The God Poll

[General Zod]

This is exactly how I feel. I'm not likely to read some book written by a college professor debunking religion more than I am a priest promoting it.

For the record, Dawkins' book doesn't set out to debunk religion. While he touches on it (it's obviously unavoidable), the book has more to with evolution, atheism, and the validity of the concept of god. As I said, it was an interesting read. If that's not your cup of tea, no big deal.

Read the word of Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, LaVey, so forth, and decide if it's bullshit for yourself.

I've read all of them. They are internally inconsistent. That's why I'll never understand the religious right. The biggest proponent of the King James bible, is one Peter Ruckman. He put out a book where he attempts to address these inconsistencies. The irony is, the book is longer than the bible itself.

Zod

 

[MajestikMøøse]

Anyone can read those documents and using logic call them crap and inconsistent. I'm calling your bullshit, not on any grounds of differing worldview, but on academic grounds concerning issues of cultural context, textual transmission, and translation issues.

Take the Hebrew Bible for instance (commonly referred to as the Old Testament in the Christian tradition):

The original Hebrew Bible was written probably between the 8th to the 3rd centuries BC. The text was written unvocalized, since Hebrew is written in a purely consonantal script. The vowel points and markers in the masoretic text weren't added until the 10th-11th centuries AD by medieval Jewish grammarians. The vowel points added there tend to render some passages in a particular way, depending on which system of vowel points used, which can make crucial differences on specific passages. Also, there are layers and layers of editing that went on in the formative period of the texts. Even texts that are generally agreed to be older on a linguistic basis still have insertions and extra appendices added in which show linguistic or ideological traces of being inserted at a later date to rectify problems in how the community of readership at the time interpreted it.

On top of that, Hebrew has a lot of nuances that are difficult to convey in English translation. The writers used a lot of wordplay. In some cases one verse has a variety of different readings. Which one is right? From the prospective of the ancient reader each interpretation is equally valid.

Aside from that, there's the Greek translation that was made in the 3rd Century BC which was used, among other groups, including some later christians, by diaspora Jews who actually spoke Greek as a first language. Here the textual tradition can diverge even more, depending on how the community used their texts. It's this Greek translation that the New Testament authors make reference to. Various other English translations will show the bias of whatever group uses it, be it a Jewish group, a Christian group, a group of kabbalists (actually, kabbalists revel in the multiple ways that the text can be interpreted), or some pretentious literary scholia. The King James Version of the Bible was just one interpretation of a text with very problematic transmission and translation issues rendered as a certain group of translators thought.

And you know, the list goes on. Catholics use a different bible based off the Latin Vulgate. I'm not sure what the eastern orthodox churches use, but I'm sure they've got their own canon (as well as their sub-sects also).

So ultimately, you can't just say 'Oh, I've read the King James Bible once. I know all about it.' The issue is far, far, far, more complex than going to the local Gideons and saying 'hey, I like that one, it has a nice brown cover on it. It's all the same words no matter what.'

Please, don't take this as an affront. I just mean it to lessen the cultural arrogance of atheists in general who read a translation of the bible once then toss it in the trash saying 'well that didn't make sense, what a load of bullshit'.


That said, I don't claim to be defending religious groups or attacking them either by my prospective.

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

Any atheist who doesn't at least admit the possibility of a higher power is just as fucking stupid and worthless as those who believe without any doubt.

I'm 99% that such crap doesn't exist, but that 1% is reserved for evidence proving it non-existent. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. If you can't prove its there, then its hard to believe in it. But you can't not believe in something unless you can prove its NOT there, and at this point in time, we cannot prove that there is no god(s)/powers/spirits. It might just be beyond our human perceptions and levels of thinking.

For the record, Dawkins' book doesn't set out to debunk religion. While he touches on it (it's obviously unavoidable), the book has more to with evolution, atheism, and the validity of the concept of god. As I said, it was an interesting read. If that's not your cup of tea, no big deal.

I love some of the fan mail sections, and that hilarious story about that island with the John Frum dude. hahahaha, fucking priceless.

.

'

It's all been edited to suit the needs of the power mongers. But it would be truly interesting to travel back in time, and try and learn about the original writing of these texts. History is such an interesting thing sometimes, but I know in your case, you have an even more unique and in depth perspective on this topic.

Cheers Sir.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

It's all been edited to suit the needs of the power mongers. But it would be truly interesting to travel back in time, and try and learn about the original writing of these texts. History is such an interesting thing sometimes, but I know in your case, you have an even more unique and in depth perspective on this topic.

I took a Roman history course once and at first, I would have described my professor as being a hardliner if not a downright fundamentalist Christian. It was pretty damned interesting then, when we got to early Christianity and he took every opportunity to talk about how it used to be such a beautiful, peaceful religion but was so quickly warped and perverted.

 

[swizzlenuts]

For the record, Dawkins' book doesn't set out to debunk religion. While he touches on it (it's obviously unavoidable), the book has more to with evolution, atheism, and the validity of the concept of god. As I said, it was an interesting read. If that's not your cup of tea, no big deal.
Zod

When I read the God Delusion, I thought the book was about how science can actually test the personal god because it comes into the real physical world; moreover, with evolution the probability of that god is so minuscule.

Any atheist who doesn't at least admit the possibility of a higher power is just as fucking stupid and worthless as those who believe without any doubt.


edit: /Demilich (but tomorrow I go home so this shit won't happen any more)

The way you said this to me earlier made more sense than what is written here. I'd disagree with this statement because I'd say the probability of a higher power is so small that it's worth disregarding the entire idea, where we have evidence to say why we think the probability is that.

stuff

Very true, but why wouldn't a omnipotent God make sure it doesn't it get translated properly if this is the only way to show himself?

Even if all the contradictions of the bibles were just mistranslations, the book is still shite along with the New Testament and Koran. Noah's Arc, Jonah and the whale, the amount of mythology and pagan ideas in the Jesus story, and how the Sermon on the Mount is one of the worst pieces of advice I've read.

It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out

I forget who said this, but it's a fucking ace statement and fits in this discussion.

 

[swizzlenuts]

I can appreciate the interesting nature of reading books/essays, etc. to others on the subject, but they are just not interesting to me. Nothing short of our ability to re-create the Big Bang or an actual "higher power" providing proof of existence to me personally is going to have any affect whatsoever on my personal philosophy on the subject.

You're crazy, I find it absolutely awesome. I love talking and reading about it.

 

[Demilich]

Swizzlenuts, remind me incessantly to read Dawkins and I'll eventually do it. I really want to. Our conversation with Russell was pretty damn interesting.

I'm at Heathrow using expensive internet (1 quid per 10 min wtf) and going home soon yay. You suck and it was totally shit staying with you. Please die a horrible death by fire.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

I'm at Heathrow using expensive internet (1 quid per 10 min wtf) and going home soon yay. You suck and it was totally shit staying with you. Please die a horrible death by fire.

That gave me a good laugh. I needed that.

 

[General Zod]

Please, don't take this as an affront. I just mean it to lessen the cultural arrogance of atheists...

I love statements like this. It's like saying, "You're a total asshole... but I mean that with all due respect."

...who read a translation of the bible once then toss it in the trash saying 'well that didn't make sense, what a load of bullshit'.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I can speak for myself. I've read multiple translations of the bible (KJV, NIV, ASV, etc.). I'm well aware of its history; the Vulgate, the Septuagint and the surviving Codex Fuldensis. I'm also aware of how the Hebrew language works, including the proper use of Nikkud. I spent five years studying it. I've also spent countless hours in the Princeton Seminary Library, reading various religious texts and writings. So, I've hardly come to my decision based solely on a quick skim of the Gideon bible one night while bored in a motel room.

That said, I don't claim to be defending religious groups or attacking them either by my prospective.

Really? Seems like you're attacking them to me. The majority of your post spoke about how the original texts have been lost, due to a multitude of issues. And as I'm guessing you're aware, you didn't even begin to scratch the surface.

The bottom line is this; if god ever spoke to man and man had at one time transcribed that conversation, we have nothing even remotely resembling the content of said conversation. And from my perspective, anyone who bases their faith in a modern translation (or any known, surviving translation) as the cornerstone of their faith, hasn't done the appropriate research.

Zod

 

[Dark One]

The bottom line is this; if god ever spoke to man and man had at one time transcribed that conversation, we have nothing even remotely resembling the content of said conversation. And from my perspective, anyone who bases their faith in a modern translation (or any known, surviving translation) as the cornerstone of their faith, hasn't done the appropriate research.

Well said, I feel exactly the same way.

This is another reason why I have difficulty believing in any man-made "translation" or generationally passed down dogmatic viewpoints defining the existence of a god. Inevitably, the actuality of what was said would've been reshaped, lost, redefined, etc. over thousands of years to the point where it becomes meaningless (the "revisionist history effect" if you will).

Ah, and because the actual, original message would've been lost or at the very least completely revised so long ago, why would a particular god have sent the message at a time in human history when mass media wasn't even close to being available? This is where the "you have to have faith" argument fails IMO - you're believing in something that's been passed down from generation to generation by an inherently imperfect source (man). If the dogma of *any* organized religious sect is so vitally important, then faith meant to be passed down over time is a wholly impractical way of getting the message across.

Even if having "faith" is a vitally important component - that faith should be based on events that would be near impossible to dispute. It would be much easier to document footage of Mt. Sinai, the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection, Lazarus' awakening, etc. in today's world than in the worlds of generations past. At least 500 years from now, that "faith" would be easier to have since there would be so many documented videos available rather than accounts written on sheepskin parchments that turned to dust eons ago. And even then you'd *still* be dealing with an imperfect source of passing down information, but at least that information would be much more credible

This is the main reason I refer to myself by the quote listed in my avatar. It doesn't hurt that it happens to be from my favorite album of all time, but far more importantly, it sums up in three words how I feel about the belief system of any organized religion.

Jason

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

The bottom line is this; if god ever spoke to man and man had at one time transcribed that conversation, we have nothing even remotely resembling the content of said conversation.

Couldn't find a specific link:
http://videos.repph.com/comedy/the-simpsons-6x21-the-pta-disbands.html

So here's the part I mean:

Edna: Good news, people!
[the other teachers cheer]
Edna: I'm happy to announce that another union has joined us in a sympathy strike: the piano tuners' Local 412!
[the teachers look at one another, confused]
[a piano tuner stands outside a house with an out-of-tune piano and looks smug]
Bart: [walking up] Now for Operation Strike-Make-Go-Longer.
[to teacher] You know, I heard Skinner say the teachers will crack any minute.
[the teachers whisper it forward through the line]
Teacher: [to Edna] Skinner said the teachers will crack any minute purple monkey dishwasher.
Edna: Well! We'll show him, especially for that "purple monkey dishwasher" remark [everyone shouts their assent]


Thats basically the bible.

 

[General Zod]

Even if having "faith" is a vitally important component - that faith should be based on events that would be near impossible to dispute. It would be much easier to document footage of Mt. Sinai, the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection, Lazarus' awakening, etc. in today's world than in the worlds of generations past. At least 500 years from now, that "faith" would be easier to have since there would be so many documented videos available rather than accounts written on sheepskin parchments that turned to dust eons ago. And even then you'd *still* be dealing with an imperfect source of passing down information, but at least that information would be much more credible.

Yeah... it's amazing. At a time when there was no way to verify anything, we had seas parting, the dead rising, and burning bushes speaking to prophets. However, in the modern age, the best we ever get is the face of the Virgin Mary in a taco shell.

Zod

 

[lurch70]

a lot of the stories in the Bible were meant to keep people in check in those times ... scare them in some sense and also bring them together.
now we have CNN for that.

 

[Susperia]

Since swizzlenuts and I (and others) have had more than one lengthy discussion of this issue this week, I'll throw in my two cents:

Any atheist who doesn't at least admit the possibility of a higher power is just as fucking stupid and worthless as those who believe without any doubt.


edit: /Demilich (but tomorrow I go home so this shit won't happen any more)

I disagree with this as well because Atheists have facts. Believers have no facts supporting their beliefs. Other than the fact a man named Jesus really did live at the time of the scriptures. Atheists CAN believe what they're saying wholeheartedly simply because -------we have facts to back it up!

 

[MajestikMøøse]

I love statements like this. It's like saying, "You're a total asshole... but I mean that with all due respect."

I can't speak for other atheists, but I can speak for myself. I've read multiple translations of the bible (KJV, NIV, ASV, etc.). I'm well aware of its history; the Vulgate, the Septuagint and the surviving Codex Fuldensis. I'm also aware of how the Hebrew language works, including the proper use of Nikkud. I spent five years studying it. I've also spent countless hours in the Princeton Seminary Library, reading various religious texts and writings. So, I've hardly come to my decision based solely on a quick skim of the Gideon bible one night while bored in a motel room.

Really? Seems like you're attacking them to me. The majority of your post spoke about how the original texts have been lost, due to a multitude of issues. And as I'm guessing you're aware, you didn't even begin to scratch the surface.

The bottom line is this; if god ever spoke to man and man had at one time transcribed that conversation, we have nothing even remotely resembling the content of said conversation. And from my perspective, anyone who bases their faith in a modern translation (or any known, surviving translation) as the cornerstone of their faith, hasn't done the appropriate research.

Zod

Why thank you for telling me this. Now, quit being such a jerk with your and move on with your life.

Seriously, you knew where this thread was going to go the second you posted it.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

Very true, but why wouldn't a omnipotent God make sure it doesn't it get translated properly if this is the only way to show himself?

Because he's a jerk?

 

[General Zod]

Why thank you for telling me this.

You made a presumptuous statement... I refuted it. Deal with it.

Now, quit being such a jerk with your and move on with your life.

Did you just call me a "jerk"? LOL.

Not quite sure how responding to a post makes me a "jerk", but since little else that you contribute makes much sense, I won't dwell on it.

Seriously, you knew where this thread was going to go the second you posted it.

Actually, I was just curious. Whether or not you choose to believe that, couldn't mean less to me.

Zod

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

Very true, but why wouldn't a omnipotent God make sure it doesn't it get translated properly if this is the only way to show himself?

Cause he's actually a stoner fucking with people.

"on the 14th day I made fucking pot, best thing ever... but it was a fucking gateway drug, so I made other cool shit. Like afghani cave opium... fucking hell"

 

[lurch70]

coincidence? you decide ...

ok, so it's probably 667 miles by now ... but it was good journalism

 

[General Zod]

LOL. At what point in time were there 665 square miles burned? And at what point were there 667? You know the editor had to be sitting at his desk saying, "664, wait for it, wait for it, 665... wait for it, OK... print."

Zod