13 Independant Dis-Proofs of Organized Religion

[virtue_summer]

I'm new here and this is my first post but I just wanted to respond to this. All Christians are not the same, just as all the members of any other group are not all the same. The original post assumes all Christians work according to the following belief:

-The Bible is a literal historical and scientific account of the world

The problem is that this isn't true for a lot of Christians. I can't speak for everyone but for myself this assertion isn't true. Here's how I see the Bible:

-It's a spiritual book that is neither literal nor dependent for its primary purpose on its historical or scientific accuracy. I revere the Bible because it speaks to me of spiritual, moral, and emotional realities. I don't interpret Eden, Noah's Ark, or even most of the Bible as history so much as sacred literature. The Garden of Eden story isn't about telling the reader there was a guy named Adam. It's about showing God as the creator of the universe and saying man is in God's image. The flood story isn't just about an ark. It's about the assertion that God is just (interpreted in the story as God punishing the wicked) and also merciful (it anguishes him to bring the flood and in the end he vows not to do it again). It doesn't matter if it's historical or not. The meaning of the story stays the same.

Also, a commentary on faith: Faith isn't nearly as irrational as some make it out to be. Even science requires faith (trust in something that can't be proven). It requires faith that the material world can indeed be understood by human beings. It requires faith that what is perceived through our senses does indeed reveal objective truth. Then there's the faith (trust) that we all put in our fellow human beings that is irrational with the knowledge that we're all fallible and not always dependable but which seems to be a prerequisite for living with each other anyway. We all express some kind of faith every day. Is religious faith that much different?

I know it's not the same for everyone, but please don't confuse the viewpoint of some Christians (fundamentalists and biblical literalists especially) with that of all.

[rifleman]

Thanks for your comments, virtue. I appreciate that, after a while, having fended off numerous dedicated personal attacks and defences of the rather literalist interpretations of the bible, I tend to argue to those folks specifically. I have little argument with the more rational Christians, but they by definition don't seem to surface here so much. and in addition, with this particular thread, I've asked the question about the less dedicated literalist segment of Christians, and have then asked how they can still, honestly, adhere to their beliefs if (hypothetically, IF...) they know, or find out, that many/most/all of the tenets of the literal interpretation are, for all intents and purposes, proven to be false.

You know, relentless modern science and all. Remember, we scientists fully anticipate that all of the biblical stories that many literalists require to be true, will eventually be rppoven to be completely false.

Again, hypothetically, if we're right, and there is no God, and this is truly an ancient earth, with nothing particularly unique about it's origins or ours, then (again, let's be hypothetical here for a moment and say it's all a myth) we can fully expect that all the attendant stories and fables and allegories will, ergo, therefore, logically, also be false. Right? I mean, it would tend to follow on, right?

To some of your well-presented points:

Originally Posted by virtue_summer

I'm new here and this is my first post but I just wanted to respond to this. All Christians are not the same, just as all the members of any other group are not all the same. The original post assumes all Christians work according to the following belief:

-The Bible is a literal historical and scientific account of the world

The problem is that this isn't true for a lot of Christians. I can't speak for everyone but for myself this assertion isn't true. Here's how I see the Bible:

-It's a spiritual book that is neither literal nor dependent for its primary purpose on its historical or scientific accuracy. I revere the Bible because it speaks to me of spiritual, moral, and emotional realities. I don't interpret Eden, Noah's Ark, or even most of the Bible as history so much as sacred literature. The Garden of Eden story isn't about telling the reader there was a guy named Adam. It's about showing God as the creator of the universe and saying man is in God's image. The flood story isn't just about an ark. It's about the assertion that God is just (interpreted in the story as God punishing the wicked) and also merciful (it anguishes him to bring the flood and in the end he vows not to do it again). It doesn't matter if it's historical or not. The meaning of the story stays the same.

Completely agreed, and perhaps there's a need with a segment of the population to learn such concepts via allegory and fable and story-telling. Could you get to the same understanding absent such fairy-tale versions? By intelligent discourse? do we need to propogate nonsensd, especially in our sunday School children's minds, with stories about giants and man-eating whales and impossible Arks and wink-nudge healing of the inflicted? I'd hope so. Far too many take it all literally.

Unfortunately, then, there are legions who post here who absolutely defend the ltieral translation, and my point, the OP, is precisely that, if we show those literal things to be untrue, how can they go on still believing?

Also, a commentary on faith: Faith isn't nearly as irrational as some make it out to be. Even science requires faith (trust in something that can't be proven).

Absolutely true, and scientists would agree. But their "faith" is in testable processes, and they do have a well-earned faith in the process of scientific inquiry. Why? Because it regularly generates functional, reliable truths we all depend on, admire and cherish. Digital HD-TVs, cell phones, aeroplanes that actually fly, antibiotics that actually adapt to evolved bacteria and then save lives, titanium-alloy prosthetic replacement limbs, iPods, the Mars Rover lander, the cesium atomic clock, whose technology also accurately dates unearthed artifacts to be millions of years old; and on and on.

It requires faith that the material world can indeed be understood by human beings. It requires faith that what is perceived through our senses does indeed reveal objective truth. Then there's the faith (trust) that we all put in our fellow human beings that is irrational with the knowledge that we're all fallible and not always dependable but which seems to be a prerequisite for living with each other anyway. We all express some kind of faith every day. Is religious faith that much different? (my highlights in blue)

No it's not, but it should at least be acknowledged that perhaps it needs to come to terms with the modern world of empirical understanding. No-one I know, myself included, wants to devolve to some sort of automaton socialist spiritually bereft world. I personally consider myself a very spiritual person, but I just do not attribute the glory and complexity of what I, as a trained biologist and engineer, see around me. I see no need to fall to my knees and praise an ancient iliteracy-based God figure for what I perceive and try to understand through specific research or just casual observation. I recoil at depending on him for my salvation, especially after I die.

I know it's not the same for everyone, but please don't confuse the viewpoint of some Christians (fundamentalists and biblical literalists especially) with that of all.

This is, by design, a very limited discussion format, sadly. It would be far more productive if we could all meet, face to face (after first being disarmed at the doorway...) to air our viewpoints. Also, there'd be far less vituperativeness, especially if such discourse were adjudicated. The yelling nutball extremists (damn them!) would be ushered out of the room, (my) logic would likely prevail, and we could move on productively.

And I could gloat happily in the corner!

Alternately, here on C-D we pick our venues (i.e.: sub-forums), run our ideas up the flagpole, and see what comes out in not-so-casual, often hostile, interchange. Some of us, having been doing this for a while, perhaps started out less aggressive, but have since developed a certain defensive or combative mindset, because we know exactly who will show up, and dang it, we'd love to change their thinking, especially when "We're right, and they're wrong, d@mnmit!". My usual target, I admit, is the IDT* mindset.

Which (i.e.: changing their minds...), is frankly impossible, as you will soon enough see!

*Intransigent Dogmo-Theist

P&L2A!