Obama mentions atheists in Inauguration Speech

Mena

anonymous_joe wrote: »

A lot more Americans would consider themselves Christian than Europeans.

Quite frankly I struggle to see the problem of someone praying to God during such a ceremony. Christian in praying shocker, kind of thing.

If you're an atheist, you don't believe in it, so why would it effect you? If you're not an atheist, it's a prayer.

I guess some people are uncomfortable with the fact that the man holding the keys to the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet seeks guidance from fairies on matters of state.

*I apologise in advance for lowering the tone of this thread"

Goduznt Xzst

Mena wrote: »

I guess some people are uncomfortable with the fact that the man holding the keys to the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet seeks guidance from fairies on matters of state.

*I apologise in advance for lowering the tone of this thread"

Forget that, I'm more worried that the VP Joe Biden was sworn in on the Hogwarts Spell Book :eek:

pepsicokeacola

YAY WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY PROUD OF OURSELVES THAT A MAN A MILLION MILES AWAY MENTIONED A TERM THAT DESCRIBES MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. IM SO PROUD.

pepsicokeacola

pepsicokeacola wrote: »

YAY WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY PROUD OF OURSELVES THAT A MAN A MILLION MILES AWAY MENTIONED A TERM THAT DESCRIBES MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. IM SO PROUD.

Yes. Because, we're not talking about the America a few thousand miles away; we're talking about the America on the planet Zorg, which is, of course, a million miles away.

Daemonic

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Of course, Obama himself is probably an atheist, but I think it will be a long time before we see an openly atheist president in the U.S.

Whether he is or not we'll probably never know. I'm sure a few past US presidents (and a lot of other world leaders) have been/are atheists but keep up the pretense of being religious in public because to do otherwise would be political suicide in most countries.
Politicians are economical with the truth on many topics for the sake of appearances and political power, why should their beliefs be any different.

The Mad Hatter

anonymous_joe wrote: »

A lot more Americans would consider themselves Christian than Europeans.

I don't know of any Americans who would consider themselves Europeans...

OK-Cancel-Apply

Dave! wrote: »

What makes you say Obama is probably an atheist?

Well, I don't know about 'probably', but I certainly bet that he is - just a feeling I get from his speeches. And I think he once made a remark about certain people in the south who "cling to their guns and Bibles".

I know he goes to church, but he would never get elected without doing so.

sink

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't know of any Americans who would consider themselves Europeans...

You obviously haven't been to San Francisco! :pac:

ZuStar

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on though, Origen of Jerusalem and Augustine suggested that the creation of the earth in days could have meant stages in time and this was in the 4th century. No doubt this view probably was around before that time also.

i knew this would be brought up, as it's a very common way to justify contradictions by invoking an idea of "different meanings." it's also a poor excuse for why something that is in the bible makes no sense realistically. on the grounds that jakkass invokes, every statement is true as long as you tweak the definitions of words to suit your needs.

it's confusing to me that so many people who consider themselves critical and rational beings are so easily mollified by this explanation. if the bible is intended to be the epitome of truth about the nature of reality, why is it so unclear and so easy to mold to whatever a particular interest group wants to tout?

either it's metaphorical or it's literal. fiction (or historical fiction) or actual record. it can't be both. like in 'gone with the wind,' we know that the story includes elements of historically relevant social and political environments, but we don't consider it a historical record of what happened during the civil war. it's more of a historical record of how margaret mitchell felt about the civil war.

anonymous_joe

Mena wrote: »

I guess some people are uncomfortable with the fact that the man holding the keys to the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet seeks guidance from fairies on matters of state.

*I apologise in advance for lowering the tone of this thread"

Heh, perhaps, but there's different degrees of guidance seeking. Anyway, I'd rather someone Christian with that extra hate of sin in charge of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's an extra safeguard. :pac:

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't know of any Americans who would consider themselves Europeans...

In all fairness you know what I meant. At least I hope you're smart enough to have worked it out.

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

either it's metaphorical or it's literal. fiction (or historical fiction) or actual record. it can't be both. like in 'gone with the wind,' we know that the story includes elements of historically relevant social and political environments, but we don't consider it a historical record of what happened during the civil war. it's more of a historical record of how margaret mitchell felt about the civil war.

What a simplistic, and nonsensical, assertion. Of course a book (or more accurately a collection of books) can contain both literal accounts and also metaphors. Who on earth set a rule that says "Thou shalt not include literal language and metaphors in the same book"?

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

What a simplistic, and nonsensical, assertion. Of course a book (or more accurately a collection of books) can contain both literal accounts and also metaphors. Who on earth set a rule that says "Thou shalt not include literal language and metaphors in the same book"?

is that really all you gleaned from my post? perhaps i can be more clear for you:

if you have a book that you honestly believe is the ultimate truth about reality, and then exclaim "that part is just a metaphor" or "the language must have been warped over time" every time something in the book doesn't fit with reality as it is readily apparent or scientifically discovered, you are haphazardly picking and choosing what you want to believe based on what you can't refuse to believe any longer. there is no reason, therefore, not to believe that the entire book could be a metaphor, or perhaps a mythology that has been warped as it passed from person to person as in a giant game of telephone.

or let me make it simpler still:

"Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived."
~Oscar Wilde

ZuStar

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Forget that, I'm more worried that the VP Joe Biden was sworn in on the Hogwarts Spell Book :eek:

haha, maybe he can work some magic on our economy.

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

if you have a book that you honestly believe is the ultimate truth about reality, and then exclaim "that part is just a metaphor" or "the language must have been warped over time" every time something in the book doesn't fit with reality as it is readily apparent or scientifically discovered,

And if somebody did do that every time that happened, then that would indeed entirely undercut the Bible's authority.

However, that is not what Christianity does. Most of the miracles described in the Bible don't fit with reality as it is readily apparent or scientifically discovered - yet the vast majority of Christians (apart from a lunatic fringe) still interpret the accounts of those miracles as literal prose, not as mythology or poetry.

However, if the language and context does indicate that a passage is poetry or metaphor, then what is wrong with saying so?

Also, you appear to be implying that Christians change their interpretation of Scripture to fit with scientific discoveries. In the context of a 6-day creation this is actually quite untrue. Early Church Fathers taught that Genesis was an extended metaphor over 1500 years before Lyell or Darwin.

You obviously hold to a different view of the Bible than I do. I wouldn't expect anything different from you as an atheist. However, if you want to discuss those disagreements then surely it would be better to discuss what Christians actually believe and practice rather than inventing strawmen?
Not content with raising Young Earth Creationism in a context where it was irrelevant, you have now created a second straw man by claiming that Christians change their interpretation of the Bible "every time something in the book doesn't fit with reality as it is readily apparent or scientifically discovered". Keep this rate up and you'll have quite an army of scarecrows soon.

"Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived."
~Oscar Wilde

As someone who can be a bit of a smartarse at times, I have to admire Wilde as the ultimate smartarse. However, I wouldn't want to live my life according to his wisecracks.

philologos

PDN, apparently as Christians we are meant to take the Bible literally so that Jesus was talking about seeds, sowers, weeds, but nothing really spiritual, just to chill out the mood inbetween his moral teaching. Couldn't be parable surely?

Dades

Nobody ever thought Jesus was giving horticultural tips when he spoke of where to sow his seeds, however we all know that Genesis was taken as fact until human science showed it to be implausible.

Creationists are well aware of this distinction, which is why they cling so fiercely to the original explanation. They don't want to disagree with something in the bible they know was not meant as a metaphor.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Nobody ever thought Jesus was giving horticultural tips when he spoke of where to sow his seeds, however we all know that Genesis was taken as fact until human science showed it to be implausible.

That isn't entirely true either, as I've said previously in this thread, many early Christian figures suggested that the 7 days could have been more stages rather than literal days. Augustine, and Origen of Jerusalem are the two I can think of right now who held such a stance.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Nobody ever thought Jesus was giving horticultural tips when he spoke of where to sow his seeds, however we all know that Genesis was taken as fact until human science showed it to be implausible.

So when did human science demonstrate this to be implausible? Must have been before St Augustine. Was there a early version of Darwin beavering away diligently in the Galapagos in the 3rd Century AD?

The Mad Hatter

anonymous_joe wrote: »

In all fairness you know what I meant. At least I hope you're smart enough to have worked it out.

Yeah, but it still won't stop me making fun of you

Dades

Was Genesis universally (in a Middle Eastern kind of way) accepted or not as fact after it was written, for hundreds of years?

I don't see how the musings of a 4th century monk changes this.

Rev Hellfire

In the middle ages the view of the bible as scientifically authoritative was seriously challenged by humanities and pretty much lead to the decline of the scholastic school.

The idea that the bible is to be taken literally seems to be particular to athiests and fundamental christians only

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The idea that the bible is to be taken literally seems to be particular to athiests and fundamental christians only

This just isn't the case. Most (except a few small sects) believe that the new testament story of Jesus' life is literally true, that he lived, taught, performed miracles, was crucified and rose from the dead. Yes they accept that some of his reported speech is parable and metaphor, and some serious biblical scholars may even argue that a small amount of what is normally accepted as literal is actually metaphor, however these are a tiny minority focusing on a tiny part of the text.

The same can be said for much of the OT, the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt is taken literally by most, most Christians actually *do* believe that a real historical event is being described here (the fact that a few may baulk at some of the more outlandish claims like the parting of the red sea does not alter the fact that a huge majority of Christians interpret the story literally rather than a metaphor for something else)

How you can argue that the only people who take the bible literally are atheists and fundamentalist Christians is beyond me.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

I don't see how the musings of a 4th century monk changes this.

If "1984" has thought us anything, its that if you look at history from the correct angle with the right amount of ignorence and editing that you can see whatever you want. Go back 2 generations and your average PDN's and Jakkass's would of adamantly told you that genesis was a literal account of how this world and Universe was formed and that we did not evolve from primates but where made, literally, from dust and that eve was made, literally, from a rib extracted from Adams side, fast forward to today and they have now completely forgotten their lineage and are instead looking at their history through rose tinted glasses that can only focus on the ramblings of Augustine.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Was Genesis universally (in a Middle Eastern kind of way) accepted or not as fact after it was written, for hundreds of years?

I don't see how the musings of a 4th century monk changes this.

I presume we are talking about the first few chapters of Genesis rather than the whole book?

We don't know how it was interpreted for the first few hundred years after it was written since we don't have any writings from that long ago. However, based on what we do know about the Ancient Near East, many biblical scholars, historians and anthropologists believe that its earliest readers would not have taken it literally. It was a genre of literature that was not merely pre-historic and pre-scientific, but supra-historic and supra-scientific. It's not that the authors were wrong about the details of how the world was made - they simply didn't care. Those details were irrelevant to what they were actually trying to say.

For the majority of the Christian Church's history (which is surely what we are really talking about here) there has been no consensus as to whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Augustine was probably the most seminal thinker, apart from the apostle Paul, in the first 1000 years of Christianity. So dismissing his thought as "the musings of a 4th Century monk" in this context is like dismissing Das Kapital from any discussion on Communism as "the musings of a German historian". Augustine's interpretation of Genesis 1 was not based on any scientific discovery, but rather on his own logic (he did not see how life could possibly have existed for a day before the creation of the sun).

Up until the Reformation, opinion remained divided on how to interpret Genesis 1. Aquinas, for example, was undecided whether it should be taken literally or whether to follow Augustine's ideas. The Reformers took a more literalistic view, but Young Earth Creationism never became the dominant interpretation within Christianity as a whole.

Listen to Austin Cline -Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance:

Prior to the advent of the Young Earth Creationist movement which came to dominate the debate during the latter half of the 20th century, the Day-Age and Gap theories were the dominant views among Christian Creationists. As a matter of fact, for the longest time the differences between those advocating evolution and those opposing evolution were not as great as they tend to be today. Creationists who disagreed with evolution were often willing to accept the progressive nature of fossil records, the great age of the earth, the figurative language of Genesis, and more.

Even at the margins of science and religion, it would have been difficult to find someone who advocated a young earth and a total rejection of all findings of evolution. Old Earth Creationism was, quite simply, the only significant form of Special Creationism which existed and which challenged the science of evolution. Most creationists would have regarded Young Earth Creationism as unnecessarily and unjustifiably extreme. http://atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/p/oldearth.htm

So, it is completely untrue to assert that all, or even most Christians, interpreted Genesis 1 literally until scientific discoveries forced them to do otherwise.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

How you can argue that the only people who take the bible literally are atheists and fundamentalist Christians is beyond me.

Well whenever I see people posting here it seems to be only atheists and the more fanatical followers of Christianity that hold the view that bible is the unchanging word of god and must be taken literally as written.

The majority of Christians seem to take only a small handful of statements from it as historical and scientific fact, namely that the individual known as Jesus existed, died, got up, you know the story.

But beyond those ‘facts’ few believe it to be a historically accurate portrayal of the geological history of the world for example.

Lets face it enough evil has been performed in the name of Christianity that we don’t need to create infantile strawmen to condemn it. (Not that I’m condemning it mind you)

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

So, it is completely untrue to assert that all, or even most Christians, interpreted Genesis 1 literally until scientific discoveries forced them to do otherwise.

Ok, apart from whether or not the earth was created in literal days or epochs, how long has it been commonly understood that Adam was literally created out of the dust and that Eve was literally created from a rib from his side. Would you say a majority of Christians believe and have been believing in theistic evolution? If not then what do they believe regarding the occurrence of humans on this planet.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The majority of Christians seem to take only a small handful of statements from it as historical and scientific fact, namely that the individual known as Jesus existed, died, got up, you know the story.

This is slightly different phrasing, but if the alternative to 'fact' is "made up", "guess" or "lie" then I'm still strongly in disagreement with you, the vast majority of Christians accept all the NT (and a large chunk of the OT) as describing events and things that actually happened, as opposed to being stories invented by men to convey meaning or explain other deeper meanings.

Now twisting this somehow to make it look like I'm saying that the majority of Christians go to the bible for "scientific fact" is disingenuous, I readily accept that those that do are in the minority of Christians (but US figures suggest it might be a substantial minority). However most do accept a literal reading of the NT and much of the OT.

But beyond those ‘facts’ few believe it to be a historically accurate portrayal of the geological history of the world for example.

I agree, there are a few well worn examples (such as the first chapters of Genesis), and as I said above I agree that the numbers believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis is probably a minority (albeit a seizable one), however your original comment covered the entire bible, and I still maintain that the vast majority of Christians accept a literal reading of the majoity of the text.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

It was a genre of literature that was not merely pre-historic and pre-scientific, but supra-historic and supra-scientific. It's not that the authors were wrong about the details of how the world was made - they simply didn't care. Those details were irrelevant to what they were actually trying to say.

Well it's just the writings seem like an description of what happened, not a parable. And what exactly do you have to do to get your writings to qualify as supra-anything? The flat earth guys might have be supra-too, but it didn't stop them from believing it at the time.

Hellfire! wrote:

Well whenever I see people posting here it seems to be only atheists and the more fanatical followers of Christianity that hold the view that bible is the unchanging word of god and must be taken literally as written.

Are you saying you don't know why that is?

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok, apart from whether or not the earth was created in literal days or epochs, how long has it been commonly understood that Adam was literally created out of the dust and that Eve was literally created from a rib from his side. Would you say a majority of Christians believe and have been believing in theistic evolution? If not then what do they believe regarding the occurrence of humans on this planet.

Well, I was referring specifically to the days/epochs thing because that was the particular strawman that sparked off this whole subsection of the thread. However, in time honoured boards.ie tradition why not change the subject when the debate isn't going your way?

I would say a majority of Christians today would believe in theistic evolution.

Historically, no a majority of Christians over the last 2000 years would not have believed in theistic evolution. Nor would they have believed in the theory of relativity, or in the existence of the internet, or in the goal scoring prowess of Thierry Henry.

And, if in another 200 years, science comes up with an alternative model and junks evolution, then I'm sure most Christians will believe in that alternative model. That's because we don't actually read the Bible in order to find out how the world was made, or to discover botanical facts about mustard seeds, or indeed to discover the going rate for a hotel room on the road from Jerusalem Jericho (a detail from the Parable of the Good Samaritan). We read the Bible to discover how to live our lives better, how to glorify God, and to have a good relationship with Him - just like President Obama reads his Bible.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Well it's just the writings seem like an description of what happened, not a parable.

Ah, but now you're doing exegesis - trying to discern what the original authors intended to say. And, as some of your co-religionists have pointed out in another thread, exegesis is nonsense and part of a made-up subject. Apparently, according to them, your bias prevents you from being able to come to any reasonable conclusion as to what the authors actually meant to say thousands of years ago. So, by that reasoning, your statement about how the writings seem is subjective and meaningless.