Question of the Day #71: Enough stupid for everyone!
Brucker Permalink
7 comments
Someone once told me that the Bible was not true because there was no archaeological evidence that the Garden of Eden ever existed. I pointed out to her that she was talking about a place that supposedly existed thousands of years ago that most likely had no artificial structures within it. My late grandmother had a garden that existed about 15 years ago that I doubt you could find archaeological evidence for today, why should she expect more from this ancient Biblical location? There are very good arguments for the falsity of the Bible, but this clearly was not one of them.Does it disturb or embarrass you in any way when fellow atheists make shoddy arguments against the existence of God?
Post a Comment
7 Comments:
Well, I think the argument has a point, its just not quite there yet. Needs something. I think its a good thing she's "thinking outside the box".. or raising her consciousness to things most take as truths just because. It's always a good start. I can even side with agnostic theists when they criticize creationism.
It doesn't embarrass me because I'm not the one being stupid.
It does trouble me though because there's just so much stupidity in the world it's scary.
Archaological?!?
I think my brain just broke.
I get tired of people on both sides making arguments like this.
My biggest pet peeve is seeing an Atheist use the whole "God can't exist, because look at the state of the world" argument... folks, that's not an argument that God doesn't exist, it's just an argument that he's an asshole.
-olly
Yes. I dislike these kinds of arguments very much. Also, "christianity has lead to the deaths/murders/whatever of so many people" in the context of a discussion about whether a religion is TRUE. If we're takling about whether a given religion is *helpful*, cool, but like your point about "state of the world arguments", all it would tend to prove is that the god of the bible is an asshole, not that he does not exist.
Yes, and sometimes I fall into the minority of atheists who are not biblical minimalists. By that, I mean that I've read a whole lot of works from textual scholars and those from the field of archaeology in order to form my view. When you consider an assortment, you start finding scholars who seem to make more sense than others (that is still somewhat of a subjective process).
I, for one, AM annoyed by the assertions that David and Solomon didn't exist, that the Pentateuch was entirely concocted in the few centuries before the turn of the era, and that Jesus was completely mythical -- as opposed to an ordinary human apocalyptic Jew who came to have layers of mythology heaped on at a later time. Yes, I've read Earl Doherty and George Wells and Joseph Wheless and other mythicists. Like the commenter above, I find myself sometimes arguing on the side of the non-literalist theists at times as well.
We would be taken much more seriously if we were to dispense with the "historical" arguments that are as methodologically bankrupt as those of the fundamentalists, the philosophical arguments that are also as poorly conceived, and the textual arguments against apparent contradictions that actually can be resolved in a reasonable way. That isn't to say that there aren't some genuine unresolvable contradictions (there are), but many that are argued ARE resolvable, and we look stupid using them and then standing firm after a reasonable resolution has been provided.
"Does it disturb or [bother] you in any way when fellow atheists make shoddy arguments against the existence of God?"
Yes.
It infers in my mind a bigotry toward either Church/Religion/God (perhaps human authority?). I'm left wondering if such individuals come to their position through reason or through prejudice. In any event, I see an inherent dishonesty in such statements.
For me, atheism doesn't represent an antagonism toward religion or faith, but the lack of supernatural belief within my mind.
I find it preferable to explain the unknown/unexplained by the known/understood. I find it objectionable to explain the known/understood by the unknown.
Back to the point, it is also objectionable to me when belief of, or a rejection of belief of, an unknowable phenomena is disguised as science.
<< Home