>Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book.
>This is a common criticism: The idea that the atheist is guilty of a literalist reading of scripture; and that it’s a very naive way of approaching religion; and there’s a far more sophisticated and nuanced view of religion on offer and the atheist is disregarding that. A few problems with this: Anyone making that argument is failing to acknowledge just how many people really do approach these texts literally or functionally - whether they’re selective-literalists, or literal all the way down the line. There are certain passages in scripture that just cannot be read figuratively. And people really do live by the lights of what is literally laid out in these books
He's right.
/thread
>a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books.
Neither the Old nor the New Testament are authored by God. Only the Koran claims to be.
>there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why
>there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition
In the Old Testament and in the Koran. There is absolutely none of that in the New Testament, which is what Christianity is founded on.
>There are certain passages in scripture that just cannot be read figuratively.
There is nothing in the New Testament that requires that.
This is an effective argument against Islam, a partially adequate argument against Judaism, and entirely irrelevant to Christianity.
>Sam "dude what if I just copy utilitarianism but with SCIENCE lmao" Harris
>Sam "Kill people for thoughtcrimes" Harris
>Sam "Publically spanked by Noam Chomsky" Harris
That's explained in the cannon. Humans are given "free will." and earth exists as a test of will.
It's kinda bullshit, but there would be no point in earth at all if god gave us the answer to everything immediatly.
>>270483
>given
>free will
>given
>>270483
>free will
>Biblical
Top kek
>cannon
Maybe you should load yourself into a cannon and get launched to the troposphere so you wouldn't litter the board with such horseshit posts
>>270552
>Calvinist
>>270463
And yet the population of Muslims rises while the population of Christians dwindle.
TAKBIR
>>270432
He is correct. What were you going for?
>>270558
>I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.
>"And it shall be that when they say to you, 'Where should we go?' then you are to tell them, 'Thus says the LORD: "Those destined for death, to death; And those destined for the sword, to the sword; And those destined for famine, to famine; And those destined for captivity, to captivity."' "I will appoint over them four kinds of doom," declares the LORD: "the sword to slay, the dogs to drag off, and the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy.
>The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.
>He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
>For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
>He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will
>But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
>All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
>You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
All this language delusion
Dude, we know this since the 18th century, why do these guys still treat such things as if they were some new revelations?
>>270432
Please explain the nuance of 2 Kings 2:23-25
>23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
>>270483
>apatheist
>talking about God
Do you even know what the word means?
>earth exists as a test of will
Tell that to all the kids who die before their third birthday.
>It's kinda bullshit, but there would be no point in earth at all if god gave us the answer to everything immediatly.
This is a convenient cop out for religion not giving any real answers.
>>270467
This triggers me because it gets Dennett entirely wrong. Dan Dennett is a heterophenomenologist who believes that people's verbal descriptions of their mental state isn't a perfect representation of how the conscious mind actually works, and that consciousness will eventually be explained in non-conscious components as neuroscience develops, just like living things can be broken down to non-living components. He doesn't deny consciousness in the same sense that Skinner-esque behaviorists did, he thinks it should be redefined by emerging discoveries, and that "to explain is to explain away", meaning he sees an approach to consciousness that defines it as totally irreducible really explains nothing about it.
![1385969012061[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0du3gGY.jpg "1385969012061[1].jpg")
>>270699
>mfw its actually a legit bible quote
>>270583
So what if you're predestined but you don't know it and then kill a bunch of people? You aren't going to heaven even if you were predestined.
So we're right back where we started.
Fucking Calvinists get the fuck out.
>>270432
>I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person
Well, ALL of the Koran was authored in the 7th century....
>>270699
Respect your elders senpai.
