The Atheist's dilemma

[bhsmte]

For a fire is kindled by my anger,
and it burns to the depths of Sheol,
devours the earth and its increase,
and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.

-Deuteronomy 32:22


For great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.

-psalm 86:13

The Lord kills and brings to life;
he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

-1 Samuel 2:6

Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite
and opened its mouth beyond measure,
and the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude will go down,
her revelers and he whoexults in her.

-Isaiah 5:14

Sheol beneath is stirred up
to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.

-Isaiah 14:9 (honey, I'm home!)

Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made[bless and do not curse]lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter"

-Isaiah 28:15

Then your covenant with death will be annulled,
and your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
when the overwhelming scourge passes through,
you will be beaten down by it.

-Isaiah 28:18

calling to those who pass by,
who are[bless and do not curse]going straight on their way,
"Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!"
And to him who lacks sense she says,
"Stolen water is sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is pleasant."
But he does not know that the dead are there,
that her guests are in the depths of Sheol.

-Proverbs 9:15-18

The path of life leads upward for the prudent,
that he may turn away from Sheol beneath.

Proverbs 15:4


And may I also recommend the first chapter of Isaiah. Fascinating perspective there on the topic

Citing scripture to non-believers, is the equivalent of a muslin citing their holy book to you, to try and convince you of something.

 

[EdmundPClowney]

Sorry, I agree. that was for the christians.

And deidre

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry, I agree. that was for the christians.

And deidre

-_- for a thread about atheism?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

Atheist claim #1 could be perfectly true and and religion still be valid.

Claim #2 is simply false. However, religion playing such a prominent role in our lives, religious words will accompany our wars, conflicts and suffering, and so one can see how that notion might arise.

 

[Deidre32]

Sorry, I agree. that was for the christians.

And deidre

Aw, that is thoughtful. I used to enjoy reading certain passages.

You see my post in your obsession thread?

 

[EdmundPClowney]

Aw, that is thoughtful. I used to enjoy reading certain passages.

You see my post in your obsession thread?

yes, I saw! It got me interested in this thread but I probably shouldn't have barged in. My apologies everyone! You all share extremely interesting perspectives. And thanks very much, Deidre!

 

[Aldebaran]

Citing scripture to non-believers, is the equivalent of a muslin citing their holy book to you, to try and convince you of something.

So you have no interest in scripture, or what it is meant for?

 

[digitalgoth]

So you have no interest in scripture, or what it is meant for?

An atheist might say, "What's the point of one poorly written and overly boring book? Why not an Encyclopedia?"

In other words, to an atheist, the Bible is what they see it as, a translated book of sermons, codified and bound together to create a standard dogmatic expression of a group of people's beliefs. Many of them consider it poorly translated and having a variety of conflicts, from basic story telling to the exact nature of God.

 

[Aldebaran]

An atheist might say, "What's the point of one poorly written and overly boring book? Why not an Encyclopedia?"

In other words, to an atheist, the Bible is what they see it as, a translated book of sermons, codified and bound together to create a standard dogmatic expression of a group of people's beliefs. Many of them consider it poorly translated and having a variety of conflicts, from basic story telling to the exact nature of God.

So why do these atheists come to a Christian website where the basis of belief and values in on a book that you consider "poorly translated and having a variety of conflicts, from basic story telling to the exact nature of God."?

I would think your presence here to be illogical.

 

[EdmundPClowney]

An atheist might say, "What's the point of one poorly written and overly boring book? Why not an Encyclopedia?"

Yes, well why not an encyclopedia? Isn't it quite obscure to say the bible is poorly written? Whatever it is, the Bible is certainly not poorly written.

 

[EdmundPClowney]

An atheist might say, "What's the point of one poorly written and overly boring book? Why not an Encyclopedia?"

Yes, well why not an encyclopedia? Isn't it quite obscure to say the bible is poorly written? Whatever it is, the Bible is certainly not poorly written.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes, well why not an encyclopedia? Isn't it quite obscure to say the bible is poorly written? Whatever it is, the Bible is certainly not poorly written.

parts of it are excellently written. Some of it seems a bit more obscure than it needed to be, among them the visions of Ezekiel.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, well why not an encyclopedia? Isn't it quite obscure to say the bible is poorly written? Whatever it is, the Bible is certainly not poorly written.

Seriously? The Old Testament has writing errors and construction problems similar to that of a third grader's first draft.

 

[Aldebaran]

Seriously? The Old Testament has writing errors and construction problems similar to that of a third grader's first draft.

You have to remember that it was translated from Hebrew. The sentence structure they used is different than what we have in English today. Even early 20th century English is different from what we have today. A difference in the way people spoke thousands of years ago shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have to remember that it was translated from Hebrew. The sentence structure they used is different than what we have in English today. Even early 20th century English is different from what we have today. A difference in the way people spoke thousands of years ago shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

The errors I speak of involve characters without intro or real endings shoved in (example, judges right after the story of Ehud the Left Handed introduces another person in basically 2 sentences who is just put in there. It doesn't further the story any, and honestly sounds like that person would be really interesting if actual details were added). Contradictions about numbers, such as time frames, etc, which show a lack of editing and are likely the result of multiple authors who didn't collaborate together.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You have to remember that it was translated from Hebrew. The sentence structure they used is different than what we have in English today. Even early 20th century English is different from what we have today. A difference in the way people spoke thousands of years ago shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

That's not the situation with the stylistic shortfalls uncovered. Consider the first chapters of Genesis, with the narrative explaining creation twice, and the order of the creation differs from the one time to the other. This is not possible to explain under the hypothesis of a single author of Genesis, but is explainable as coming from two sources (probably oral traditions) that were pasted together by an editor who ignored the discrepancies.

Discrepancies that include, for example, whether Adam was created before or after the other animals.

Gen 1:25-26 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
NASU

versus

Gen 2:18-19 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

Two traditions, separately transmitted until combined by the editor who put Genesis in its final form.

 

[keith99]

Atheist claim #1 could be perfectly true and and religion still be valid.

Claim #2 is simply false. However, religion playing such a prominent role in our lives, religious words will accompany our wars, conflicts and suffering, and so one can see how that notion might arise.

I agree.

But relative to #1 a lot depends on what the atheist (or honest Christian) is addressing. Some less honest people of faith argue that simply because religion is widespread it must be true. That there are alternative reasons it might become widespread is a valid counter to that argument.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Atheist claim #1 could be perfectly true and and religion still be valid.

Claim #2 is simply false. However, religion playing such a prominent role in our lives, religious words will accompany our wars, conflicts and suffering, and so one can see how that notion might arise.

I would say religion tends to be more an excuse to justify wars than the actual cause most of the time. I'd say competing for limited resources is the primary source of war.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's not the situation with the stylistic shortfalls uncovered. Consider the first chapters of Genesis, with the narrative explaining creation twice, and the order of the creation differs from the one time to the other. This is not possible to explain under the hypothesis of a single author of Genesis, but is explainable as coming from two sources (probably oral traditions) that were pasted together by an editor who ignored the discrepancies.

Discrepancies that include, for example, whether Adam was created before or after the other animals.

Gen 1:25-26 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
NASU

versus

Gen 2:18-19 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

Two traditions, separately transmitted until combined by the editor who put Genesis in its final form.

I just took a look in my bible to get the context of these 2 areas. All of chapter 1 is basically an overall summary of God creating the earth and everything on it, including man. What you see in Chapter 2 is when the focus shifts to the creation of man. I think the emphasis in chapter 2 is when the animals were brought to the man to see what he would call them. It doesn't necessarily mean that the second sentence you quote starting with "Out of the ground...." was something that occurred after God said that it wasn't good for man to be alone, but is rather looking back at the fact that God had created the animals. That part of it wasn't the focus of what was being told in that part of the narrative.

 

[Deidre32]

yes, I saw! It got me interested in this thread but I probably shouldn't have barged in. My apologies everyone! You all share extremely interesting perspectives. And thanks very much, Deidre!

you're welcome. and you're not 'barging' in. lol

at the end of the day, maybe we're more alike than different.