Are these the types of atheists you are referring to?



I can list many more if you like.
These are serious biblical scholars, who know more about theism that anyone on TPF, I'd wager.

provided they do not try to force their ideas onto others, and their beliefs do not in some way necessarily cause social, personal or environmental harm. — Janus

BUT they DO! Constantly, they preach, many of them will actually knock on your door, at home!
The decisions made by religious organisations and the many many people in authority they directly influence and in many cases fully control, DO very much! 'cause social, personal or environmental harm.' Are you fully comfortable with your

I think believers generally don't think too hard on these matters; they just want a comforting story to live by. I support their right to do that, or believe whatever they want — Janus

When you can offer NO guarantee, that they will comply, in any way, with your conditions. How will you assist the victims of their dictates?, since you have given them your support, but you do not say how you scrutinise the actions/policies/influences of the religious organisations involved.

No, an example of what I’m talking about would be you.

I’ve read Ehrman, he’s great.

That is, the miracle of the burning bush is all around us, but, obviously, there is no real burning bush. I don't see how literalism (as opposed to allegory) could work. Do we look for real burning bushes and actual parting seas? — Hanover

No, that's human wonder and awe at the universe we observe. 'Look at the trees!' or wow! look at the stars, is not evidence for the existence of god. I know you have already denied you feel that way with stuff like:

By analogy, can you not see the folly in trying to convince me I'm not actually inspired by the sunrise? That you may just see the cycles of time and planetary movement isn't relevant to me. — Hanover

But then why type such words as "the miracle of the burning bush is all around us," what exactly are you referring to?

It seems to me, that theists are so afraid to take FULL ownership of their own existence and experience this life as a truly free individual, who has learned that they no longer have to cower themselves, due to a kind of PTSD residue from what we inherited, instinctively from our ancestors experiences in the wilds.
We don't need your god. We create, we intelligently design, we create purpose and meaning, we are OF the universe, a universe not created from a thinking agent, but one in which thinking agents evolved.
You want to credit everything we are to a non-existent esoteric! You continue to downplay, downgrade and dismiss your own species as CHRISTopher Hitchens tried to explain to you.

"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that: created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent—exigent, I would say more than exigent—greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. However, let no one say there's no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties."

Right back at you! With bells attached pilgrim!

I've gone to some non-denominational churches which were similar in their emphasis that the story of Jesus is a transformative story which centers love -- and God is love. — Moliere

So how does that particular church, explain the maniac god of the OT, who commanded the ethnic cleansing of some tribes, sends she bears to kill children, smites a guy for accidently dropping one side of the box with the stone tablets in them, supports human slavery and considers women inferior to men. I seem to be unable to associate such a monster with the concept of 'god is love.'
If none of these biblical stories are to be taken literally, then perhaps the story of god should not be taken literally, and we could just see such, as a creation of the Freudian ID.

If none of these biblical stories are to be taken literally, then perhaps the story of god should not be taken literally, — universeness

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with me here :D

Yes, that's what a non-literal interpretation of the Bible would indicate, wouldn't it?

Hence why talking about God as a literal being who exists like a sky wizard who punishes children for making fun of their elders by feeding them to bears is to miss the point. (honestly it sounds like a story one might tell a child to make them fear, and thereby act like they respect, their elders -- these are ancient stories from a time long past, after all. We have no idea what the original context really was)

The confusion is understandable because there's a lot of theists who basically go along with the literalist interpretation. But, in this case, since literalism is being put out to pasture, these are non-starters.

Yes, that's what a non-literal interpretation of the Bible would indicate, wouldn't it? — Moliere

So why not recommend the final step and recommend that if you are a theist or you are religious or you are a theosophist then you are irrational, as you are conflating fables and myth with reality. The supernatural has no demonstrated existent and never has had. If you agree with that then WE agree.

It certainly does. If it does anything, it emphasizes difference in the interpretation of "interpretation". The difficulty is that sometimes interpretations sometimes exclude each other - or seem to. They certainly reflect different presuppositions and different interests.

I suspect two different uses of interpretation here. One is a use in which interpretations do not exclude each other; each is valid or invalid on its own terms. The other is a use in which a rule is applied to a case. (Yes, I'm channelling Wittgenstein). Each application of a rule is an interpretation, so it may be applied in different ways. Sometimes, we can agree that the rule might be applied in different ways; then we seek a "ruling". But if the rule is to have any meaning, we need to be able to say that one way of applying the rule is right and another is wrong.

It seems to me that the conviction that one has the right, correct, true answer is the source of dogma, and consequently the most pernicious view. I don't think that atheism or religion are necessarily pernicious, it is the conviction that does the harm.

Yet, if there is any truth to be found in this chaotic world, and even if there is none, one has to take a stand somewhere. How can one do that and avoid becoming dogmatic? — Ludwig V

This is great stuff.

I think keeping your question open is a good aporetic point. I am tempted to answer, but as I do I am unsatisfied with my answers. At least the ones I've attempted so far.

A reflection though: I wouldn't want to lump all conviction together as dogmatic because then we'd become Buridan's Ass. And I'm not sure what conviction is other than believing that one has the right, correct, or true answer. But there is this other side of conviction which seems equally undesirable, where we blind ourselves to the views of others, or cease to listen to people, or stop questioning.

I agree that neither a/theism is pernicious, all unto itself, though. Generally I prefer to promote tolerance of others on the basis that we can't know these things. Maybe that's the better route towards understanding dogmatism critically.

So why not recommend the final step and recommend that if you are a theist or you are religious or you are a theosophist then you are irrational, as you are conflating fables and myth with reality. The supernatural has no demonstrated existent and never has had. If you agree with that then WE agree. — universeness

I don't think that follows. Especially if one is using the text non-literally -- then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two.

Then what is the difference between the bible and any other book of old stories? If anyone can interpret any meaning (even opposite to what the words say cuz..interpretation) from it, why not rely on all the other much better quality books that have improved and expanded on everything the bible has to teach us?
The arguments about the bible being valuable because of its interpretive value actually undermines the bibles value because if the bible is just a book of helpful stories then its a terrible source of helpful stories. Morality? What the ten commandments? Please, the bible is a source of morality like a rotting corpse is a source of food. There are plenty of much better sources than the bible, and so by relegating the bible to the status of Aesop fables we should feel very justified putting in the shelf next to tales of Zeus and Odin and Far Side cartoons and then from there to the garbage can (or floor if you have to level a table).
Also, the “interpretists” argument has really nothing they can say to someone justifying evil by their interpretation of the bible. That is the consequence of the interpretive free for all being advocated.

I don't think that follows. Especially if one is using the text non-literally -- then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two. — Moliere

What conviction level do you personally assign to the proposal that the supernatural has one or more existents?

What conviction level do you personally assign to the proposal that the supernatural has one or more existents? — universeness

None. Though I'll note I don't think "supernatural" stands up to scrutiny, here it's a non-starter because this is looking for what is true and what exists, when the non-literal interpretation isn't concerned with either.

Then what is the difference between the bible and any other book of old stories? — DingoJones

Probably historical.

We have other ancient books that fulfill similar roles to the Bible. It's ancient wisdom literature, which tends to mish-mash concepts and even kinds of stories which we hold distinct today.

And I certainly wouldn't say the Bible gets to be the only book in that category. The reason we focus on it here has more to do with cultural history, I think.

why not rely on all the other much better quality books that have improved and expanded on everything the bible has to teach us? — DingoJones

I wouldn't speak against reading more. And, more importantly, the types of people who usually advocate for non-literal interpretations are usually open to reading more books. It's the theistic literalists that tend to focus on the Bible as a singular source of wisdom.

then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two. — Moliere

And it one or more decide to declare their god variant REAL, regardless of what is stated or written by anyone? Then what?

I'd say that's a literal claim, and then we're in the literalism camp.

None. — Moliere

We agree on that at least.

Though I'll note I don't think "supernatural" stands up to scrutiny, here it's a non-starter because this is looking for what is true and what exists, when the non-literal interpretation isn't concerned with either. — Moliere

So what is it concerned with that is representative of theism?
You seem to be trying to find some 'pointless' use for the concepts of theism/religion/theosophism,
when secular humanism is standing right in front of you, screaming at you but you remain too busy, searching at the bottom of an empty vessel, trying to find value in musing over that which remains divinely hidden because it is non-existent.
Your efforts are mere exasperations, for those of us who are impatient for the human race to grow up, take hold, and build a better world, which utterly refuses to show deference to any BS threats or guidance from non-existent deities, described via the mouths and writings of nefarious, delusional or frightened humans.
There is no 'negotiated settlement' possible between the supernatural and the natural as any scientific discovery makes the hitherto unknown process, effect, substance etc, natural.
If god shows up, then it becomes natural, if it does not then it's either non-existent or utterly irrelevant.

I'd say that's a literal claim, and then we're in the literalism camp. — Moliere

Give me one of YOUR examples of a theistic claim, that might be made by a non-literal theist?
Your example from the non-denominational church (a.k.a 'HOUSE OF GOD,') you attended, that from a non-literalist pov, god is love. :roll: was just awful!
The question of 'what evidence do you have?' would remain, as it always has!.
God is love, still posits a prime mover that created this universe as an act of it's will.
Is god + universe greater/better than god? If you think it is then you have just identified something greater than or better than god! So god alone cannot be 'greatest,' can it? If god + universe is greater/better.

God is love, still posits a prime mover that created this universe as an act of it's will. — universeness

Not really. God is love, and the church is its people -- it's a communitarian ethos. And it's not really conceptual in the sense of making a claim. The evidence would be in how the people treat others rather than in a game of epistemic justification or textual analysis.

I’ve read Ehrman, he’s great. — Noble Dust

Yes, and he's not anti-Christian. Much of what he says is consistent with what has been said here in terms of his finding value in Scripture. His atheism is based upon his inability to harmonize evil with there being a perfect creator, but he's very clear that it's not based upon the incredibility of reigious doctrine.

In what way is this different from the moral code of an atheist humanist? The world has over 8 billion people in it and we need a global system that is as equitable as possible towards them. How's that for a non-church communitarian ethos, no god required, and how about answering the questions I have put to you instead of cherry picking.

I repeat:

Give me one of YOUR examples of a theistic claim, that might be made by a non-literal theist? — universeness

Is god + universe greater/better than god? If you think it is then you have just identified something greater than or better than god! So god alone cannot be 'greatest,' can it? If god + universe is greater/better. — universeness

Though I'll note I don't think "supernatural" stands up to scrutiny, here it's a non-starter because this is looking for what is true and what exists, when the non-literal interpretation isn't concerned with either.
— Moliere
So what is it concerned with that is representative of theism? — universeness

Your efforts are mere exasperations, for those of us who are impatient for the human race to grow up, take hold, and build a better world, which utterly refuses to show deference to any BS threats or guidance from non-existent deities, described via the mouths and writings of nefarious, delusional or frightened humans. — universeness

I can certainly empathize with the desire to build a better world.

And I even believe that people ought not assign supernatural causes to what is natural -- it's one of the tenets of the tetrapharmakos. It causes anxiety to believe that your everday actions have cosmic import, and what's more, they don't have cosmic import. I don't believe in a theology of heaven or hell, nor do I think it likely to really help people live better lives.

But I see allies where you see enemies. I've known too many good people who are deeply motivated by religion, and who are also rational, to discount it -- from activists who are morally badass, to scientists who are rationally badass.

In what way is this different from the moral code of an atheist humanist? — universeness

Would it surprise you to hear that it's not? :D

I've been at pains to point out that we're not enemies, so it shouldn't be.

Give me one of YOUR examples of a theistic claim, that might be made by a non-literal theist?

I'm not comfortable here because... well... I'm not?

And I'm trying to point out how the appeal is not an epistemic game or debate.

So what is it concerned with that is representative of theism? — universeness

From my vantage it seems like a way of life, more than anything. People know where they are, where they're going, and their place in the world. It brings them meaning to their life. Those are the concerns.

Yeah, as nice as Mr Ehrman is and as expert as he demonstrably is regarding theism. His deconversion remains a little incomplete, but then, it's a big ask for him to dump every aspect of the Christian doctrine he has invested most of his life in. Perhaps too big an ask.

I'm not an atheist and I carefully read the OP instead of immediately blaring an anti-religion foghorn, so I'm not sure what you're sending right back at me.

I can certainly empathize with the desire to build a better world. — Moliere

That's very ..... human of you, well done!

I don't believe in a theology of heaven or hell, nor do I think it likely to really help people live better lives. — Moliere

:up:

But I see allies where you see enemies. — Moliere

Now you are making assumptions about me. Would it confuse you, if I said some of my best friends are theists. Including one who recently lost his father, and said to me that he gained more strength from my chats with him than he got from his church.

In what way is this different from the moral code of an atheist humanist?
— universeness

Would it surprise you to hear that it's not? :D — Moliere

No, what is exasperating is your 'glossing over' of the pernicious effect of religious doctrine, as practiced in REAL life. Is the god you support others believing in an atheist secular humanist, because if that is the notion you are playing with, in your 'don't break any eggshells as you walk on them' philosophy, then we can end our exchange on that.

I'm not comfortable here because... well... I'm not?

And I'm trying to point out how the appeal is not an epistemic game or debate. — Moliere

It's ok to be discomforted at times, it gets them neurons firing sir, that's all part of the adventure of human life, no god required.

Still one to go! Are you finding this one hard to deal with?

Is god + universe greater/better than god? If you think it is then you have just identified something greater than or better than god! So god alone cannot be 'greatest,' can it? If god + universe is greater/better. — universeness

I'm not sure what you're sending right back at me. — Noble Dust

Your love for me of course! :kiss:

Would it confuse you, if I said some of my best friends are theists. Including one who recently lost his father, and said to me that he gained more strength from my chats with him than he got from his church. — universeness

No.

Still one to go! Are you finding this one hard to deal with? — universeness

It seemed off topic to me on the basis of focusing on truth/existence rather than truth/meaning. Is God + Universe greater/better than God? If God is love, then the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Debating you on the area then, is only of value to any readers, of the exchange who may be in danger of theistically ossifying as you seem to have. That possibility alone is worth my effort and my attempt. — universeness

This was in response to @Hanover but it struck me as especially deluded, so I’m butting in.

You give the impression of someone who has waded into a conversation without understanding what the conversation is about, but decides to rant and rave anyway. If I were undecided on the God question, and if your posts had any effect at all, I think you’d turn me towards God. As it is, I’m an atheist, but still think Hanover’s position is far more interesting than yours.

Atheism as such is not a religion, but your sort of atheism is fanatical. Earlier on in this discussion, people including me and you were discussing the causes of oppression, totalitarianism, and genocide, and we broadly agreed that religion could not be identified as the central cause. Better candidates for that cause would be fanaticism and absolute certainty.

What do you mean? That's no answer at all. Are you playing the 'redraft the question' or 'avoid the question,' game of theism? If god 'willed' the universe then whether or not that act, was an act of love or hate(considering views like antinatalism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, capitalism, etc, human suffering and all the woes on this planet) is not the question.
Is it atheist dogma to ask if god + universe in greater that god alone?
I am just asking for you to analyse the proposal I am suggesting considering god as omni this and omni that. You want to find a place god can nestle with/exist with atheism yes?
So, does this god you wish to support belief in, not have any attributes other that some rather fanciful notion of what humans call love?
How do you know who and what god loves?
What do you mean by god IS love. Can an existent fully occupy a human emotion?
Can I be wrath and you be envy?

:clap: