COTG

My favorite post from the Carnival of the Godless yesterday was What Must We Do To Be Saved?  The writer has actually read the relevant sections of the Bible to try to discover what Jesus wants us to do so that we can be saved an eternity of hellfire torment from our loving God.  Is it just to forgive others, as Jesus says in Matthew, or is it to be good, or not blaspheme, or keep the commandments (which ones?), or give all your money to the poor, or…?  You get the idea.  Jesus seems a little confused about what we have to do.

Anyway, an excellent example of how to examine the Bible rationally and demonstrate its contradictions.  Worth bookmarking.

Comments

[Daniel J. Andrews]

Sheesh. This is as bad as listening to a creationist try and talk about science and evolution. You don't even know where to begin to set them straight such are their misconceptions.

Atheist under the bed needs to stick to what they know, and that certainly isn't religious philosophy. Or maybe...maybe it is? Maybe AUTB has seen something that centuries of philosophers and religious philosophers and theologians have all missed. Something that even the various councils missed when they decided what texts would form the modern day bible.

Perhaps AUTB's next task will be to show increased global warming temperatures are because of the Urban Heat Island effect (just think, all those scientists missing something so obvious).

By all means though, bookmark the site and use the arguments. You'll look like a fool soon as you run into someone who is even halfway knowledgable. E.g. think how antivaxxers, global warming deniers, creationists look when they come across someone who knows what they're talking about, and you'll have a very good idea of how you will look too.

There are much better arguments to use. Learn them, use them (hint: don't use Hitchens, Dennett and especially not Dawkins, for goodness sake, don't use Dawkins). Pick an atheist who knows what they're talking about and who has made religious philosophy their field of study. Start with Michael Martin, and then move on from there, even to Anthony Flew.

p.s. In case I forgot to mention it--don't use Dawkins.

If you don't want to bother learning decent arguments, then you're no better than creationists who don't actually learn about evolution or the scientific method, but instead just parrot what other creationists tell them the science is about.

[yakaru]

Good, now how about rewriting all that, this time remembering to include some content.

[King of Ferrets]

So basically, "you can't argue with us if you haven't spent years studying this stuff like all those people who tell us it's true is!"

That's a pile of bullshit, dumbass.

You know, I really should read some Dawkins sometime. Lots of idiots seem to hate hearing about him, and I love annoying idiots.

[King of Ferrets]

Blargh.. "is" should be "have" in that quote.

By the way, this xkcd comic illustrates somewhat crudely the fact that people without specialty in the field can, in fact, do stuff.

(I'm not entirely sure if it would be an accurate analogy, but linking to xkcd is what all the cool people are doing! =P)

[Akusai]

Wow. The Courtier's Argument from a concern troll. Fun.

[Skeptico]

This is nothing more that the courtier’s reply – unless you’re an expert in the design and manufacture of invisible garments, you’re not allowed to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Of course “centuries of philosophers and religious philosophers and theologians” have all pontificated about the inconsistencies, illogicalities and basic errors of fact in the bible, but no mater how much drivel they write on the subject, trying to rationalize religious nonsense, the emperor is still naked, as the article I linked demonstrates. Daniel J. Andrews should tell us exactly where the cited argument is wrong, and exactly what correct interpretation we should put on the different contradictory bible stories (assuming, of course,that he has the slightest clue about it - which I doubt) or he should shut up.

[King of Ferrets]

Oh yeah, that's what it's called, isn't it?

[Jimmy_Blue]

That's it, that's all you have got?

Do come back when you have something substantial to say. Like, for instance, exactly what is wrong with those arguments.

I did get a kick from this though:

Or maybe...maybe it is? Maybe AUTB has seen something that centuries of philosophers and religious philosophers and theologians have all missed. Something that even the various councils missed when they decided what texts would form the modern day bible.

Yes, maybe it is. Maybe they have seen something. That's rather the point. Take your argument from authority and shove it.

Like I said, come back when you have soemthing of substance to say.

[Tom Foss]

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen this Bizarro version of the Courtier's Reply before. I've seen similar things, but never "you should cite real atheists, not these lame ones."

Incidentally, I don't think these contradictions are something that theologians have missed over the centuries; I think they're things that theologians have tried to reconcile over the centuries. The Councils that put together the Bible as we know it used the books that were most commonly used at the time, and that fit with their particular interpretations of the dogma; consistency was not necessarily a goal or a possibility.

And they're points on which denominations can split and schisms can arise. Which is why there are churches who deny salvation by works, and other churches who say that works are a necessary part, and still other churches who think that all good people go to heaven regardless of belief. This is a representation of the problem--the sheer number of denominations with opposing doctrines speaks against the fabled unity of the Bible, and against its status as a perfect, inspired, and singular source on the mind of God.