God is evil, or likes it, or enjoys it whatever

[Marcus]

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers re-interpret Scripture to make it less horrible is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority.

As I theist I say to that, Come on, now. Atheism is better than that.

I get it now... Atheism is true, it's the atheists who are imperfect.

[Gadianton]

Believers should invent their own non-Biblical God. Scientists invent their own non-textbook science, whenever the textbooks seem to be wrong. If God is real, then the possibility always exists that the reality will turn out to be different from what people have believed in the past. In fact it's such an obvious possibility that it would be weird if it hadn't occurred.

Yes, plenty of religious believers insist loudly that Scripture must be infallible. Atheists think that is silly. Of course they're right about that. So they shouldn't complain when people agree with them on that point. Instead, I think, they should cheer.

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers re-interpret Scripture to make it less horrible is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority. As I theist I say to that, Come on, now. Atheism is better than that.

Well, as to the strengths and weaknesses of re-interpretation, consider the Mormon apologetics surrounding the Book of Mormon and the curse of a skin of darkness.

[huckelberry]

Believers should invent their own non-Biblical God.

Invent away. I'll invent one, called Joe. If Joe hears anyone claiming that he exists, he appears before them in a flash of lightning and says "OK, so you think I exist, huh? You got just 24 hours to come up with some really good arguments for believing that I really do exist and you are not suffering from delusions. If you fail ... well, I strongly advise you not to fail!"

Only problem is, Joe does not exist. And an invented deity who does not exist isn't, as they say, worth a pitcher of warm spit.

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers re-interpret Scripture to make it less horrible is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority.

Nope. When atheists like me criticise convenient reinterpretations of scripture, it is usually because they are baseless attempts, devoid of any awareness of historical or cultural context, and/or based on poor interpretations of ancient languages, to force a convenient modern meaning onto an ancient text that simply will not bear it.

Chap, I doubt Physics Guy is speaking of Joe. More likely he is thinking of the general sense of the existence of the divine which lies behind the development of scriptures and various religious traditions. It would be that sense of the existence of the divine for which people may adjust their understanding.

I would not doubt that there are altering interpretations of scripture which are based upon language and or historical ignorance. You might supply an example. As an example of altering scripture interpretation I might consider would be what happens as people learn that there was no world wide flood . The story is just story. This realization might allow some adjustment to a persons understanding of God. In this example it is historical ignorance in the past which is being replaced with a much fuller understanding of human history.

[Physics Guy]

I guess my last post mixed its message a bit; I ended up saying two things, one of which I didn't actually mean.

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers re-interpret Scripture to make it less horrible is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority.

Here I got carried away and mis-typed. Re-interpreting ancient texts in forced ways, in order to pretend that they didn't mean what they clearly did mean and do mean, shouldn't be cheered by anyone. Twisting a horrible text into something tolerable is better than accepting a horrible principle just because someone liked it in the Bronze Age, I suppose, but it's not as good as forthrightly rejecting the horrible principle. If the rejection undermines the authority of the ancient text, well so be it: an ancient text full of horrible principles should have its authority undermined. If there is a God, after all, then the last thing omnipotence needs is authority. And far-fetched reinterpretation doesn't even really respect the text.

What I tried to say in the rest of that post, and should have said in that sentence as well, was rather:

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers reject horrible scriptures is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority.

If what you want is to feel superior by knocking down easy targets, then it is awfully frustrating when people who disagree with you on some things go and move the goalposts like that on some other questions, almost as if they were being reasonable after all. How dare they fail to conform to the fundamentalist stereotype? If your point is not to score points, though, but to uphold common decency over absurd Bronze Age dicta, then why not welcome it when someone agrees with you at least about that, even if they don't agree with you on everything?

Blaming someone for inventing a non-Biblical God is the fundamentalist preacher's line. Why not leave it to him?

[Rivendale]

Am I correct in assuming that your brain and its inner workings have no bearing on a god's existence? Then why are you here?

I have no place better to be. I’m gaining experience. I’m learning.

How about you?

Regards,
MG

You have no place better to be? Probably spot on since the arrangement of molecules have you trapped here. Learning sure. Gaining experience sure. Now take that Evil Knievel jump over the Snake River and assume it is for a greater purpose.

[dastardly stem]

But it's true, theists have been about reinventing God. And yes, its true, that can be a good thing. After all who needs a God whose so petty and careless he's bound to promote raping women and children and murdering people for the most inconsequential of reasons left and right? Who needs that biblical God? Let's use the classical theist's God, I suppose. And, yes, the result is much much better. Although, oddly these poor classical theists can't convince fellow believers, most of the time, to flee from the biblical God, with biblical God adherentists thinking they can reasonably reinterpret scripture as if it teaches the classical theist God, trying to force everyone to see that Bible as inerrant or infallible or both--forcing the squared peg into a round hole because to think otherwise might raise people's suspicions of anathema. And God help those who commit that great sin while trying to traverse this murky world. How dare they?

There's a pretty big problem here, it seems to me. God allowing foolish humans to speak for him and for thousands of years sitting by when everyone was doing things in his name while he, not staying silent mind you, seemed to support the atrocities, but inwardly was, what, delighting in the foolish condemnation of those poor foolish humans who he was supposedly working with or through? Now if we think about the classical theist God, who amounts to everything and yet nothing at the same time, hiding in every dark unexplored crack and corner, the great indifferent do nothing and know nothing imagined non-being who shrugs and says "meh" at every and any moral thought, the squirrely wisp of air who is supposedly there but not there, if we imagine him in this context, we might say, "ok, he really does exist". Because ultimately, proposing his existence is just like proposing the hidden invisible dragon in the garage. "oh...he's there, but he's completely unfindable and useless in every conceivable way....but at least believing in him makes us feel better about ourselves compared to others...or whatever." The classical theist God has done nothing but make a mockery of every believer whose ever been. And we end up with great orators or teachers of religion with philosophical bents, like Bentley Hart, or Ed Feser, or even William Craig, pretending the Bible meant the classical theist god all along anyway. And he's good and to think otherwise is the height of stupidity and evil. God, this character of nothing, really hates unbelief. He's going to really make unbelievers pay.

"people just say things, and think things, and do things because they're stupid. that's not God's fault. He uses us to accomplish his purposes of condemning most and saving few, or annihilating most and saving those who prostrate themselves for his undefinable and seemingly arbitrary sake." Why people think that's wonderful, useful or worth believing is beyond me. But it's what we got. It's what we're dealing with.

[Rivendale]

God allowing foolish humans to speak for him and for thousands of years sitting by when everyone was doing things in his name while he, not staying silent mind you, seemed to support the atrocities, but inwardly was, what, delighting in the foolish condemnation of those poor foolish humans who he was supposedly working with or through?

Isn't it convenient that only certain people have the information delivered to them? Not everyone simultaneously where humanity could share a collective goal. It has to be a labyrinth of criss crossing tunnels, shouting voices and a torturous glacial telephone game.

[dastardly stem]

Isn't it convenient that only certain people have the information delivered to them? Not everyone simultaneously where humanity could share a collective goal. It has to be a labyrinth of criss crossing tunnels, shouting voices and a torturous glacial telephone game.

Yes. I don't understand a God (at least not anymore) who thinks its a good idea to have some particular people speak for him and most of the time when they claim to speak for him, later its decided that they never did speak for him.

"well, I know the Bible says God endorses murder, slavery in the Bible, but that wasn't really God. They were just people doing their best to speak for God."

"How do you know that wasn't God? Also how do you know what you think God thinks is really God?

"Because has to be nicer than that. And the witness that is inside me says stuff to me. I just know it."

"Ok. I suppose we need to investigate whether your personal feelings and hopes and desires and wants are God or we can simply apply some reason and think you're being as nutty as those old ancient biblical authors were in speaking for God? Or what?"

[Rivendale]

Isn't it convenient that only certain people have the information delivered to them? Not everyone simultaneously where humanity could share a collective goal. It has to be a labyrinth of criss crossing tunnels, shouting voices and a torturous glacial telephone game.

Yes. I don't understand a God (at least not anymore) who thinks its a good idea to have some particular people speak for him and most of the time when they claim to speak for him, later its decided that they never did speak for him.

"well, I know the Bible says God endorses murder, slavery in the Bible, but that wasn't really God. They were just people doing their best to speak for God."

"How do you know that wasn't God? Also how do you know what you think God thinks is really God?

"Because has to be nicer than that. And the witness that is inside me says stuff to me. I just know it."

"Ok. I suppose we need to investigate whether your personal feelings and hopes and desires and wants are God or we can simply apply some reason and think you're being as nutty as those old ancient biblical authors were in speaking for God? Or what?"

Nothing screams fraud or confirmation bias louder than one person who claims they have a message from god. God would surely see that his creation would squint really hard when getting a message from one person. Now having 16million people get a simultaneous exact message might move the needle for humanity. I think human biology carries similarities that seem to imply a universal presence of a deity. The third man factor is an example of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_factor. Modern psychologists have used the "third man factor" to treat victims of trauma. The "cultivated inner character" lends imagined support and comfort.

Thomas Riskas uses M.D. Faber's book "Becoming God's Children: Religion's Infantilizing process" to illustrate the compelling evidence that appeal to believers involves priming the unconscious memory. The theory claims that the priming produces an infantile attraction to, and attachment with, the Parent-god of the faith. This would explain why leaders like Joseph Smith would firmly believe in their experience. But it is also evidence as to why everyone's perception of god is different.

[dastardly stem]

Nothing screams fraud or confirmation bias louder than one person who claims they have a message from god.

Yep. And that really extends as much as we don't like to think it.

God would surely see that his creation would squint really hard when getting a message from one person. Now having 16million people get a simultaneous exact message might move the needle for humanity. I think human biology carries similarities that seem to imply a universal presence of a deity. The third man factor is an example of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_factor. Modern psychologists have used the "third man factor" to treat victims of trauma. The "cultivated inner character" lends imagined support and comfort.

Thomas Riskas uses M.D. Faber's book "Becoming God's Children: Religion's Infantilizing process" to illustrate the compelling evidence that appeal to believers involves priming the unconscious memory. The theory claims that the priming produces an infantile attraction to, and attachment with, the Parent-god of the faith. This would explain why leaders like Joseph Smith would firmly believe in their experience. But it is also evidence as to why everyone's perception of god is different.

Interesting. Thanks.