Where do atheists get their moral code?

[LordShaithis]

If someone decides to heckle a limping old buddhist monk, no, they should not be sentenced to death for it.

But isn't it funny how the biblical god, with his supposedly limitless powers, always jumps right to murder as the solution for everything?

Couldn't he have taken all these boys (men, whatever) and teleported them to a point ten feet above the surface of the nearest body of water? Or conjured up a whole bunch of levitating switches to whip their asses and chase the off down the road? Or any of a million other ideas that don't involve dismembering someone for rudeness?

And that whole thing with the Egyptians and the Jews! I'm supposed to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being could think of no better solution to that problem than causing plagues and killing children until the Pharaoh gave in? Couldn't he have, you know, miracled the Jews away? And then dropped horrible death on the Pharaoh alone if he were really so pissed at him?

Killing is what you do when you don't have any better options, and an omnipotent being ALWAYS has options.

Anyway, my primary question is this: If you do not unquestioningly accept all of the bible, how do you decide which parts you do and do not like?

[starfury]

And that whole thing with the Egyptians and the Jews! I'm supposed to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being could think of no better solution to that problem than causing plagues and killing children until the Pharaoh gave in? Couldn't he have, you know, miracled the Jews away? And then dropped horrible death on the Pharaoh alone if he were really so pissed at him?

you forgot the fact that God hardened the Phaaoh's heart in the first place, time and time, which is why he kept refusing to simply let the jews go, how is that for a ommniscient benveolent being

[XPViking]

GAP,

But if one heckles an old, limping, Buddhist monk, one should not be surprised that there might be consequences? So now the question is whether the punishment (two angry bears rmauling the 42 young men) fits the crime (mocking a prophet of God).

From what I gather, the bigger insult, (take note Mr. Bean) is the "go up" part. That is, referring to Elijah being taken up, and subsequently the young men are mocking that miracle. I should add that another version says that the young men assumed that Elisha was going to continue Elijah's struggle against royal apostasy in Bethel. Either way, this insult was considered insulting to God and He (not Elisha) meted out the punishment. That is, Elisha didn't summon the bears. He only pronounced a curse.

There are some possible explanations for this severe punishment:

1) God hates sin. Mocking a prophet of God, especially in regards to God doing miracles, is a sin. So God takes appropriate measures to purge the sin.

2) A prophet should be treated with respect. The young men obviously did not. The "bald head" reference could be an expression of contempt for God's rep. That is, if you had hair you were seen as vigorous. Baldness implied weakness, in turn implying that the prophet has no power. God has a vested interest in supporting His prophet.

3) God is omnipotent, etc... (the attributes that you listed GAP) and therefore has a better grasp of the situation. It may mean that if those young men lived that they could have been obstacles to Elisha's ministry. Better to nip the problem in the bud.

But now it seems GAP that you and others are speculating on what God "should have" done. That is, "Well, if I was God, I would have done this" implying, of course, that your solution would be preferable. Is that correct? As well, I thought I answered your main question (If you do not unquestioningly accept all of the bible, how do you decide which parts you do and do not like?) earlier. That is, I'm currently working on it.

Mr. Bean: looking closely at the two verses, I don't see that Elisha pronounced a curse right away. That is:

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. So this could have been going on for a little bit.

24 And he turned back, Okay. So now Elisha stops.

and looked on them, Perhaps here he is sternly looking at them hoping they would stop, akin to a teacher looking at some bratty kids.

and cursed them in the name of the LORD. Now comes the curse.

So there could be a lot going on here. That is, I don't see Elisha casually cursing the young men right off the bat.

XPViking

[C.S.Strowbridge]

There are some possible explanations for this severe punishment:

1) God hates sin. Mocking a prophet of God, especially in regards to God doing miracles, is a sin. So God takes appropriate measures to purge the sin.

Appropriate! Disrespect = Brutal Death

How is that appropriate?

3) God is omnipotent, etc... (the attributes that you listed GAP) and therefore has a better grasp of the situation. It may mean that if those young men lived that they could have been obstacles to Elisha's ministry. Better to nip the problem in the bud.

He god is omnipotent, surely he can think of a better solution. Perhaps Elisha could have converted them.

But I guess God's just one sick fucker who cares more about killing people who piss him off than save their eternal souls.

[LordShaithis]

But if one heckles an old, limping, Buddhist monk, one should not be surprised that there might be consequences?

I doubt you'd find many Buddhist monks willing to condone death-by-bear as punishment for hecklers.

So now the question is whether the punishment (two angry bears mauling the 42 young men) fits the crime (mocking a prophet of God).

If your answer to that question is something other than "Fuck no, that's barbaric!" then you have serious problems.

God hates sin. Mocking a prophet of God, especially in regards to God doing miracles, is a sin. So God takes appropriate measures to purge the sin.

What sort of sadistic lunatic dismembers people for mocking him? This is the sort of behavior you expect from a psychotic dictator, or a cheesy fantasy villain.

A prophet should be treated with respect. The young men obviously did not. The "bald head" reference could be an expression of contempt for God's rep. That is, if you had hair you were seen as vigorous. Baldness implied weakness, in turn implying that the prophet has no power. God has a vested interest in supporting His prophet.

Which an infinitely wise and powerful being should easily be able to do without throwing anyone to viscious animals.

God is omnipotent, etc... (the attributes that you listed GAP) and therefore has a better grasp of the situation. It may mean that if those young men lived that they could have been obstacles to Elisha's ministry. Better to nip the problem in the bud.

You're completely pulling this out of your ass. The guys pissed God off, so he made bears kill them. Period.

But now it seems GAP that you and others are speculating on what God "should have" done. That is, "Well, if I was God, I would have done this" implying, of course, that your solution would be preferable. Is that correct?

Yes, it is. Any halfwit with a speck of decency has a better grasp of morality than this violent egomaniac you're trying to stick up for.

[LordShaithis]

Cheesy fantasy villain... Now that I think of it... I can see God with a fancy cape and an evil-looking mustache...

----------

"Hey Evilonius! You suck! You're ugly! Ha ha!"

"Throw that fool... TO THE BEARS! MUAHAHAHAHA!"

----------

"If you will not give me what I want, I will retaliate by killing the firstborn child of every family in your pitiful country! MUAHAHAHA!"

----------

"The people of this city have repeatedly refused to bow down and worship me! Therefore you are commanded to slay every man, woman, and child within it's walls in my name! MUAHAHAHAHA!"

[XPViking]

CS Stowbridge:

Appropriate! Disrespect = Brutal Death

How is that appropriate?

I think I answered that earlier. I listed 3 possible reasons as to why God may have taken this course of action. There may be more. I think here your question is concerning God's course of action. That is, I believe you feel it is not appropriate for God to send out bears to punish hecklers.

There is another possibility. Elisha was an old man. 42 young men came out to heckle him. Perhaps God sees Elisha in a dangerous situation and takes certain measures to protect His prophet. Some other sources suggest that the young men were out killing bear cubs so the 2 bears were getting revenge. Self-defence? Appropriate revenge from the bear's point of view? What do you think? I'm just throwing out possibilities.

He god is omnipotent, surely he can think of a better solution. Perhaps Elisha could have converted them.

Sure, why not. It didn't strike me in the passage that they wanted to listen to him though. Not saying that if you don't listen to a prophet bears will come out and eat you.


GrandAdmiralPrawn:

I doubt you'd find many Buddhist monks willing to condone death-by-bear as punishment for hecklers.

You may be right on that count. I don't know what, if any, form of punishment a Buddhist would condone for hecklers.

If your answer to that question is something other than "Fuck no, that's barbaric!" then you have serious problems.

Sure, it's barbaric. I'm trying to understand why God may have taken that course of action.

What sort of sadistic lunatic dismembers people for mocking him? This is the sort of behavior you expect from a psychotic dictator, or a cheesy fantasy villain... Which an infinitely wise and powerful being should easily be able to do without throwing anyone to viscious animals...You're completely pulling this out of your ass. The guys pissed God off, so he made bears kill them. Period.

Just your responses to me trying to understand God's actions in this matter.

Yes, it is. Any halfwit with a speck of decency has a better grasp of morality than this violent egomaniac you're trying to stick up for.

Not trying to stick up for it actually. Trying to understand it. Or did my earlier comments about "working on it" completely fly over your head? I realize that one can look in the Old Testament and point to several examples of God being "psychotic" or "bloodthirsty". The whole point of this is someone who is a Christian trying to reconcile that to his moral code and seek a bridge between the two.

The entire point of this thread was for me to try to understand atheists better. Nothing more. Never casting aspirations about what atheist believe or whatever. Here, with the bear example we have a case of a Christian wondering why God sent bears to kill some people mocking his prophet. Is that now clear enough for you?

XPViking

[LordShaithis]

There is another possibility. Elisha was an old man. 42 young men came out to heckle him. Perhaps God sees Elisha in a dangerous situation and takes certain measures to protect His prophet.

Which would have been just as easily accomplished by teleporting them into the lake, or any of a thousand non-fatal remedies.

Some other sources suggest that the young men were out killing bear cubs so the 2 bears were getting revenge.

Thinking "Maybe it didn't happen exactly like in the book." doesn't effect me, personally, since I was never operating under the assumption that any of this REALLY happened at all. Sure, if the bears were eating the people of their own volition, that's not really God's fault. Still, that's not what it says in the book, and the morality of the story in the book is what I'm speaking of.

Sure, it's barbaric. I'm trying to understand why God may have taken that course of action.

I'll just point out that the story having been concocted entirely by humans would explain this nicely, since it was the middle east in the bronze age, and people in general were fairly barbaric.

I realize that one can look in the Old Testament and point to several examples of God being "psychotic" or "bloodthirsty". The whole point of this is someone who is a Christian trying to reconcile that to his moral code and seek a bridge between the two.

Your problem is you think too much. Most Christians just sort of pout (or even get mad) when these barbaric parts are brought up. They prefer not to think of them at all. But you've gone and thought about it, and now you're stuck trying to reconcile feeding people to bears with "love thy neighbor."

The entire point of this thread was for me to try to understand atheists better. Nothing more. Never casting aspirations about what atheist believe or whatever. Here, with the bear example we have a case of a Christian wondering why God sent bears to kill some people mocking his prophet. Is that now clear enough for you?

Okay, okay, fair enough. I do get carried away. But all you need to do is take the moral code you have, which is apparently important enough that the bible must be "reconciled" to it, and toss out the bible. Then you'll be left with something close to what we heathens use.

[XPViking]

Your problem is you think too much.

Coming from you GAP, a self-professed heathen, I'll take that as a compliment.

No hard feelings I hope! Hope we can have future debates and a desire to meet halfway.

XPViking

[LordShaithis]

Yeah, well, I always get told I think too much, so I started taking it as a compliment myself. Heh.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Sorry this response has taken so long, but grad. school comes first.

--"You define equitable differently from me, then. Being equal means that the restriction applies to every member of the society."
-I define equitable in this manner: When two entities interact they each stand to gain or lose an amount proportional to what they invest in the interaction (the resources they put into it) with respect to their goals.
-For example, let us consider the two entities X and Y. X's goal requires 20 units of A. Y's goal requires 10 units of B. X has 1000 units of C. Y has 100 units of D. By working together X and Y can use a combination of C and D to obtain 20 units of A and 10 of B. This will require 1000 C and 100 D. In addition it is 5 times as difficult to obtain D as it is to obtain C (assumming both X and Y work together). With this ratio we can convert X and Y's investments to "universal" units. Assumming all other investments (time, labor, etc.) are insignificant compared to the value of C and D then X put in 1000 uni units and Y put in 500 uni units. Using my definition of equitable X would get 2/3 A and B and Y would get 1/3 of A and B from this interaction. If A was just as valuable as B then X and Y could equitably swap A and B such that X gets 20 units of A and Y gets 10 of B.
-Clearly this is a simple example, however, it could be expanded to other more difficult situations. For instance if A is not as valuable as B then the only equitable trade would have to involve other resources or agreement by X to be in debt to Y.
-This definition basically covers both the application of law and the law itself. Not just the application of the law.

--IMO, there appears to be further misunderstanding of my system. Here are a few examples:

-"The individual may think the detrimental effect they are having on society causes no harm to them - almost always, such an attitude is short sighted."
-"You believe that every argument must have a 'winner' and a 'loser'?
That it is never possible for two intelligent individuals to sit down and say 'Right, if we both hold out for our original positions, we're both going to end up losing."
-"This is because NO society should have the capacity to completely trample over its individual citizens."
-"Your framework fails to provide a 'standard of right behaviour', since it provides no direction as to what is right or wrong."
--"With your system, because it does not incorporate a basis, two individuals subscribing to it might have completely conflicting 'moral codes', and no real basis for entering into discussion."

--All of the above things stem from not understanding my system. Therefore, I will attempt to provide another example of how decisions are made using my system. -Let us assume John owns a power plant. This power plant will lose money if John installs highly effective polution controls. However, the effects from the polution are far more costly. Unfortunately, John depends on money from the power plant to support his family.
-It appears to me that you think by using my system John would:
A. Not install the polution controls because he cannot support his family if he does.
B. Insist upon being able to support his family because as a goal it is not negotiable under my system.
C. Get trampled by society because it has the power to do so.
D. Not know what to do since my system doesn't answer what is right and wrong.
E. Arrive at an unknown conclusion since my system has no "basis."
-In fact, using my system John would determine that installing the polution controls is right thing to do. Here are the problems with above options:
A. John's true goal is highly complex and not just to support his family. If John does not act equitably with the rest of entities in that environment he will face retaliation from those entities that would seriouly damage his ability to obtain his true goal. Just ask yourself what all your objectives are and what their priorities are (most will have if possible or to the extent possible in them). All of these things described by one massive equation would be your true goal. John's goal is similarly complex.
B. Supporting his family is only part of John's goal and can be negotiated with to retain more important things like his freedom and the "good will" of society. You have to remember a society of entities (fitting my system's requirements) would use their power to force John to repay the 2 X the cost of the polution plus enforcement expenses (this includes restriction of inequitable actions by him in the future). It should be said one's true goal is not negotiable, but infromation from other entities may alter it. If after all information has been exchanged and cruched to the extent possible and two entities still have conflicting goals that is just how it is. This is simply a fact of intelligence combined with an motive.
C. A society of entities (referenced above) would act equitably with respect to John and probably find a way to spread the cost of the polution controls amongst society to maintain equitability. In addition, a truly equitable society would attempt to avoid first stike senarios which would limit the power of any part of that society with respect to the other part of that society.
D. My system does answer what is right and wrong by telling John what his options are if he wishes to maximize the accomplishment of his goal. These options would be considered "right."
E. My system does have a basis which is clearly defined. It just doesn't match Nick's definition of a moral basis. Regardless, entities that makes no logical mistakes and have the same information will arrive at the same conclusions.

--I hope this makes things a little clearer....

[Nick]

--Sorry this response has taken so long, but grad. school comes first.

And quite rightly so

-This definition basically covers both the application of law and the law itself. Not just the application of the law.

What you have described appears to be a flat out unrestricted free market economy. Such a system is, indeed, perfectly equitable - so long as it functions correctly. Unfortunately, as with so many other things, the introduction of humans FUBAR's it. Regardless, you are using the free market as your definition of equitable, whereas I merely describe it as a system which conforms to my standards of equitability.

An actual problem with your definition of equitability is that it assumes the existence of 'universal units', of equal value to everyone. Such an assumption is always a convenient simplification of the real world. For example, some might say that money is of equal value to everyone and can serve as this 'universal unit'. This is false. The sum of say, $20, means less to me (a reasonably well-paid computer engineer, with no spouse children or mortgage), than to my sister (an income unlikely to be significantly greater than mine, but supporting two adults and 6 children). A moral judgment of whether a particular exchange is equitable has to include such considerations - in some situations, a flat rate of return is NOT equitable!

Now, in the real world, in many situations, money is used as a universal unit in the way you describe. And, in many situations, proportional return is the most equitable mechanism for distributing results. But, in many other circumstance, judgments of equitability need to be made in areas where no such utilitarian assumption can be made.

-"This is because NO society should have the capacity to completely trample over its individual citizens."

This one you took out of context - I was agreeing with something you said your code disallowed. I was just disagreeing with your reasoning.
The other quotes were indeed things I said about your framework.

--All of the above things stem from not understanding my system.

I'm willing to believe that. Doesn't that suggest something to you that, even after your attempts to explain it, I still can't extrapolate your position?

::snip the situation of John::

From this, I would summarise your code as follows:

1. Know what your goals really are. All of them. Know how they may be traded of against each other in the event of conflict.
2. Know the consequences of the available courses of action, and the impact on attaining your goals.
3. Be willing to revise your goals as circumstances change.
4. Recognise the influence of society, which may or may not be equitable.

There are, no doubt, all sorts of wonderful details and intricacies I've glossed over, and quite possibly even some I've misinterpreted. It is, however, a form of enlightened self-interest. Unfortunately, the first two precepts fall apart (So, if i've misinterpreted anything else, don't worry about it - the failure of these two precepts is sufficient to invalidate your framework as a moral basis).

Why do they fall apart? Because they require omniscience on the part of the entity. I'm not arrogant enough to think I undertstand all of my own goals. I'm definitely not arrogant enough to think I can accurately predict the consequences of my actions. So the system, while coherent in theory, fails abysmally in practice.

What is needed is a bunch of 'rules-of-thumb', ideas that, in general, encourage positive outcomes (outcomes favourable to our goals). I believe the articulation of your framework makes this need obvious. But how do we figure out these rules-of-thumb (otherwise known as our moral code)? Well, I've described one way of going about that plenty of times before.

--I hope this makes things a little clearer....

Nova. have I mentioned the fact that your 'explanations' tend to make my head hurt? (Actually, I think both Mike and I have mentioned it. . .)

Despite your protestations to the effect that "It's simple, really", it's pretty clear that what you have is NOT simple. And, to my mind, that DOES limit it's usefulness as a system of morality - if a number of the smarter people on the planet can't figure out what you're going on about, what hope is there for everyone else? It isn't a case of 'people being too stupid to understand', it's a matter of you're making things more complex than they need to be.

The details of moral decisions are often going to be complex, I'll grant you that - but the basis can be simple. All you need is sympathy and a sense of fairness. Why sympathy and a sense of fairness make a good basis. . . well, we've been there :>

[C.S.Strowbridge]

CS Stowbridge:

Appropriate! Disrespect = Brutal Death
How is that appropriate?

I think I answered that earlier.

Your explanations were too much like, 'God works in mysterious ways.' No offense, but I still think it's a lame excuse. It also focuses on the individual acts and not the big picture.

As for posibilities not mentioned in the bible (but not specifically percluded) if we were to accept those then we'd have to accept that the Bible is incomplete. Key details have been left out, either by the translators, authors or God. And this is not something you should find acceptable.

[Nick]

CS Stowbridge:

Appropriate! Disrespect = Brutal Death
How is that appropriate?

I think I answered that earlier.

Your explanations were too much like, 'God works in mysterious ways.' No offense, but I still think it's a lame excuse. It also focuses on the individual acts and not the big picture.

As for posibilities not mentioned in the bible (but not specifically percluded) if we were to accept those then we'd have to accept that the Bible is incomplete. Key details have been left out, either by the translators, authors or God. And this is not something you should find acceptable.

Well, that last is only true if one suscribes to the notion of Biblical infallibility. XPViking has already indicated a willingness to consider certain parts of it as myth and allegory. I've watched a few rational people attempt to reconcile the Bible with modern morality, and all the comparatively successful attempts I 've seen have involved recognising that the Bible, ultimately, was written by men, for men, in a particular historical context. At best, it was inspired by God, but the very human authors still put their own spin on things.

Taking the Gospels as an example, it is pretty clear that Mark came first - the ultra-condensed 'heck-the-apostles-are-dying-lets-get-it-written-down' version. Whether God influenced the accuracy of the reporting is a matter of faith. Regardless, we then have Matthew, and then Luke coming along, putting their own emphasis on things. Luke, for example, was big on Gentiles and on forgiveness (his is the only Gospel with the 'Father forgive them' line on the cross). Interestingly enough, this focus on ecumenicism is also what lead to Luke's accounts of the Acts of the Apostles. John's Gospel. . . well, their are frequent accusations that John was snacking on some pretty nifty mushrooms while he was writing. Given his Gospel and the contents of Revelations. . . it's certainly a plausible theory - God may have been speaking to him, but I think the fairies might have been getting in their say as well.

I think there's a lot of wisdom to be found in the Bible (Proverbs has a lot of gems, as do the Gospels and much of the New Testament). But there's also a lot of rubbish which is the product of the life and times of the people writing the thing - and those parts of it should not be given undue weight simple because they form part of the "Good Book".

[XPViking]

Your explanations were too much like, 'God works in mysterious ways.' No offense, but I still think it's a lame excuse. It also focuses on the individual acts and not the big picture.

Okay. I'm just trying to understand the story.

As for posibilities not mentioned in the bible (but not specifically percluded) if we were to accept those then we'd have to accept that the Bible is incomplete. Key details have been left out, either by the translators, authors or God. And this is not something you should find acceptable. - C.S. Strowbridge

Sure, and this ties into the first quote. That is, key explanations may be left out probably so as not to detract from the main point. I realize that the Bible I have in my hands today is somewhat different than earlier versions. I think it comes down to a matter of faith in this regard.

XPViking

[lgot]

Regardless, we then have Matthew, and then Luke coming along, putting their own emphasis on things. Luke, for example, was big on Gentiles and on forgiveness (his is the only Gospel with the 'Father forgive them' line on the cross). Interestingly enough, this focus on ecumenicism is also what lead to Luke's accounts of the Acts of the Apostles. John's Gospel

Well, Luke and John are the best written gospels, Luke wrote it as a epic for example. They all tell slighty different messages, because they had different intetions when written...John was the most spiritual one, writen to given strength in the mythology of Jesus to the early christians, therefore its so "mushroonic". Luke is under Paul influence, this is already a romance of fundation of the christian religion, Matthew wrote to the hebrews, like and him and Jesus, a way to defend the pro-Jesus group among the Hebrews, therefore is the one with more OT bakcup and myths and Mark wrote to those who have already slipt of the Hebrew group and was searching for a basis for their group...And there was even a dude in this forum (not topic) who claimed there was no difference in the four books

The great problem is that people do not see the Bible as it really is...OT was the book of foundation of a nation, therefore the not so perfect God, various laws, myths, proverbs, etc. Its very good for a group of desert traveling people. (Its soo odd to see people dressing like thhe OT in a tropical country like Brazil. God could use all that clothes in the humidity and heat, he didnt sweet ) and the NT was a book about the spliting portion of reformists hebrews that ended getting inside roman society easier than Hebrews...
As a Parabole the Bible is a good source for someone try to discuss moral matters, if you use the good sense to adapt to modernity. As reality, its almost good as the Iliad...

[Darth Wong]

Well, that last is only true if one suscribes to the notion of Biblical infallibility. XPViking has already indicated a willingness to consider certain parts of it as myth and allegory. I've watched a few rational people attempt to reconcile the Bible with modern morality, and all the comparatively successful attempts I 've seen have involved recognising that the Bible, ultimately, was written by men, for men, in a particular historical context. At best, it was inspired by God, but the very human authors still put their own spin on things.

I could see that argument, if the Bible was considered flawed and open to revision and improvement. But it is not; even liberal Christians tend to consider it Gospel, and sacred. The mere idea of fixing it brings reactions of indignant shock and outrage.

I think there's a lot of wisdom to be found in the Bible (Proverbs has a lot of gems, as do the Gospels and much of the New Testament). But there's also a lot of rubbish which is the product of the life and times of the people writing the thing - and those parts of it should not be given undue weight simple because they form part of the "Good Book".

Then why isn't the book fixed? Why is that anti-humanistic, cruel, vicious, merciless intolerant bullshit still in there, still given to generation after generation of small children under the laughable name of "Good Book" even though many Christians acknowledge that huge portions of it are appalling?

[Nick]

I've watched a few rational people attempt to reconcile the Bible with modern morality, and all the comparatively successful attempts I 've seen have involved recognising that the Bible, ultimately, was written by men, for men, in a particular historical context. At best, it was inspired by God, but the very human authors still put their own spin on things.

I could see that argument, if the Bible was considered flawed and open to revision and improvement. But it is not; even liberal Christians tend to consider it Gospel, and sacred. The mere idea of fixing it brings reactions of indignant shock and outrage.

The people involved in those comparatively successful reconciliations I mentioned are precisely the people who would be least averse to the idea of fixing the Bible. Unfortunately, actually fixing the Bible would require fixing the whole Church - or just discarding the Church entirely and striking out on your own. (Hmm, there's an idea. . .)

Then why isn't the book fixed? Why is that anti-humanistic, cruel, vicious, merciless intolerant bullshit still in there, still given to generation after generation of small children under the laughable name of "Good Book" even though many Christians acknowledge that huge portions of it are appalling?

If I could answer that, I might still be a Catholic

[Defiant]

I usually check out the technical forums, but this thread interested me, so I'd like to give my $.02. Understand that I'm new here, so please disagree but don't blast. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

Do I believe in God? Yes

Do I believe the Bible is infallible? Absolutely not! I wouldn't use it to adjust the leg of my coffee table, let alone as a strict basis for my morality

[Darth Wong]

I usually check out the technical forums, but this thread interested me, so I'd like to give my $.02. Understand that I'm new here, so please disagree but don't blast. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

Do I believe in God? Yes

Do I believe the Bible is infallible? Absolutely not! I wouldn't use it to adjust the leg of my coffee table, let alone as a strict basis for my morality

Good. Would you support the idea of removing the shitty parts?

Most "reference books" are subject to change. Historians revise textbooks as new information comes to light. Scientists and engineers do the same. But the Bible, which is the reference book for Christianity? Unchanged since when? The third century AD or something like that? The Bible needs to lose its ridiculous status of "infallible gospel". The Bible needs to be repaired. You can't operate a religion in the 21st century based largely on a book whose manuscripts were largely written by scientifically ignorant, intolerant morons two thousand years ago.

[Defiant]

[/quote]
Good. Would you support the idea of removing the shitty parts?

Most "reference books" are subject to change. Historians revise textbooks as new information comes to light. Scientists and engineers do the same. But the Bible, which is the reference book for Christianity? Unchanged since when? The third century AD or something like that? The Bible needs to lose its ridiculous status of "infallible gospel". The Bible needs to be repaired. You can't operate a religion in the 21st century based largely on a book whose manuscripts were largely written by scientifically ignorant, intolerant morons two thousand years ago.[/quote]

Personally, I think the whole thing should be scrapped. The belief in a Higher Power should be a personal thing, not something that you should shove in everyone's faces. How I choose to handle my faith is no one's concern, unless I spill it (like I'm doing now). And even then, I'm only stating my opinion. As long as what you do doesn't hurt me or mine, I could care less.

Also, faith is NOT substitute for reason. In primative times, people used religion to justify phenomena that they couldn't explain. It seems that people are still trying to do that now, even though scientific evidence is staring them right in the face.

I think that religious fundamentalists have problems with science because they can't control it. If you want to understand thermodynamics or relativity or the theory of evolution, you can go to any library and gain a basic understanding. Its dispersed among the populace.

Religion, however, tries to concentrate its influence. You have to go to church. You must perform certain rituals. You have to get the church's approval to do certain things, etc. By concentrating it, a relatively small group can have influence over a vast number. Best example of this: the Catholic church. But there are others.

[Nick]

Personally, I think the whole thing should be scrapped. The belief in a Higher Power should be a personal thing, not something that you should shove in everyone's faces. How I choose to handle my faith is no one's concern, unless I spill it (like I'm doing now). And even then, I'm only stating my opinion. As long as what you do doesn't hurt me or mine, I could care less.

*stands up and cheers*

(I'm actually cheering the rest of the post too, but I really liked this bit. Sums up my attitude perfectly - although technically you'd have to add 'or lack thereof' after the higher power bit. I figured that's kinda already there implicitly given the rest of the post)