Why I am am athiest

[Kafka]

And when militant atheists complain about Christianity, it is almost always, invariably, and consistently about the Hebrew Bible.

Well, many of us have actually been to churches a lot and know that the OT is still quoted extensively and is still an integral part of Christianity. Even Christ himself said so.

You seem to be the only person (aside from the Marcionites whose heresy was anathematized millennia ago) who think the OT can be jettisoned.

You are too dedicated to your hatred and bile (your standard position) to read what I say next but I'll go ahead and say it so you will have something to lie about after you ban me from your thread:

The NT is by far a much kinder version of God. It is a version of God that bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the God it is supposed to be. There is literally NOTHING ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.

There's almost nothing to really hold against the God of the NT as he has now become an ineffible being of pure love who has almost no direct contact with the world anymore and he loves ALL people, not just the Jews.

The reason we like to focus on the OT is because it shows how the concept of God is purely made up. One group got this God handed to them and they RECONTEXTUALIZED it to become a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT God to match human needs.

That's why.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The OT is a lightning rod.

The fire and brimstone evangelicals seem to have a hard on for the OT.

And when militant atheists complain about Christianity, it is almost always, invariably, and consistently about the Hebrew Bible.

Agreed. The Evangelistas put fire and brimstone over the words of Christ and the militant atheists completely ignore them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Well, many of us have actually been to churches a lot and know that the OT is still quoted extensively and is still an integral part of Christianity. Even Christ himself said so....

...The NT is by far a much kinder version of God. It is a version of God that bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the God it is supposed to be. There is literally NOTHING ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.

You went to all the different denominations of Christianity in America? That's quite an accomplishment! Kudos.

What is God "supposed to be"? If you are as astute as you believe yourself to be, you'd know that there's God and then there's the human perceptions of God. Which do you think is most likely to be flawed?

 

[Cypress]

Oh by all means, tell Christians that the 10 commandments don't apply.

You are hilarious.

Wait, you really didn't know that fulfilling Jesus' commandment to lover your neighbor as yourself fulfilled the moral laws of Torah by itself? Despite having be a bible thumper yourself?

Yes, you need Exodus and the Ten Commandments in the Christian bible for reference. But strictly speaking, it is living within Jesus' commandments that fulfills all the moral laws of Torah.

 

[Kafka]

...and the militant atheists completely ignore them.

Not this atheist:

I have been quite clear and said many times that I value a great deal of Christianity.

As I told Cypress on MANY MANY occasions there is a lot of good in Christianity and Judaism that I value. There's actually a lot of good stuff in the Bible. I am not on some crusade to make Christianity look bad...fuck, most of my friends whom I love are Christians...I'd be a moron if that was my goal.

Yes, Jesus seems to on the whole recast the laws in simplified forms without reliance on the ritual purity laws. Or at least the authors of the Gospels do.

This is the stuff I find valuable in the Bible. It is the good stuff. But it is hard to parse that out from the OT when even Jesus states: "...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Personally I'm OK either way: real Jesus or made-up Jesus. The teachings are the good stuff. It would be cool if he was real but not absolutely necessary.

There's a LOT of really good stuff in the New Testament. A lot of really good ways to live. Whether Jesus was real or not or whether Jesus said most of the things attributed to him matters not one whit to the moral impact of the teachings.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Given how often you EXPLICITLY state whoever famous person is you are quoting you ALWAYS mention the person by name.

That means you didn't know who PW Atkins was. Which means you didn't have much chemistry beyond maybe intro. MAYBE.

You mince around on the forum name-checking every human being you imagine will make you look smart. Yet you missed this one.

I just thought it was funny.



You are so full of shit.

Why are you so fragile that no one can possibly know more than you do?

Why are you so upset by this? Your views are not very Kafkian.

 

[Kafka]

Wait, you really didn't know that fulfilling Jesus' commandment to lover your neighbor as yourself fulfilled the moral laws of Torah by itself? Despite having be a bible thumper yourself?

Yes, you need Exodus and the Ten Commandments in the Christian bible for reference. But strictly speaking, it is living within Jesus' commandments that fulfills all the moral laws of Torah.

You literally think the 10 Commandments are no longer something Christians hold to?

Wow.

I understood when you weren't familiar with the Nicene Creed, and I wasn't particularly surprised that you whipped past the Apostles Creed when I posted it but I'm really curious if you have EVER set foot into a Protestant church in your entire life.

Do they have a restraining order against you? How could you be so unfamiliar with Protestants?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not this atheist:

Yet you keep complaining about Christians like Trump complains about Jews as if they are a monolithic group.

Do you agree that atheism is a belief that can't be proved? Do you believe human beings are soulless meat computers who respond only to biochemical programming and experience?

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. The Evangelistas put fire and brimstone over the words of Christ and the militant atheists completely ignore them.

The argument they are having is whether God is perfectly Just, or whether God is an unjust immoral monster.

Anyone can cherry pick quotes from the Hebrew Bible to justify either position. That kind of cherry picking amounts to confirmation bias, which is a form of deep intellectual dishonesty and deception.

I don't think the Hebrew bible is entirely clear if God is perfectly just, or manifestly unjust. On the one hand, you have to explain why God tells Noah he will spare anyone in the city of Sodom from annihilation if they are righteous. That seems just. On the other hand, the bible thumpers have to explain the book of Job.

 

[Cypress]

The reason we like to focus on the OT is because it shows how the concept of God is purely made up.

That's why.

So you are a cherry-picker, which is a form of deep intellecutal dishonesty.

If you are so angry at the Hebrew Bible, why are you complaining about it to Christians, instead of to your Jewish neighbors and co-workers? It is the Jews who wrote it.

 

[Cypress]

You literally think the 10 Commandments are no longer something Christians hold to?

Wow.

for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Obeying Jesus' commandments themselves act to fulfill the Jewish moral laws in Torah. Period, full stop. Of course, you still need Exodus in the Christian bible as reference material.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The argument they are having is whether God is perfectly Just, or whether God is an unjust immoral monster.

Anyone can cherry pick quotes from the Hebrew Bible to justify either position. That kind of cherry picking amounts to confirmation bias, which is a form of deep intellectual dishonesty and deception.

I don't think the Hebrew bible is entirely clear if God is perfectly just, or manifestly unjust. On the one hand, you have to explain why God tells Noah he will spare anyone in the city of Sodom from annihilation if they are righteous. That seems just. On the other hand, the bible thumpers have to explain the book of Job.

Agreed...and what they want to prove is that God is an unjust immoral monster. What they refuse to admit is that mankind's perception of God is just as flawed as MTG's perception of what causes California wildfires and hurricanes hitting Florida.

Agreed on cherry-picking. FWIW, I never trust anyone's judgement who cherry-picks and is never willing to discuss context.

The Abrahamic God blows hot and cold, sometimes wrathful, sometimes just. IMO, most stories like Sodom and Gomorrah are told after the fact to explain their destruction.

It's common across cultures to explain destructive natural forces in terms of "the wrath of the gods". Vikings saying thunder is Thor's wrath is a non-Abrahamic example. The Kamikaze destroying Khan's fleet thus saving Japan from invasion is another.

Kamikaze – The Divine Winds that Saved Japan

The Mongols attempted two major invasions of Japan during the 13th century, in 1274 and 1281 AD, led by Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan. On both occasions however,

www.ancient-origins.net

Sodom and Gomorrah - Biblical Cities, Destruction, Judgment | Britannica

Sodom and Gomorrah - Biblical Cities, Destruction, Judgment: The exact nature of the damning wickedness of the cities has been the subject of debate. Traditionally, Sodom and Gomorrah have been associated with homosexual acts. The mob of men that accosts the angels had demanded of Lot, “Where...

www.britannica.com

Historicity​

Sodom and Gomorrah are possibly located under or adjacent to the shallow waters south of Al-Lisān, a former peninsula in the central part of the Dead Sea in Israel that now fully separates the sea’s northern and southern basins. They presumably were devastated about 1900 bce by an earthquake in the Dead Sea area of the East African Rift System, an extensive geologic rift extending southward from the Jordan River valley in Israel to the Zambezi River system in eastern Africa. Archaeological evidence indicates that the area was once fertile, in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–c. 1550 bce), with fresh water flowing into the Dead Sea in sufficient amounts to sustain agriculture. Because of the fertile land, Lot selected the area of the cities of the Valley of Siddim (the Salt Sea, or Dead Sea) to graze his flocks. When the catastrophic destruction occurred, the petroleum and gases existing in the area probably contributed to the imagery of “brimstone and fire” that accompanied the geological upheaval that destroyed the cities. Har Sedom (Arabic: Jabal Usdum), or Mount Sodom, at the southwestern end of the sea, reflects Sodom’s name. The present-day industrial site of Sedom, Israel, on the Dead Sea shore, is located near the presumed site of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Cypress]

That means you didn't know who PW Atkins was. Which means you didn't have much chemistry beyond maybe intro. MAYBE.

I don't remember hearing about him until I started watching his debates on YouTube.

He has never won a Nobel prize.

According to Wikipedia he published his first college textbook on general chemistry in 1992, years after I graduated and finished taking my undergraduate chemistry classes. I would have never used his textbooks.

I pay more attention to physicists.


So is this your grand victory, that Peter Atkins was never on my radar screen!

 

[anonymoose]

Jesus was tortured and crucified. That has the makings of a Steven King novel too.

Nothing from Exodus to Dueteronmy applies to christianity. The OT is included as reference material in the Christian bible. If the history of the Hebrew people in the Hebrew bible angers you, why don't you walk up to a Jewish neighbor or Jewish co-worker to complain about it?

What makes you think I’m angry ?

 

[Kafka]

So you are a cherry-picker, which is a form of deep intellecutal dishonesty.

I explained it to you and now you have to mischaracterize it in the most hateful way you can. Good job.

If you are so angry at the Hebrew Bible, why are you complaining about it to Christians, instead of to your Jewish neighbors and co-workers? It is the Jews who wrote it.

I honestly wish you were an HONEST debator and could address the point I ACTUALLY raised instead of the usual mishcaracterization and lies you partake in when you address me.

May I ask why you have ANY interest in the BIble if you are so dead-set against Christ's message?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So you are a cherry-picker, which is a form of deep intellecutal dishonesty.

If you are so angry at the Hebrew Bible, why are you complaining about it to Christians, instead of to your Jewish neighbors and co-workers? It is the Jews who wrote it.

...or the Muslims. All are believers of the God of Abraham.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What makes you think I’m angry ?

Your comments, your negativity and your form of humor which is demeaning of others but never self-deprecating, including your political beliefs.

 

[Kafka]

What makes you think I’m angry ?

Cypress is incapble of debating some people. When he gets "mad" at someone he hates them forever. No matter how hard you try to derail it he will ALWAYS spew hate at those people he dislikes.

As such he is OBLIGATED to mischaracterize those people's posts so he can mock them.

Cypress lacks what you and I might call a "consistent moral compass". He is on here blathering about Jesus' teachings but he seems to hold the majority of them in contempt.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Cypress is incapble of debating some people. When he gets "mad" at someone he hates them forever. No matter how hard you try to derail it he will ALWAYS spew hate at those people he dislikes....

...Cypress lacks what you and I might call a "consistent moral compass". He is on here blathering about Jesus' teachings but he seems to hold the majority of them in contempt.

Disagreed. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's mad, but your behavior is revealing. Can you cite a post where Cypress spewed hate? I'm truly curious since I've never seen it. If you can't do it, I fully understand.

Disagreed. Like myself, Cypress is an agnostic who appreciates the values of wise people like Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama but disagrees with those who weaponize those values to spread hate and division. In short, @Cypress has a consistent moral compass. OTOH, I'm learning that your compass leans hard into hatred and resentment. Your choice.

 

[Kafka]

I don't remember hearing about him until I started watching his debates on YouTube.

Fair enough. I was fully aware you had almost not chemistry background so of course you would have no way to know who PW Atkins was.

It was just fun pointing out your USUAL non-stop name checking to make yourself look smarter.

He has never won a Nobel prize.

LOL. Neither has Dawkins. But you belabor him all the time because it is a name you recognize.

As per usual you are a "surficial" tourist in many areas of erudition. You seem to drift in, memorize a few names and then call it a day.

This way you actually LEARN something new.

According to Wikipedia

Yes we know you rely on Wikipedia. You are, after all, the Wikipedia Scholar.

he published his first college textbook on general chemistry in 1992,

I didn't take p-chem until grad school in the 90's. That's why I fell hard for Atkins. He was the guy that got me through so many of my early jobs.

years after I graduated and finished taking my undergraduate chemistry classes. I would have never used his textbooks.

Welll, if you had been able to stick out the rest of grad school you might have.

I pay more attention to physicists.

Atkins is a PHYSICAL CHEMIST. So, again, you don't really know what you're talking about and you want desperately for me to go away because I do.

That scares you. I suspect I'll be banned here forthwith for having the temerity to teach you something you didn't know. And I revealed your ignorance publicly which I know is anathema to you.

So is this your grand victory, that Peter Atkins was never on my radar screen!

That's because you are a dilettante when it comes to the sciences.