Looking For A Smart Atheist

[David T]

So, uh . . . as it turns out, I'm looking for a smart open minded atheist to devote . . . probably a few minutes a day, to a consideration - a test of sorts - of the Bible.

Difficult. Very difficult. Because what I mean by open minded is that the atheist has to be able to see the Bible without their preconceived notions. As a part of this team of Biblical examiners I would have to do the same.

Can it be done?

Well since this is a book cult we live in, you just want them in your pet is all. Silly.

 

[HonestJoe]

If I told you it wouldn't work, but suffice it to say that I didn't ask for a dumb atheist.

It might be doing you a disservice but that makes it sound like some kind of trap or “gotcha” rather than a real collaborative study. I’d be tempted to volunteer all the same but I feel I’m not actually what you’re looking for, despite being relatively intelligent and not believing in any gods.

Well, that wasn't necessary. As I pointed out then it would have been a part of the process but we were dealing with a very brief example.

Regardless of the points you make, I still think you’d run up against the difficultly in establishing consistent testable hypotheses on the basis of scripture alone. It’s just too open to interpretation. Even if you reached a conclusion on something like a definitive definition of “soul”, it wouldn’t really mean much given that other readers of the Bible could have entirely different ideas about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay . . . boy, I thought the soul would be easy.

God can destroy a soul. Can I? Can I have my soul destroyed? I will leave the scriptural reference up to you unless you say you've got nothing, but let me just give you the answer. The answer is yes to both questions. That's my position which you may not agree with

I'd also point out that your quote from Ezekiel is in a verse that tells when souls will die and when they will not. So at least some souls will not die, even if they *could*. By your definition, would those be mortal or immortal?

The Matthew quote says to fear the one that can destroy souls, meaning God. And that destruction of souls happens in hell.

Again, I don't expect consistency between different books of the Bible (actually, I don't expect it even within one book). But Matthew seems to suggest only God can destroy a soul.

As for others being able to destroy a soul, provide evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

just as an aside, have you fully read any of the canon's of the bible?

Nope.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, uh . . . as it turns out, I'm looking for a smart open minded atheist to devote . . . probably a few minutes a day, to a consideration - a test of sorts - of the Bible.

Difficult. Very difficult. Because what I mean by open minded is that the atheist has to be able to see the Bible without their preconceived notions. As a part of this team of Biblical examiners I would have to do the same.

Can it be done?

I know many open-minded atheists, very few of them are on religious forums.

 

[Fool]

Nope.

most christians haven't either. i find it strange that people allow another to tell them what to believe. thats why i read it for myself.


stranger still is the number of preacher's who have never bothered to read it fully.


thank you for sharing

 

[Polymath257]

most christians haven't either. i find it strange that people allow another to tell them what to believe. thats why i read it for myself.

stranger still is the number of preacher's who have never bothered to read it fully.

thank you for sharing

Perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought a canon was a commentary on the Bible. I have read the Bible itself.

A rather boring and repetitive text.

/E: It's been a while since I have done so. So a lot of references are vague.

 

[charlie sc]

I have just re-read Samantha's post and it seems crystal clear to me. It is simply an argument against the false dichotomy between science and religion that so many people seem to assume must exist.

As for my sentence that you highlighted in bold, I am just saying that science does not settle the issue of the existence of God and saying this is not a controversial observation.

Sure. Perhaps it's best to wait for her to reply, if she wants to, and we'll see what she meant.

 

[Earthling]

Well since this is a book cult we live in, you just want them in your pet is all. Silly.

What? Book cult? We are barely literate. I just want them in my pet? What the hell does that mean?

 

[exchemist]

Sure. Perhaps it's best to wait for her to reply, if she wants to, and we'll see what she meant.

We? You mean you, I think.

 

[Earthling]

you're debating on belief with people who want verifiable experience. it matters

I'm hoping that you are wrong. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if that were the case. But let me ask you, because I've experienced this and maybe you have as well. Someone who disagrees with you on the Bible, and it could be an interpretation that is as different from yours as night is day, but you acknowledge that they make a good point. They present a good scriptural referenced case.

What I'm looking for is an atheist's take on the Bible that is fair and open minded and well informed.

What happens if you take an atheist, inform them of the possible spurious influence, the traditional apostasy, and strip it away - what will the atheist conclude SIMPLY regarding what the Bible itself is saying. That could include other factors, other errors besides just the Jewish / Christian pagan influenced apostasy, as well.

 

[Muffled]

Isn't that like Diogenes looking for an honest man?

 

[Muffled]

Then, I wonder if the question becomes can you look past them. Recognize your preconceived notions and possible unconscious bias.

Let's take the soul as a quick example. The atheist doesn't believe in the soul. Of course, they don't really know what it is, but in this test it doesn't matter.

The majority of Christians think the soul is immortal. Ezekiel 18:4.

So, testing the Bible on the subject of the soul, the Bible determines the soul is mortal. It dies. From there you would test what the soul is, according to the Bible and then . . . does it exist? Simple. Right?

I believe it is not so easy. Just as people who had all kinds of ideas why people got sick and didn't realize there could be microorganisms because they couldn't see them, the atheist comes up with negation concepts about the soul because he can't see it. Jesus put it this way. You can't see the wind but you can see the trees waving back and forth. The proof of the soul is in the fruit it produces.

 

[Earthling]

I know many open-minded atheists, very few of them are on religious forums.

It has been my experience that the many atheists I personally know they are no more open minded than anyone else. That would include myself when I was an atheist and afterwards.

When you're face to face with people you know, depending upon how close you might be, whether relatives, close friends or merely acquaintances, people tend to appear more open minded than they might on an anonymous forum.

 

[Muffled]

Both seem to say that souls *can* die (if they are destroyed by God), but I don't see where it says they *must* die. My understanding of the term 'immortal' would not be that death is impossible, but rather that it isn't the typical order of things. Many mythologies have the death of otherwise immortal beings.

I believe my view of immortality is that the body would not die of old age which is what usually terminates people.

 

[sealchan]

One thing to recognize is that it is of little merit what the Bible has to say about things from a truth standpoint for most atheists...especially about supernatural or essentially mysterious things like the soul or God or the afterlife. Many atheists have little interest in giving up their sense of truth altogether, I suspect, in favor of playing to a mythic treatment of various subjects.

The trick is to recognize what the Bible talks about that does have a grounding in objective reality...namely psychological experience. I think that the Bible speaks to the possibilities of human psychological experience in a deep way and on that account you may find there is enough common ground to discuss truth in the Bible. The thoughtless literalists and the "not with a 10 foot pole" atheists notwithstanding...

 

[charlie sc]

We? You mean you, I think.

Wow. I was going to critique what you said but obviously you want to continue, even though I've shown all your inaccuracies. This also demonstrates how you think. I ask for verification and clarification, and you don’t seem to care.

I have just re-read Samantha's post and it seems crystal clear to me.

Then we agree to disagree.

It is simply an argument against the false dichotomy between science and religion that so many people seem to assume must exist.

They don't have to exist but they do exist. No one said you have to believe in evolution or creationism, but if you;re going to believe the world/universe is 6000 years old, it'll be contrary to scientific evidence. So if you're a creationist, it's unlikely you believe in evolution. Do you understand that?

As for my sentence that you highlighted in bold, I am just saying that science does not settle the issue of the existence of God and saying this is not a controversial observation.

You're right it doesn't but that doesn't mean it could indirectly. Science examines the natural world(i.e. what can be verified) and there are a ton of stories in holy texts that gives examples of the supernatural(something unverifiable) influencing the natural world. Hence, if there is a claim, like prayer through god heals cancer, it can be tested. This cannot demonstrate a god exists but it's a step in the right direction.
I'd like to think that theists would jump at the chance if this was scientifically demonstrated. For instance, theists claim miracles all the time and attribute some entity did it. Yet, when these claims are tested, they return negligible.

 

[Earthling]

I'd also point out that your quote from Ezekiel is in a verse that tells when souls will die and when they will not. So at least some souls will not die, even if they *could*. By your definition, would those be mortal or immortal?

The Matthew quote says to fear the one that can destroy souls, meaning God. And that destruction of souls happens in hell.

Again, I don't expect consistency between different books of the Bible (actually, I don't expect it even within one book). But Matthew seems to suggest only God can destroy a soul.

As for others being able to destroy a soul, provide evidence.

Let's see what kind of difficulties you may encounter with these verses.

Genesis 19:19-20; Numbers 23:10; Joshua 2:13-14; Judges 5:18; Judges 16:16, Judges 16:30; 1 Kings 20:31-32; Psalms 22:29; Ezekiel 18:20; Matthew 2:20; Matthew 26:38; Mark 3:4; Hebrews 10:39; James 5:20

 

[viole]

So, uh . . . as it turns out, I'm looking for a smart open minded atheist to devote . . . probably a few minutes a day, to a consideration - a test of sorts - of the Bible.

Difficult. Very difficult. Because what I mean by open minded is that the atheist has to be able to see the Bible without their preconceived notions. As a part of this team of Biblical examiners I would have to do the same.

Can it be done?

Difficult? It ahould be a piece of cake.

What have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

Isn't that like Diogenes looking for an honest man?

I've always fancied this painting by Jean-Leon Gerome (1860)