I am an aetheist and I enjoy this book because _______.

>>8909667
Its the best book ever, actually.

>>8909667
It's interesting, well-written, and culturally relevant

I enjoy history
I enjoy the poetic prose
I enjoy the message of redemption and forgiveness

>>8909667
It's referenced all the time and I need to know when so I can keep my Christian facade up and stay relevant in the eyes of my religious peers

i love to point out the contradictions and inconsistencies
it's insane that people think there was a talking snake

I didn't really like it.

>>8909699

There are only contradictions and inconsistencies if you read it in a dumb way. You bringing up the "talking snake" tells me that's exactly how you read it. You don't understand the genre, style, language, setting, and the audience any of the books are intended for.

>>8909729
better than being an ostrich with my head in the sand like you
sorry but i believe in a little thing called critical thinking

>>8909746

But you're incapable of critical reading.

>>8909754
dayum son, that's a painful burn

>>8909759

It's not intended to be a burn. It's what it is. While you go on about "lolsnakes" anyone that actually knows anything about literature recognizes how dumb it is. Less than 3% of Christians believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis are completely literal while 100% of atheists do.

>>8909772
Citation needed

>>8909791

Are you on the spectrum? That's a serious question.

>>8909699
This is why everyone thinks atheists are dumb

>>8909801
What spectrum?

>>8909667
it's good Literature

i said the name of the board in my post how based am i

>>8909772

this, really.

i dont read faust or the recognitions and scoff at the use of a black poodle as a representation of the devil. any moron that cannot understand literature or allegory has no business discussing the bible beyond its atheist circlejerking.

>>8909836
thanks for posting this
i wonder how the christcucks will explain this away
"it's just a story bro"

>>8909836
the file compression makes the red text hard to read

>>8909832
It's worth scoffing at and treating differently than other literature considering the effect it's had on the human race.

File: supermassive-black-hole-x-ray-jet.jpg (69KB, 1041x586px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1041x586px

it's pretty funny how much time christians waste reading a primitive book from the stone age about talking snakes and stoning women and not eating oysters when they could be learning about black holes
i mean fuck how awesome is this photo and yet you stare dumbly at a burning bush

>>8909848
Just google bible contradictions, inconsistencies, not exactly hard to find a plethora of information on the subject if one is actually keen to look.

File: 054FE200-3306-4B0D-A558-FB716F1EB108-965-000001B099F4DD81_tmp.jpg (176KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 533x800px

fuck you

File: 1482751678827.jpg (88KB, 409x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 409x600px

>>8909858
>advertising your fallacious logic
we knew but we didn't know you don't know and now we know you don't know.
good job.

>>8909858
That's why it shouldnt be pushed aside for "talking snake lmao."

>>8909860
stop posting the porn me and your mom made

>>8909875
I don't know what my false logic is but keep posting memes and funny pictures, hence you must be right.

>>8909876
people like you are the reason why there is isis

>>8909832
The difference is people actually do take the Bible completely seriously. More so than any other medium actually.

we should treat literature like science books
reading the bible is like reading a science book that says the earth is the center of the universe and there is no such things as germs
just because something is "influential" doesn't mean it should be read
isn't it about time we got over the bible and focused on something you know actually logical and that furthers mankind?

>>8909934
Science books are boring, though.

The bait in all of these replies is phenomenal, I almost took a couple of them. Bravo people bravo.

File: download.png (5KB, 168x196px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 168x196px

>>8909699
You're pretty fucking retarded my man

It has well written stories about archtypes that are universally applicable throughout life?

Old testament is too hard to read :( :/

It's hilarious how one can spot a Christian nowadays. They have sunken so far back in defending what was once holy scripture, then assertion and is now increasingly just abstract guidelines that cling to a sadly unconquerable base belief.

>>8909964
Literal interpretations of the Bible are a relatively new development

File: main-qimg-a0161d683feafb6255a462f1988887cf-c.jpg (19KB, 500x399px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x399px

>>8909958
keep believing dumb fairy tales because they make little baby feel good

>>8909976
i love this image. it is my favorite meme.

>>8909729
you sound pretentious

>>8909960
I dare you to name ONE

>>8909976
Nice inaccurate graph. (Im an atheist too btw, im just not autistic)

>>8909729
>>8909807
>>8909958

the joke
________________
your heads

>>8909864

I'm well aware of many apparent contradictions but they fall apart with deeper readings. For example lets look at the supposed contradiction on drinking alcohol in the "10001 bible contradictions" website. John 2:3 and Timothy 5:23 promote drinking wine but Numbers 6:3 and Proverbs 20:1 condemn drinking alcohol. Proverbs 20:1 only condemns being led astray by wine and beer, not drinking alcohol in general, Likewise the prohibition in Numbers 6:3 only applied to Israelites who had taken the Nazarite vow, not all people or even all Israelites. Since Jesus first miracle involved turning water into wine it follows that the responsible drinking of alcohol is not a sin.

Here's another example for good measure. Should we pray and do good deeds in public? 1 Timothy 2:8 and Mathew 5:16 says we should, but Mathew 6:1-6 says we should pray and give alms in secret.

The Catechism says that Christians should practice "almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the Father who sees in secret, and not from a desire to be seen by men." This is because our intentions are essential to the moral evaluation of an action. An added bad intention such as vainglory makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good, such as almsgiving. In Mathew 5:16 Jesus says, "Let your light shine before men, they they may see your good works and give glory to your father who is in heaven." The point of our works is to glorify god, not ourselves. Jesus command in Mat 6:1-6 prohibits publicly praying and doing good deeds in order to receive praise from other people. Jesus was not condemning prayer or almsgiving done out of genuine desire to please god--even if other people see us pray or perform good deeds.

>>8909960
Besides the one where you have to kill your son to prove devotion to god, and the genocide and pillaging and total devotion and worship to a god for all eternity..

>>8909985
i admit it's a rough sketch but we both know there is a grain of truth to it
and just because someone owns you at an argument it doesn't mean they're autistic, face it dude i'm just more intelligent than you

>>8909972
This. Modern christians are fucking retarded. Christianity used to be very existential in its nature and was about the individuals relationship with the harsh infinite (god). The stories all contain important moral archtypes that you objectively teach you how to interact better with world (given you understand them correctly)

>>8909991
look at the mental gymnastics a christcuck will go through to believe in such nonsense
religion is a crutch for the weak minded

File: fatso.jpg (32KB, 299x324px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 299x324px

>>8909994
Not necessarily true. You may FEEL more intelligent. However going around the Internet flaunting your faux intellect tell me, and others, that youre compensating for something. Perhaps lack of legitimate intelligence?

>>8910008
dude just stop you're embarrassing yourself

>>8909972
Thank you for proving my point.

Where does this "the Bible is good literature" meme come from?

>>8910014
No, not really. You'll grow out of your edgetheist stage and eventually come to respect religion and spirituality, even if you dont believe in it yourself. Christianity has shaped a large part of the western world we live in today, and its morals and guidelines are all throughout our society.

it's a rich interesting story that informs how our culture shaped itself
same reason i like reading the greek myths

>>8909991
Hey idiot your bus is leaving to the Bible study you're going to be late

>>8910027
it's because most people were brought up to believe it there are huge institutions set up around it
so basically brainwashing
they'd say the same thing about the book of mormon is john smith existed thousands of years ago

>>8909993
>look mom im interepreting the bible literally!
Sometimes the world will require great sacrafices and you will suffer if you dont make them. Are you opposed to the death sentence, because killing people who commit crimes against humanity seems fine to me.

>>8910030
christian "morality" is harmful to the human species

>>8909998
The last 5 words there are completely damning to your argument

>>8910005
yeah his mind checked out a long time ago

File: 1478470461928.jpg (60KB, 477x768px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 477x768px

>>8909667
I dont its kike bullshit

>>8909667

i don't

>>8910030
Unfortunately this is true

>>8910044
Can you prove this?

>>8910071
i would tell you to read nietzsche but a pea brain like you couldn't comprehend him
in a way i'm glad you're a christian, society needs slaves like you

>>8910071
He just read the Wikipedia article on Nietzsche and has a fundamental misunderstanding of his philosophy so no he couldn't

Notice how when the atheists start losing their arguments they fall back "just pretending to be retarded" and "we were trolling the whole time lol I got you." It's pathetic.

We would be on Mars now if it wasn't for those meddlesome hebrews.

>>8910084
nah actually i have read all of his books more than once

>>8910080
Im not a Christian. Atheist here.

>>8910096
you subscribe to christian ethics therefore you are no different than a christian

>>8909934
>we should treat literature like science books
holy shit no
>just because something is "influential" doesn't mean it should be read
holy shit no

Ignoring the bible is to ignore over 2000 years of history, you cannot understand a vast amount of history, literature, philosophy, etc. without an understanding of the bible and the religions it inspired

>>8910102
No, i just acknowledge that it has had a large impact on our society and should be respected.

>>8910104
2000 years of history is a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things

>>8910043
What the fuck do you mean literally? You are a Christian that doesn't take the Bible literally? How could one say that straight faced about their faith? How far will one bend their mind to justify belief? So god is speaking all in hypotheticals? Would you tell your god right now in front of his face the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Fucking Christ.

>>8910094
Oh you're a fan of Nietzsche? Name five of his books. I'll wait pleb

>>8910119
any second now he will play the faith card

>>8910130
The Greek Music Drama (1870)
The Greek State (1871)
The Birth of Tragedy (1872)
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873)
Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (1873)
We Philologists (1874, posthumous)
Untimely Meditations (1876)
Human, All Too Human (1878)
The Dawn (1881)
The Gay Science (1882)
Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883)
Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
On the Genealogy of Morality (1887)
The Case of Wagner (1888)
Twilight of the Idols (1888)
The Antichrist (1888)
Ecce Homo (1888)
Nietzsche contra Wagner (1888)

>>8910094
If you have, explain the difference between Apollonian and Dionysian

>>8910008
Is that thunderf00t

>>8910143
i'm not dumbing it down for you idiot if you want to know read it yourself like i did

>>8910149
Neckbeards BTFO!!

>thread with barely any discussion od literature
>most bumped thread in the past hour by countless fedoras
really encourages one to ponder...

Hitler had a large impact on society
>>8910111

>>8910119
God is a hypothetical. I am a materialist atheist and I see value in the bible. Not every bible verse is a perfect undebatable lesson, but if you cant see how many lessons are applicable to everyday life then youre simple not trying

>>8910173
hitler was also a person
therefore you are hitler

>atheist reasoning

This board is a lot dumber than I thought

>>8909667
The pages are usually thin and don't make too harsh of a rolling paper in a pinch.

>>8910141
>asked to name five of his books
>names 18
Atheists everybody

>>8910182
No this would be your reasoning considering the fact that you think because something has a large impact on society it should be respected. Acknowledged yes, lest we forget - but respected, that is a dangerous word. Let's face it, you're an apologist and you're not very articulate about it.

>>8910185
The fact that this thread isn't comprised of a bunch of these posts makes me sad for humanity.

>>8910119
How fucking stupid are you? The OP is "Im an atheist and I enjoy the bible because __"

Nowhere did I say i was a christian, the entire point of this thread is for atheists to explain what they like about the bible. Jesus fucking christ

>>8910131
You have activated my faith card!

>>8910119
dude you're making it pretty clear that you're completely unfamiliar with the Bible; why do you feel so strongly about something you've never read

>>8910189
Hitler's impact is now we try to do everything he opposed

Christianity for the greatest part of European history was followed, and even today most of Christian morality is still respected and integrated into our laws

If you can't see this you're deluding yourself because you follow morality that's derived from that religion

Also to bring up Hitler when it's not the topic of the conversation just childish because the only argument is "it resembles something we all disagree with!!" and you're trying to appeal by common opinion

>>8910180
You are implying that humans don't have the innate ability to be moral or know what is ethical without a book or religion to give them (outrageously bad) lessons. Tell you what, I know I'm not supposed to murder you, even though that's really what I want to do right now. To believe that a god provides this and it isn't ingrained in our human senses is just mind blowing.

>>8910191
>le loss of faith in humanity :'(
back to plebbit

>>8910209
Why do you say that? What are these obvious things you allude to?

>>8910197
I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.
Actually not in the least.

>>8910141
Why did you post the dates?

>>8909976
What's the unit on the y axis of your graph ?

>>8909860
Are you 14 ?

>>8910216
By your logic ethics and morals are purely instinct so theres no point in ever talking about them or writing about them or exploring different moral ideas.

>>8910231
>get called out for being an oblivious retard
>uh i guess hurt your feelings!
What?

>>8910234
to clearly show he hasn't actually read 5 books by Nietzsche and that he just copied that from a site somewhere

>>8910214
I never argued that it wasn't did I? I took issue with the fact that you saw it in some positive light and thought it was to be respected. My hitler jab was cheap but it still stands as far as you hold your assertion that because something has had a great impact it is to be respected. Here's another cheap one - The Black Plague should be respected?

People don't need a religion to tell them right from wrong regardless of our history and to imply in some way that life would have been chaos or immoral without a god to worship and a devil to burn us is offensive. Thank god for the separation of church and state and to hell with Christian apologists that don't fully comprehend the vile nature of religions innate destructive bent

>>8910030
this. I was once an edgelord myself.

>>8910220
And you back to high school

>>8910270
reread my post you mongoloid
the reason you don't respect hitler despite his big impact, or the great plague, is because they nothing they created have been integrated into iur daily lives, unlike religion

regardless of what you think, most of the laws in Europe are based off Christian morality so to dismiss religion is like dismissing history

>>8909860
Do you think you cant read both? Many people do, and theyre probably smarter than you

>>8910270

>People don't need a religion to tell them right from wrong

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument from morality. Religious people are not saying that you need to believe their specific religion in order to be a moral person, they're saying that you need religion in order to justify that morality. What it means to justify morality is not to just explain how we might believe in certain moral truths like some atheists do with their "morality gene" but to explain why moral truths exist in the first place. To reiterate, theists are saying morality is given to us by god but this does not mean that you need to believe in god in order to know it. It's important to recognize this because you're arguing against a strawman.

>>8910249
>>8910249
No im trying to dissuade the idea that the Bible is the foundation of these ideas.

And how am I an oblivious retard exactly? Because I argued with someone? I'd like a response please. Fuckin a.

>>8910301
where did western morality come from then if not from religion

atheists: actively ignoring history when it suits

>>8910278
You are saying that without Christianity we would be somehow incapable or to a lesser extent able to construct a set of governing laws?

I very well understand religions impact, and its natural, necessary creation; you however seem to think we are the better off for it.

>>8910319
>discussing "if"s in history
no.

>>8910301
Where did I say the bible is the "foundation" of these ideas? I simply said the bible expresses them and I think it expresses them well. And if you dont think the bible was a strong role in developimg the values of weatern society, then youre diluted

>>8909667
20 pgs to go and im finished reading it twice. 500 hrs took me 11 months to get here

File: space.jpg (19KB, 446x456px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 446x456px

>>8910113
wow, that's really deep man

>>8910309
This is what you're not getting. I am saying men are born knowing not to kill their father and rape their sister. Civilizations and humans could not have progressed to the point they are now without these fundamental parts of our human nature having naturally arisen.

Were the authors of the constitution all religious?

Religion is a piece of history not the source of it.

>>8910229
You treat the Bible like it's a singular and congruent entity, like it's a novel that was written beginning to end with didactic moral lessons and argues for the case of the Abrahamic God; approaching it like you would a philosophical work or scientific text. You're forcing your paradigm onto something fundamentally incompatible with it and treating that dissonance like some sort of victory on your part when it's just misunderstanding

>>8910291
I don't know how the 'advice' you're giving me applies. This is a philosophical debate not a psychological one.

>>8910324
Okay...thanks for adding nothing
What IF you weren't born with a mental defect?

>>8910363

Advice, what the hell are you talking about?

>>8910356
>men are born knowing not to kill their father and rape their sister
proof?

>>8910356
>am saying men are born knowing not to kill their father and rape their sister.
What? Thats the spookiest shit Ive ever heard. Do you have a single piece of evidence backing up that claim? Are you implying that societies where rape and murder are common suffer from genetic deficiency?

>>8909667
What's an aetheist? Is that someone who believes that god is hidden in the cosmological constant that keeps gravity and expansionary forces in perfect equilibrium?

>>8910371

Has there been any society in the history of mankind where this sort of behavior has been allowed or encouraged?

>>8909667
it's fucking dope.
Job is fucking Dope
Corinthians is fucking dope
The Gospels are fucking dope
Ecclesiastes is mega fucking dope
and many more my dudes

>>8910389
>my proof is a question
rly makes u think

>>8910325
A computer expresses writing on a page but that doesn't mean you can't use a pen, in other words morality showed up first and religion came along for the ride, fucking things up along the way.

You're about as diluted as swamp water

>>8909772
No, most atheists recognize that Christians treat their stories as literally as they can until it becomes absurdly obvious that doing so is incompatible with the advancements that secular society has made. Then they take the parts that nakedly no longer make sense and treat them as symbolism, pretending that they believe the same things as their ancestors in order to preserve social order, while believing, just barely, all the parts that aren't completely incompatible with their lives.

We don't think you're stupid, we think that you're intellectually bankrupt and cowardly.

>>8910397
If you can't take a point in the form of a question you should really try to think a bit more.

>>8910389
Rape is a very serious problem in Ethiopia,[96] and the country is infamous for the practice of marriage by abduction, with the prevalence of this practice in Ethiopia being one of the highest in the world.[97][98][99][100] In many parts of Ethiopia, it is common for a man, working in co-ordination with his friends, to kidnap a girl or woman, sometimes using a horse to ease the escape.[101] The abductor will then hide his intended bride and rape her until she becomes pregnant. As the father of the woman's child, the man can claim her as his wife.[102] Subsequently, the kidnapper may try to negotiate a bride price with the village elders to legitimize the marriage.[102] Girls as young as eleven years old are reported to have been kidnapped for the purpose of marriage.[103]

Ethiopia is estimated to have one of the highest rates of violence against women in the world. A report by the UN found that women in Ethiopia are the most likely to suffer domestic violence at the hands of their partners, and that nearly 60% of Ethiopian women were subjected to sexual violence.[104] The 2004 Criminal Code of Ethiopia creates the offense of rape, by Article 620, which states that: "Whoever compels a woman to submit to sexual intercourse outside wedlock, whether by the use of violence or grave intimidation, or after having rendered her unconscious or incapable of resistance, is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to fifteen years". There are also certain aggravated circumstances which lead to an increased punishment for rape. Apart from the criminal offense of rape, there are also other sexual offenses in the Criminal Code. The age of consent is 18.[105] As can be seen above, a woman cannot charge her husband with rape. However, the 2004 Criminal Code brings major improvements for women's rights in the country, by criminalizing several forms of violence against women, such as female genital mutilation, violence against pregnant women, marriage by abduction, child marriage, trafficking and sexual harassment, though Chapter III – Crimes Committed against life, person and health through harmful traditional practices (Articles 561–570) and other provisions (Articles 587, 597, 625, 635, 637, 648). Article 564 – Violence Against a Marriage Partner or a Person Cohabiting in an Irregular Union is a major step forward.[105]

“The bad thing about all religions is that, instead of being able to confess their allegorical nature, they have to conceal it; accordingly, they parade their doctrines in all seriousness as true sensu proprio, and as absurdities form an essential part of these doctrines we have the great mischief of a continual fraud. Nay, what is worse, the day arrives when they are no longer true sensu proprio, and then there is an end of them; so that, in that respect, it would be better to admit their allegorical nature at once. But the difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time. Since all religions are in a greater or less degree of this nature, we must recognize the fact that mankind cannot get on without a certain amount of absurdity, that absurdity is an element in its existence, and illusion indispensable; as indeed other aspects of life testify.”

>>8910397

It's called reason. It's completely reasonable to believe that killing your father and raping your sister is wrong in every context. You can refute this by providing a single example where this behavior would be morally acceptable.

>>8910404
>>8910389

The Ethiopian military has been accused of committing systematic rapes against civilians.[106][107] Human Rights Watch has repeatedly claimed that the army has attacked, beaten, raped and killed civilians, something which the Ethiopian authorities have denied.[106][107] However, US scientists said that satellite images confirmed reports that the Ethiopian military had burnt towns and villages in Ethiopia's Somali region.[108]

A study in Addis Ababa of high school boys found that 4.3% had been raped in their lives.[109] According to the WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women, 59% of women reported sexual abuse by a partner; while one third of women reported being "physically forced" to have sex against their will with their partner within the past 12 months. This was the highest prevalence of all countries surveyed.[110]

>>8910376
Can you point me to these societies please. I'd like one example of a society that survived striving on these values.

>>8910408
Japan takes up this challenge up every day, and I fear that one day they may succeed, causing the ruin of civilization.

>>8910402
for an atheist you don't seem to grasp the concept of "proof" very well

>>8910408
there have been examples of parricide and sibling rape in history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parricide
here you go

>>8909667
killing, homophobia, keeping bitches where they belong, death, death, death.

>>8910407
>the bad thing about all religions
>makes a sweeping statement that applies to like 2 religions
the bad thing about most atheists is they pretend to know what they're talking about without ever actually doing the reading

>>8910408
My father controls the tribe and, in order to prove my genetic superiority and fulfill my biological imperative I must supersede him and, at that point, it would be genetically irresponsible for me not to breed with every female available, regardless of their willingness or genetic viability, so that I may produce many sons, of which one may be fit enough to murder me.

>>8910414
You changed the argument from "societies that have these values" to "societies that have survived on these values" you dont even know what point youre trying to make anymore. Read the entry about Ethopia posted above

>>8910370
"It's important to recognize this because you're arguing against a strawman."

I would take this as advice wouldn't you?

>>8910425
>sweeping statement
>without reading
>the problem with atheists is... (!)
It's Schopenhauer and one of two things happened:
You did not actually read it
or
You did not actually understand it

>>8910431
That was my exact original point, humanity cannot thrive living on those types of values.

>>8910401

>No, most atheists recognize that Christians treat their stories as literally as they can until it becomes absurdly obvious that doing so is incompatible with the advancements that secular society has made.

This contradicts history. One of the earliest criticism of the bible came from pagans around the year 200 AD where they point out that day and night existed before the sun was created. This idea of a literal creation story is recent invention and is not at all typical with historical or even modern Christians because it would have obviously contradicted this very dumb reading of the text.

You say that Christians bend their beliefs as science advances but history will show you that its been the exact opposite. It was atheists that derided Big Bang cosmology as "wacky religious garbage" and argued instead for the steady state theory. It is the atheist who have had to move with science.

>>8910419
>there have been examples of parricide and sibling rape in history

So? People have murdered innocent human beings, does this make murdering innocent human beings okay?

>>8910442
No, the orginal point being argued was if humans are inherently born with ethical and moral values. You fucking suck at debate

>>8910398
So youre agreeing with me but Im diluted? I just said the bible isnt the foundation of morals, are you fucking stupid?

>>8910447
what the fuck are you on about

the statement "all people are born with morals" needs to be proven because there are cases of people doing immoral acts

where's the proof for such statement?

>>8910460
Hes a complete moron. Hes completely lost in this debate. He doesnt even know whats going on anymore

>>8910362
You treat the Bible like it's a singular and congruent entity, like it's a novel that was written beginning to end with didactic moral lessons and argues for the case of the Abrahamic God;

No i am arguing concerning to the people that DO treat it exactly in the manner that you describe. I would never treat it like that, for obvious reasons.

>>8910460

You're not even replying to the right person. The guy I was talking was asking for proof that raping your sister and killing your father was universally immoral.

>>8910437
>it's (established philosopher that most people who aren't depressed bitter idiots think was mostly wrong) so it must be right
Fedoracucks are so infantile

>>8910460
I'm not saying all people are born with morals, I'm saying these set of morals have arisen naturally through evolutionary constants. A tribe that is founded on murder and theft and violence can't very well survive can it?

>>8910393
Job can be considered one of the first and one of the greatest satires of all time.

>>8910481
well I brought up the name because that anon said atheist which I thought was pretty reductive of anyone who knew anything about Schopenhauer and I also thought that his post completely ignored the crux of his point which was that "the difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time."

>>8910393
corinithians ya ok. im sure you blasted through the bible like that speed reader

>>8909934
>just because something is "influential" doesn't mean it should be read
you're an idiot.

File: balaams_donkey1.jpg (224KB, 899x600px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 899x600px

I can't make heads or tails of this story. It's such an oddball out of place almost comedic episode in an otherwise serious historical narrative. I love it but the commentary in the Didache bible doesn't explain a whole lot.

>>8910443
First off, pagans aren't Christians, so while it is trivial, that part of my point still stands.

Also, thanks for proving the core of my point while, like a typical apologist, trying to find some sort of measure of doubt to hide in.

The point is that what is "literally true" and what is "symbolically useful" vary between generations and societies. At no point does anyone actually believe in the whole thing, and great fusses arise over which parts are symbolically true and which parts are literally true.

So, is it all ONLY symbolically true? Why follow it, then, when what obviously matters is the truth? And don't tell me that it's "useful for people who aren't as educated". Aquinas would be disappoint.

Or is part of it literally true, but you can't agree with your own parents or pastor which parts? Gee, lets spend our formative years and adulthood figuring it out, instead of actually realizing that if parts of it are only symbolically true, there are better potential methods of arriving at truth!

Either way you're just as much a part of building Babel as the atheists you mock, you're just doing it less efficiently and with more emotional turmoil

>>8910486
Job is also straight up dope.
The old testament teaches people how God treats people: we're straw-dogs and the universe places no credence on life and pleasure, gives it no preferential treatment over death.
The new testament teaches people how People under God aught to treat people: compassionately. Greater genetic survival depends on it.

>>8910493
Are you saying Corinthians isn't great? Because,
“But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die…
“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”

>>8910469
If it's only good for the good parts contained in it, then it's not actually worth following as religion.

If you have to spell it out to the masses which parts are metaphorical and which are literal, it's not good literature.

If you have to make a career of reconciling it to what you already know in your heart to be true, then I suppose to each his own, but don't expect the rest of us not to laugh about it behind your back.

>>8910502

>The point is that what is "literally true" and what is "symbolically useful" vary between generations and societies.

I've just demonstrated that his is not the case. Christians have believe that everything the bible asserts is true, not always literally true. There is a lot of "epic narration" because its written by human authors for a human audience. When you consider ancient literary genres that are employed in the writing of Genesis you see that chapters 1-11 is a "popular description" aimed at a certain people at a certain time that expresses fundamental truths in a figurative way. This is not a matter of picking and choosing what to believe but it's a matter of providing proper context to the text. It is mythopoeic expression.

>>8910455
EXACTLY. HUMANS CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT A SET OF THESE INHERENT VALUES. They cannot thrive! Just because religion pretends to have a straglehold on words like morals and values doesn't mean they can't exist outside of a religious context.

The human species would not have been able to survive if we all had no grasp of these naturally developed morals.

File: 1473944864827.jpg (30KB, 480x490px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x490px

post yfw Job, the oldest book in the Bible and one of the oldest books in the world, casually mentions dinosaurs

>>8910529
So was the part about Jesus disappearing from his tomb literal or figurative?

If your answer is literal, then you are affording a special case to something you know is not possible because it's in your favorite book of poems.

If your answer is figurative, then you're in disagreement with the vast majority of the religion's followers and my point still stands.

>>8910459
Im arguing against apologists, and people who think that the bible had any hand in doing anything more than harm for the world.
>are you fucking stupid?
Considering you're still using the word diluted rather than deluded, I'd say we both know the answer to that one.

>>8910544

This is the Hebrew authors poetically comparing Yahweh to a well known fictional entity called Leviathan in order to demonstrate god's power and sovereignty. Other cultures made beasts like Leviathan equal and threatening to their gods, so the Hebrews described those creatures as god's pets.

The Jews were masters of passive aggressive interfaith banter.

>>8910556

I'm not trying to come off as condescending but do you understand that there are different books in the bibles, that the bible itself is more akin to a library than a single book? I ask this because it's important to recognize that different books employ different literary styles and genres. You can't read Genesis with the same lens as the four gospels. The gospels employ more of a Roman historical biographical narrative and it doesn't use the same mythopoeic language that Genesis does.

>>8910501
I always took it that God essentially allowed Balaam to disobey him, and that God then allowed Balaam's "salvation" from His own "wrath" to come from an ass, an unclean animal, in order to emphasize how Balaam's hardheadedness and unwillingness to concede even to the rule of God was wicked and, unchecked, would ultimately lead to his destruction.

>>8910511
>If it's only good for the good parts contained in it, then it's not actually worth following as religion.
What? Who are you to say what is "worth following"?

>If you have to spell it out to the masses which parts are metaphorical and which are literal, it's not good literature.
They do. That's why there is mass (i.e. the homily). And priests. And the Vatican. And the "collection". And all of it. It is good literature? What is good literature exactly? Are you to decide? Tell me what is good and bad literature?

If you have to make a career of reconciling it to what you already know in your heart to be true, then I suppose to each his own, but don't expect the rest of us not to laugh about it behind your back.
What I know in my heart to be true? You are arguing for my case for free.

>>8909667
because back in college reading it really helped me get into the pants of three different cute good little Christian girls who perceived me as a safe and friendly way to explore their doubt. There is no pussy like pussy that wants to feel holy but is questioning its place in the world.

>>8910080
im anti theist as fuck but jesus is it even possible to be as neckbeard as this? or is this pro trolling?

>>8910510
corinithians and romans seemed not great ya. i slogged through it for some reason
why that was nice of you to share, thou sowest is not quickened, except it die

proverbs, my person favorite: he winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually

>>8910589
Of course I understand that.

What I am asking is, did Jesus literally rise from the dead? I feel like you're dodging the question because it's uncomfortable for you to admit what you actually think.

>>8910604
>What? Who are you to say what is "worth following"?
I ain't shit. But why not dump the parts that no longer make sense? Why make someone jump through hoops of history to understand something in the right context if the REAL message inside is what's actually important? What you're asking for is vain and counterproductive.

>They do. That's why there is mass (i.e. the homily). And priests.
A large part of Christianity disagrees with you. They think all of that is just getting in the way of God's truth. Remember the reformation? Who is right? Why should I trust you over them as to what Christianity ACTUALLY means?

... and never mind; your last statement is such an obviously flippant avoidance of my intent that it's clear you can't actually approach this like an adult. Later, faithboi. Stay smug about how you're wasting your time on dancing in fairy rings around wisdom and knowledge despite having the tools to address it properly.

>>8910401
intellectually bankrupt and cowardly.
>and a little bit stupid

>>8910666
>Of course I understand that.
>What I am asking is, did Jesus literally rise from the dead? I feel like you're dodging the question because it's uncomfortable for you to admit what you actually think.

I answered the question. The gospels are a historical biography so a Christian would believe the resurrection truly happened.

>>8910666
Nice satanic trips.
Actually I was agreeing with you, somehow our replies got confused.

>>8910401

>the advancements that secular society has made

Most of those scientists and liberal reformers were Christian though. They obviously didn't have a problem squaring their political beliefs with their faith. I wish the reddit meme that Christians were always these evil conservative dudes who hated le science would die.

>>8910682
Resurrection is a motif used constantly throughout the bible to refer to death as a spiritual awakening. There's no reason why all of the touching and feeling and looking at the stone moved away and all of that shit NEEDs to be interpreted literally. Christ lives within those who adhere to his love and him pushing away the boulder from the tomb is his death allowing for the spread of the good news. Anything beyond that literally does not matter.

>>8910714
>Most of those scientists and liberal reformers were Christian though.
I'm going to need a citation not conjecture.

>They obviously didn't have a problem squaring their political beliefs with their faith.
So you're admitting that by handicapping faith you are able to advance society? What is your point here exactly?
>I wish the reddit meme that Christians were always these evil conservative dudes who hated le science would die.
Go listen to some Christopher Hitchens, read up on Galileo, research the Vatican and it's dealings over the years.

Christians, like atheists have done some shady things in their lives. No they're not always evil, but name me a good thing a believer can do that a non believer can not claim to do. Now reverse that: name me an evil thing that a believer has done for their faith that a non believer wouldn't have done. Hitchslap.

>>8910743

That is a legitimate point of contention. It's not completely uncommon for Roman style biographers to exaggerate, add, or even omit certain things in order to service the greater narrative. That's just how history was written in the time. I don't want to give the impression that by doing this the writer is lying or making things up to deceive, but it's sort of like how somebody today that's transcribing a speech might omit all the "uuh's" in order to make it more readable.

>>8910765
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

wew that was hard

File: 1482282086686.png (143KB, 696x567px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 696x567px

>>8909976

>>8910772
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

I'm sorry I seem to be blind can you point me to where it says on here most of the scientists and liberal reformers were christian? I'll be back I'm going to go grab a snack.

>>8910783
Jesus first off you have to be one hell of an ass hole to write like that. Not that the graph is to be taken literally, but it is at least in more part true than his pretentious dribble. It's basic - if you have a religion with its roots deep in society that preaches god is responsible for all things that could otherwise be explained by science, essentially killing free thinking you are going to stunt some growth. To deny this is folly.

>>8910798

When has science ever been held back because "god dun it?"

File: the-creation-of-adam.jpg (180KB, 1100x488px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1100x488px

>The entire backbone of 2000 years of western civilization, had a direct influence in the progression of arts, science (some of the greatest scientists of all time were educated at religious institutions), literature, etc

>Gave people an objective morality, allowed for greater unity within europe, disallowing Muslim powers to gain a stronger foothold in Europe (did lead to some wars between european powers, albeit these had other motivations as well)

>Armchair historians come onto /lit/ in the year 2016+1 and want to deny the significance and impact Christianity has had on our culture and is one of the very reasons they can sit on their ass all day and shitpost

Our forefathers would be very ashamed.

>>8910803
Held back? Never, and it can't be by design.
When has it interfered? If you can't think of any examples you don't get out much.

>>8910813
Pretty much this, /lit/ just LOVES to be contrarian.

Not a single professor educated in the arts would ever deny the significance of Christianity.

Your beliefs are your own, but the replies in this thread are just retarded. Unless many of them are bait, which they may be.

>>8910798
Couldn't be more wrong. Many scientists, Newton being a great example, used their faith to fuel scientific inquiry. To them, knowing how the universe operates was knowing the God that created it.

>>8910819

The distinction between held back and "interfered with" is meaningless. When has this attitude of "don't study this because we already have the answer in god" ever occurred?

>>8910813
2000 years ago I would have been religious as well. It was the best explanation we had. It was almost a necessary vice. And do not claim to know the hearts of these great scientists. People were routinely killed for being non believers.

The point is as more and more is explained to us scientifically the less and less we need to rely on it.

>Armchair historians come onto /lit/ in the year >2016+1 and want to deny the significance and impact Christianity has had on our culture and is one of the very reasons they can sit on their ass all day and shitpost

No one is denying the impact it has made. But while you think that life has been made better from the pope's and priests and pulpits, you don't contemplate a world (perhaps a bit more healthy?) could have been created from the teachings of Lucretius, Voltaire, Dawkins.

>>8910823
point to one post where someone denied the significance of christianity

>>8910829
>The distinction between held back and "interfered with" is meaningless
No they aren't. "Held back" means that it is being held back by some sort of force, science can't be held back as it, in itself can't be negated.

>When has this attitude of "don't study this because we already have the answer in god" ever occurred?
Are you really serious?

>>8910824
Uh huh, so if Christianity wasn't in favor in Newton's time, you're asserting that he wouldn't have made the scientific breakthrough's that he did.

This is what separates, fundamentally, our thinking.

>>8910839
>2000 years ago I would have been religious as well. It was the best explanation we had

Is there a better explanation for the existence of the universe and the apparent fine-tuning for life than god? Things like the multiverse is purely philosophical and it can never truly be verified since the universes don't interact with each other. Even if the theory were true it still wouldn't explain why there is something rather than nothing, or rather what set the conditions to allow the multiple universes to exist. At least with the theist position they have at least some material evidence, which is that we happen to live in the one universe that looks like it was created by god.

>>8910839
>But while you think that life has been made better from the pope's and priests and pulpits, you don't contemplate a world (perhaps a bit more healthy?) could have been created from the teachings of Lucretius, Voltaire, Dawkins.

No, I reject this notion, especially for past historical periods. The ideas from these thinkers would have caused great social strife (and they did in Voltaire). Perhaps if such thinking did come to found the backbone of western civilization in the beginning, then it could have possibly worked out. Although, at this point in my life, I partially align myself with those views of Dostoevsky, especially his views on nihilism/social decline which he believed to naturally originate from such schools of thought.

>>8910864
Today, yes. Science doesn't have the answers to these profound questions. And while God still does not answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, what differentiates us, is that while you put your faith in religion - which is dying and is made sillier and more shameful every day, I put my faith in science - which is thriving, and explaining more and more every day.

>>8910850
t. I didn't read the thread
And by significance I meant more of positive influence. Rather than the xD sky daddy baiting people here seem to like, rather than forming coherent arguments.

>>8910867
Interesting, do you have examples you can refer me to?

>>8910868

You talk about science and religion as if they're opposing forces. Science is merely a tool to learn about the material world, it simply can't touch the sort of questions that religion can like why there is something rather than nothing.

>And while God still does not answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing

What do you mean it doesn't?

In the atheistic worldview, the concept of a moral wrong only means "something I don't like," because if it meant "something that ought to not be," that would imply there is a way that our actions "ought to be." But if our actions, or even the universe itself "ought to be" a certain way, that further implies that there is a cosmic plan for human beings, their moral behavior, and even the universe itself. And if there is a cosmic plan then that implies the existence of a cosmic planner, or what we call God.

>>8910887
>it simply can't touch the sort of questions that religion can like why there is something rather than nothing.

This is your opinion. And I reassert my opinion that science will provide these answers someday. To hypothesize that science can not perpetually answer them is irrational considering the progress we've made within the last 100 years.

>What do you mean it doesn't?
What do you mean it does?

>>8910880
On what? Dosto? His novels and diary, all of it.

On voltaire? Literally the revolution. Radical thinkers (moreso social and political commentators) have always caused social strife throughout history. That was the point I was trying to make. The introduction of such thinkers as voltaire in earlier European history would have been even more disastrous for the unity of societies (and therefore people's happiness, which is what I'm trying to get at) as the church's influence was much greater.

>>8910918
*** and this is not to say the church hasn't caused social strife, albeit I believe they were a greater uniting force than these radical thinkers could have been

>>8910917

The universe is just the name given to the total collection of all space, time, matter, and energy so any explanation that involves those things is would just involve the same universe. This means the cause of the universe cannot be bound by space, time, matter, or energy, and that makes the question metaphysical in nature which science cannot touch it.

>>8910918
>The introduction of such thinkers as voltaire in earlier European history would have been even more disastrous for the unity of societies as the church's influence was much greater.

Can you clarify?

File: fedora.jpg (5KB, 176x180px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 176x180px

>>8910839
>Lucretius, Voltaire, Dawkins.
>Dawkins
Dawkins is a simpleton.

>>8910917

Do you believe that truth can only be known through science?

>>8910928
Science isn't bound by anything as much as what we will discover tomorrow.

>>8910944
Science is merely the tool that helps find truth. The "truth" exists both within and without it.

>>8910947

You can't scientifically test beauty, so it's bound by some things. How would you materially test the immaterial?

>>8910931
The Grand Inquisitor from Brothers Karamazov, goes over this well in a way. Part of it states the idea of the church giving people happiness, objective morality, keeps order, etc, although Dosto doesn't always agree in the manner of which it is done.

Thinkers like Voltaire seem to reason through this and want to offer individuals "freedom", which of course always comes at a price. This means revolution, and naturally strife. Of course, he came around at a time when the power of the church was already diminishing.

All I really want to get at is perceived freedom, the diminishing of religion, and other ideas from similar thinkers does not necessarily lead to happy and unified societies, quite a basic idea, which is against your first suggestion of thinkers like these replacing religious figures. Although I don't really agree with the strong arm authority of the RC church.

>>8910953
Beauty is much like the word perfect. Subjective by definition. It is merely a word we have invented to describe something, it does not exist in and of itself. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the immaterial but much of it can be explained through one of the sciences. Beauty would be a good example, i.e. having traits beneficial to breeding. Things like love, passion, beauty - we are careful to tread on these as religions claim them as their own, but the numinous exists entirely without religious faith. This thought however, the idea of feeling spiritual and feeling the need to envelop it into some type of religious context is what separates so many of us.

>>8910974

I explained what I meant by immaterial here. >>8910928

Science deals with space, time, matter, or energy. The question of what caused science, time, matter, or energy to come into existence is by definition metaphysical because the cause or creator of space, time, matter, or energy cannot be bound by it since to be so would just make it part of the same universe. You cannot physically test the metaphysical because science only deals with space, time, matter, or energy.

>It is merely a word we have invented to describe something, it does not exist

If beauty does not exist, that it's literally nothing or "no thing", then why do we need a word to describe it? I never made a claim that beauty is objective, just the fact that it exists, that it is in fact "a thing." It is a thing that science cannot touch beauty is not physical.

>>8910969

>which of course always comes at a price
Don't confuse the price with the end result though.
The price is irrelevant to the effect, which we compare against a religiously based society.

>and other ideas from similar thinkers does not necessarily lead to happy and unified societies
Certainly not necessarily, but probably I would claim

>>8911002
>why do we need a word to describe it
We don't. We don't need it. Note the word need. It does not exist in and of itself. We want a word for it. And the very nature of its use proves that we can not really define it. Like many words it is a torrent of feelings, nothing more.

This does not prove that there is another science or God that exists outside of the things that we know today.