Obi, you are right that it ultimately comes down to Faith.

I'm not sure how to address the many other points you've raised. Yes, we no longer look to Aristotle for certain scientific conclusions, but we do look to him for philosophic insights, for political ones, for insights on how to classify knowledge and think logically, etc. etc. His writings still have value, even if he didn't have a complete understanding of physics or other hard sciences. In the same way, we can look to Genesis for insight into human nature and human relationships, even if it is not (and was never meant to be) a clear picture of human ancestry.

And you continue to make the mistake that the Bible must all be taken literally, as if God dictated it verbatim. This is the mistake the Fundamentalists make, and it is the most common reason that Secularists have problems as well. I really recommend you look at Timothy Beal's "Rise and Fall of the Bible". It really helps to understand that the Bible is not a Magic 8 Ball that will somehow answer every question. It is a book meant to challenge us, a book meant for us to wrestle with. The Jewish tradition of Biblical commentary, of Midrash, is all about people interacting with the text, re-interpreting it, re-discovering it.

You are clearly a bibliophile. I think you can understand this approach to a great text. I think you are hung up on your perception (and it is one that is wrongly reinforced in our culture, by believers and non-believers alike) that the Bible is this inerrant guidebook, God's direct communication. It isn't like that.

So why do we give it credence? Whence it's authority?

I'll try to answer those questions later.

The short answer is that the Book is old, it has stood the test of time, and been the source of centuries of commentary, of insight, of inspiration. It also is the only source for the revelations that are the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. If one wants to investigate those religious traditions, the Bible contains the source texts.

How about some favorite Bible quotes? Here's one of mine: "After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with and oxgoad. He too saved Israel." Judges 3:31 And a bit more seriously, Matthew 4:17: "From that time on Jesus began to preach, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'"

Dipplayer, I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, as stated in another favorite verse: Second Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." But you and Obi are both correct, it comes down to faith, trust, reliance in, dependence on the God of the universe, who wants to speak to *you.

That quote was the New Living Translation, from http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=all+scripture+is&t=NLT

Mujus, my view of the Bible doesn't preclude it being "inspired by God" or "useful to teach us." Far from it.

"I think you are hung up on your perception (and it is one that is wrongly reinforced in our culture, by believers and non-believers alike) that the Bible is this inerrant guidebook, God's direct communication. It isn't like that."

On the contrary, I don't believe that's the case at all, I don't believe it was God's direct word as...well...I don't believe there was or is a God.

But the writers of the books clearly thought there was one, and clearly wrote these texts as if their ideals were affirmed or approved of (if only in their own mind) by such a deity--

And I judge it as such.

When the text tells me that these laws, laws that allow for slavery and genocide and treat women the same as cattle, are given to Moses by an all-powerful, all-knowing God, I judge not that God, but rather, the people who both created the notion of such a God and those today who subscribe to the belief and, indeed, those who advocate such a God's "word."

Obi - just bear in mind - as I think I've quoted from Carl Sagan before - "You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe."
So maybe what is needed is a thread with favourite quotes from books by atheists.

Bring it. I'd love to analyze those.

And Sagan's quote is bull. A believer doesn't turn off his rational mind. He believes, in part, because there are evidences.

Look, I've been to the place where I was mad at God, where I cursed the heavens, where I lost my faith. And I've passed that dark night of the soul to a newer, more mature faith. Part of that was because I could not deny the evidences. I cannot deny that there is Truth, that there is Goodness, that there is Life. And therefore I could not deny that there was God.

"A believer doesn't turn off his rational mind. He believes, in part, because there are evidences." Player, you've managed to say in two short sentences what I've been trying to say with literally dozens of posts--and you said it better.

" I cannot deny that there is Truth, that there is Goodness, that there is Life. And therefore I could not deny that there was God. " - confirms Sagan's position concisely and clearly.

No. I looked around me at the evidences of reality, and came to the conclusion that God was behind it.

I could turn Sagan's condescending bullshit around to say: "You can't convince an atheist of anything, because their disbelief is not based on rationality; they refuse to believe."

I used to think that the universe were entirely too complex for mere chance. But then I realized that, because I could accept the functions of chemistry and physics operating on a "small" scale and were nearly always predictable given enough calculation and consideration, I could extrapolate back from mechanistic determination to mechanistic determination. Since one result leads to another, however complex it may become, there surely was a nearly-prime movement that led to where we are now. And considering that theoretical physics has the framework to allow something from nothing, that nearly-prime movement has its mover accounted for, in theory, without invoking a miracle.

There is a place where two galaxies have been colliding for a million years. Don't try to tell me that's right. Stars explode. Worlds collide. There's hardly anywhere in the universe where humans can live without being frozen or friend, and yet you believe that a bed is a normal thing. It is a most amazing talent, to think that the whole universe is inside your head. If you believe in truth and goodness, then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.

You know what they say...


Religions are cults with a bigger membership base.

My "favourite" Bible quote off the top of my head is Psalms 137:9.

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy [the Babylonians'] little ones against the stones."

I can hear the "out-of-context" and "different time and place" cries a mile away. One, I filled in the context, as much as Psalms has a context at all. Two, I can't see under what temporal and cultural context it's morally acceptable to kill babies for their nation's offences.

I've chosen this quote for one reason, really: shows the Bible for the barbaric s**tload it is.

Ok, yeah, that's harsh, but that's not God talking--those are the words of the captive Israelites on their way to the land of their captors, after the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem and killed many Israelites. It's an honest record of what they said, which reflects honestly what they felt. Here's the full text (and it's very short):

1 Beside the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept
as we thought of Jerusalem. [fn1]
2 We put away our harps,
hanging them on the branches of poplar trees.
3 For our captors demanded a song from us.
Our tormentors insisted on a joyful hymn:
“Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!”
4 But how can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a pagan land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand forget how to play the harp.
6 May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth
if I fail to remember you,
if I don’t make Jerusalem my greatest joy.
7 O LORD, remember what the Edomites did
on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem.
“Destroy it!” they yelled.
“Level it to the ground!”
8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!
Footnotes:
137:1
Hebrew Zion; also in 137:3.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=137&t=NLTP&x=17&y=10

Still, the fact that "God's chosen people" here is saying to KILL BABIES BY THROWING THEM AGAINST ROCKS is just... at best a sheer display of stupidity and incompetence.

if you actually read the whole Bible God's Chosen People did a lot of bad stuff God didn't like

God never said to do that, they did it themselves

Fortress is correct. God's displeasure at the failures of his Chosen People is a common theme throughout much of the Bible. But I'm more curious about your assertion of 'incompetence' - whose and in what way?

This has a couple problems:
1. God's supposed to be all-powerful. Don't you think he could've, oh, I dunno, STOPPED THE BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING? An all-powerful being that knows of the affairs of humans is burdened with their suffering.
2. A lot of times, God's condoning and performing the atrocities Himself. First example that pops into my mind is the "global flood". Every single human being on the planet, including babies that had nothing to do with the parents' "wickedness", drowned.

We have free will, so we will do evil things. God wants us to have free will so we can love him. A bunch of people he controls cannot truly love him

And think the best way to counter your second point is a theory i have heard before (will try to get the link)

Ever consider that OUR morality is wrong, instead of God's morality is wrong. If God exists, then he is a much higher being than us, wouldn't it make sense for God's morality to be more advanced? I will post the link to the video once i find it

You know, verses 8&9 up there match my feelings towards the barbarians who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I was angry as hell at those animals, and the animals who sent them. Anger is a human emotion, and the outrage at those who have attacked (and in the Jews' case, destroyed) your homeland is a legitimate emotion.

here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrJVTSYLr8

To a certain degree, it's impossible to counter your arguments using human logic. Like Fortress is saying, God is righteous and part of that is possessing righteous anger. Anger can be a sin, but it doesn't have to be. God's anger is right and it is just, and attempting to reconcile this within the constraints of human wisdom and human morality is impossible. Additionally, for Christians and, more precisely, for God, Death is not the end. Admittedly, this is something else that can only be acknowledged theoretically, for me anyway; I cannot honestly say that I welcome death even though I know as a believer what awaits me.

I can't respond to the video itself, I need a transcript (internet's slow). But:

1) Free-will argument. It seems petty in the highest degree for God to create humans to love him, allow them to choose whether to love and worship him or not, and then punish them when some inevitably don't. Also, God's recorded in the Bible as violating free will. First example I can think of is God's repeatedly hardening Pharaoh's heart so he can waste Egypt and look badass.
2) Why do we have to call God moral or deserving of worship? Explain to me why, under any set of circumstances of your choice, someone who kills babies for the sins of their fathers should be loved and worshiped.
3) @dipplayer2004 Yeah, but how does that justify killing their babies? Let's just say that one of the al-Qaeda terrorists was a new father. His child doesn't know anything or share any of its father's beliefs. Would you consider it good or just to kill the BABY as a result of 9/11, assuming we could push a button to teleport the baby into our hands? I certainly hope not. Yes, the anger towards the atrocity-committers is justified, but punishing innocents who happen to be related? That's just wrong.

(1). Why does it matter if it is petty? As i said, we can't understand all that God does (think of Aslan in Narnia, God is not a tame god). And he only hardened Pharoah's heart once, and that was after he had refused several times.

(2). Again, we can't quite understand it. As the video says, God could very well have a morality high above us. We simply can't understand