MAGA element among us is not prepared to see the great damage Trump is doing to our country and its values.

You have the right to that pretense. I challenge it simply because it is being presented in a forum where challenges of this sort are a part of the game.

Atheism of the Implicit variety is simply the lack of belief. I can't make it more simple than that. That's my philosophy. I simply lack belief.

I have even provided a reference which explicitly describes my position so you know I didn't just make it up.

Bjork says there are elves in Iceland. Do you believe her? If not would you characterize your position as one of "belief that there are no elves"?

This is an important question.

 

[gmark77]

Great. I hope you are happy with your "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. I also hope the theists among us are happy with their "beliefs" that there is a GOD or that it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none.

One of those blind guesses is correct. I just do not know which it is...so I choose an agnostic perspective (rather than a descriptor) which I have shared many times here in JPP.

Implicit atheism is simply the lack of belief.

Implicit and explicit atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone...

religion.fandom.com

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Odd, isn’t it, that true Biblical scholars, many of who were true believers at one time, many of who went through divinity schools and who possess their PhDs in a variety of Old Testament, New Testament, Early Christianity studies are atheists.

And they only came to their conclusions based on years of intense study. Hardly a group that one would classify as idiots.

That is in contrast to those who were indoctrinated into whatever religious dogma they were born into from the time they were old enough to walk.

Me? I’ll take study and reflection over dogma indoctrination every time.

Like who? Name some "true Biblical scholars" who are atheists.

There's a very large amount of space between believing that there is more to existence than the physical and "dogma indoctrination". I'm not a dogmatist and consider all religious texts as advisory and needing to be put in context of their times.

A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars

Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars…

robertcliftonrobinson.com

Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars are, we find that they are most often atheist or progressive scholars who do not believe God exists in the first place.
https://www.amazon.com/Robert Clift...-pages-popularity-rank&ie=UTF8&qid=1497308090
We might wonder why a person would seek an advanced degree in Biblical studies, only to spend their life and work trying to impeach the Bible.

 

[domer76]

they're masonic saboteurs of human morality.

they work for Satan.

Whatever the fuck masonic sabateurs means.

Satan is another Christian myth. Concocted to instill fear for control purposes.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Atheism of the Implicit variety is simply the lack of belief. I can't make it more simple than that. That's my philosophy. I simply lack belief.

I have even provided a reference which explicitly describes my position so you know I didn't just make it up.

I never thought you made it up. I know it was invented by atheists a long while back.

It is an atheistic attempt to pretend that some atheists are not using the self-descriptor atheist because of a blind guess. They are saying essentially, "C'mon. Pretend along with me that I am not making a blind guess and using the descriptor "atheist" because of that blind guess. I am allowing a dictionary to dictate that I must use atheist because I lack a belief in any gods."

It is bullshit.

The reason you use "atheist" as a descriptor is because you have made a blind guess that there are no gods...or a blind guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If it is necessary for you to live that pretense, go with it...and good luck.

If you think I must buy into that bullshit...you are mistaken.

Bjork says there are elves in Iceland. Do you believe her? If not would you characterize your position as one of "belief that there are no elves"?

This is an important question.

It is a bullshit question, but I will answer it.

I do not believe there are any elves in Iceland.

 

[domer76]

If you are saying, "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...YOU ARE MAKING A BLIND GUESS. The only reason you want to consider it "a logical conclusion" is because of your blind guess. You are doing the same thing a theist does when the theist insists that the existence of a GOD is a logical conclusion. You are doing the same thing Augustine and Aquinas did...making a blind guess (having a "belief") and insisting that blind guess is correct "having faith."

It is just that you are guessing in the opposite direction from them.

Word salad.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Implicit atheism is simply the lack of belief.

Implicit and explicit atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone...

religion.fandom.com

"Implicit atheism" is a bullshit concept that some people who use "atheist" as a descriptor use to pretend they are not blindly guessing on the question of the REALITY of existence.

They want to pretend their atheism is based on common sense...which is an absurdity. IF they truly were using common sense, they would simply accept that they do not know the true REALITY of existence...and leave it at that. They would abandon atheism as a self-descriptor and use NO DESCRIPTOR or use "agnostic."

 

[Ross Dolan]

Word salad.

If you need to think that in order to feel comfortable with your blind guesses...fine with me. I don't bust the balls of theists for their blind guesses...no need to bust yours.

 

[gmark77]

It is a bullshit question, but I will answer it.

I do not believe there are any elves in Iceland.

You said you "do not believe". Is that a belief in your analysis?

That is what you are telling me about my position. So I need to know if you feel that when you "do not believe" a claim that it is, itself, a belief.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Are you referring to Pascals Wager? That, of course, is complete bullshit. He defines his own god, the Christian god, without consideration of the myriad of other god concepts. Failed from the get go.

I don’t know about all these militant atheists you speak of. What impact on society are they having? What I DO know is how the Christian nationalism movement impacts our politics these days.

Your choice to disregard logic in favor of your emotional attachment to atheism. As for Pascal, there's the man and there's the decision tree. The decision tree is logical. Human beings, by their very nature, are flawed.

FWIW, Christian nationalists are not Christians. It's an oxymoron with an emphasis on moron.

You never heard of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism? Let me help you:

New Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Major figures of New Atheism include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens,[3] collectively referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of the movement.[5] Proponents of the New Atheist movement have experienced some controversy and criticisms from academics and other atheists.


https://cnyepiscopal.org/2024/08/01...w-does-it-distort-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/
Rather than seeing beauty in the wide variety of humanity in America, Christian nationalists single out one segment of society and hold up those who espouse an abridged version of Christianity as the exemplar for all. And while Christian nationalists overtly focus on religion, racist, sexist, and anti-LGBTQIA rhetoric often is employed.

Christian nationalism truncates the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The emphasis is on personal salvation and often downplays or ignores the social responsibilities of the Gospel.

Christian Nationalism Is Neither Christian Nor Nationalistic

Two of the worst words in the Church today is "Christian Nationalism." Neither are Christian or from this nation. Both should be understood!

www.patheos.com

The roots of Christian nationalism are not biblical—they are theosophical, political and ethnocentric.

Throughout Western history, Christian nationalism has been used as a veneer to justify imperialism, colonialism and ethnic domination. If that sounds like a fascist regime, it should. The idea emerged during Constantine’s era when the Roman Empire insisted on the Christian faith as a civic identity. Centuries of political Christianity followed through crusades, inquisitions and enemies of the state. Power became a sacrament and force masquerading as theology.

Consider this: Just because the emperor was an advocate for Christianity doesn’t make what he did to force the issue any less fascist.

The American version of Christian nationalism dates back to colonial Puritanism, which saw the New World as a “city on a hill.” Yet the Constitution of the United States directly opposes any such union, with the First Amendment forbidding the establishment of religion. Despite this, figures throughout American history have continued to equate patriotism with Christianity.

 

[domer76]

You seem to think you have.

You haven't, Domer. You are merely making a blind guess...and insisting it is the result of study and reflection.

If you truly were doing the intellectual thing, you would come up with the truth: I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

In some form...THAT is where intellectualism would lead you on this question.

I do not know if there are no gods...or if there is at least one God...and I do not know if it is more likely that that there are none or if there is at least one. All I can do is guess...and then, if I abandon the reasonable stance, I will guess one is correct...and insist that is the reasonable position to take.

You seem to think you have.

You haven't, Domer. You are merely making a blind guess...and insisting it is the result of study and reflection.

If you truly were doing the intellectual thing, you would come up with the truth: I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

In some form...THAT is where intellectualism would lead you on this question.

I do not know if there are no gods...or if there is at least one God...and I do not know if it is more likely that that there are none or if there is at least one. All I can do is guess...and then, if I abandon the reasonable stance, I will guess one is correct...and insist that is the reasonable position to take.

Blind guess is making a random, uninformed, without evidence nor knowledge. The Biblical scholars, those atheists I refer to, are more knowledgeable, more informed, more intellectual and have studied the evidence more than you and I ever will.

Your “blind guess” mantra fails on all accounts.

 

[domer76]

You said you "do not believe". Is that a belief in your analysis?

That is what you are telling me about my position. So I need to know if you feel that when you "do not believe" a claim that it is, itself, a belief.

Frank confuses a rational conclusion with his “belief” and “blind guess” bullshit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Whatever the fuck masonic sabateurs means.

Satan is another Christian myth. Concocted to instill fear for control purposes.

FWIW, it's irrational to try to reason with irrational people. Jus' sayin'.

My best advice is to put them all on ignore and then post as you please. Intelligent, rational and educated people are much more fun.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Frank confuses a rational conclusion with his “belief” and “blind guess” bullshit.

You're upset. I get it. Lots of religious extremists, be they haters or believers, become emotionally attached to their beliefs.

As for "Frank", I'm guessing you mean @Ross Dolan, he seems rational to me. He has his beliefs, but rarely becomes upset over them.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You said you "do not believe". Is that a belief in your analysis?

That is what you are telling me about my position. So I need to know if you feel that when you "do not believe" a claim that it is, itself, a belief.

No it is not.

I am telling you that I do not believe "x."

What do you think that means?