In the beginning was the word, and the word was, like all words, a human invention, to label something that humans want to label. This gave shape to a concept that eventually led to an ontological fallacy (God-the-greatest-thing-I-can-imagine does indeed exist as a concept - that's the whole point - but that doesn't mean that God-the-greatest- thing-I-can-imagine also exists) ...
Whether a word represents 'the truth' is beside the point - labellng something tells us nothing about the thing itself (thank you, poststructuralism), but it may well tell us something about the labeer. In this case it tells us that the labeler was concerned with conceptualising a higher force who might provide some explanations and relieve some of the responsibility of his/her existence.
In the not-beginning, i.e. since the conceptualisation of 'God', many other words have been spun, whose provenance is almost constantly the subject of furious debate in this forum and many others. I have vented my spleen about these debates before (see my final word here), but have only recently crystallised precisely what it is that bugs me about them in its simplest form: Pondering questions such as 'did Jesus exist?' or 'how/why/when/where/by whom was the Bible written?' distract from a simple truth: God does not exist. Writings about 'him' are incidental to this fact, and discussions about religious sources are at best tangential to the more important questions, like 'God does not exist - why do people believe in him anyway?'
That is why I find that the 'historical approach' is of limited use when debating with theists; it is merely a curiosity that avoids the real issues. Of course it is interesting as an example of various aspects of religion, but the heated debating of 'facts' tends to miss even those points - such as the factors contributing to the development, codification and development of religious ideas and practices... I'm not suggesting that there is anything 'wrong' with debating these matters, but the venom with which they are addressed never ceases to amaze me. An understanding of the Bible is in no way necessary for an atheist - indeed one might say more generally: religion is tangential to atheism, and affects it in no way whatsoever. Or: religion may be a fascinating social/psychological phenomenon, but it has no bearing on the validity of the atheist position.
To return to 'the word' - surely questions such as 'what was it based on?' and 'who wrote it?' are insignificant compared to 'why does it exist at all?'
See also: Atheist Principles for further discussion, resources and links, etc.
Whether a word represents 'the truth' is beside the point - labellng something tells us nothing about the thing itself (thank you, poststructuralism), but it may well tell us something about the labeer. In this case it tells us that the labeler was concerned with conceptualising a higher force who might provide some explanations and relieve some of the responsibility of his/her existence.
In the not-beginning, i.e. since the conceptualisation of 'God', many other words have been spun, whose provenance is almost constantly the subject of furious debate in this forum and many others. I have vented my spleen about these debates before (see my final word here), but have only recently crystallised precisely what it is that bugs me about them in its simplest form: Pondering questions such as 'did Jesus exist?' or 'how/why/when/where/by whom was the Bible written?' distract from a simple truth: God does not exist. Writings about 'him' are incidental to this fact, and discussions about religious sources are at best tangential to the more important questions, like 'God does not exist - why do people believe in him anyway?'
That is why I find that the 'historical approach' is of limited use when debating with theists; it is merely a curiosity that avoids the real issues. Of course it is interesting as an example of various aspects of religion, but the heated debating of 'facts' tends to miss even those points - such as the factors contributing to the development, codification and development of religious ideas and practices... I'm not suggesting that there is anything 'wrong' with debating these matters, but the venom with which they are addressed never ceases to amaze me. An understanding of the Bible is in no way necessary for an atheist - indeed one might say more generally: religion is tangential to atheism, and affects it in no way whatsoever. Or: religion may be a fascinating social/psychological phenomenon, but it has no bearing on the validity of the atheist position.
To return to 'the word' - surely questions such as 'what was it based on?' and 'who wrote it?' are insignificant compared to 'why does it exist at all?'
See also: Atheist Principles for further discussion, resources and links, etc.
