New Bible

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
New Bible

When are we going to get one? The current bible is dated and does not fit in society. People are having to reinterpret it in countless ways to make it seem "ok". You have to study the bible, and be a scholar nowdays to "understand" it. The common person can not be expect to understand it and must be told what it all means by a "scholar".

Do they not see it is failing and will continue to fail as long as society continues to "evolve" out of this stone age carp?

Do they really not understand that in the future people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell etc. will be looked upon as folks who wanted to keep us in the stone age?

Mysticism and spirituality are doomed to fall away to reason in the not so distant future, imo.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 And the day will come when

 And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

 

A new bible, but I enjoy making fun of it and I would have to learn all the new crap. It is like going to the metric system. It is too rational. I will stick with my inches, feet and yards.

Would the new book have new wacky stories told by remote desert people about an oppressive unreasonable god who gave us a brain but we are not suppose to use it and of course we can tell how much he loves us by killing off nearly all life save us in the know? I would be up for that.

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The new bible could have

The new bible could have prophets like GW Bush, lol.

If we wait about 20-30 years they could write about the christians who had to wander through wal-marts for 40 years escaping the opression of the evil muslims.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:You have to

robj101 wrote:

You have to study the bible, and be a scholar nowdays to "understand" it. The common person can not be expect to understand it and must be told what it all means by a "scholar".

Oh no!  You mean you have to actually think a little bit to get it?!

What a poor argument.

"You have to study science, and be a scientist nowadays to 'understand' it.  The common person [cannot] be expect[ed] to understand it and must be told what it all means by a 'scientist'."


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:robj101 wrote:You

jmm wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You have to study the bible, and be a scholar nowdays to "understand" it. The common person can not be expect to understand it and must be told what it all means by a "scholar".

Oh no!  You mean you have to actually think a little bit to get it?!

What a poor argument.

"You have to study science, and be a scientist nowadays to 'understand' it.  The common person [cannot] be expect[ed] to understand it and must be told what it all means by a 'scientist'."

Comparing modern science to a book of letters written by men nearly 2000 years ago, what a poor comparison. On science you don't have to think AND twist shit around to suit your taste.

Yea thank for fixing my grammar, you are right on something at least though one could argue about "can not" if I'm using it in this manner for emphasis.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:jmm

robj101 wrote:

jmm wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You have to study the bible, and be a scholar nowdays to "understand" it. The common person can not be expect to understand it and must be told what it all means by a "scholar".

Oh no!  You mean you have to actually think a little bit to get it?!

What a poor argument.

"You have to study science, and be a scientist nowadays to 'understand' it.  The common person [cannot] be expect[ed] to understand it and must be told what it all means by a 'scientist'."

On science you don't have to think AND twist shit around to suit your taste.

Right.  You don't have to interpret scientific data.

And even if it was necessary, there's no way that anyone's agenda would come into play, and said agenda would certainly not involve twisting shit around to suit taste.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:robj101 wrote:jmm

jmm wrote:

robj101 wrote:

jmm wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You have to study the bible, and be a scholar nowdays to "understand" it. The common person can not be expect to understand it and must be told what it all means by a "scholar".

Oh no!  You mean you have to actually think a little bit to get it?!

What a poor argument.

"You have to study science, and be a scientist nowadays to 'understand' it.  The common person [cannot] be expect[ed] to understand it and must be told what it all means by a 'scientist'."

On science you don't have to think AND twist shit around to suit your taste.

Right.  You don't have to interpret scientific data.

And even if it was necessary, there's no way that anyone's agenda would come into play, and said agenda would certainly not involve twisting shit around to suit taste.

And of course you would be aware that Science explicitly recognises the problems of individual bias and agenda, which is why Science institutions sets up mechanisms for peer review and requires independent replication where possible.

There is a genuine problem as science addresses more complex and difficult issues, in trying to break the scientific arguments down into elements which do not require high level training in science to comprehend, so people don't have to take the science purely on trust. People like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins are/were important contributors to addressing this problem.

Note that these educators, at their best, are not simply stating the ideas in simpler terms which still require pure acceptance on trust, but providing, where possible, simplified examples of the principles behind the science, so a person not familiar with the more complex aspects of the science can have an 'Aha!' moment, and grasp a new principle in the way things interact. Where practical, science educators will describe some experiment the person can perform themselves to demonstrate the science.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:robj101 wrote:jmm

jmm wrote:

robj101 wrote:

jmm wrote:

robj101 wrote:

You have to study the bible, and be a scholar nowdays to "understand" it. The common person can not be expect to understand it and must be told what it all means by a "scholar".

Oh no!  You mean you have to actually think a little bit to get it?!

What a poor argument.

"You have to study science, and be a scientist nowadays to 'understand' it.  The common person [cannot] be expect[ed] to understand it and must be told what it all means by a 'scientist'."

On science you don't have to think AND twist shit around to suit your taste.

Right.  You don't have to interpret scientific data.

And even if it was necessary, there's no way that anyone's agenda would come into play, and said agenda would certainly not involve twisting shit around to suit taste.

Profound, now give us some examples of how science has twisted things to suit an "agenda". Religious examples are blatantly obvious even to the untrained eye. Historically religion has sought through force coupled with deceit and blind faith to keep science at bay, considering the reality science brings a threat to it's very existence.

Bob's answer is probably better than mine, however I would enjoy a few examples of your claim.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:Right.  You don't

jmm wrote:

Right.  You don't have to interpret scientific data.

And even if it was necessary, there's no way that anyone's agenda would come into play, and said agenda would certainly not involve twisting shit around to suit taste.

 

Well, when people "interpret" scientific data, what they are doing is performing statistical analysis. Statistical analysis are objective processes. So saying that people "interpret" scientific data is entirely different than saying that theists "interpret" their religious texts.

 

 

The claim that people's agendas do not come into play when interpreting religious texts is historically inaccurate.

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


jonusb2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Considering the toronto