Critical thinking on the existence of God

@Leadfoot,

Whenever you're dealing with some big time Holy Joe, the first step is to follow the money.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Somehow, though, I wouldn't expect our buddy, Sedentary, to have the same distain for the Palestinian leaders who live abroad in luxury while exhorting those in Gaza to fight missiles by "baring their chest" and taking the hit. The more of them suckers there are, the more support can be raised by bemoaning attacks on innocent civilians (which increases the "take" for the "leaders," of course).

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Interesting. I thought something in his book didn't smell right but didn't know enough background to know what it was.

Now put yourself in an atheist's position, only the book is the Bible, and then you study up on the background... Wink

1 Reply

@layman,

True that.

With side shows like that going on it makes discussions about 'critical thinking on the existence of God' most difficult.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Palestinian leaders who live abroad in luxury while exhorting those in Gaza to fight missiles by "baring their chest" and taking the hit.

I remember an account by a Palestinian. The Israelis had called the phone of a house (of a suspected terrorist leader) and told them the house would be bombed in 5 minutes. They were a number of children, women, and others inside.

They didn't leave. Instead, in the time they had, they went around the neighborhood and gathered up as many women and children as they could to come in before the bombs came.

The headlines the next day were GREAT! "SCORES OF CIVILIANS KILLED BY WANTON JEW ATTACK!!" The martyrs got the special favors granted by Allah to their ilk, of course.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Now put yourself in an atheist's position, only the book is the Bible, and then you study up on the background...

I do try to do that often.

The problem with studying the real background of the bible is that doing that requires you to contemplate just what God was trying to accomplish. It's not like there are any historical texts you can study to get that. I'm not an expert on theologists (the people who supposedly contemplate such things) but the ones I've read a bit of are as full of dogma as any fundamentalist. Not much 'critical thinking' going on there.

And the people who do contemplate these things without resorting to dogma don't have much to defend their conclusions with. Reason and logic are about all they can stand on. Does the story make sense or not. But then they can be accused of pulling it out of their ass even if it does. It's a problem...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The problem with studying the real background of the bible is that doing that requires you to contemplate just what God was trying to accomplish.

Only if you're begging the question about the existence of said god. Try doing it without that assumption for once. You know, like trying to answer a question without having a preferred answer in advance.

Quote:

It's not like there are any historical texts you can study to get that. I'm not an expert on theologists

Theologians?

Quote:

(the people who supposedly contemplate such things)

You're implying that they don't actually contemplate such things? They're only pretending to?

Quote:

but the ones I've read a bit of are as full of dogma as any fundamentalist. Not much 'critical thinking' going on there.

Well, for one, a lot of those theologians support your god hypothesis. They're the ones who forego critical thinking at the critical question of faith. For another, maybe you should read the full range of theology, rather than just apologists.

Quote:

And the people who do contemplate these things without resorting to dogma don't have much to defend their conclusions with.

Those are the ones who fall back on dogmatic faith, disregarding the need for evidence.

Quote:

Reason and logic are about all they can stand on. Does the story make sense or not.

These two sentences speak volumes. Wowzers. Reasoning and logic are ****, but an invisible, undetectable, magical guy in the sky makes sense. OK.

Quote:

But then they can be accused of pulling it out of their ass even if it does. It's a problem...

People can be accused of anything. What matters is evidence, reasoning and logic. The problem is when you don't have the first and are sloppy with the other two. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:

"The problem with studying the real background of the bible is that doing that requires you to contemplate just what God was trying to accomplish."

Only if you're begging the question about the existence of said god. Try doing it without that assumption for once. You know, like trying to answer a question without having a preferred answer in advance

Yes, 'theologians', not 'theologists', thank you.

If one is interested in the bible enough to contemplate its background, I would assume one has already pondered the question of God and considers it a possibility. If not, why bother?

In my case, the question of God was considered at least a decade before I ever picked up the book.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If one is interested in the bible enough to contemplate its background, I would assume one has already pondered the question of God and considers it a possibility. If not, why bother?

I mainly read it for the sex and violence of it all, eh, Leddy? It ROCKS!

0 Replies

Wasn't there supposed to be some critical thinking?
All I've been seeing lately is critical.

0 Replies

Oooo . . . how witty and clever.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

If one is interested in the bible enough to contemplate its background, I would assume one has already pondered the question of God and considers it a possibility. If not, why bother?

One reason to bother is to approach it from a scholarly point of view in regard to its background, much like one would approach Hessiod's Theogony and Homer's Iliad.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Glad you agree.

0 Replies

Of course, that's nonsense--i don't agree. I was sarcastically referring to your smug, judgmental attitude to others in saying that because their comments are not to your taste, they are not thinking. Of course, you know this.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

One reason to bother is to approach it from a scholarly point of view in regard to its background, much like one would approach Hessiod's Theogony and Homer's Iliad.

That is true, but to be honest, the bible isn't very interesting from a literary point of view but an academic type might have reason to research it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

That is true, but to be honest, the bible isn't very interesting from a literary point of view but an academic type might have reason to research it.

Considering all the accolades heaped on it for its literary value (and there is some)...

...for the most part, it is boring and trite.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...for the most part, it is boring and trite.

It certainly is, unless you pick up the thread of clues in it. Then it can be fascinating! That has been it's main value to me anyway.

There is a reason why it was written the way it is. If everything was written out as factual statements it probably would have been banned or expunged of value long ago. There have been attempts to do so.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
...for the most part, it is boring and trite.
It certainly is, unless you pick up the thread of clues in it. Then it can be fascinating! That has been it's main value to me anyway.

There is a reason why it was written the way it is. If everything was written out as factual statements it probably would have been banned or expunged of value long ago. There have been attempts to do so.

I agree completely, Leadfoot.

Aesop, Hans Christian Andersen, and the Brothers Grimm also guarded against that.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:

"The problem with studying the real background of the bible is that doing that requires you to contemplate just what God was trying to accomplish."

Only if you're begging the question about the existence of said god. Try doing it without that assumption for once. You know, like trying to answer a question without having a preferred answer in advance
Yes, 'theologians', not 'theologists', thank you.

If one is interested in the bible enough to contemplate its background, I would assume one has already pondered the question of God and considers it a possibility. If not, why bother?

In my case, the question of God was considered at least a decade before I ever picked up the book.

I'm not getting your point. I've never denied the hypothetical possibility of a god; I'm just asking those who claim that there is one to support that claim with evidence. I've considered the possibility of the voodoo gods, magic, Shiva, etc etc, but I didn't jump on their bandwagons just because it made me feel good.

Like with your putative god, presumably the same one I used to believe in, upon investigation I simply didn't find any credible evidence to support the claim. Still haven't. Every argument in favor of it has been riddled with logical fallacies, including yours. But my mind is still open to the hypothetical possibility that someday someone might provide such evidence. I'm just not jumping on the bandwagon until someone does so.

2 Replies

@FBM,

How did anything get here, whether it be a cockroach or a galaxy? What got it started?

1. Nothing? Then it's "magic"
2. God? Could be.
3. Nature?

If ya wanna pick 3, it won't be any better defined, sensible, or explanatory than 2. Basically just says what you want to put faith in, and worship, eh?

0 Replies

Critical thinking on the existence of God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know