The "God is Imaginary" blog - Page 4

June 7, 2008, 6:27 AM

So it's not subjective to say that nobody sees any gnomes?

I did not say anywhere in my post that all religious people worry over which religion is correct; I only said this in response to the previous poster. You would do well not to assume the things that I did not state.

June 7, 2008, 6:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Friedrich Gauß

So it's not subjective to say that nobody sees any gnomes?

I see garden gnomes.
Oh Wait, you didn't go and compare god to a mythical creature did you?
Because that would be extremely ignorant.

Quote:

I did not say anywhere in my post that all religious people worry over which religion is correct; I only said this in response to the previous poster. You would do well not to assume the things that I did not state.

And I never said you did. You would do well not to assume things I did not state dear.

June 7, 2008, 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince Noir

I see garden gnomes.
Oh Wait, you didn't go and compare god to a mythical creature did you?
Because that would be extremely ignorant.

No, I'm afraid I don't see the difference between someone believing in garden gnomes and someone believing in God, or gnomes being intangible and unevidenced and God not being tangible and unevidenced as well. Please actually explain the difference.

Quote:

And I never said you did. You would do well not to assume things I did not state dear.

Same goes for you. Although if you did not assume that I think all religious people worry over which religion is correct, I wonder why you ever bothered to bring up that point.

June 7, 2008, 8:04 AM

Uhh...oops. Totally forgot this thread existed. Anywaaaaay....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Friedrich Gauß

I'm not simply content to read every little thing I can find anywhere and say that it happened without questioning it; that's all. I'm not that gullible of a reader.

A lot of churches I've encountered encourage people to question the Bible, actually. In questioning the Bible and your faith, they believe you'll find your path to God. It will also strengthen your bond with God.

Quote:

Well gee, I didn't know that. Why don't you provide me sources that show that Buddhism was actually not so peace-loving, and then maybe I'll provide you with some violent quotes from the New Testament. However, even if you don't think Buddhism is peace-loving, there are plenty of other pagan religions that don't force other people to convert.

Okay, it's reading comprehension time. I never said Buddhism the RELIGION wasn't peaceful. In their holy texts, I don't think it says, "SLAUGHTER EVERYONE IN THE NAME OF BUDDHA, HURRAH!" However, BUDDHISTS themselves have been guilty of persecuting and slaughtering people due to religious differences. Shintoists? Same. Christians? Same. Muslims? Same. Hindus? Same. Give me ANY religion, and I guarantee you that at some point, they have persecuted others in the name of religion. What I'm trying to say is that Christianity, and any other religion, is not inherently violent. It is the followers that warp the religion. Human nature gets in the way and makes it violent.

Quote:

Well gee, I don't know; love makes people happy, and yet, it's considered irrational because it makes people do irrational things--is that impossible? Of course not. You can do irrational things to make yourself happy. You can choose not to go to work and take the day off; it will make you happy for awhile because you don't have to work, but then you're not earning any money. There are many ways of being happy, and not all of them involve being rational. Just because it's rational to WANT to be happy doesn't mean the means by which you achieve happiness is rational.

But to perform the act in the first place to achieve the goal of happiness is rational.

Quote:

I've had to repeat this several times, but it seems you're not quite getting it. I do express my dislike for Christianity because it's true that I don't like it--I can do so to explain why I'm not Christian. But I would never tell people they shouldn't believe in Christianity, nor would I call them "stupid" for believing in it. But there are two things to consider: There are still people (ie, fundamentalists) who still don't act any differently from those in Spain in the 1400's, and my opinion of the bible is that it's fundamentally flawed. You don't have to like my opinion of it, but my opinion of it is that it's so terrible I can't even finish reading it without falling asleep. I don't have a problem with liberal Christians. I still think it's strange that they read a book that says the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old and choose to believe certain parts of it rather than reading a different book from which the bible's morals originally came from, but I have no beef with them. I think there are better things people could be doing with their lives, but I'm not going to tell them what to do because it's none of my business. But I don't believe it's wrong to express an opinion of something.

I don't really care if you hate Christianity or not. That's your own deal. But I could go back and find posts you made where you insinuated that people were stupid for believing in Christianity.

I have heard of such things, and it is ridiculous, although these people are willfully ignorant of the fact that their same book says the Earth is flat or 6000 years old when it clearly isn't, and are throwing stones from a glass house when they accuse fiction stories for being "offensive" just because it says things they don't like to hear.

Hope (it's probably faith though) is ridiculous and useless.

Hmm, those don't exactly sound like shining, tolerant words towards Christians, eh? In fact, you sound kind of like an elitist bitch

But moving on, will you please stop with the flat earth example? It's not written anywhere in the Bible, so stop using it as an example. It just makes you look ignorant, which you are when it comes to religion. Say it were written in the Bible. What difference does it make? It's a completely irrelevant detail. It's just you, to use that pet phrase of yours, attacking a straw man. Whether the Bible says the earth is flat (it doesn't) or not, it has nothing to do with violence or morality. That being said, while the Bible was influenced by older more pagan myths, it also included the religion's own morals and views. And I don't know what these "different books" to which you're referring are.

Quote:

And also remember that in previous threads, you yourself admitted that religion is not rational. So why don't you answer for yourself why something irrational like religion gives people happiness?

I suppose to believe in something like God without much proof is considered "irrational" but it's really easy to see why something "irrational" like religion gives people happiness. It means that life is not without meaning and that death is not the end. It means that people going through painful and horribly difficult times in life have some sort of hope. They can believe there is a reason for their suffering. And while to believe in God itself, you might call irrational, to make the decision to choose to believe something that will make you happier in the long run is rational.

Quote:

Remove all the contradictions, get rid of the ridiculous stories that are scientifically inaccurate, remove all the references about God committing violence or other horrible acts, or at least make them less ambiguous, and don't make him seem like he's shooting himself in the foot when he says he's omnipotent and omniscient--oh wait, that last one is nearly impossible. But instead of trying to fix a book that has too many inconsistencies, I'd think it's better to find other books (if it has to be a book) that explains its point better. None of these useless metaphors, ambiguity and other contradictions. It's like you have to sift through miles and miles of pages before you find what you're looking for, and the rest is just fluff.

I think I've said this before, but the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Stop trying to treat it like one. That's just ridiculous. I'm so sorry to inform you, but not every book ever written is some kind of science or math book. Just because the form in which it was written does not please you, that doesn't mean it's illegitimate. To remove this argument from a historical vacuum, let's consider that fact that wild persecution of the Jews AND Christians was occuring at the time. To avoid persecution, they HAD to write things in metaphors and codes. What were they gonna say? "Nero's a douchebag! I hate him!" No, not unless they wanted to die. Hence the subtle references. The Bible is only one example of this. There have been COUNTLESS works of literature written about current situations in heavy metaphors and allegories to avoid censorship or persecution. Now, that being said, stop with the scientifically inaccurate bullshit. It's completely irrelevant and-- I'm gonna pull that phrase out again-- you're beating the strawman! We're arguing whether the Bible itself is inherently violent, aren't we? If so, whether it has scientific inaccuracies is irrelevant. Please, stay focused. The stories with the "scientific inaccuracies" probably have some greater moral meaning. Like I said, the Bible is more focused on spiritual or moral matters. It's not a science textbook and wasn't written as one.

Quote:

Then you must concede that the bible is a really old book, and it may as well be obsolete because it's not being updated, nor has any of its morals been considered original, if it could be right about anything, and the "factual" bits are not so factual.

It didn't just take everything from other religions. Many of its teachings are original. Just because it is older or not updated, that does not mean it is obsolete. Why? Because of what I just said and you might do well to remember: it is not a science textbook. It is a book of religious, spiritual, and moral teachings. Such matters of the spirit are never too old or too obsolete for millions of people.

Quote:

Not really. The founding fathers of America never used the bible to make their laws or for their own guiding principles--the majority of them were atheists or deists, and suggested a separation of church and state.

Nice assumption there. I said western society. Not America. Think back a little farther, like to Europe. The Bible helped shaped the views, culture, morals, and ideals in Europe, and that has traveled down through history. I'm not saying it was the Bible alone, but it was a big part of it.

Quote:

People who read a book and enjoy it don't necessarily do so because they think--they do so because they feel.

I don't recall making any statement about every Christian basing their morals off of the bible without question--there are such people, and there are people that don't, but it wouldn't hurt not to bash me on something I never said.

The purpose of my analogy was not the subject in the books themselves, but that you can excuse almost anything by saying it was in a book. Which I think is ridiculous because it is, in a way, the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Mein Kampf is not the Bible. They are not comparable works of literature. And yes, you keep ranting about people just reading and accepting the Bible without question, whether you realize it or not.

Quote:

Abortion is complicated. Ending a potential life that wouldn't have much of a life because the parent has no access to child support or won't make a decent parent and can't otherwise provide for a child isn't much different from if they lived anyways, or someone was raped and didn't ask for it.

But I'm not speaking about people choosing to be pro-life because they have different morals; I just object to people using a book to excuse their reasons because it sounds like they didn't do much work. So you say that not all Christians believe every word of the bible, so would it be so much work to be able to explain why for this one case involving abortion, they choose to believe in the book? If it's little more than "God says so..." I don't think it's much of a reason.

If they have their own reasons that differ from the bible, then I don't have a problem with that.

This isn't really an abortion debate. And it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible, "hey you! Don't have an abortion!" Pro-lifers didn't just read it in the Bible and blindly follow. Many pro-lifers just happen to agree with the Church's view on abortion. The church and pro-lifers both agree on the view of abortion for the same reason: it's the taking of a potential life. Both feel that it is morally wrong. What the hell else other reasons are there that people could have that "differ from the Bible"? Because it's bad for the economy?

Quote:

I tried to read it, but if I fall asleep while reading it, that tells you something, doesn't it?

If I could have read the book without falling asleep, I doubt my opinion of it changes much. I don't particularly like reading things that are ridiculously metaphorical and ambiguous as to be confusing. It's all too human.

That says something about you, not the Bible. For someone so logical, that sure is an illogical and dumb statement. Unless it was a shot at humor. But in any case, seeing how hundreds of millions of people read it throughout the ages WITHOUT falling asleep, I'd say you're just lazy or don't understand it very well. And while I don't really care if you've read it or not, it seems sort of ill-informed and ignorant of you to try and argue about a book you've never read. It also shows in your arguments, as you tend to include misinformation

Quote:

As I said before, love isn't rational and yet, it makes people happy. Wanting to seek happiness might be considered rational, but how you achieve it is independent of your desire, and can be considered rational or irrational. In other words, it's irrelevant.

This paragraph seems irrelevant...

Quote:

Well, that's only partly true because I would think it's more accurate to say that we are partly nature and partly nurture--there are parts of us that don't change, like the parts of our mind that interpret the world, and everyone does this differently--you can expose someone to the same environment, and they might still be completely different because they think about the same things differently. I may be born and raised in a similar environment as other people, and they may still be religious, and if I liked math, it doesn't mean that other people who get raised in the same environment might do the same.

No, rationality is an objective term, but you just disagree that it's irrational to base life off of a book that makes little sense, and probably isn't supposed to be rational, and you simply believe that I label it as irrational because you think it has to do with the way I'm socially wired.

But it's not wrong if they might be considered "irrational" for choosing religion. I simply choose not to live life based off of irrational decisions. Whether or not other people do is none of my business--it's wrong to me, but not wrong to them, and nothing changes that. I don't see how it couldn't be irrational to pick a religion, and live life based off of it, since you already admitted that religion isn't rational.

But people will go on making irrational decisions--it's only natural.

Nope, sorry

Because we're talking about culture and religion and not math or science, we're talking about the rationality of people and their cultural interactions and beliefs. In math, certainly, there is concrete rationality because you are dealing with numbers. This cultural kind of rationality is completely subjective. One thing that may be considered completely irrational in one country could be viewed as rational in another.

Quote:

I also don't recall badmouthing particular Christians for believing in the bible. I only recall badmouthing what the bible actually says, unless you wish to think that saying people are irrational or make irrational decisions when people in general are irrational and make irrational decisions is somehow offensive. My opinion in general is that I don't think much of people who don't think rationally, and it does not matter whether it's because they believe in the bible, because they don't think well, or for whatever other reason people think irrationally or do irrational things--but I don't recall calling religious people stupid for what they choose to believe in, even if it could be irrational, and I will never insult or try to convert other people for what they choose to believe in. The only thing I've been trying to pick on to begin with is the book itself, and not the people that believe in it, and I choose not to pick on the people that believe in it because there are far too many variations of things that people believe in in the bible--but how you've continuously missed this is beyond me.

I'd personally badmouth some of the followers on the religion and not the religious text itself, for any religion. Almost without fail, it is historically the followers who have perverted the religion and committed crimes in the name of the religion. The religious texts themselves do not really advocate such crimes. It is the FOLLOWERS who twist the words of the religious texts and use them for their own agenda. Let's take early western Europe as an example, shall we? Most people were illiterate or were unable to read the Bible in Latin. There was a REASON that the church didn't want the Bible translated so that people could read it for themselves. If that had happened, people would be able to interpret the Bible for themselves and, y'know, think for themselves, instead of believe everything the church told them. Clearly, the Bible itself is not the problem. It is the ways in which people have misused it over the millennia.

June 7, 2008, 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

Uhh...oops. Totally forgot this thread existed. Anywaaaaay....

A lot of churches I've encountered encourage people to question the Bible, actually. In questioning the Bible and your faith, they believe you'll find your path to God. It will also strengthen your bond with God.

That doesn't explain the verses that say not to question the lord or not to put him to the test.

Quote:

Okay, it's reading comprehension time. I never said Buddhism the RELIGION wasn't peaceful. In their holy texts, I don't think it says, "SLAUGHTER EVERYONE IN THE NAME OF BUDDHA, HURRAH!" However, BUDDHISTS themselves have been guilty of persecuting and slaughtering people due to religious differences. Shintoists? Same. Christians? Same. Muslims? Same. Hindus? Same. Give me ANY religion, and I guarantee you that at some point, they have persecuted others in the name of religion. What I'm trying to say is that Christianity, and any other religion, is not inherently violent. It is the followers that warp the religion. Human nature gets in the way and makes it violent.

Reading comprehension time yourself. Read the post you made before mine, and you'll see, in your own words, that you wrote Buddhism was peaceful. I simply re-iterated what you wrote.

I also don't entirely remember exactly what the argument was about because it was a long time ago, but if this is about whether or not religion is at fault, or people are at fault, I would like you to consider the scenario of when a religion actually does advocate violence and other things that modern society might consider to be unacceptable--perhaps such a religion might not be accepted now, but consider this without intervention from modern society--can you really say that the people are at fault if they choose to believe such things if they didn't know better? I don't think you can assume that people all believe what is right or wrong the same way; some people will follow it because they lack the judgment to know better, and what they have read is at fault. I know that people can twist what they read to be what they want it to be, but there are also people that don't know how to do that.

Quote:

But to perform the act in the first place to achieve the goal of happiness is rational.

That is not a justification that makes religion rational.

Quote:

I don't really care if you hate Christianity or not. That's your own deal. But I could go back and find posts you made where you insinuated that people were stupid for believing in Christianity.

I have heard of such things, and it is ridiculous, although these people are willfully ignorant of the fact that their same book says the Earth is flat or 6000 years old when it clearly isn't, and are throwing stones from a glass house when they accuse fiction stories for being "offensive" just because it says things they don't like to hear.

Hope (it's probably faith though) is ridiculous and useless.

Hmm, those don't exactly sound like shining, tolerant words towards Christians, eh?

Try not to take that quote out of context, because I was speaking of the people who advocated banning Harry Potter on reasons that most people agree were ridiculous. Not every Christian advocates banning Harry Potter.

Quote:

In fact, you sound kind of like an elitist bitch

But moving on, will you please stop with the flat earth example? It's not written anywhere in the Bible, so stop using it as an example.

But if you will concede to the metaphors in the bible, and the stuff I consider nonsense that somehow makes sense to people with emotions and all that jazz, then please explain why it says the Earth is a circle, yet has four corners and can be seen in its entirety from a mountain--you cannot do this with a spherical Earth. Furthermore, a circle with four corners contradicts itself. You have never completely explained this "metaphor".

Quote:

It just makes you look ignorant, which you are when it comes to religion. Say it were written in the Bible. What difference does it make? It's a completely irrelevant detail. It's just you, to use that pet phrase of yours, attacking a straw man. Whether the Bible says the earth is flat (it doesn't) or not, it has nothing to do with violence or morality. That being said, while the Bible was influenced by older more pagan myths, it also included the religion's own morals and views. And I don't know what these "different books" to which you're referring are.

Attacking a strawman is when you mistake an argument for something it isn't. But I can't see how the flat earth description in the bible isn't valid--like I said, it's only because you choose to ignore that part of the bible. I guess I didn't say this here explicitly either, but my opinion of metaphors is bullshit. So you can say that maybe heaven and hell aren't physical because we know what lies directly above and below us on Earth, but did the people who existed before people flew planes or knew about the shape of the Earth or anything about astronomy know that? Did they have any other way of knowing how to interpret a passage when it says to torture or kill people who don't believe? Can you still say that Jesus rose from the dead if it was described in four contradictory ways? You may say this is all "science" and "math" all you want--but if Moses himself said he was the "meekest" of all mankind on Earth, and he really did say that, then he's a terrible liar. If he didn't say that, then the metaphors people interpret about Moses being the writer are wrong. Lastly, if you concede that the bible is all metaphor, then it is all strictly interpretation, and subjective. No one can necessarily agree that God must be good, or that the bible isn't violent or contradictory--it is only because you make such an interpretation and choose to attach ambiguous metaphors, which may be entirely something else to someone else that you see it as being good. So if you say it is good, then others have the right to say it's bad from their own interpretation, and disagree with you without being ignorant--just because you don't understand it doesn't mean their opinion isn't valid.

This is why I hate metaphors. They never tell you anything useful. They only tell you what you want to see.

Quote:

I suppose to believe in something like God without much proof is considered "irrational" but it's really easy to see why something "irrational" like religion gives people happiness. It means that life is not without meaning and that death is not the end. It means that people going through painful and horribly difficult times in life have some sort of hope. They can believe there is a reason for their suffering. And while to believe in God itself, you might call irrational, to make the decision to choose to believe something that will make you happier in the long run is rational.

Religion isn't the only thing that gives people happiness or meaning in life. It's tempting and easy to think that religion gives you these things, but only if you don't think about them. Now so that you don't go and mention this, because I doubt you'll figure it out, I'm not saying that every religious person doesn't think or choose their religion for themselves, but some people don't. Some people choose religion because it's easier to believe God exists and looks after them than to think about whether or not God exists, or if any of those things are ever true at all, and simply concede that they are--because God said so. It's easy to believe in something, so long as you don't have to verify it and simply deny that it could ever be false. And that's the part I find most disturbing and blind about faith. If seeking happiness by choosing something irrational as religion might be considered rational, this does not dismiss the fact that choosing to believe in something and denying any possibility that it could be wrong is irrational. In other words, it is irrational in principle to believe in religion, but you may call it rational to believe in religion out of ignorance of bliss. But only if you dismiss the irrationality of the ignorance.

Quote:

I think I've said this before, but the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Stop trying to treat it like one. That's just ridiculous. I'm so sorry to inform you, but not every book ever written is some kind of science or math book. Just because the form in which it was written does not please you, that doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

I have read plenty of other books that are much clearer than the bible and better to read that aren't science or math books. Given the choice, I'd sooner read those books than read the bible.

Quote:

To remove this argument from a historical vacuum, let's consider that fact that wild persecution of the Jews AND Christians was occuring at the time. To avoid persecution, they HAD to write things in metaphors and codes. What were they gonna say? "Nero's a douchebag! I hate him!" No, not unless they wanted to die. Hence the subtle references. The Bible is only one example of this. There have been COUNTLESS works of literature written about current situations in heavy metaphors and allegories to avoid censorship or persecution. Now, that being said, stop with the scientifically inaccurate bullshit. It's completely irrelevant and-- I'm gonna pull that phrase out again-- you're beating the strawman!

The fact that they stuffed it with metaphors and other bullshit to escape detection doesn't excuse how it's written. If those metaphors make the message less clear and more ambiguous to the point it means nothing but nonsense, then it's incomprehensible. It's like someone typing with bad grammar--maybe they have a good message, but it makes little difference to you because you can't read it.
A contradiction is not what you may categorize as "scientifically inaccurate"--it's logic, plain and simple. It's a contradiction to write four separate accounts of the same event and none of them agree. It's a contradiction to claim you're the writer of the book you're in when you're not. A metaphor is not a contradiction, and neither is an allegory. If you claim they are, then that makes all literature bullshit then, doesn't it?

Quote:

We're arguing whether the Bible itself is inherently violent, aren't we? If so, whether it has scientific inaccuracies is irrelevant. Please, stay focused. The stories with the "scientific inaccuracies" probably have some greater moral meaning. Like I said, the Bible is more focused on spiritual or moral matters. It's not a science textbook and wasn't written as one.

Which is why they should just leave out all the details about how the Earth was formed or what it looked like. Read a different book on morals, and you'll see they don't all talk about the extra irrelevant fluff. And if it is scientifically inaccurate, what should stop me from being more inclined to think this is nothing more than a fairy tale? Stuff about violent Gods, and violent people killing each other all at the hands of some "benevolent" being, who claims he's omnipotent, made a circular Earth with four pillars in merely 6 days, only 6000 years old, and with people living in whales--sounds like a different universe to me. If there ever was a moral message in it, it makes little difference to me whether it was a fairy tale told for fun, or a fiction piece with morals that happened to be there, but could stand to have a better setting.

Quote:

It didn't just take everything from other religions. Many of its teachings are original. Just because it is older or not updated, that does not mean it is obsolete. Why? Because of what I just said and you might do well to remember: it is not a science textbook. It is a book of religious, spiritual, and moral teachings. Such matters of the spirit are never too old or too obsolete for millions of people.

I dare you to prove that. I already told you that Confucian's teachings and other Greek philosophers's works existed before the bible did, and other religions, particularly the pagan ones, possibly older than Christianity had similar elements in them. The majority of the major religions from antiquity all shared similar elements, even if they appeared different. What's the probability that Christianity didn't borrow their ideas from them?
If you really believe the "morals" of intolerance, violence and other things that are considered unacceptable in today's society are never too old for us, I wonder how it is nobody believes that stuff anymore. Or how uncircumsized boys have to be abandoned by their parents and community. Or how homosexuals that sleep with each other must be killed (I'm definitely not seeing that in society). Only some of the stuff from the bible survived, and the parts that did were the ones that agreed with the morals that also appeared in other writings, some of which predate the bible. Original and not obsolete, indeed.

Quote:

Nice assumption there. I said western society. Not America. Think back a little farther, like to Europe. The Bible helped shaped the views, culture, morals, and ideals in Europe, and that has traveled down through history. I'm not saying it was the Bible alone, but it was a big part of it.

Including the anti-semitism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and all the other torturing bits? You say that's just people twisting the bible for their needs--but how do you know some of them didn't interpret the bible that way? As I said above, a metaphorical interpretation is too subjective, and therefore, not obsolete. You cannot rule out this possibility with this reason alone.

Quote:

Mein Kampf is not the Bible. They are not comparable works of literature. And yes, you keep ranting about people just reading and accepting the Bible without question, whether you realize it or not.

Well, neither are L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books for Scientology, but whether or not you believe Mein Kampf is comparable to the bible is irrelevant, as you can do this with any book--I simply don't view the bible as some book so sacredly untouchable as some people do that it cannot be compared with other books at all.

Quote:

This isn't really an abortion debate. And it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible, "hey you! Don't have an abortion!" Pro-lifers didn't just read it in the Bible and blindly follow. Many pro-lifers just happen to agree with the Church's view on abortion. The church and pro-lifers both agree on the view of abortion for the same reason: it's the taking of a potential life. Both feel that it is morally wrong. What the hell else other reasons are there that people could have that "differ from the Bible"? Because it's bad for the economy?

This is all a matter of interpretation. Maybe to you the bible doesn't say that abortion is wrong, but certain people may interpret certain verses to mean that, so they use that as their reasoning against abortion. However, I don't recall saying that every pro-lifer said that the bible was their only reason for their stance. I just said that if people used a book to justify something without verifying it, then they are committing the appeal to authority fallacy. I personally don't assume that there is one and only one reason (or a few) for why pro-lifers are pro-lifers.

(However, my opinion on the reasoning that there should be no abortion because of the taking away of potential life is a bit short-sighted.)

Quote:

That says something about you, not the Bible. For someone so logical, that sure is an illogical and dumb statement. Unless it was a shot at humor. But in any case, seeing how hundreds of millions of people read it throughout the ages WITHOUT falling asleep, I'd say you're just lazy or don't understand it very well. And while I don't really care if you've read it or not, it seems sort of ill-informed and ignorant of you to try and argue about a book you've never read. It also shows in your arguments, as you tend to include misinformation

I have better things to spend my rationality on, and since the bible isn't rational, that isn't one of them. Furthermore, invalidating my opinions because I haven't read the entire book is an ad hominem. My justification is irrelevant to how I've obtained it. You can be an asshole, and still be right. You can be a criminal, and still tell the truth. In other words, I can still do my research without having read the entire bible. You choosing not to believe it on the basis that I haven't read it, and possibly ignoring what I'm saying as invalid on that basis is a fallacy.

Quote:

Nope, sorry

Because we're talking about culture and religion and not math or science, we're talking about the rationality of people and their cultural interactions and beliefs. In math, certainly, there is concrete rationality because you are dealing with numbers. This cultural kind of rationality is completely subjective. One thing that may be considered completely irrational in one country could be viewed as rational in another.

Then we're not speaking of rationality at all; we're speaking of perspective. In other words, what makes certain people happy, and what they believe to be right or wrong. I was speaking in particular of the principle of religion and denial of the truth being an irrational concept.

Quote:

I'd personally badmouth some of the followers on the religion and not the religious text itself, for any religion. Almost without fail, it is historically the followers who have perverted the religion and committed crimes in the name of the religion. The religious texts themselves do not really advocate such crimes. It is the FOLLOWERS who twist the words of the religious texts and use them for their own agenda. Let's take early western Europe as an example, shall we? Most people were illiterate or were unable to read the Bible in Latin. There was a REASON that the church didn't want the Bible translated so that people could read it for themselves. If that had happened, people would be able to interpret the Bible for themselves and, y'know, think for themselves, instead of believe everything the church told them. Clearly, the Bible itself is not the problem. It is the ways in which people have misused it over the millennia.

It is only because you have bound yourself to such an interpretation of the religious text that you do not see that others may have a different interpretation from you, and it's entirely possible that they saw what they did from the text, and acted on it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe other people simply didn't interpret the text the same way you did, and you can't assume that everyone who reads the book will make the exact same interpretation as you. If we did, then everyone would agree, but people don't.
But the people then were iliterate back then, most likely because they didn't have the money or time to be educated about it. They were probably mostly peasants doing what their parents did, and most likely couldn't afford the time off to learn to read or write. In other words, it might be entirely possible that people could read and write and interpret the bible themselves--they just never had such a chance, and it's entirely possible that whoever read the bible, most likely someone with almost no knowledge of astronomy, and no idea how the entire Earth looked like, or how old it was, or what was directly above or below it, simply didn't interpret the bible the same way you did, and told everyone to believe what they saw. If there were people who could read the bible and make independent interpretations, they probably couldn't speak loudly about it without being persecuted, since speaking contrary to what the bible says (or what they interpreted it to say) would mean getting tortured or killed, as per the punishments of heathens--as they believed what the bible said. Another possibility--it's written all over the bible about how great--and terrible God is. If the person who read the book, not knowing the truth, or denying it and believing whatever he reads as truth, then he might as well be afraid of God, and simply done everything he could as it is said in the bible. Perhaps your interpretation doesn't make God seem terrible or fear-inspiring--but there are people that only believe in God out of fear. Maybe you believe it's wrong, or that they have the "wrong" interpretation of the bible, but by asserting that the bible is metaphorical, you have invalidated your interpretation of the bible as mere opinion, and can be no more "correct" than anyone else who interprets the bible and says God is terrible.