From: yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 7 Sep 1992 19:19:50 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <Bu0n7o.7o7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>1)  Is faith in christ required?
>
>Who defines the meaning of these words, God or human?

I refer to the faith mentioned in many passages of the bible.  My guess is that
the meaning is of human origin.
>
>>2)  Can god's existence be proven?
>
>From a scientific/reductionism/logical viewpoint, no.
>

What are the other ways to prove the existence of god(s)?

>>3)  Is the bible god's word to man?
>
>All written word is written by human beings, excepting that written by chimps
>and such. Now, that said, and given that the written word is created by the
>human being, who created the human being?

Who says that man had to be created; how do you know there is such a thing as
causality.

>
>>4) If so, why is it so inefficient at conveying his message?  Don't try to say
>>that the problem is man's fault either.  Who's fault is it when someone can't
>>understand the literature: the author or the reader?
>
>Both. A story is only a story when there is a teller and a listener. This is
>the Eastern sound of a tree falling when no one is there to hear.

You are still admitting that the author of the bible is at fault.

>
>>5)  Is the bible a compilation of metaphors?
>
>It is a largely metaphorical work. It pertains to religion which is organized
>mythology which pertains to myth which is metaphorical. That does not exclude
>historical fact, for example the metaphorical work of Homer. If you want to
>be serious about it, all written work is metaphorical, even the Yellow Pages.
>It is the reader who "reads in to", thus making metaphorical. It is the
>reader who is the judge, for the reader. Art is what you make of it.
>
>>6)  If so, why were metaphors used, since they result in very subjective
>>interpretations?  
>
>Just for that reason. I believe it was Nietzsche, possibly Goethe, who said
>that the best can not be said, the second best is not understood, that leaves
>only metaphors as the third best way to "say". Metaphors transcend words, that
>is why they have power, power of transcendence, transcendence of word.

1) I disagree 2) that doesn't mean that metaphors are a perfect means of
communication.

>
>>7)  Is the flood a myth (see your oxford nrsv)?
>
>Yes, a very ancient and near universal one. It is obviously at the core of
>what it means to be a human being. I take your meaning of myth in a positive
>light, not the more common negative light. For a written word to be mythical
>is the highest complement.
>
>>8)  If so, how do you know what is fact or fiction in the bible?  Why can't
>>everything be a myth?
>
>If you look only for fact and fiction, you will miss the beauty of myth.

That is absolutely a pointless comment.  I do agree with it though.  I wouldn't
be able to apreciate greek mythology if I looked at it strictly from one point of
view.  The difference is, I don't worship greek mythology while you worship
christian mythology.

Jon Newton
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc