Question for Atheists/Agnostics/non-Christians...what troubles you?

[pamjane]

Lepaca and sylvan3,

i understand how questions and Biblical contradictions can lead to an unbelief in God, but is there anything that makes you wonder sometimes that you may be wrong or that you may change your mind about God (maybe not even the Muslim-Judeo-Christian type God, but a Creator/Supreme Being in general)?

sylvan3... i'll PM you the name of the book i'm reading. for some reason, i'm not able to put the title in a post.

[sylvan3]

Lepaca and sylvan3,

i understand how questions and Biblical contradictions can lead to an unbelief in God, but is there anything that makes you wonder sometimes that you may be wrong or that you may change your mind about God (maybe not even the Muslim-Judeo-Christian type God, but a Creator/Supreme Being in general)?

sylvan3... i'll PM you the name of the book i'm reading. for some reason, i'm not able to put the title in a post.

I would definitely change my mind about anything, including God, if there was sufficient evidence to support a given theory.

I am a very open-minded person. This open-mindedness has led me to my present beliefs because I don't believe that evidence supports the concept of a Muslim-Judeo-Christian-type God. Faith might support it but evidence doesn't--certainly not the kind of hard evidence that moves people from nonbelief to belief. It's actually an easy call for me. However, I still learn from websites such as this. I am always interested in what others have to say on the subject.

As for wondering if I am wrong, I FIRMLY believe that if a deity does exist, this deity would not hold it against a person for being honest with himself or herself--even if it meant a nonbelief in the deity (how could the deity be so insecure that he would require this type of worship?). I believe that I have to be honest with myself before I can be honest with others.

Take someone like Galileo. This man had beliefs that were totally contrary to established religion at the time. His beliefs, regarding the sun being fixed in position as opposed to the earth being fixed in position, rose out of his objective study of evidence as he saw it. Eventually, he succumbed to great pressure and threats, but I am quite sure that his core beliefs didn't change. He had to be honest with himself. And, as you know, it turns out he was right.

[pointer]

Take someone like Galileo. This man had beliefs that were totally contrary to established religion at the time. His beliefs, regarding the sun being fixed in position as opposed to the earth being fixed in position, rose out of his objective study of evidence as he saw it. Eventually, he succumbed to great pressure and threats, but I am quite sure that his core beliefs didn't change. He had to be honest with himself. And, as you know, it turns out he was right.

Galileo had data that proved a medieval view of natural phenomena incorrect. That is a very different proposition from proving Christianity incorrect.

[sylvan3]

Take someone like Galileo. This man had beliefs that were totally contrary to established religion at the time. His beliefs, regarding the sun being fixed in position as opposed to the earth being fixed in position, rose out of his objective study of evidence as he saw it. Eventually, he succumbed to great pressure and threats, but I am quite sure that his core beliefs didn't change. He had to be honest with himself. And, as you know, it turns out he was right.

Galileo had data that proved a medieval view of natural phenomena incorrect. That is a very different proposition from proving Christianity incorrect.

The prevailing church view at the time was that Galileo's views were heretical. The church took their position on the same Bible that is in existence today. If Galileo, or Copernicus, proved that the Bible is errant, that speaks for itself in relation to Christianity.

[pointer]

Take someone like Galileo. This man had beliefs that were totally contrary to established religion at the time. His beliefs, regarding the sun being fixed in position as opposed to the earth being fixed in position, rose out of his objective study of evidence as he saw it. Eventually, he succumbed to great pressure and threats, but I am quite sure that his core beliefs didn't change. He had to be honest with himself. And, as you know, it turns out he was right.

Galileo had data that proved a medieval view of natural phenomena incorrect. That is a very different proposition from proving Christianity incorrect.

The prevailing church view at the time was that Galileo's views were heretical.

A false church believed that. One needs better than straw men.

If Galileo, or Copernicus, proved that the Bible is errant, that speaks for itself in relation to Christianity.

'If' is a big word. Prove that Galileo or Copernicus disproved the Bible rather than the view of a cult.

[Arjuous]

The bible is little more than 1st century allegorical literature, and most of the stories are from previous religions. The Christ figure in the bible is little different from any of the other savior gods of the time. Raglan published a book in which he examined the Hero Pattern, which is a basic set of components of the life of a 'hero' in allegorical literature. He used Oedipus as a basis and then applied that rubric to other literary figures and came up with a list. It escapes me at this moment, I'll find the link for you later. The overall point of this is that the story of Jesus, as well as the rest of the bible, was written as an allegory, like all of the other ancient religions.

Also, I'd like to briefly touch on the point that many Christians appear to be making concerning the, as they call them, 'seeming inconsistencies' in the bible. As a long-time Christian, until a few years ago in fact, I can still remember the top of my church bulletin proclaiming the bible to be the infallible, inerrant, and inspired word of God. Let us, for the sake of this argument, accept that for a moment.

If the bible is infallible, inerrant, and inspired by an omnipotent being, than it is completely perfect. The difficulties man might have in compiling the text utterly fade into insignificance when measured against the power of God. Therefor, we must accept that God wrote the bible, and that it is ALWAYS the way he wants it to be. There are numerous problems with this, but again, let us accept it for the moment.

If the bible is indeed perfect, than it cannot be imperfect, and therefor cannot contradict itself. If it did, it would prove that God was unable to produce the bible he wanted, which is obviously impossible, as God is omniscient.

So, that would logically lead us to believe that there are no contradictions in the bible, and this is categorically not the case. Instead what we see is an incredible amount of inconsistencies in every form, from theological doctrines to moral precepts to historical facts. This fact alone concludes that the bible was not produced by any omniscient or omnipresent being, as it is both theologically and rationally impossible.

I don't see what possible explanation for self-contradictions within the bible can be, it is rather self-explanatory. However, I would like to hear your best shot at it.

[sylvan3]

Take someone like Galileo. This man had beliefs that were totally contrary to established religion at the time. His beliefs, regarding the sun being fixed in position as opposed to the earth being fixed in position, rose out of his objective study of evidence as he saw it. Eventually, he succumbed to great pressure and threats, but I am quite sure that his core beliefs didn't change. He had to be honest with himself. And, as you know, it turns out he was right.

Galileo had data that proved a medieval view of natural phenomena incorrect. That is a very different proposition from proving Christianity incorrect.

The prevailing church view at the time was that Galileo's views were heretical.

A false church believed that. One needs better than straw men.

If Galileo, or Copernicus, proved that the Bible is errant, that speaks for itself in relation to Christianity.

'If' is a big word. Prove that Galileo or Copernicus disproved the Bible rather than the view of a cult.

Historical documents show that the prevailing biblical belief at the time was that Galileo was wrong. That is not in question. This belief was based on their interpretation of the Bible--the same one that exists today. Galileo actually tried to say that his beliefs were consistent with the Bible. Thus, a disagreement existed.

Therefore, rather than try to prove specific inerrancy, which can always be argued in a "yes, it is errant", "no, it isn't errant" endless fashion, I will offer that the vagueness of the Bible is an errancy itself. There are so many ways that people interpret the Bible, with each and every one claiming to have the "correct" interpretation. The clincher to all of that is that no one can prove that their interpretation is the correct one.

Of course, you can say that this shows the fallibility of man. However, we all know that fallibility of interpretation of a written document can take the form of a problem with the interpreter or a problem with the communicator or writer of the document. To consider the former without the latter is not reasonable in my opinion.

Also, you can't prove that life on Pluto doesn't exist. Does that make it real? The fact that something can't be proven to not be in existence does not establish its existence.

Edited July 22, 2006 by sylvan3

[pointer]

I will offer that the vagueness of the Bible is an errancy itself.

How refreshing. One is so used to having to cope with the claim that Christianity is too exclusive, with its claim that 'No-one comes to the Father except by me', and is anything but vague.

[sylvan3]

I will offer that the vagueness of the Bible is an errancy itself.

How refreshing. One is so used to having to cope with the claim that Christianity is too exclusive, with its claim that 'No-one comes to the Father except by me', and is anything but vague.

It may not be to you. However, most people will say that the verse in which Jesus says to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin isn't to be taken literally. Therefore, I, or anyone else, could say that your statement above has another interpretation other than a literal one.

I don't think it is hard to argue that the Bible is interpreted in a variety of ways. I have my belief as to why that is the case and you have yours.

[pointer]

I will offer that the vagueness of the Bible is an errancy itself.

How refreshing. One is so used to having to cope with the claim that Christianity is too exclusive, with its claim that 'No-one comes to the Father except by me', and is anything but vague.

It may not be to you.

It isn't to anyone. Either there is evidence that Galileo disproved the Bible, or there is not. The large number of physicists and other scientists who are Christians are evidently unaware of it. Until I see such evidence, I for one will assume that you published another falsehood.