Is the anti-theist argument from undeserved suffering circularish?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not criticising anything in your post, it's just that from my point of view it's a case of referring to anything expounded from within the bible before establishing it's veracity as a whole, it's just not worth spending any time or effort discussing any of its content such as the part you have referred to.

Regards ippy.

First of all the bible isn't just a book it is a collection of books so your initial premise is flawed.


What you are saying in effect is that you won't read it because it's rubbish.

[ippy]

First of all the bible isn't just a book it is a collection of books so your initial premise is flawed.


What you are saying in effect is that you won't read it because it's rubbish.

Do you mean that if this book of yours was by chance, a remote chance, was found to be a collection of facts strung together by whoever, the people that at present live in some sort of religious fairyland wouldn't be stuffing it down our necks from every media direction possible?

Since the above hasn't happened nor is it very likely, what's the point of taking the bible any more seriously than, say a Harry Potter novel?

In as much perhaps as a bit of a guide to our western cultural background when we were in more ignorant times where a certain amount of the fear of the unknown would have figured it might be worth a short read, other than that well you can see for yourself the diminishing figures of the religious minded to hang on.

By the way you brought rubbish into this I only referred to the bible lacking any veracity.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you mean that if this book of yours was by chance, a remote chance, was found to be a collection of facts strung together by whoever, the people that at present live in some sort of religious fairyland wouldn't be stuffing it down our necks from every media direction possible?

Sounds like hyperbole to me Ippy.

Sounds like you have the sky religious channels package Ippy. If you don't like it stop subscribing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since the above hasn't happened nor is it very likely, what's the point of taking the bible any more seriously than, say a Harry Potter novel?

Have you read more Harry Potter than the Bible, Ipsworth?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I only referred to the bible lacking any veracity.

How do you know if you haven't read it?

[ippy]

Have you read more Harry Potter than the Bible, Ipsworth?

Why? What difference would it make?

ippy

[ippy]

How do you know if you haven't read it?

Can't think of any worthwhile reason to sit reading a bible, I would think it'd be more fruitful to join the magic circle, at least they don't try to suggest their works are other worldly.

ippy

[ippy]

Sounds like hyperbole to me Ippy.

Sounds like you have the sky religious channels package Ippy. If you don't like it stop subscribing.

I've only gone bowling a few times but not for a long time now?

ippy

[ippy]

Have you read more Harry Potter than the Bible, Ipsworth?

Less H P.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Less H P.

ippy

And which parts of the bible have you read Ippington?

[Roses]

And which parts of the bible have you read Ippington?

Out of interest how often do you read the Bible, and which bits have you read the most?

[Dicky Underpants]

Since I have nothing to do with this I don't know why I've been raised.
Original sin as a single un contextualised idea?
I can see how that could preoccupy someone who fails to contemplate God's plan of restoration through Jesus Christ.

You raised the matter in your recent post #144:

God creates man gives him the freedom to love or hate God or ignore him, provides a way back and restoration of a marvelous relationship with him forever. I see no Bastardy in that

"Restoration of a marvellous relationship with him".

I'm more interested in how the idea of God evolves in the Old Testament. Here at this point in Isaiah we see the unequivocal departure from the idea of God as tribal and henotheistic, to status as the lord of life, the creator of good and ill. It is useful to read what requirements this god of Isaiah demands and compare them with other ideas distributed through the scriptures, particularly with the ones that you've opted for and seem to think are universally applicable. True for you is certainly not true for everyone.

[Dicky Underpants]

First of all the bible isn't just a book it is a collection of books so your initial premise is flawed.

That's very good, Vlad. Sometimes you do say things which people need to be reminded of.

[Dicky Underpants]

Can't think of any worthwhile reason to sit reading a bible, I would think it'd be more fruitful to join the magic circle, at least they don't try to suggest their works are other worldly.

ippy

Who'd have thought I'd be taking Vlad's part here? The Bible is not one book, as previously pointed out, and much of it is not at all otherworldly. You could safely ignore those bits (as you would if you read Homer). There's some good poetry there, plenty of blood and guts (from the most appalling descriptions of God and his chosen ones' doing). And the Book of Esther doesn't mention God at all. Bits of the Bible also ask some deep questions (many which receive no decent answer, but are profoundly expressed).
Your posts on these matters would carry more conviction if you adopted the old adage "Know your enemy".

[ippy]

Who'd have thought I'd be taking Vlad's part here? The Bible is not one book, as previously pointed out, and much of it is not at all otherworldly. You could safely ignore those bits (as you would if you read Homer). There's some good poetry there, plenty of blood and guts (from the most appalling descriptions of God and his chosen ones' doing). And the Book of Esther doesn't mention God at all. Bits of the Bible also ask some deep questions (many which receive no decent answer, but are profoundly expressed).
Your posts on these matters would carry more conviction if you adopted the old adage "Know your enemy".

The amount of times I have written here that I have no time for any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of the bible, do I have to tag this statement I make on to every post I make?

As for the rest of the book it's not my idea of a comfy bedtime read, so no thanks and those that enjoy it good luck.

Mind D U, I was addressing Vlad, and he does like to promote his stuff on the back of misquotes and jumping on to the slightest possible ambiguity or taking anything loosly written that would be understood more or less correctly by anyone else but he stil likes to take things in his own devious/characteristic way.

Vlad's not my enemy D U, but yes I should have known better.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

Can't think of any worthwhile reason to sit reading a bible,

If you want to criticise it or what is in it, it might be useful to have a working knowledge of what it says. For example, Vlad is right: it is a collection of documents. The veracity of one book in the Bible (or lack thereof) is not a good argument against the veracity of other books in the Bible. For example, Genesis is entirely fiction but 1 & 2 Kings are both loosely based on historical events.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It occurred to me today that the reason that the argument from suffering against belief in God didn't seem to bother believers in earlier ages was probably that they had a thorough-going belief in an eternal afterlife, in comparison with the bliss of which the sufferings of this life would fade into insignificance. This world's sufferings only seem significant if you assume that this life is all there is, which is what the anti-theists are trying to prove.  This says nothing one way or the other about whether there is an afterlife, but possibly rules out of court one atheistical argument.

Some points in response

1. How do you know that they weren't bothered?

2. The world's sufferings could (I would even say would) seem more significant because of their belief in an Almighty God who is sovereign, something you don't hear a lot about today. Prayer isn't just about getting answers. It's about aligning our will with His; something the Lord's Prayer illustrates at the start. How are people who won't even acknowledge Almighty God in a position to comment on anything He does or doesn't do? It's breathtaking arrogance!!

At the risk of incurring your wrath again, I'm going to repeat some points I've made in the past.

Believers in earlier ages (as well as now) are in a relationship with God. One can read the Psalms of David, to the lyrics of hymns such as Amazing Grace and And Can It Be That I Should Gain. They are the created being. God is the Creator. Nothing stops them asking questions of God Almighty, but in the absence of answers, they trust.

The problem today is that individuals want all the answers. They are in effect creating a god of their own intellect. This is why many appear to have conversion experiences, whereas in reality they have an intellectual framework that appears to work. When the latest anti-theist argument comes along that they cannot answer, the framework falls away and they give up their faith. All that is shown is that their faith was never in God, it was in arguments about Him.

If you are going to respond, do spare me your usual post-modern nonsense where you make pejorative comments about the post and fail to address from a perspective of right/wrong its detail.

[ippy]

If you want to criticise it or what is in it, it might be useful to have a working knowledge of what it says. For example, Vlad is right: it is a collection of documents. The veracity of one book in the Bible (or lack thereof) is not a good argument against the veracity of other books in the Bible. For example, Genesis is entirely fiction but 1 & 2 Kings are both loosely based on historical events.

I suppose if that's the sort of thing you enjoy, why not.

I still can't see any necessity for me to get involved with any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of the bible, I wouldn't have thought I would need to feature those parts and any way it doesn't appeal to me as a book I need to read.

Just because I disregard the bible's magical, mystery superstition base, and look on it as a a load of old unsupportable nonsense doesn't mean that there's some reason I should be reading any of the rest of it.

Regards ippy

 

[Dicky Underpants]

The amount of times I have written here that I have no time for any of the magical mystical or superstition based parts of the bible, do I have to tag this statement I make on to every post I make?

For fuck's sake man, get a grip. Did you actually read my post at all? That was part of the matter I was addressing. As for your having no interest in the magical superstition bits of the Bible - we know - we know - we know. Do I have to tag every post to you on this matter to let you know that I know that is your opinion?
And as you ought to know also, I have no belief in the supernatural either.

As for the rest of the book it's not my idea of a comfy bedtime read, so no thanks and those that enjoy it good luck.

Well, as I said, and as Jeremy has reiterated, if you are going to make a critique of something, it is best to know something about it. Imagine going on at length about why you or anyone disagreed with communism without having read the Communist Manifesto (let alone Das Kapital). And those are closely argued texts with a consistent theme. The Bible has a thousand themes, often contradictory (okay, the fundamentalists will tell you there is just one theme, but bully for them). Yes, it may not be enjoyable reading material for you, but if you haven't read any of the texts, how would you know? (Please don't start wittering on about 'magical, mystical etc.) Maybe people like Jeremy, who as non-believers take an objective interest in ancient scriptural texts, are a very small minority, but I'm happy that such people are around. NearlySane, another atheist, has in fact read the whole of the Bible, and that is more than I can say for myself.*

Mind D U, I was addressing Vlad, and he does like to promote his stuff on the back of misquotes and jumping on to the slightest possible ambiguity or taking anything loosly written that would be understood more or less correctly by anyone else but he stil likes to take things in his own devious/characteristic way.

Vlad's not my enemy D U, but yes I should have known better.

Oh, I'm well aware of Vlad's shortcomings, and I certainly wouldn't want him as an apologist for any club of which I was a member (fortunately, I'm not a member of any clubs, let alone the Christian one). And he definitely misquotes and tells outright lies. But just occasionally he does say something worth saying.
"Know your enemy" need not be taken literally, but the phrase helps illustrate the point I was making - if you disagree with somebody, your arguments will carry greater weight if you are well informed about their source material.

*As a matter of interest, even Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" urges people to get to know the Bible.

[Dicky Underpants]

Some points in response

1. How do you know that they weren't bothered?

2. The world's sufferings could (I would even say would) seem more significant because of their belief in an Almighty God who is sovereign, something you don't hear a lot about today. Prayer isn't just about getting answers. It's about aligning our will with His; something the Lord's Prayer illustrates at the start. How are people who won't even acknowledge Almighty God in a position to comment on anything He does or doesn't do? It's breathtaking arrogance!!

Steve has in fact gone through quite a lot of stages in his beliefs, so he knows the drill.

Believers in earlier ages (as well as now) are in a relationship with God. One can read the Psalms of David, to the lyrics of hymns such as Amazing Grace and And Can It Be That I Should Gain. They are the created being. God is the Creator. Nothing stops them asking questions of God Almighty, but in the absence of answers, they trust.

"Relationship with God" - this sentimental dreck really began with German Pietism a few centuries ago. There's nothing super-virtuous in maintaining a belief when from the bottom of your soul you do not believe.

[

The problem today is that individuals want all the answers. They are in effect creating a god of their own intellect. This is why many appear to have conversion experiences, whereas in reality they have an intellectual framework that appears to work. When the latest anti-theist argument comes along that they cannot answer, the framework falls away and they give up their faith. All that is shown is that their faith was never in God, it was in arguments about Him.

Simplistic garbage. People lose their faith for many reasons, and often after the most tragic soul-searching. Please spare us the trite nonsense about "Oh they were never true Christians in the first place"

[ippy]

For fuck's sake man, get a grip. Did you actually read my post at all? That was part of the matter I was addressing. As for your having no interest in the magical superstition bits of the Bible - we know - we know - we know. Do I have to tag every post to you on this matter to let you know that I know that is your opinion?
And as you ought to know also, I have no belief in the supernatural either.

Well, as I said, and as Jeremy has reiterated, if you are going to make a critique of something, it is best to know something about it. Imagine going on at length about why you or anyone disagreed with communism without having read the Communist Manifesto (let alone Das Kapital). And those are closely argued texts with a consistent theme. The Bible has a thousand themes, often contradictory (okay, the fundamentalists will tell you there is just one theme, but bully for them). Yes, it may not be enjoyable reading material for you, but if you haven't read any of the texts, how would you know? (Please don't start wittering on about 'magical, mystical etc.) Maybe people like Jeremy, who as non-believers take an objective interest in ancient scriptural texts, are a very small minority, but I'm happy that such people are around. NearlySane, another atheist, has in fact read the whole of the Bible, and that is more than I can say for myself.*

Oh, I'm well aware of Vlad's shortcomings, and I certainly wouldn't want him as an apologist for any club of which I was a member (fortunately, I'm not a member of any clubs, let alone the Christian one). And he definitely misquotes and tells outright lies. But just occasionally he does say something worth saying.
"Know your enemy" need not be taken literally, but the phrase helps illustrate the point I was making - if you disagree with somebody, your arguments will carry greater weight if you are well informed about their source material.

*As a matter of interest, even Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" urges people to get to know the Bible.

Bit of a fluff about very little D U, I can't see the problem, help yourself to any knowledge you wish to acquire about anything that floats your boat like I do.

Good on anyone that wishes learn all they can from the bible, I'm reading a book titled 'A thousand Years of Annoying the French', love it and would equally enjoy reading the reverse of the same, it's making me laugh as would the other version, I read for enjoyment.

If the usual stuff in the bible manages to prove god I have to admit I would feel obliged to read it and as you must know, other than that you can keep it no matter what Our Lord Dawkins says.

Kind regards and lighten up a bit D U, ippy.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

"Relationship with God" - this sentimental dreck really began with German Pietism a few centuries ago.

Have you ever read the Bible?

Simplistic garbage. People lose their faith for many reasons, and often after the most tragic soul-searching. Please spare us the trite nonsense about "Oh they were never true Christians in the first place"

Then try responding to what I wrote. You can find where I said, they were never true Christians in the first place in my post, can't you?

[SusanDoris]

Have you ever read the Bible?
Then try responding to what I wrote. You can find where I said, they were never true Christians in the first place in my post, can't you?

If you can say that a person was 'not a true Christian in the first place', one presumes you can define what a 'true Christian' is. Please do so.

[jeremyp]

Have you ever read the Bible?

If you have a personal relationship with God, why would you need the Bible?

[SusanDoris]

If you have a personal relationship with God, why would you need the Bible?

Nice one. I have to turn off computer now, but I shall be looking out with interest tomorrow morning for a reply.