Richard Dawkins on God's behavior in the OT

[Ophiolite]

I suggest you follow the full conversation before posting something that is also dishonest and also misrepresents what I said and meant..

I shall review and study the entire exchange and amend my comment with an apology is appropriate. In the meantime would you please state what is dishonest about my post? For it to be dishonest I would have to guilty of a deliberate act of deception. I know that is not the case, so I am puzzled as to what lie you think I have told. Thank you in advance.

 

[Silmarien]

Thus, staying back on track, what would you say is the best counter argument to Dawkins' interpretation of God's behaviour as reported in the OT? Ideally, something that is available online.

That's hard to say. My problem with the whole question is that it's effectively a debate between Christian literalists, for whom the entire Old Testament is fully historical, and atheistic literalists, who have an identical interpretation. And then the debate degrades into one side arguing that genocide can be permissible, and the other side losing it entirely.

I'm relatively conservative in the way I approach the New Testament, but liberal about the Old Testament, so I usually avoid talking about it around here in order to avoid ruffling feathers. My thoughts on the matter, though:

1) The Old Testament is the story of a people that lived in the Bronze Age. It is violent, but so was their world, since they constantly faced warfare and conquest. I honestly find it absolutely fascinating, because it is so old and alien, so I always find it frustrating when the different themes that come up over and over again are reduced to, "God is evil." It is so much richer than that!

2) I think you posted a little bit earlier that Dawkins was permitted to treat the God of the Old Testament as a fictional character and describe his characterization from that perspective, but my objection would be that Dawkins doesn't even have his literary genre correct. To me, what we see in the Old Testament is more an impressionistic painting of what God looks like by numerous different authors over centuries, not a single, well defined character. Christians would need to look to the Gospel to finally get a portrait of God's character--before that, I really do think it's just whispers and themes.

My other concern with treating God as a fictional character would be that even if this were fiction, the subject matter is deeply theological and difficult. Since you've outed yourself as another Tolkien fan, I will use that as an example: I have an atheistic friend who is a fan of the Silmarillion, who thinks that Ilúvatar is... well, a word that is probably censored here. Ilúvatar is a fictional character, but Ilúvatar is also the Creator God of a fictional world full of Catholic themes, so I look at my friend's statement and think... really? We would need to unravel the exact same theological problems in our fictional world as we do in the real one, so it's just not so simple.

Hmm. I don't know if that answers your question, and I can't really give a solid counter-argument since I'm not all that sure what Dawkins' argument is in the first place.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think you posted a little bit earlier that Dawkins was permitted to treat the God of the Old Testament as a fictional character and describe his characterization from that perspective, but my objection would be that Dawkins doesn't even have his literary genre correct.

Your italics* were well placed (Since quotes are all italicised, I've emboldened the relevant word). My post was unclear. I was challenging the disbelief from a member who questioned how Dawkins could possibly comment on the character of God, since he did not believe in God. That is clearly flawed reasoning that I sought to address through an analogy. Namely that we can discern the nature of a fictional character even though we believe they do not exist. Dawkins is saying that, in his opinion, if God exists and acted in such and such a way then he is not benign. Now his conclusion may, or may not, be flawed, but it is perfectly reasonable for him to form a conclusion even though he does not believe God exists.

I hope that clarified rather than deepening the confusion.

To me, what we see in the Old Testament is more an impressionistic painting of what God looks like by numerous different authors over centuries, not a single, well defined character. Christians would need to look to the Gospel to finally get a portrait of God's character--before that, I really do think it's just whispers and themes.

That accords very closely with my view on it when I was a practicing Christian. I like the phrase "whispers and themes" and may well steal it. I'm sure within a year I shall think I invented it!

 

[Rodan6]

For now, I'm inclined to believe that God desires we embrace "Truth" and the realities of truth. It is a difficult question for sure. Is it better to be a Christian that indulges in racial and sexual bigotry? To deny equality before God to gay and lesbian people? Part of me sees such error as evil in nature. How does God view those who would attribute great evil to Him? And the opposing question, how does God view those who reject Him outright! What is their motive for this rejection? Do they wholeheartedly believe in His reality of equality of the races and sexes? Many such individuals embrace the teachings of Christ (not necessarily giving Him credit of course!), but they reject many organized churches because they fail to pursue these teachings and instead view God as a tyrant--prone to evil acts and intolerance.

I would submit that when the time comes for judgement, the reality of truth will confront all souls. The religionist that embraces error will discover that error and find themselves in a corrective spiritual position, one that they may ultimately choose to reject. Will such souls choose to reject God's plan because they find themselves subordinate to those they rejected in God's name? A bigot may find those they despised in life to be their teachers. And when an aethiest learns the reality of a loving Father in heaven, and that God's love has no limit--that before Him, ALL persons are equal...will that reality be sufficient to accept His plan for them? I don't know the answers to these questions, but for now, until I learn otherwise, I choose to believe that some will succeed on both sides. Those choosing to embrace the realities of truth hold the greater spiritual strength and opportunity.

 

[ximmix]

Christianity should be pure joy in the Holy Spirit. If it's not joy then that was not Christianity.

Atheism has no promise of eternal life, so it is a short lived paradigm. Atheism is temporal, transient, has no hope. Atheists all grow old and miserable, then they die.

If you think that you will be happy for the rest of your life as an atheist. Then you are very mistaken in that opinion of yours.

Have you noticed that as you get older you happiness level subsides?

Wow, you are really saying that all atheists grow old and miserable? I think you have it the wrong way around, beacause atheists believe that this life is all there is, we tend to cherish it more....

 

[ximmix]

The prevailing worldview of an atheist is a lack of belief in Gods. A lack of belief in a higher order of beings (Gods). A lack of belief in beings (Gods) from other dimensions that are greater than us.

An atheist lacks a belief in a spiritual, undetectable realm, inhabited by a spiritual being (God). An atheist lacks the belief that a spiritual being (God) can transcend space time.

That is a distinctive worldview and is shared by all atheists.

A lack of belief in something isn't a worldview if course. Is a lack in santa clause a worldview?

 

[miknik5]

I shall review and study the entire exchange and amend my comment with an apology is appropriate. In the meantime would you please state what is dishonest about my post? For it to be dishonest I would have to guilty of a deliberate act of deception. I know that is not the case, so I am puzzled as to what lie you think I have told. Thank you in advance.

You jumped into a conversation and distorted what I said and did exactly what the other poster did...
Took what I said and implied something completely different...

That is not doing a thorough job...and it shows that you did not even care to make sure you weren´t making a mistake...you just assumed something...and it is wrong...and it is a lie about what I meant.

It portrays me in a different way and if people were to venture on this thread, NO ONE takes the time to read from start to finish, they would see this post and think I am a nasty human being who has one purpose and that is to stir trouble...it makes me look like I have a chip on my shoulder and I dislike Atheists...

I have never had any dealings with ANY Atheists before so why should I hate them...and I asked for clarification on what an Atheist is...that was all.

After I got the response...I asked why are you then even on a website because it seemed to me that lack means indifference...which means that one doesn´t even care...

And so, someone interpreted that, and put some sort of emotion behind that response, and portrayed me incorrectly, ẗhat I somehow don´t like Atheists" ...that is lying, a falsehood and slander about me...because it isn´t true...

 

[miknik5]

A lack of belief in something isn't a worldview if course. Is a lack in santa clause a worldview?

So why don´t you describe how you see it...you are an atheist and I don´t see anyone else complaining about the label given...that an atheist lacks a belief in a god...

What then do you say an Atheist is?

 

[ximmix]

So why don´t you describe how you see it...you are an atheist and I don´t see anyone else complaining about the label given...that an atheist lacks a belief in a god...

What then do you say an Atheist is?

Yes atheism is a lack of faith in any deity. but it's not a worldview.

 

[Silmarien]

Wow, you are really saying that all atheists grow old and miserable? I think you have it the wrong way around, beacause atheists believe that this life is all there is, we tend to cherish it more....

1) I didn't. I had a lot more issues with suicidal ideation before becoming a theist. Nothing (except perhaps progressive politics) had much of any meaning to me at all. I don't think I was entirely aware of it at the time, though, since I didn't start consciously struggling with nihilism until my early days as a theist.

2) You'll find the occasional atheist who does actually believe in the immortality of the soul, for whatever reason.

3) I think you're just engaging in the same sort of stereotyping here that's being thrown at you here: "You're secretly miserable and don't know it!" "No, you secretly don't care about this world because you believe in eternal life!" It's probably too complicated to say that there are tendencies one way or the other.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

A lack of belief in something isn't a worldview if course. Is a lack in santa clause a worldview?

Yes because you have no expectation of presents automatically appearing at Christmas.

 

[ximmix]

1) I didn't. I had a lot more issues with suicidal ideation before becoming a theist. Nothing (except perhaps progressive politics) had much of any meaning to me at all. I don't think I was entirely aware of it at the time, though, since I didn't start consciously struggling with nihilism until my early days as a theist.

2) You'll find the occasional atheist who does actually believe in the immortality of the soul, for whatever reason.

3) I think you're just engaging in the same sort of stereotyping here that's being thrown at you here: "You're secretly miserable and don't know it!" "No, you secretly don't care about this world because you believe in eternal life!" It's probably too complicated to say that there are tendencies one way or the other.

Oh sorry, I think my reply was to klutedavid.

 

[ximmix]

Yes because you have no expectation of presents automatically appearing at Christmas.

That makes no sense.

Edited to add, what has that go to do with a worldview? hmm, try again...

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

That makes no sense.

Edited to add, what has that go to do with a worldview? hmm, try again...

When there is no Santa Claus, you view the world differently than you did before. It means that you have to start buying presents instead of just expecting them.

Tenuous I suppose, but the reality is that worldivews are what makes us think, what makes us do things and in that sense atheism and asantaism are both the same they make you think in a certain way.

 

[ximmix]

When there is no Santa Claus, you view the world differently than you did before. It means that you have to start buying presents instead of just expecting them.

Tenuous I suppose, but the reality is that worldivews are what makes us think, what makes us do things and in that sense atheism and asantaism are both the same they make you think in a certain way.

So you actually think that because someone doesn't share your faith, it's another worldview? sorry, but the thought is just so silly...

 

[ximmix]

to clarify, i think christians and atheists share the same worldview, to me it's silly to suggest otherwise

 

[miknik5]

Yes atheism is a lack of faith in any deity. but it's not a worldview.

So, if you don´t mind what is the other view?

 

[ximmix]

So, if you don´t mind what is the other view?

the other view of what? pls clarify...

 

[miknik5]

the other view of what? pls clarify...

You said that lack of belief for an Atheist was not the worldwide view...so I was wondering what other ways Atheist are viewed if not simply lack of belief in a god...

You seemed to be arguing against KluteDavid´s definition

 

[ximmix]

You said that lack of belief for an Atheist was not the worldwide view...so I was wondering what other ways Atheist are viewed if not simply lack of belief in a god...

I said that a lack in faith in anything isn't a worldview. And of course, if atheists are viewed as people who lack faith in a God, I'm ok with that. I think I'm missing ur point, if u wish to explain more, I would love that...