EEVblog #833 - Mailbag

[mikerj]

Why do you like to single out that chapter? Compared to most of the rest of the book its pretty straightforward and clear.

Ok, according to Exodus, God (A.K.A. "Jealous") does not leave the guilty unpunished;

"he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”.

What a great sounding guy huh?  He's happy to punish four generations of offspring to make up for the sins of one person.

But wait, Deuteronomy 24:16 contradicts this:

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

And so does Ezekiel 18:20:

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


That's ok then, must have been a typo in Exodus. No punishing of the sons, but killing sinners is fair game.  'Jealous' clearly isn't isn't into whole liberal Christian forgiveness ethos.

[mtdoc]

The Bible and its inconsistencies and inaccuracies is an easy target. Of course with the exception of the fundamentalist evangelicals, most Christian religions make no proclamations about it being the "word of god", etc.

With even a cursory reading of the Bible it's easy to get the the hypocritical, moralizing evangelicals in a tizzy.

[Fungus]

most Christian religions make no proclamations about it being the "word of god", etc.

So they cherry-pick? Got it.

But ... how do they know which verses are important for saving their souls?

Maybe God is really strict about the bacon-eating thing and they decided to disobey that one (bacon==tasty) so they'll end up in Hell. How do they know?


Yeah, I know, Acts 15 completely discards Mosaic Law (for Gentiles...) and replaces it with:

...abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

nb. That passage seems to was written to counter the Marcionite movement which was trying to divide the Jews from the early Christians. It comes in response to Acts 15:5: "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”".

And that's basically the idea of Acts: It was written specifically to be read out loud and supply early Christians with some preset replies for dealing with the Jews/Romans who were running the country ("God told us we don't have to be circumcised - circumcision is only for his special chosen people" ).

The historicity of Acts is even more dubious than the other gospels. We know it was rewritten/revised many times in the second century.

(ie. It's still a Fairy Story, but this one has a political purpose behind it)

[mtdoc]

most Christian religions make no proclamations about it being the "word of god", etc.

So they cherry-pick? Got it.

The bible is a historic documentation of the history of early Christianity full of human biases, selective editing, editorializing and embellishments.  Most Christians - even many deeply religious ones acknowledge that.  It's fine to point that fact out but doing so does little to further the Atheist argument IMO.

Personally, I disfavor all dogmatic religious beliefs and IME fervent dogmatic Atheism can be almost as irrational.

[Fungus]

The bible is a historic documentation of the history of early Christianity full of human biases, selective editing, editorializing and embellishments.  Most Christians - even many deeply religious ones acknowledge that.  It's fine to point that fact out but doing so does little to further the Atheist argument IMO.

So what do the deeply religious Christians base their beliefs on?

(And why not some better written, more believable story?)

[han]

quote:
"he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”.
Are you sure its not about Kim Jong Un?


from wiki"
North Korea's political penal labour colonies, transliterated kwalliso or kwan-li-so, constitute one of three forms of political imprisonment in the country, ...............................
In contrast to these other systems, the condemned are sent there without any form of judicial process as are their immediate three generations of family members in a form of sippenhaft[citation needed]. ................................etc."

[mtdoc]

The bible is a historic documentation of the history of early Christianity full of human biases, selective editing, editorializing and embellishments.  Most Christians - even many deeply religious ones acknowledge that.  It's fine to point that fact out but doing so does little to further the Atheist argument IMO.

So what do the deeply religious Christians base their beliefs on?

(And why not some better written, more believable story?)

Well, I can't pretend to know the answer to that for all of the worlds 2+ billion Christians (1+ billion Catholics) but based on my childhood experience of being raised Catholic (NO, I do not consider myself Catholic or Christian now - I am decidedly a-religious!) , I would guess that for most it begins as a tradition - passed on from family and community and never really questioned.  For many, some personal "spiritual experience" serves to solidify their faith - or for others, abandon it.   But the main thing for most is the traditions, rituals and community that form the basis for their beliefs - and nothing to do with what is written in a book.

Even for the evangelical, fundamentalist Christians (about 1/8 of Christians worldwide) - their belief that the bible is the "word of god" has to come from somewhere - the where is likely similar.

IMO the problem is not ones personal beliefs but the conviction of some that they need to convince and convert others to their belief system and in some cases enslave, torture or kill those who do not submit. 

Of course it's not only zealous religiousity that can lead to this.  Zealous Athiesm can as well (eg. Lenin and Stalin).

[Lightages]

Personally, I disfavor all dogmatic religious beliefs and IME fervent dogmatic Atheism can be almost as irrational.

"Dogmatic" and "Atheism" are contradictory words. They don't belong in the same sentence. Atheism is only the disbelief that a god or gods exist, nothing more. A-Theism, without theism. Anti-theism is another thing, which is many people believe atheism is.

[mtdoc]

Personally, I disfavor all dogmatic religious beliefs and IME fervent dogmatic Atheism can be almost as irrational.

"Dogmatic" and "Atheism" are contradictory words. They don't belong in the same sentence. Atheism is only the disbelief that a god or gods exist, nothing more. A-Theism, without theism. Anti-theism is another thing, which is many people believe atheism is.

Incorrect.  Semantics: What is disbelief other than a belief  that a belief in god is fallacious.  IOW a strong opinion (as all beliefs are).

Common definition of dogmatic includes strongly held, unshakable, sometimes arrogant beliefs that cannot be proven (not just applied to religion).  There clearly are dogmatic Atheists.

Traditionally Atheism refers to the belief or doctrine (a set of beliefs) that there is no god. Only recently has the term been defined to include the "disbelief" in god

[coppice]

Personally, I disfavor all dogmatic religious beliefs and IME fervent dogmatic Atheism can be almost as irrational.

"Dogmatic" and "Atheism" are contradictory words. They don't belong in the same sentence. Atheism is only the disbelief that a god or gods exist, nothing more. A-Theism, without theism. Anti-theism is another thing, which is many people believe atheism is.

Dogmatic and atheist and not contradictory. They relate to different things. An anti-theist is likely as dogmatic as any theist, but if you are an anti-theist you are also an atheist.

[Lightages]

Is a baby an atheist? Are the tribes in the Amazon who had no concept of gods atheists? They don't even know of the concept of god. They are atheists, without the belief of a god. They aren't anti-theists. You can't be against something you don't even have  concept of. The lack of belief is not dogmatic as there is nothing to follow. It is the lack of something.

Are there subsets of atheists who are dogmatic? Are there anti-atheists? Yes of course but the subset does not define the larger meaning. A square is a rectangle. A rectangle is not necessarily a square.

[mtdoc]

Are there subsets of atheists who are dogmatic? Are there anti-atheists? Yes of course but the subset does not define the larger meaning. A square is a rectangle. A rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Agreed.  But no one ever said all Atheists were dogmatic or that all Atheists were anti-theists.  As you now say - both are subsets of of the group "Atheists"  Your prior post seemed to dispute this fact.  I'm glad it's clarified.

[Fungus]

IMO the problem is not ones personal beliefs but the conviction of some that they need to convince and convert others to their belief system and in some cases enslave, torture or kill those who do not submit. 

Of course it's not only zealous religiousity that can lead to this.  Zealous Athiesm can as well (eg. Lenin and Stalin).

I'm trying to think of a reply that doesn't sound too much like "No true Scotsman". 

Saying that Lenin and Stalin were Atheists is like saying the Klu Klux Klan are Christians. Both are technically true, but...

Lenin didn't want to promote critical thinking, he wanted to abolish the church ("The opium of the masses").

The KKK wanted to label themselves as "Christian" to cover up the fact that they were really a bunch of disgruntled slavers, anti-Semitics, and (recently) White-Power Nazis.

[Fungus]

"Dogmatic" and "Atheism" are contradictory words. They don't belong in the same sentence.

Yep.

Atheism is only the disbelief that a god or gods exist, nothing more.

"God" is an unfalsifiable claim. The universe may have a creator (or we might just be brains floating in jars).

The Bible is complete rubbish though. How people can base their lives around that book is beyond me.

The church? Institutionalized, dogmatic belief is never good. It promotes non-critical belief (aka superstition) and promotes tribalism (eg. Christians vs. Muslims, Protestants vs. Catholics). And that's without counting all the bad stuff they do...

[Lightages]

Here is what believing BS without critical thinking can cause:

[Circlotron]

Dilbert the *engineer*, no less.

[AlxDroidDev]

Carl Sagan once said “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

My wife's granfather was an atheist his whole life, and a great man.
In his 70s he discovered he had cancer. After a long battle against it and as death approached and his fear grew, he started believing in god. Reading the Psalms was one of the only things that gave him comfort. I guess he needed to believe in something just to make his death more meaningful.