Shifting more towards atheism

[Trailblazer]

The Bible is the world's most published book, with estimated total sales of over five billion copies, and has existed for thousands of years.

That does not mean it is true. That only goes to show how gullible people can be, following an ancient book of myths.
No thanks. Imo, the Bible is ready for the scrap heap since it has been the cause for the ruination of individuals and society.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sales of Bibles is declining here in the States.

That's probably because everyone who wants one already has one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to the Oxford English dictionary (religious) faith is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

I would agree with that, but why would they specify religious faith? I'd write that faith is insufficiently justified belief whether that's unjustified belief in gods or in ideas such as election hoax, vaccine hoax, climate hoax, moon landing hoax, and spherical earth hoax, which are just as spiritual as any other belief held by faith - that is to say that there is nothing spiritual at all about being willing to believe something.

From Pat Condell: "Faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace. It's a state of choice, because without evidence, you've got no reason to believe, apart from your willingness to believe. So why is that worthy of respect, any more than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? And why is faith considered some kind of virtue? Is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don't think so. Faith, by definition, is unexamined. So in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences"

This is much of the harm that teaching children and others that faith is a good thing does. It's practice for believing what you are told uncritically whatever that is.

FAITH IS BEING SURE OF WHAT YOU HOPE FOR AND CERTAIN OF WHAT YOU DO NOT SEE. How can it be any more direct than that? There is no belief in that statement.

I would agree with that if we changed "what you don't see" to "that which lacks sufficient evidence to justify belief in." as Condell, alludes, there is nothing virtuous about that. It's a logical error and the fast track to accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs.

So what? According to the Bible, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So, the Oxford English Dictionary got it wrong!

The translation seen most often calls faith substance and evidence: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is insubstantial and belief by faith sidesteps evidence.

present faith is not an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

Faith is the same today as it was then even if what is believed by faith has evolved. It's that shallow, unexamined experience Condell described. And those newer formulations of the meaning of scripture come from humanist and scientific sources, so today, we don't have Western Christians saying that man should submit to autocrats or that slaves should submit to masters, and many now say that they don't believe those myths literally.

But they also won't call those myths erroneous speculations as they would the myths of other religions. We're told often that stories like those about Noah and Job contain deep spiritual truths, but I don't think so. What deep spiritual truths? I can't name one. Can you? It's hard to imagine why such stories were included in scripture. They're both unflattering to the deity in them.

Speaking of myth, what is spiritual truth? What are spiritual realms or spiritual beliefs or spirits? I know what a spiritual experience is, but spiritual experiences are unrelated to spirits or imagined realms outside of time and space where spirits are found, and they contain nothing that can rightfully be called truth.

The Bible is the world's most published book, with estimated total sales of over five billion copies, and has existed for thousands of years. In contrast, the OED has been around for a mere 167 years.

So what? Is that an endorsement for its reliability?

I wonder what percentage of Bibles were purchased or read by those who have them in their possession? I suspect that for most believers, the bible is like a software license. Most don't read it. They effectively just scroll down to the bottom and click "I agree."

Incidentally, THAT's what metaphor, parable, fable, and allegory look like: known things substituted for other known things such as licensing agreements for Bibles, or apples (of one's eye) for a known object of affection or value. Myths don't do that.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You can believe otherwise, but you would be wrong.

In your opinon, of course.

 

[jimb]

Your life, waste it however you want.

Most published, yes, when its been around for 1600 years one would expect it has a huge head start on other books.

Sales, not so much, sure plenty have been given away but as far as book sales go, I don't believe it's in the top 100 best selling books.

According to Guinness World Records, as of 1995, the Bible is the best selling book of all time with an estimated 5 billion copies sold and distributed.

So you are totally wrong!

 

[jimb]

Sales of Bibles is declining here in the States.

And your source for this is ..?

 

[Trailblazer]

According to Guinness World Records, as of 1995, the Bible is the best selling book of all time with an estimated 5 billion copies sold and distributed.

So what? What does that prove?
It only shows that Christians have been good at proselytizing.

So you are totally wrong!

Wrong about what?

 

[jimb]

In your opinon, of course.

No, not my opinion. It's a direct quote from the Bible.

 

[jimb]

Over 100 million Bibles are printed every year. Consumers in the United States will purchase 25% of those newly printed Bibles, so the US Bible sales equals 25 million.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, not my opinion. It's a direct quote from the Bible.

Telling another member that they are wrong about what they believe is just your personal opinion.

 

[jimb]

Telling another member that they are wrong about what they believe is just your personal opinion.

As is your comment!

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

So what? What does that prove?
It only shows that Christians have been good at proselytizing.

The irony, in my opinion, is that Christians cannot even agree with each other about how to accurately interpret the Bible, which is why there is a Greek Orthodox Bible (79-book canon), a Catholic Bible (73-book canon), and a vast variety of Protestant Bible translations (66-book canon). I also find it ironic that some Protestant Christians claim to have "spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit," despite the fact that there are literally hundreds of Protestant denominations with diverse and contradictory interpretations of the Bible, all claiming to be correct about their preferred interpretation and beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, not my opinion. It's a direct quote from the Bible.

A direct quote from the Bible is not evidence that it is true or false.

Noah's Ark and the World Flood represent direct citations from the Pentateuch and they false.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Social conditioning is what we call it when one's morals come from a book or a pulpit. Believers place the interests of fetuses over those of their host because they are conditioned to.

an atheist does not believe in God...so who then does the atheist blame for the murder of a child or the rape of a women? By what evolutionary means do you subscribe such actions? (you cannot blame Christianity and its "pulpit preaching"...you don't believe in that) Therefore an atheist is left with no alternative but to accept that naturalism includes evolutionary social conditioning outside of biblical morality (ie the 10 commandments).

That means the murder of a child or rape of women is a natural evolutionary process brought about by the survival of the fittest mentality (which is also where racism comes from)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

What makes Christianity moral? When I see Christian extremists exhibit behavior contrary to what Jesus taught they are anti-Christs. Look at condemning gays and trans kids. That's what Jesus would do? Look at teaching false dogma like creationism. This is immoral.

are you claiming that Christians have some special powers whereby they are immune from sin, from morality? How do you come to that conclusion exactly because i do not see any evidence of such a thing anywhere in the bible and in fact the bible preaches the exact opposite:

The bible specifically says in Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Noah's Ark and the World Flood represent direct citations from the Pentateuch and they false.

You may attempt to use Jewish religious beliefs to discredit the Old Testament writings, however, you are stuffed when the Christian churches first Bishop, the apostle Peter, also directly references the writings of Moses as literal historical account. He clearly does this when he relates the gospel to his own brethren...

The apostle Peters writings are not in the Pentateuch...read 2 Peters chapters 1 and 2

2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 [i]And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [j]interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [k]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to [b]hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—

 

[jimb]

The irony, in my opinion, is that Christians cannot even agree with each other about how to accurately interpret the Bible, which is why there is a Greek Orthodox Bible (79-book canon), a Catholic Bible (73-book canon), and a vast variety of Protestant Bible translations (66-book canon). I also find it ironic that some Protestant Christians claim to have "spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit," despite the fact that there are literally hundreds of Protestant denominations with diverse and contradictory interpretations of the Bible, all claiming to be correct about their preferred interpretation and beliefs.

All this says is that you know nothing about "the Bible". THERE IS NO ORIGINAL BIBLE!!! The Bibles that we have are translations from sources that are incomplete. Because of that, there are various interpretations, resulting in different translations. Consider yourself schooled.

 

[jimb]

A direct quote from the Bible is not evidence that it is true or false.

Noah's Ark and the World Flood represent direct citations from the Pentateuch and they false.

You clearly don't know what is true and what isn't.

 

[jimb]

are you claiming that Christians have some special powers whereby they are immune from sin, from morality? How do you come to that conclusion exactly because i do not see any evidence of such a thing anywhere in the bible and in fact the bible preaches the exact opposite:

The bible specifically says in Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

You clearly need to read the Bible more carefully.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

All this says is that you know nothing about "the Bible". THERE IS NO ORIGINAL BIBLE!!! The Bibles that we have are translations from sources that are incomplete. Because of that, there are various interpretations, resulting in different translations. Consider yourself schooled.

I would add a caveat here...interpretations and translations are different things. We do not interpret in order to translate...that is not a translation...its a paraphrase (very very different).

2 Peter chapter 1 and 2 even tells us that no scripture is to be interpreted by men, but only through the Holy Spirit. This was already done when the bible writers wrote the books of the bible under the inspiration of God thousands of years ago!

The point is, to interpret that which is already interpreted is circular and obviously falsifies the objective of the claim!