From are athiest standpoint how do you explain proverbs and Ecclesiastes
Options
Authentic100
Members Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭
you cant deny that there is truth in these books and they can still be applied 2000 years later
Im personally agnostic but even though there is a lot of stuff had to believe in the bible there are some things that cannot just be written off as nonsense. There is some knowledge in there that makes you think "how did they know that?"
Im personally agnostic but even though there is a lot of stuff had to believe in the bible there are some things that cannot just be written off as nonsense. There is some knowledge in there that makes you think "how did they know that?"
Comments
-
There is wisdom within the human race and therefore I would expect to find some of the wisdom in any religious text. However there is nothing in them that seems to exceed the knowledge that would be possessed when the works originated.
-
Like what exactly?
-
Morality exists independent of religion, so while these texts do have some good tidbits in them they are not necessary.
-
Real ? code of ethics
-
Real human code of ethics, Sir. Proverbs was written by @Cain
-
Sorry Tehuti master of knowledge and wisdom. ? of magic
-
reading those books without ? is like eating pizza with no cheese, you cannot get the real taste nor grasps the real meaning.
-
reading those books without ? is like eating pizza with no cheese, you cannot get the real taste nor grasps the real meaning.
I want to believe in ? but there is a lot of ? that makes no sense. -
Authentic100 wrote: »
No worries, believers tell themselves and other that to make themselves feel better and others feel worse. You don't need the ? of the bible to gain understanding from it. -
Authentic100 wrote: »
No one can understand everything and many things people just refuse to accept. -
CynicalAndEbert wrote: »Authentic100 wrote: »
No worries, believers tell themselves and other that to make themselves feel better and others feel worse. You don't need the ? of the bible to gain understanding from it.
If you do not believe in ? you won't get the fullness of what those scriptures are saying -
I think Spinoza was the closest one to getting somewhat of a correct personality of a creator.
-
It's a wonder then why I've gotten more out of the bible since not believing in the ? of the bible. You'd think it'd be the other way around.CynicalAndEbert wrote: »Authentic100 wrote: »
No worries, believers tell themselves and other that to make themselves feel better and others feel worse. You don't need the ? of the bible to gain understanding from it.
If you do not believe in ? you won't get the fullness of what those scriptures are saying
-
What is funny to me about atheism in the US is that they, for the most part, base their negative perception And denial of a creator solely on the judeo christian perception of ? . Like they're the only ones who could have possibly been able to have feasible opinions on a transcendent being that all walks of life of all ages have had their own opinion about.
-
CynicalAndEbert wrote: »
It's a wonder then why I've gotten more out of the bible since not believing in the ? of the bible. You'd think it'd be the other way around.CynicalAndEbert wrote: »Authentic100 wrote: »
No worries, believers tell themselves and other that to make themselves feel better and others feel worse. You don't need the ? of the bible to gain understanding from it.
If you do not believe in ? you won't get the fullness of what those scriptures are saying
I sure would like to know what this means.
-
I've learned more from the bible since not believing in the ? of the bible than when I did believe in the ? of the bible.The True Flesh wrote: »CynicalAndEbert wrote: »
It's a wonder then why I've gotten more out of the bible since not believing in the ? of the bible. You'd think it'd be the other way around.CynicalAndEbert wrote: »Authentic100 wrote: »
No worries, believers tell themselves and other that to make themselves feel better and others feel worse. You don't need the ? of the bible to gain understanding from it.
If you do not believe in ? you won't get the fullness of what those scriptures are saying
I sure would like to know what this means. -
What is funny to me about atheism in the US is that they, for the most part, base their negative perception And denial of a creator solely on the judeo christian perception of ? . Like they're the only ones who could have possibly been able to have feasible opinions on a transcendent being that all walks of life of all ages have had their own opinion about.
Most of the U.S. religious population adheres to Judeo Christian beliefs. American atheists probably don't feel the need to base their denial on a belief they typically don't come across in every day life. Also, the Abrahamic version of ? is the number one interpretation of ? for the modern world. -
CynicalAndEbert wrote: »
I've learned more from the bible since not believing in the ? of the bible than when I did believe in the ? of the bible.The True Flesh wrote: »CynicalAndEbert wrote: »
It's a wonder then why I've gotten more out of the bible since not believing in the ? of the bible. You'd think it'd be the other way around.CynicalAndEbert wrote: »Authentic100 wrote: »
No worries, believers tell themselves and other that to make themselves feel better and others feel worse. You don't need the ? of the bible to gain understanding from it.
If you do not believe in ? you won't get the fullness of what those scriptures are saying
I sure would like to know what this means.
Me too.. -
When you are no longer clinging to a particular belief that causes the sort of bias that inhibits a wider perspective on something, you gain more from it. To use zombie's example, a biased person may read the book and eat one slice only because his mind (or for the purpose of analogy), his appetite will not allow him to eat more. However, a person who reads the book objectively can eat more because they have a bigger appetite, or a more open mind.
