The Alter Bible

Neither my comment or the quote by Marx were referring to Marxism or advocating a society based on Marxism.

And no, a philosophy that rejects religion can't be based on theocratic authoritarianism, because theocratic authoritarianism draws its claim of authority from divine right.

>The Bible makes certain truth claims that make science possible, such as the claim that there is a physical universe that is worth studying in its own right.

The Bible claims that God created the earth and the universe in seven days, man directly from the dust of the earth, and woman from the rib of the first man. The Bible's claims certainly do not make science possible. No one needs the Bible to claim that there is a physical universe worth studying, to see that this is the case.

On the other hand, people still believe evolution is heresy because of Genesis, and will pray themselves and their children to death believing God will cure them and that modern medical science is sinful. Belief in miasma theory and Platonism, while not Christian, were religious in nature and held back progress in various scientific fields and public health.

Religion may hold value in society as a medium for spreading cultural identity and moral teachings, but deserves no credit for the cause of science, except perhaps as the means by which early scientists and philosophers approached inquiry (as a means of better understanding God's creation.)

But even then, the inevitable result was not to understand God, but to expose and dismantle the facade of religion, claim by spurious claim.

If you haven't read the Bible in the original Hebrew here's an analogy: imagine the tactile, raw feel of Robert Frost, how the language he employs and the deliberate choice of words makes his poems feel as if they rhyme. Now compact all that into the extreme terseness of Emily Dickinson.

My weekly highlight is the public reading of the Prophets in the synagogue every Sabbath. The language, the rhythm, it's beautiful.

Likewise, there is a great deal of biblical interpretation that goes off the rails and opposes Jesus' teachings as well as Old Testament (Torah/Tanakh) precedent.

As for historicity - the Bible has been repeatedly found to be accurate on many issues. Parts of Leviticus even read like a survival guide for a species[1] which includes what today would be considered food safety standards, quarantine procedures, etc. Highly effective practices for a nascent culture.

I was surprised when I read the Old Testament myself, since it was nothing like what I had previously thought. Unless a person reads it himself, it's effectively impossible to understand the impact - it is no normal book, no simple collection of poetry or wisdom.

Western civilization is build upon a Judeo-Christian value foundation, yet we hardly have a conscious connection to it anymore - many only have a vague notion of all religiouns having some element of truth. Even the scientific method is a magnificent tool that is described biblically: we are to test everything! Regardless of which translation is read, the core message comes through powerfully - it is easier to accept when we admit to not knowing everything; humanity as a superorganism is like an overly-confident teenager.

I have found no other teaching that denies its followers any humanly-possible way to enter heaven/paradise/transcendence - I am not aware of anyplace in the Old Testament that describes a process for getting there, only atonement; Jesus explicitly stated that it is impossible for man to get there on his own[2]. Other beliefs put a balancing scale in the mix, where doing more good than bad is what gains entry.

Judaism & Christianity focus on relationship, not religion. This grace is also what gets a person into heaven, since nobody can buy or work their way in - it is a gift for anyone who accepts God[3]. This is different from mercy - being lenient when another is due punishment. Mercy is reducing a fine; grace is opening a door for a child who is struggling to do so himself - God gives us both since we're guilty and yet still children as a whole.

Additionally, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob pursues humanity[4] instead of the other way around elsewhere. What other god serves rather than demands, only asking us to do the same?

[1] If it is a white bright spot on the skin of his body, but it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair has not turned white, then the priest is to quarantine the person with the infection for seven days. ~Leviticus 13:4

[2] Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but not for God; all things are possible for God.” ~Mark 10:27

[3] For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God ~Ephesians 2:8

[4] What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? ~Matthew 18:12

One doesn't have to presume, you could just ask. God can intervene, or not. Assuming intervention is not normally done. When it happens, it's usually for the better, and in a way that one didn't expect. This is generally called serendipity. Assuming serendipity will happen is a good way to get it to never happen, most believers will tell you that. I personally find serendipity all the time, but never where I assume or expect.

Assuming it will happen is a leap of faith and is not necessarily a good thing. God may decide not to intervene and leave you to your fate. Nonbelievers simply describe such things as luck, but believers ascribe agency to what others consider to be random events. That is the difference you're looking for, and if you don't want to be accused of misrepresenting theism, you should just stick to that.

Let's put this in D&D terms. God is the dungeon master, I am a player character. What you're saying is tantamount to saying I'm expecting the DM to just save me from the consequences of every stupid decision I make. I'm saying, no, I just ascribe agency to the DM's actions. The difference might not mean much to you, but it's very important to a believer.

You are making a false equivalence here in equating belief with assumption of intervention.

> "Anybody" includes atheists. So when I say "act like an atheist", you do understand that the word "like" implies a comparative analogy, yes?

> You don't act like an atheist sometimes. (Like when you made this comment.)

I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it.

Even though the position is not shared, the underlying impetus to action is the same. Therefore I am acting like anyone, including an atheist. The specific position, atheist or theist, only affects specifics, not essence. I'm acting like an atheist, in that the essence of what we're doing is similar, but the specifics differ because of the necessary difference in position.

> In fact, I feel as though I said "to be an X, you must jump off a bridge", and you shout up "I never jumped off a bridge, but I am an X!" as you plummet into the river below me. Like...

We don't need to concoct a silly hypothetical analogy, we can simply use your words. You said theists assume God will intervene, and that's how they make decisions. This misrepresents how theists operate. I am explaining that difference. Atheists act the same way all the time, when theists misrepresent their views.