This story is archived
"Is Religion Built Upon Lies"? Harris vs. Sullivan »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 years, 7 months ago"It took two centuries of continuous ingenuity to substantially improve upon Isaac Newton's work. How difficult would it be to improve the Bible? It would be trivially easy, in fact. You and I could upgrade this "inerrant" text - scientifically, historically, ethically, and yes, spiritually .." Sam Harris
Read Full Story at dangerousintersection.org »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 77
-
RickyDawkins
June 3, 2007, 1:17 a.m.Consider the possibility of improving the Ten Commandments. This would appear to be setting the bar rather high, as these are the only passages in the Bible that the Creator of the universe felt the need to physically write himself. But take a look good look at commandment #2. No graven images? Doesn't this seem like something less than the-second... admonish-a... Almost any precept we'd put in place of this prohibition against graven images would augment the wisdom of the Bible (Don't pretend to know things you don't know? Don't mistreat children? Avoid trans fats?). Could we live with all the resulting problems due to proliferating graven images? We'd manage; somehow.
-
RickyDawkins
June 3, 2007, 1:25 a.m.What is the intellectual justification for considering the Bible to be the inspired word of God, given how much bad stuff (like slavery) is in there, and how much good stuff (like all of science) isn't? Do you really think that no mere mortals could have written Mark, Matthew, John and Luke? Not even the combined talent of a first-century Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy? It seems to me that this textual claim really lies at the core of the matter: either the Bible is a book like any other great work of literature, or it's a magic book. Once one accepts it to be a magic book, .. it seems to me that the basis for being a Christian (as a opposed to anything else) evaporates. Would it really surprise you if God told you that the Bible was a product of fallible, human minds? And if this wouldn't truly astound you, how can you claim to be so certain of the doctrine of Christianity?
-
ETproductions
June 3, 2007, 2:01 a.m.Very interesting repartee. But I'd like to take up one point that Sam Harris raised in defense of Atheism.
"Consider the possibility of improving the Ten Commandments. This would appear to be setting the bar rather high, as these are the only passages in the Bible that the Creator of the universe felt the need to physically write himself. But take a look good look at commandment #2. No graven images? Doesn't this seem like something less than "the second most important point upon which to admonish all future generations of human beings"?
While Andrew Sullivan's quote is interesting and egalitarian, it isn't responsive to the question raised by Harris, and I can only guess that the editor had a hand in that.
-
ETproductions
June 3, 2007, 2:03 a.m.The fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths is that Creator made man to have someone to love, and in hopes of having that love returned. Building a love robot would be as ridiculous as buying an inflatable love doll and thinking that satisfies the deep human need to be loved. So Commandment 2 is warning us against setting up false idols -- things of our own making -- then turning our affection toward them as if they were our Creator and not the other way around.
-
jdhatl
June 3, 2007, 2:09 a.m.Isaac Newton spent just as much time trying to figure out when Jesus was coming back as he did discovering the English version of calculus. He was indeed the bedrock of our current scientific reality, but he himself was a puritan (viewed then with the same derision in enlightened circles as dominionist christianity is viewed by progressives today) Not to diminish the original nutty Newt's pure genius or anything, but he was very christian
-
Ciera-Marie
June 3, 2007, 9:52 a.m."That's why I am such a dogged defender of pluralism and secularism - because I believe secularism alone does justice to the profundity of the claims of religion. The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus."
-
Ciera-Marie
June 3, 2007, 10:20 a.m.I as a former Catholic and as a Christian have a minor problem with the Catholic Church; the Christian denominations that sat down with the Catholic Church to decide WHICH texts to include in the bible, which to withhold (and why) and who gets to hold them (during the 1600's).
When the Christians faiths sat down together to decide what was included and what wasn't 24 texts were excluded because they were to intellectual for us uneducated peoples. They were to be included at a later date and the Catholic Church will hold them. They are still being held in the Vatican in a secret room and there is silence as to when the rest will be released.
The above response I had to write (I guess to add to Mr. Harris point about the Catholic Church and the bible), as I'm still on Beliefnet reading the exchange. I went beyond the initial submission. I encourage others to do the same.
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: User banned.
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: User banned.
-
Macondo
June 3, 2007, 2:18 p.m.I see no conflict between the Harrison and Sullivan on this paper.
Each is making abstract consideration of different subjects.
It is a common mistake to expect the Bible has the explanation of the cosmos excluding a scientific angle. This mistake applies to the Koran, the Talmud etc if analyzed by fundamentalists.
This "books" do not replace scientific evidence, and they where recopilated at a time scientific knowledge was very limited.
I am a free thinker who underwent education in Catholic schools. (Jesuits.)
The professors in philosophy and religion pointed out how the Bible was mostly allegoric and not to be taken literally.
It was the accumulation of histories and myths produced by the still primitive minds, to explain issues to primitive people.
We were educated in evolution and told the Genesis was the simplified explanation of the process of evolution for the level of understanding at the time.
Under the same concept the Big Bang did not contradict.
-
edromar2
June 3, 2007, 3:07 p.m.There are a plethora of Bible accounts already to be chosen among, each suggesting different theological and historical views. Just last year there was a new publication of a newly discovered Gospel of Judas that I found to agree almost word for word at places with the account of similar events in the Gospel of Joseph of Arimathea that my family's bible bearers have been secretly passing down for two K years. That gospel of a non-supernatural life and teaching of Jesus that was planted in Britain to save the account until men had grown to allow truth not based on faith offers hope enough for mankind without resorting to making things up.
-
wildman6557
June 3, 2007, 6:54 p.m.One thing to keep in mind is that Fundamentalism is a specific form of Christianity with its own interpretation of the Scriptures. It is NOT a literal interpretation of the Scriptures (that being impossible). It IS specifically slanted towards 20th Century America, which is one of the reasons it has done so well in the United States.
It is better if one reads the Bible for ones self and decide for ones self what it says. But that is maybe too much to expect of most people.
-
LiberalsSmell
June 3, 2007, 7:36 p.m.I like this idea but surely they could have gotten someone who can argue on behalf of the Bible and religion better than Andrew Sullivan.
-
-
RickyDawkins
June 3, 2007, 10:29 p.m.If God loves the world, he has a terribly noncommittal way of showing it. Why rig a silly game in which only the poorly educated and mentally unbalanced are perfectly tuned to glimpse the truth of your existence, while smart, well-adjusted, and well-educated people (like yourself) must wrestle with doubt, barricade themselves behind euphemism, and cling to spurious "mysteries" to keep from tumbling into unbelief? You beckon me to a world in which George Bush and James Dobson have an effortless bead on the deepest conceivable truth; meanwhile, 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences may well be doomed for eternity by their skepticism. It's hard for me to imagine that this scenario seems even remotely plausible to you--but this is Christianity at a glance.
-
kedirian
June 3, 2007, 11:58 p.m."....And God created us in his image!"
What chutzpah! It is the typically Jewish oblique way of being able to ascribe to "God" all manner of human characteristics, anger, revenge, wrath,connivance, Love,... in other words, He is like us, except on a larger scale.
And all this only to...try and control other humans!
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: User banned.
-
Mutainia
June 4, 2007, 1:57 a.m.Religion built upon lies? The Book of Mormon use to say American Indians would turn "white and delightsome" if they became Mormons until it was changed to "pure and delightsome". The Qu'ran infers that the moon AND the sun orbit a stationary earth, and, that the sun was found setting in murky water. Also, the Qu'ran says there is "no compulsion in religion" and Allah is the "most compassionate, most merciful". Yeah, I'd have to say religions are built upon lies. Most, for sure.
-
Robocat
June 4, 2007, 4:17 a.m.Religion is built on more than just lies. It consists of dillusional thinking surroundrd by an impenetrable wall that logic has little chance against.
I tried to tell a religious friend of mine of contradictions I recently found in the Bible. Those being to name a couple:
And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39)
"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)
My friend said they are not contradictions and that I am taking them out of context.
-
Mutainia
June 4, 2007, 11:40 a.m.I was led to believe that Jesus came into the world to Save sinners so they WOULDN'T be judged. A better translation of John 9:39 should read, "BeCAUSE of judegment..."
-
-
Radiofreeeuropa
June 7, 2007, 10 p.m.Ricky, it seems there is a certain psyche that can not grasp that atheism means just that - no theology. It is not a religion or a concocted L. Ron Hubbard invention to improve on religion. It's none of the above. The only thing atheists have in common is simply a rejection of mythology as "real and true". It is not a belief system at all.
The first 76 comments are shown. Show all 77 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
