4 ms·

> Because it is, you know, divine. I am playing devils advocate here: Even if it were not divine because atheists happen to be right on that one... even then,

> Because it is, you know, divine. I am playing devils advocate here: Even if it were not divine because atheists happen to be right on that one... even then, the authors and the intended audience of the bible considered it divine - with pretty much the same outcomes when it comes to hermeneutics. That is why I think that both 1) atheists rejecting to do (at least temporary) suspension of disbelief even for the sake of understanding the protagonists, or the authors, or the intension of the text, and 2) christians who just pick whatever forcibly-robbed-of-its-context oneliner fits their particular point view miss out. Divine or not, this is a work that was composed a long time ago, edited, translated and interpreted by a diverse range of people spanning more than two millenia. Putting in less effort than one would into any other written source only guarantees one thing, the absense of surprises and learnings - if that is the goal, then reading two-three pages and discarding it because its plot seems worse than a C-move is surely the way to success.

Yizahi 2mo ago
I suspect that majority of atheists would be fine with either literal reading of Bible (any other religious text) or with metaphorical and in-context reading of such text, whatever better suits the fancy of religious folks. Now the problem atheists have is the selective arbitrary literal or metaphorical passages of the same single book. Are passages about killing infidels and the other xenophobic garbage is a historical metaphorical and nuanced stuff which must be interpreted very different nowadays? Fine. But then all the other things should be also interpreted heavily - like there is no need to saran-wrap women because "the intention" or "the author's meaning" was about simply protecting them from the desert sand a-la medieval hiking handbook. There is no need to avoid specific animal meat in the age of refrigerators. And so on it goes. Or we need to literally believe in the resurrection/heaven/souls/miracles and literally follow some extremely outdated and thus absurd instructions to the letter? Well, then murder, sadism and xenophobia then should be taken literally too.
- dev_dan_2 2mo ago
  I both agree with you, but have a point I want to raise that I think is often overlooked: Agree: Intellectual dishonesty just sucks, period. In any area I think, but the more emotional a topic, the harder so. Changing the axioms of how one views the world when it fits ones point is often either decieving, or the person is not aware of doing it, both options are suboptimal. Here is the "But" or maybe better, the "but also": What I often observe where atheist + theist conversations go wrong is that the atheist has a preconcived notion of how certain beliefs have a causal relationship with other beliefs, which might not be necessarily true, and the intellectually honest would be to confirm that mental model first before jumping to conclusions. Let me make a, depending on the person, controversial example: Imagine atheist A and theist T being in an ongoing dialoge, 10m, 15m in, and the topic comes to how Ts faith affect their marriage, what role is does play. T makes the statement that "... and one other thing is that I really like we are both partipating in this beatiful symbol of womand and man being created seperately and for each other ..." - now, what I often observed in real life and online: A might infer that - T things that women that are single are less worth or doing it wrong - T thinks that homosexual couples are less worth or doing it wrong - Underlying assumption: T thinks less of people that don't try to practise the christian faith All of that might or might not be true, but by getting angry about their own interpretation of reality rather than asking about it first, the conversation is unlikely to become productive. Some notes: - The opposite if of course possible as well, i.e. a T assuming that an A has no morals because they don't believe in God or stuff like that - In case one wonders how T can be able to believe that the proper thing in Gods eyes is to do X, yet they are at peace with people doing Y, does this not cause cognitive dissonance? Yes, but only under additional assumptions that T might not have all - for example: Society should be structured based on christian values. People should be evaluated on their deeds whether they actually want to work towards God rather than against him. And so on... --------------------------- Some might raise the point that it is rare that T voices a strong belief in X, but is compatible with a diverse, inclusive society. To this I counter: I don't care and neither should you! When it comes to me, I will get annoyed fast because I am fine with someone being interested in an exchange between two individuals, but when I am viewed as a representative of some group, then put on your sociology hat and do a survey, I guess. When it comes to you (as in: anyone else): This mindset cements notions that you have about a group - if you do not talk to Ts at all, or be open to their existence, how would you ever be able to correct the (possibly wrong, possibly right) notion that strong conviction and compality with a diverse society is possible?
- Amezarak 2mo ago
  > Are passages about killing infidels and the other xenophobic garbage is a historical metaphorical and nuanced stuff which must be interpreted very different nowadays? Fine. But then all the other things should be also interpreted heavily - like there is no need to saran-wrap women because "the intention" or "the author's meaning" was about simply protecting them from the desert sand a-la medieval hiking handbook. There is no need to avoid specific animal meat in the age of refrigerators. And so on it goes. I always find this mindset peculiarly baffling. From a secular perspective, we've understood since at least the 1800s that "morality" is simply the pro-social instincts that we've developed as a social species of apes, and that they are historically contingent on a million different factors for any particular group of humans, such that the exact manifestation of "morality" differs widely from culture to culture and over time. Yet comments like this invariably accept Christian moral realism as a given (and granted, it's obviously a large genealogical contributor to Western social norms today) but then sever its grounding from God and place it in...their personal feelings about right and wrong. So God using the Israelites/Babylonians/Romans/etc as his instrument of divine justice is evil "xenophobic garbage"...because divine justice is real (xenophobia is objectively evil) but the God described in religious texts actually has nothing to do with it, and actually its wrong because....uh...we say so and we're the final and ultimate arbiters of right and wrong I guess? Us, specifically, that is. It really seems like this is the genealogical origin of the idea of "progress" you see throughout these comments as well - people are "better" now, because you can clearly see over time a large subset of people developing social norms closer and closer to our own! And unlike theirs, ours are objectively right and true, or at least closer to it. This is certainly a historically unusual view, which may have typically been rather provincial and close-minded, but which certainly did general not have this universalist, and dare I say, colonialist bent, that all must agree.
  - derangedHorse 2mo ago
    The existence and acknowledgement of moral relativism does not preclude moral chastisement.

Yizahi 2mo ago

I suspect that majority of atheists would be fine with either literal reading of Bible (any other religious text) or with metaphorical and in-context reading of such text, whatever better suits the fancy of religious folks. Now the problem atheists have is the selective arbitrary literal or metaphorical passages of the same single book. Are passages about killing infidels and the other xenophobic garbage is a historical metaphorical and nuanced stuff which must be interpreted very different nowadays? Fine. But then all the other things should be also interpreted heavily - like there is no need to saran-wrap women because "the intention" or "the author's meaning" was about simply protecting them from the desert sand a-la medieval hiking handbook. There is no need to avoid specific animal meat in the age of refrigerators. And so on it goes. Or we need to literally believe in the resurrection/heaven/souls/miracles and literally follow some extremely outdated and thus absurd instructions to the letter? Well, then murder, sadism and xenophobia then should be taken literally too.

dev_dan_2 2mo ago
I both agree with you, but have a point I want to raise that I think is often overlooked: Agree: Intellectual dishonesty just sucks, period. In any area I think, but the more emotional a topic, the harder so. Changing the axioms of how one views the world when it fits ones point is often either decieving, or the person is not aware of doing it, both options are suboptimal. Here is the "But" or maybe better, the "but also": What I often observe where atheist + theist conversations go wrong is that the atheist has a preconcived notion of how certain beliefs have a causal relationship with other beliefs, which might not be necessarily true, and the intellectually honest would be to confirm that mental model first before jumping to conclusions. Let me make a, depending on the person, controversial example: Imagine atheist A and theist T being in an ongoing dialoge, 10m, 15m in, and the topic comes to how Ts faith affect their marriage, what role is does play. T makes the statement that "... and one other thing is that I really like we are both partipating in this beatiful symbol of womand and man being created seperately and for each other ..." - now, what I often observed in real life and online: A might infer that - T things that women that are single are less worth or doing it wrong - T thinks that homosexual couples are less worth or doing it wrong - Underlying assumption: T thinks less of people that don't try to practise the christian faith All of that might or might not be true, but by getting angry about their own interpretation of reality rather than asking about it first, the conversation is unlikely to become productive. Some notes: - The opposite if of course possible as well, i.e. a T assuming that an A has no morals because they don't believe in God or stuff like that - In case one wonders how T can be able to believe that the proper thing in Gods eyes is to do X, yet they are at peace with people doing Y, does this not cause cognitive dissonance? Yes, but only under additional assumptions that T might not have all - for example: Society should be structured based on christian values. People should be evaluated on their deeds whether they actually want to work towards God rather than against him. And so on... --------------------------- Some might raise the point that it is rare that T voices a strong belief in X, but is compatible with a diverse, inclusive society. To this I counter: I don't care and neither should you! When it comes to me, I will get annoyed fast because I am fine with someone being interested in an exchange between two individuals, but when I am viewed as a representative of some group, then put on your sociology hat and do a survey, I guess. When it comes to you (as in: anyone else): This mindset cements notions that you have about a group - if you do not talk to Ts at all, or be open to their existence, how would you ever be able to correct the (possibly wrong, possibly right) notion that strong conviction and compality with a diverse society is possible?
Amezarak 2mo ago
> Are passages about killing infidels and the other xenophobic garbage is a historical metaphorical and nuanced stuff which must be interpreted very different nowadays? Fine. But then all the other things should be also interpreted heavily - like there is no need to saran-wrap women because "the intention" or "the author's meaning" was about simply protecting them from the desert sand a-la medieval hiking handbook. There is no need to avoid specific animal meat in the age of refrigerators. And so on it goes. I always find this mindset peculiarly baffling. From a secular perspective, we've understood since at least the 1800s that "morality" is simply the pro-social instincts that we've developed as a social species of apes, and that they are historically contingent on a million different factors for any particular group of humans, such that the exact manifestation of "morality" differs widely from culture to culture and over time. Yet comments like this invariably accept Christian moral realism as a given (and granted, it's obviously a large genealogical contributor to Western social norms today) but then sever its grounding from God and place it in...their personal feelings about right and wrong. So God using the Israelites/Babylonians/Romans/etc as his instrument of divine justice is evil "xenophobic garbage"...because divine justice is real (xenophobia is objectively evil) but the God described in religious texts actually has nothing to do with it, and actually its wrong because....uh...we say so and we're the final and ultimate arbiters of right and wrong I guess? Us, specifically, that is. It really seems like this is the genealogical origin of the idea of "progress" you see throughout these comments as well - people are "better" now, because you can clearly see over time a large subset of people developing social norms closer and closer to our own! And unlike theirs, ours are objectively right and true, or at least closer to it. This is certainly a historically unusual view, which may have typically been rather provincial and close-minded, but which certainly did general not have this universalist, and dare I say, colonialist bent, that all must agree.
- derangedHorse 2mo ago
  The existence and acknowledgement of moral relativism does not preclude moral chastisement.