Fine tuning specifics: Reasons for God (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 02, 2017, 11:56 (2762 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: To blame atheism for the slaughter of the Jews seems to me as destructive a distortion as to blame theism for the jihad. You were defending Olasky’s article, and in my view such distortions can only foster prejudice and conflict. I don’t know what you are referring to when you accuse me of “prejudice about religion”.
DAVID: It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.

dhw: I join you in not recognizing the authority of the bible and in not following any organized religion, but I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful. And so if by “religion” you mean dogma and ritual, I agree that like yourself I am anti (call us both prejudiced if you like).
DAVID: You have described my meaning exactly.

Normally when one person accuses another of being highly prejudiced, it is a criticism, so I wonder why you picked on me when you actually meant both of us. (Actually, I do not regard our shared dislike of dogma and ritual as prejudice, but that’s beside the point.)

TONY:(quoting) "No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."
Dhw: Neither the bible nor the wise people who give us their personal interpretations of the bible, nor the scientists, nor the philosophers - theistic and atheistic - with their unproven and probably unprovable theories can comprehend what goes on, even to the extent that nobody knows if there is any meaning beyond the meaning we as individuals give it. Some of the many authors of the bible were indeed extremely wise, and as an agnostic I can only applaud this unknown author’s insight.

DAVID: There were two or more writers of Genesis according to scholars.
TONY: There were undoubtedly many writers that contributed to the bible. However, they are considered divinely inspired writings (by those that believe in them), and as such are considered to have one author: God. Much like a single author using multiple publishers. It doesn't matter who does the printing, the author hasn't changed.

The quote is from Ecclesiastes, not Genesis, but in any case I very much doubt that it required more than one person to put together those three little sentences. I’m surprised you are focusing on the author(s) rather than on the content of the message, but since both of you have such fixed views about the truth, perhaps you would prefer to ignore that. (Yes, Tony, I am tweaking your beards! )

Dhw: I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful.
TONY: Harmful is a funny topic. Harmful to whom and under what circumstances? If the bible is to be believed, Armageddon would likely destroy millions of people, topple governments, and generally destroy society as we know it, much as the flood did in Noah's time. However, in the long term, if it would mean an end to the evils that plague mankind, would you still consider it harmful?

Your example does not illustrate the point I was making, which concerned religious belief, not your God’s actions or Armageddon. The short answer to your own question, though, is that the story of Noah’s flood has always appalled me, because I cannot believe for one moment that every single man, woman and above all child – apart from Noah and his family – deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth. As for the point that I was making, you really don’t need me to explain, but I will because you have questioned it. Any religious belief that leads a person to cause physical or mental damage to others is what I mean by “harmful”. For example, I am opposed to a belief that drives someone to plant a bomb or crash a truck or plane in the hope that God will reward him for killing infidels. I have no doubt that you will feel the same way.