Americans apparantly hate atheists

Eat at Joe's.

Yep

Psalm 118:22 "The stone which the builders rejected (losers) Has become the chief corner stone."

The ideas of other religions are very important to understanding the Bible. For instance:

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

That's Genesis 1:1. Literal translation: In the beginning created Elohim the heavens and the Earth.

Elohim = plural of El

El = The Canaanite God who had Asherah as his wife. El was father of Ba'al and other Gods.

"Wait, wait"...some people say..."El is just a generic term for 'God', this El isn't the same El the Canaanite worshipped."

Well, you have a problem there, because Asherah is mention in relation to the OT God many times (though in the KJV Asherah is often translated as 'pole' or 'grove').

2 Kings 23:4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven.

Notice that these artifacts are in the TEMPLE OF THE LORD, so obviously the Jews of the time believed their El to be the one and the same with the Canaanite El.

I could go on, and describe how El merged with the storm God Yahweh, but I'm simply answering your question, not educating.

I would be curious to know why anyone who studies the Bible finds it more affirming of their atheist outlook.

Because when reading in the original languages, and with an understanding of the surrounding cultures of the time, it's obvious that the Jewish deity is borrowed and compiled from other religions and cultures. Knowing that, how can you take it as an inspired and divine work?

Heh, you'd have to do a lot more than that to offend me. I just wanted to know why, how your answer could be so simple after 30+ years of study (your own admission). But you're right, you don't have to share and I don't expect you to.

But I'd caution you against saying you're not simple minded, and then using a single individual as a means to explain the shared feelings of an entire nation. That's not a critical thinker's mindset.

@br0kenrabbit: Now THAT'S how you answer a question! When someone tells me they have 30+ years of religious study under their belt, of multiple religions, this is what I expect. :P

I think the way one looks at "divine inspiration" can differ from person to person, and how things end up the way they do in any text is interesting to examine. It's like thinking about the creation story, since it's on topic. Imagining that the world was created in six literal days is easy, but trying to critically apply that line of thinking is logically challenging. Perhaps religious texts are the same way. Perhaps they weren't meant to be created in a day, but through inspiration evolved into the texts they were meant to be?

I very much enjoy these sorts of conversations when people are open to the discourse and stray from simple conclusions or damaging rhetoric. That's not to say I haven't been guilty of that from time to time -- I am more than willing to admit my mistakes.

The religious texts that fascinate me most are the septuagint as well as three different translations of the Qur'an. Sadly I do not know how to read Hebrew, though I do know ancient Latin and Greek (largely in a scholarly way, not so much conversational).

EDIT: I don't know why your reply isn't in my notifications. It's really the reply I was hoping to see.

<3 you nutz

That isn't a very compelling argument for divine inspiration. I mean maybe you're right but if that's truly the case I'd argue God has a pretty incompetent PR team. Same thing with theist's trying to incorporate divine guidance into evolution - why would God use evolution of all things as a tool for creation? From an engineering perspective humans are a mess. There are explanations for why God made the administrative decisions that he chose to make but they aren't very flattering towards his character - they range from amusement, boredom to malice.

Why not? How would you know any better than a higher power that created you? Why wouldn't God use evolution? What if it's all part of the plan and dinosaurs existed so we'd all have oil to bicker about? ;)

WHO KNOWS. I do know that when discussing something like a creator, I typically don't do so with the mindset, "How idiotic would God have to be..." I think if there is a God, a being powerful enough to create everything we see, it's likely that god knows what he/she/ze is doing. I think it's more compelling to consider the the "how" of creation and evolution and not the "why," which is why I believe deism is so fascinating.

I think you're presumptuous in this conversation as well. Because you don't understand, you choose to apply human characteristics to something that is very not human.

I think it's also compelling to embrace the idea that we simply do not have all the answers. Please don't confuse the wisdom of knowing how little we actually know with the all-too-easy "-because God."

This thread is way, way off base now. :P

Yeah the notifications are still screwed up. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, sometimes I get a notification a day or so after it's posted, even though other notifications come through just fine.

I haven't found a religion yet that isn't an amalgamation of things that came before, though they will tweak and truncate various aspects and introduce some of their own ideas. Nonetheless, I can't take them seriously as divinely inspired when their evolution from this form to that is so apparent.

Biblical translations really throw everything off, and I'm not just talking about the nephesh/aionos type mistranslations, but rather you lose the cultural significance that really allow you to understand not only the mindset of the author, but where the work in general fits into the cultural whole. Understanding the culture is of paramount importance if you are to understand the religion that arose therein, and I'm not just talking about the Abrahamic religions, either.

You can take a fish out of water and study the fish and ascertain certain things about it, but unless you get wet and investigate the environment that fish is from, you're never going to have a full understanding of it.

Christians in particular do themselves a great disservice by typically relying solely on translated texts, with no investigation beyond that. Muslims at least understand that to truly understand the Qur'an you must read it in Arabic (though it was written in a more archaic Arabic, as the language wasn't fully developed during the time of Mohammed). If Christians would devote themselves to studying the original texts (or at the very least that of the Torah), their understanding of their religion would be totally different than what they profess now. And that's assuming that they still took it as the divine word.

See, it's no so much that Christians profess faith that bothers me so much, it's that they do so with absolute certainty that they are right when they hardly know the first thing about what they're professing. And add to that annoyance that many of them believe it their duty to subject all of society to their particular interpretation. It's infuriating.

And speaking of Latin, should your sig read: Libera Te Ex Inferis?

:-p

@br0kenrabbit: I can certainly appreciate those viewpoints.

Often times I wonder how much damage we could save by encouraging people not to stick to their guns, but to -- as you put in compelling words -- "...get wet and investigate the environment that fish is from." It's too easy to take sides, which must be part of human nature.

And actually, my sig is actually the name of an album by the band, Zao. But yes, I do believe that would be the more correct way to spell it out. :P

neat, another reason to completely discount all Americans

The reason why God wouldn't use evolution is simple - evolution doesn't create optimally designed organisms. Every part of the human body has gone through millions of years of re-purposing. Our eyes originally developed to see underwater and now they have been re-purposed for sight on dry land. But the thing is they aren't optimized for sight on dry land, they're just "good enough" to get us by. The same is true for the human vertebrae, it had originally evolved for walking on four legs and was then re-purposed for walking on two. But it's not optimized for upright walking as the millions and millions of people who suffer from chronic back pain every year will tell you. These aren't signs of an intelligent design.

You say that a being powerful enough to create everything we see likely knows what he's doing. Perhaps, but it's a leap of logic to go from that to ascribing benevolence to this entity. That's very wishful thinking. Who's to say God isn't malevolent? It's quite possible that we're just ants under God's magnifying glass. What if God's simply ambivalent? It's extremely narcissistic to think that this was all made with us in mind. From God's perspective our seemingly advanced intelligence is negligibly better than the trillions of cells that make up our bodies, let alone the millions of other more advanced organisms on this planet.

And I can't help but find it odd that you're now saying that it's much more compelling to consider the "how" of creation and evolution instead of the "why" when not too long ago you were telling me the importance of asking "why" and that there are few things worse than discouraging people from asking the question.

Most atheists come across as fairly obnoxious, just as much as some Islamic extremist shouting in a mic. Pretty sure most people who come across them can't stand them not because of the believes but because of the toxic personality.

Have you ever considered that you just never notice the atheists who aren't obnoxious?

I have but practically every one I have come across (primarily the internet) are exactly as described.

Including Richard Dawkin.

Perhaps you only notice obnoxious atheists because of their in-you-face attitude. If they didn't display such behaviour, you probably wouldn't know they were atheists in the first place.

Eh, na.

"Personally, I am atheist and don't believe in such things due to e.t.c.."

VS

"People are so fucking stupid and religion and evil, wake up"

Being civil, objective and reasonable isn't hard. I think maybe they are just arseholes.

What is discriminatory about this? Aren't people entitled to personal preferences anymore?

@BSC14: That's funny, glad i am not living in that country...

On a somewhat different note, I've always known that the young turks is a liberal news outlet but I never perceived it as a bad thing. I mean it never stood in the way of watching and enjoying them. But damn that video was painfully partisan and biased. It's like the liberal answer to Fox news.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination

It is literally the definition of discrimination.

"The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex"

I can't see how that definition would stop me from having personal preferences. I'm not going to unjustly or prejudicially treat someone of a different category of people or because of racial, sexual...etc grounds in public settings. But that is not to say I cannot employ differential preferences when it comes to my intimate life.

If this is discrimination, then refusing to date a fat or a short person is discrimination too, which is something that would be quite absurd and idiotic.

They sometimes over do it. But mostly they criticize liberals and conservatives

I'm not entirely sure that the bolded statement is correct.

I'm far from an expert on the subject, but the being understood as 'God' first revealed Himself as Elohim in Genesis 1, yes, then later revealed Himself as Yahweh, and much latter, Yahweh reveals himself as El Shaddai. Like you said, El is the Canaanite Father God and the creator of Baal and all of these names are in some way related to the god El:

Yahweh is an epithet of El (there is also the statement describing Yahweh as, "the ever present one,” around where the word Yahweh is used) and the use of Shaddai, while not fully understood, roughly means “God Almighty,” when combined with El, as if to say Elohim/Yahweh is not just better than Baal, but He is better than the creator of Baal as well.

God reveals himself as either Elohim/Yahweh/El Shaddai in several other books of the Old Testament. Each name or title is supposed to convey a different message for a different purpose, or, in many cases used to help God’s people recognize and understand Him.

Don't watch them. I've always loathed it.

"Wait, wait"...some people say..."El is just a generic term for 'God', this El isn't the same El the Canaanite worshipped."

Well, you have a problem there, because Asherah is mention in relation to the OT God many times (though in the KJV Asherah is often translated as 'pole' or 'grove').

2 Kings 23:4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven.

Notice that these artifacts are in the TEMPLE OF THE LORD, so obviously the Jews of the time believed their El to be the one and the same with the Canaanite El.

I particularly hate that host in the video. He's really obnoxious and he just tries too hard.

That woman on the other hand...

Every group has assholes, so why would atheists be any different

What does it say of Christianity when the reason one forgives the murderer of their child is because God wants them to? To say such a thing is a negative statement and reflection on the entire faith, isn't it? It takes much more strength to forgive or do good for others out of the goodness of one's heart than because of what some belief tells you you should do. If you take God away, what is left? It's a very anti-humanistic perspective.

Let me break this down for you, in Kings 1 and in 2, there are a series of bad or unfaithful kings that ascend to the throne in Jerusalem/Judah/Israel. All of these bad kings instituted Baalism or other idol worship, and all of them were killed. Ahab was killed, Ahaz was killed, and in Jeremiah, Amon was killed. Also during Ahab's reign, Elijah challenged the entire Baalism pantheon and proved any of the gods utterly incapable of accepting a sacrifice, while Yahweh was able to accept the sacrifice instantaneously when Elijah prayed to Him. Clearly, Elijah was praying to a different god than any of the Baal's. Also on the note of Elijah, 'Elijah' means 'Yahweh is God.'

Second of all, as far as that passage, try reading the full passage: he takes the idols and burns them. This is after the reign of one those unholy kings, and when the people of God returned to worship Him by ending all idol worship in the Temple of the Lord (Yahweh). Idol worship in the Temple is also repeatedly referred to as 'desecrating the Temple.'

Yep, but you're missing the bigger picture. All evidence suggests that the monotheists were the revolutionaries. Schisms in religion are hardly ever quite.

As evidence, both El and Yahweh preexisted as members of the Canaanite pantheon. El, father of the Gods, Yahweh the storm/war God (as he is often depicted in the OT). The 'Kenite hypothesis' is pretty much accepted. Here's the wiki quip on the subject for brevity:

Early worship of Yahweh likely originated in southern Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.[14] It is probable that Yahu or Yahweh was worshipped in southern Canaan (Edom, Moab, Midian) from the 14th century BCE, and that this cult was transmitted northwards due to the Kenites. This "Kenite hypothesis" was originally suggested by Cornelius Tiele in 1872 and remains the standard view among modern scholars.[15]

In its classical form suggested by Tiele, the "Kenite hypothesis" assumes that Moses was a historical Midianite who brought the cult of Yahweh north to Israel. This idea is based on an old tradition (recorded in Judges 1:16, 4:11) that Moses' father-in-law was a Midianite priest of Yahweh, as it were preserving a memory of the Midianite origin of the god. According to Exodus 2, however, Moses was not a Midianite himself, but a Hebrew from the tribe of Levi. While the role of the Kenites in the transmission of the cult is widely accepted, the historical role of Moses finds less support in modern scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_%28Canaanite_deity%29#Origins

And people wonder why I don't tend to get along well with individuals in these groups.

This doesn't surprise me much at all, sadly. I wouldn't be at all surprised if my parents were in this category. In fact, I've often speculated that if I ever had kids they'd try to baptize them in secret or sneak them off to Sunday school meetings.

I know what you mean, luckily it's not that bad here in europe

@jun_aka_pekto: and everyone you remotely care about is religious?

I'm atheist, there's nothing out there, never has been and just plain isn't anything out there. Simple, my disbelief of a supernatural being is absolute and unwavering.

Being an atheist It doesn't have any bearing on those who I care about. Neither do religion.

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It seems rather odd that an omnipotent being uses a process with takes a staggeringly long time and leaves useless and energy intensive design flaws.

'Guided evolution' is merely religion trying to conform with modern knowledge with out making a lick of sense.

The concept of evolution doesn't fit in with god crafting man in his image, nor does it fit in with the Bible's time line at all. If you're Christian, you pretty much have to pick and choose which parts of the faith fit your lifestyle - which makes most Christians no more than hypocrites. You might as well just believe whatever you want, and believe you're going to heaven, because that's exactly what the majority of ignorant Christians do anyways. I've yet to meet any Christians to express concern of their piety to me.

God could use evolution because he has a sense of humor or because because. One, he doesn't need to explain himself to you and two, don't think of God as this always serious dude, he can be a swell guy too.

Why is God always assumed to be a patriarchal figure?

Because there's no way a woman would've fucked up so bad

God can (or not) be anything you want it to be. It is magical.

... People need to understand how the first amendment works within the United States.. Specifically neo-cons who are indeed prejudice.. You can have your opinion, and you are free to state it.. Your not going to be imprisoned for it, but in turn people have the right to tell you how full of sh!t you are.. This constant play on the "victim" card as of late that people with prejudices are some how "victims" is fvcking absurd, and they clearly don't understand how the first amendment works.. If people can't handle criticism by stating a opinion, than you shouldn't be stating it loud.. Don't get me wrong I have seen this sh!t even on the left, but it seems to be extremely prevalent right now on the conservative side of politics..

Lemme play devil's advocate here for a minute. God creates the earth, creates us beings capable of being sinful, we sin (big surprise), god sends a piece of herself down to be sacrificed (as a man, naturally), brings her "son" into the world through birth (because the female birthing process is beautiful), but ensures it's a virgin birth (because the male act of procreation isn't), and says that the only way we can get to heaven now is if we believe in her and recognize her sacrifice, BUT all the evidence points to her not existing. So, when we examine the evidence which SHE left with the brains that SHE gave us and naturally arrive at the conclusion that she doesn't exist, she gets mad and asks how we could reject her after all she did for us, it can ONLY mean that we don't love her. Sounds like a woman to me.

Okay, I think that fills my quota of horrible things said for the month. I wasn't raised Catholic, but I feel like I need to do that thing with the rosary nonetheless.

Ha, that is quite a definition of horrible things to say. You gotta sin like you mean it.

Religious people can't understand that sadly. When christians claim that the earth is 5000 years old it is very telling

Very telling of what?

Ignorance of the established scientific facts?

You seem to be very comfortable generalizing "most Christians" and their hypocrisy, as well as call at least a portion of Christians inherently ignorant. These are things I understand from your post.

What I don't understand is why evolution doesn't fit in with God crafting man in his image, nor how it fails to fit within the timeline of the Bible. Can you elaborate on those points?