The value of Bible literature for atheism and the value of atheism for Bible literature

[No Robots]

The purpose of this thread is to examine the meaning and value that Bible literature and atheism have for each other. I intend to provide quotations from and links to pertinent literature.

To start, I will offer this little gem from three centuries ago (Albert Radicali as quoted in Dictionnaire des Athées anciens et modernes):

Il semble que Jésus-Christ ait voulu nous, faire entendre que ces hommes, qu'on appelle communément Déistes ou Athées et qui n'ont pas l'esprit gâté et perverti par la superstition, sont plus charitables et infiniment meilleurs que ceux qui l'ont corrompu par les vices et les cruautés qu'inspire la superstition

It seems that Jesus Christ wanted us to understand that these men whom one commonly calls deists or atheists, and who do not have a spirit spoiled or perverted by superstition, are more charitable and infinitely better than those whose spirit is corrupted by vices and cruelties inspired by superstition.

 

[Jarhyn]

The way I see it, someone around 0-150ce offered new answers to social game theory in the way common at the time, but also bereft of supporting argumentations.

 

[steve_bank]

My high school French has faded. What is the value of quoting in French?

Mutual atheist theist value? That is a new one.

For ne Job is a great story. A righteous guy with a good family on which shit rains down without warning.

Off the top of my head from the NT ignoring the supernatural.

1. Divorcee and fornication are out.
2. Whatever you suffer bear it, the reward is post death. If a slave ne a good one.
3. Pacifism. Turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the Earth.
4. Women are subordinate to men in public, Paul.
5. Don't pursue wealth. The eye of the needle parable, and James wrote the rich shall whither as a flower does.

The OT is a disjointed set of writings by different people at different times. A mix of Jewish genealogy, polituics, history, culture, mythology, and requirements. As I understand it Jews developed a set of side teachings and do not go directly by the Torah.

There are 613 commandments or dictates that can be pulled out of the Torah, some bizzare.

The 613 Mitzvot

The 613 Mitzvot

www.jmu.edu

The 613 refers to the 613 Jewish commandments (mitzvot in Hebrew) extracted from the Old Testament. This immense work by Archie Rand includes one painting for each one of the 613 mitzvot.

There is no consistent moral code or philosophy in the bible as a whole. Except maybe the 10 Commandments and Leviticus. The only consistent statement in the NT is the Sermon On The Mount.

The OT morality was more like the conservative Islam we see today in Saudi Arabia.

In contrast Buddhism developed a clear set of moral requirements governing behavior and actions.

Outside of a hew pearls of wisdom in Proverbs and stories like Job I do nor see much of for practicall applied living in our modern society in the bible. The bible grew out of simple wandering nomadic tribes who needed a social structure.

A major problem in America today is Christians trying to shoehorn moden social and moral issues into the bible. Especially our politcians.

As an atheist the bible is an historical artifact. I see no value. Other moral philosophies going back to the Greeks have a much more value.

 

[No Robots]

Here's something from George Orwell:

I do not want the belief in life after death to return, and in any case it is not likely to return. What I do point out is that its disappearance has left a big hole, and that we ought to take notice of that fact. Reared for thousands of years on the notion that the individual survives, man has got to make a considerable psychological effort to get used to the notion that the individual perishes. He is not likely to salvage civilization unless he can evolve a system of good and evil which is independent of heaven and hell. Marxism, indeed, does supply this, but it has never really been popularized. Most Socialists are content to point out that once Socialism has been established we shall be happier in a material sense, and to assume that all problems lapse when one’s belly is full. The truth is the opposite: when one’s belly is empty, one’s only problem is an empty belly. It is when we have got away from drudgery and exploitation that we shall really start wondering about man’s destiny and the reason for his existence. One cannot have any worthwhile picture of the future unless one realises how much we have lost by the decay of Christianity.

 

[No Robots]

Here is Harry Waton on the superiority of a Bible-based biology:

But in the realm of life, modern science accomplished nothing. Biology—this is the science of life. What shall be said about a biology that does not know what life is? And this is the biology of the Aryans? Study the thousands of books that were written on biology by the Aryans, and in all of them you will not find a single statement as to what life itself is. For instance, Spencer defines life to be a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Is this a definition of life? This only tells us of a function of life, but what is life itself that makes this adjustment? Spencer himself admits that he does not know. And in all cases in which the Aryans come to the ultimate aspects of existence, they draw down the curtain on which is written: The Thing in Itself, Nihil Ulterius, The Unknowable. And ask no further questions. Now, the basis of the nazi philosophy is the blood theory, and we already saw that the nazis do not know what blood is, and they know absolutely nothing about life itself. What is life? We already saw that the Bible knew what life is. Life is what the Bible calls nephesh, it is the soul in its implicit state. Life is the Absolute, it is the cause of itself, it is the substance of all realities, and all infinite existence is a living reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Here is Harry Waton on the superiority of a Bible-based biology:

But in the realm of life, modern science accomplished nothing. Biology—this is the science of life. What shall be said about a biology that does not know what life is? And this is the biology of the Aryans? Study the thousands of books that were written on biology by the Aryans, and in all of them you will not find a single statement as to what life itself is. For instance, Spencer defines life to be a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Is this a definition of life? This only tells us of a function of life, but what is life itself that makes this adjustment? Spencer himself admits that he does not know. And in all cases in which the Aryans come to the ultimate aspects of existence, they draw down the curtain on which is written: The Thing in Itself, Nihil Ulterius, The Unknowable. And ask no further questions. Now, the basis of the nazi philosophy is the blood theory, and we already saw that the nazis do not know what blood is, and they know absolutely nothing about life itself. What is life? We already saw that the Bible knew what life is. Life is what the Bible calls nephesh, it is the soul in its implicit state. Life is the Absolute, it is the cause of itself, it is the substance of all realities, and all infinite existence is a living reality.

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

On the other thread I thought you wanted to discuss the bible without a myth derail.

The purpose of this thread is to examine the meaning and value that Bible literature and atheism have for each other. I intend to provide quotations from and links to pertinent literature.

 

[No Robots]

Here is Harry Waton on the superiority of a Bible-based biology:

But in the realm of life, modern science accomplished nothing. Biology—this is the science of life. What shall be said about a biology that does not know what life is? And this is the biology of the Aryans? Study the thousands of books that were written on biology by the Aryans, and in all of them you will not find a single statement as to what life itself is. For instance, Spencer defines life to be a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Is this a definition of life? This only tells us of a function of life, but what is life itself that makes this adjustment? Spencer himself admits that he does not know. And in all cases in which the Aryans come to the ultimate aspects of existence, they draw down the curtain on which is written: The Thing in Itself, Nihil Ulterius, The Unknowable. And ask no further questions. Now, the basis of the nazi philosophy is the blood theory, and we already saw that the nazis do not know what blood is, and they know absolutely nothing about life itself. What is life? We already saw that the Bible knew what life is. Life is what the Bible calls nephesh, it is the soul in its implicit state. Life is the Absolute, it is the cause of itself, it is the substance of all realities, and all infinite existence is a living reality.

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

On the other thread I thought you wanted to discuss the bible without a myth derail.

The purpose of this thread is to examine the meaning and value that Bible literature and atheism have for each other. I intend to provide quotations from and links to pertinent literature.

Waton is arguing that the dominant paradigm (what he calls Aryan biology) provides no understanding of the nature of life itself. He argues that the essence of life is given in the Bible as nephesh, and that this is foundation of the whole of reality. In short, the Bible provides a way to understand biology that is superior to the current dominant paradigm. This may be of some importance to those atheists who find the dominant paradigm in biology deficient. I point, for example, to this thread.

 

[steve_bank]

Aryan biology? Please don't tell me you are dragging us into some kind of biblical white supremacy nonsense.

The Nazi Aryan blood line myth was a fabrication, I'd have to look up the name of the guy. There were no Aryans, at least as imagined by the Nazis and passed down to Neo Nazis.

State the real intention of your OP. If you would, state your beliefs.

And yet again atheist just means a rejection of deities. The broad use of the term as in the OP has no meaning.

I seriously doubt any hard atheist is going to see anything of value n the bible regarding a paradigm of life. Identfying as atheist on the forum by a member does not say anything about actual beliefs.

 

[No Robots]

Aryan biology? Please don't tell me you are dragging us into some kind of biblical white supremacy nonsense.

The Nazi Aryan blood line myth was a fabrication, I'd have to look up the name of the guy. There were no Aryans, at least as imagined by the Nazis and passed down to Neo Nazis.

State the real intention of your OP. If you would, state your beliefs.

And yet again atheist just means a rejection of deities. The broad use of the term as in the OP has no meaning.

I seriously doubt any hard atheist is going to see anything of value n the bible regarding a paradigm of life. Identfying as atheist on the forum by a member does not say anything about actual beliefs.

Waton is criticizing the contemporary dominant paradigm, calling it "Aryan biology", and thereby drawing attention to its inherently racist outlook. He contrasts this with the view of life presented in the Bible, in which the whole of reality is united and recognized as the supreme principle itself.

 

[abaddon]

No Robots,

You'll have to keep explaining obsolete terms if you only quote arcane old books.

I wonder what the ideas you want to talk about look like in contemporary language?

 

[Politesse]

Thag no like big word! Make little word! Make small! Make good!

 

[No Robots]

Here's something recent that corroborates Waton's critique:

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.--Darwin / Adrian Desmond, James Moore

 

[Politesse]

Here's something recent that corroborates Waton's critique:

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.--Darwin / Adrian Desmond, James Moore

For anyone interested in Darwin's complicated legacy with regard to the racialization of human physiology, I highly recommend the recent volume A Most Interesting Problem (DeSilva 2021) a collection of essays published exactly a century and a half after the Descent of Man, and exploring both the positive and negative impact of that work. Certainly, Darwin's work was never independent of the context of his times, although in some ways he seemed much more cognizant of the problems this created than did many of his contemporaries and even those who followed him.

 

[TomC]

Here's something recent that corroborates Waton's critique:

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.--Darwin / Adrian Desmond, James Moore

I don't understand why this is important.

Darwin was a EuroChristian in the mid 19th century.
Worse, he was British.

Of course his ethics were primitive. But not worse than the U.S., French, Spanish or whatever. He was, ethically, a man of his time.

But the bottom line is that his scientific research was used to give credence to the bigotry of EuroChristian culture, long after Darwin's death. Darwin was no saint, but he had nothing to do with "Aryanism" either.
Tom

 

[abaddon]

Thag no like big word! Make little word! Make small! Make good!

It wasn't a request for little words. It's a request he clarify whatever his point is and not rely on quotes that don't clarify it.

 

[Politesse]

Of course his ethics were primitive. But not worse than the U.S., French, Spanish or whatever. He was, ethically, a man of his time.

How is this relevant? Whataboutisms placate the ego, but they has no bearing on the observable impact of a scientist's work. However typical or non-typical he may have been, his were some of the foundational theoretical foundations upon which European studies of biological evolution became increasingly reliant, and I think the underlying point- of life beng treated primarily as a phenomenon non-agentive yet somehow in opposition to the physical apects of its habitat, is valid. Darwinist thought did have an impact beyond its scientific insights, and it encouraged a push toward a much less "ensouled" perception of animals than the Judaism- and Platonism-influenced natural philosophies that had preceded his time. The fact that he was a product of his times is a part of the point; regardless of his brilliance in describing some of the critical aspects of evolutionary theory, he was not independent of the growing biases and and assumptions held by most men of his social class and generation. It's important to discuss this, considering that many of those assumptions and prerogatives are anything but extinct. If it is indeed true that his views were "primitive" (I presume you mean this to imply that his moral views are outdated, rather than the literal meaning of that term?) then we should be all the more concerned with critically examining how those now-outdated thoughts continue to impact the way the science of biology is understood.

 

[dbz]

Per Price, "The Mythic Power of the Atonement":

[M]ythic roots of Christianity still hold the power to redeem and to transform, once we understand them.

[...I] remark on the centrality of ancient Gnostic insights to Jung’s exposition of the process of Individuation, i.e., psychological healing and maturity, culminating in a Christlike egoless love of all people.

I believe, from experience, that knowledge of the mythic origins of the atonement enhances the sacramental experience. It is a case of Derrida’s iteration paradox: the ostensible uniqueness of a thing vanishes when we find we are able to place it within a larger category with other similar phenomena.” But only in this way can we come to grasp what kind of thing it is: “Ah! One of those!” When I come forward to receive the Eucharist, I often think how I am doing what not only the ancient Christians but all the ancient mystery faiths did. It establishes a long, long chain reaching back through the remote past to the mythic Sacred Time of origins. How does this work? Here I draw upon Jung.

Carl Jung sought to plumb the Stygian depths of what he called the Collective Unconscious. Some take Jung to mean something like a shared racial memory, but I accept Don Cupitt’s interpretation that the Collective Unconscious is simply the common template for the way all human minds are hard-wired.” It is a matter of brain structure, nothing spooky.

Bruno Bauer believed that one of the chief factors in crystallizing the mythic Jesus Christ was the Hellenistic notion of creating an imaginary companion, a paragon of the virtues which one would like to live out (“What would Jesus do?”), and to imagine his constant scrutiny of our every thought and action. Mark, Bauer said, designed his Jesus for just this purpose. Well, one can only say that Mark’s experiment has succeeded beyond all expectation since here, two millennia later, millions of people experience just such a Jesus, just such an imaginary friend, their conscience with a face (and sandals).

 

[steve_bank]

Aryan biology? Please don't tell me you are dragging us into some kind of biblical white supremacy nonsense.

The Nazi Aryan blood line myth was a fabrication, I'd have to look up the name of the guy. There were no Aryans, at least as imagined by the Nazis and passed down to Neo Nazis.

State the real intention of your OP. If you would, state your beliefs.

And yet again atheist just means a rejection of deities. The broad use of the term as in the OP has no meaning.

I seriously doubt any hard atheist is going to see anything of value n the bible regarding a paradigm of life. Identfying as atheist on the forum by a member does not say anything about actual beliefs.

Waton is criticizing the contemporary dominant paradigm, calling it "Aryan biology", and thereby drawing attention to its inherently racist outlook. He contrasts this with the view of life presented in the Bible, in which the whole of reality is united and recognized as the supreme principle itself.

Another wiki-quote thread.

Again what value is the bible to the atheist ohter than as literature, and what exactly do you believe. What do yiu personally think about atheism and the bible?

What is a christian atheist? Us atheists on the forum generally agree in the n on existence of a god but we do not necessarily agree on anything else. What is a christian atheist?


Your starting the thead by quoting ni French tells me you are presenting a facade.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here's something recent that corroborates Waton's critique:

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.--Darwin / Adrian Desmond, James Moore

There is no Darwinism. There was the idea of evolution which predated Darwin. Darwin explained natural selection and sexual selection. Darwin's books had nothing to do with sociology or "social Darwinism" . The most Darwin wrote about his beliefs on the state of human culture was his deep abhorence of the institute of slavery.

 

[bilby]

Aryan biology? Please don't tell me you are dragging us into some kind of biblical white supremacy nonsense.

The Nazi Aryan blood line myth was a fabrication, I'd have to look up the name of the guy. There were no Aryans, at least as imagined by the Nazis and passed down to Neo Nazis.

State the real intention of your OP. If you would, state your beliefs.

And yet again atheist just means a rejection of deities. The broad use of the term as in the OP has no meaning.

I seriously doubt any hard atheist is going to see anything of value n the bible regarding a paradigm of life. Identfying as atheist on the forum by a member does not say anything about actual beliefs.

Waton is criticizing the contemporary dominant paradigm, calling it "Aryan biology", and thereby drawing attention to its inherently racist outlook. He contrasts this with the view of life presented in the Bible, in which the whole of reality is united and recognized as the supreme principle itself.

Another wiki-quote thread.

Again what value is the bible to the atheist ohter than as literature, and what exactly do you believe. What do yiu personally think about atheism and the bible?

What is a christian atheist? Us atheists on the forum generally agree in the n on existence of a god but we do not necessarily agree on anything else. What is a christian atheist?


Your starting the thead by quoting ni French tells me you are presenting a facade.

French is spoken by around 275 million people. It’s a perfectly cromulent language.