Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even when I was a theist, I didn't believe in the creation account in Genesis. I understood Adam and Eve to be only a story that was intended to teach some important lessons. The same thing with Noah's Flood.
Do most people really believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or Jesus literally walked on water and brought the dead back to life? What about the virgin birth? It seems to me that each additional disbelieved thing brings a person one step closer to atheism.
Um.........usually if you don't believe in Santa anymore you pretty much don't believe in any of the holiday characters anymore. I've never heard a child say, well, I don't believe in Santa but the Easter Bunny, now I'm still holding on to that one. So, no, I don't get what you're saying.
Um.........usually if you don't believe in Santa anymore you pretty much don't believe in any of the holiday characters anymore. I've never heard a child say, well, I don't believe in Santa but the Easter Bunny, now I'm still holding on to that one. So, no, I don't get what you're saying.
What percentage of Americans would answer yes to these questions:
Did God create the heavens and earth in 7 days?
Were Adam and Eve the first actual humans?
Are all humans born with "original sin"?
Was there ever a world-wide flood?
Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?
Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus?
Was Jesus the one true Son of God?
Will Jesus ever return?
I think on the surface they believe all that stuff but all that stuff is pretty superfluous. But I think deep down believers know that when it comes to real world situations that God doesn't exist.
For instance. If God is going to protect them, why does a Christian need a gun? Well because they know if God won't do it that Smith and Wesson will.
They know that other than harmless coincidences God really doesn't answer prayers or do things for you. But if they get off of their butt and take action sometimes things will happen.
Deep down they know that God can't really do jack squat without money. And he has to use people's money because he doesn't have any of his own.
Thus they tithe and donate money so that God can get things done.......through people of course.
They say that Jesus lives in their "heart" but they know he really doesn't because if they needed a new heart they would take a healthy deceased atheist's heart in a New York Minute with no Jesus included.
So I guess you can't say they have a little "athiest" in them but they can demonstrate common sense when they are forced to do so.
Even when I was a theist, I didn't believe in the creation account in Genesis. I understood Adam and Eve to be only a story that was intended to teach some important lessons. The same thing with Noah's Flood.
Do most people really believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or Jesus literally walked on water and brought the dead back to life? What about the virgin birth? It seems to me that each additional disbelieved thing brings a person one step closer to atheism.
What do you think?
We're all born atheists. It takes indoctrination to change that.
I don't think Genesis has to be taken literally and some things in it seem to make a literal reading a bit implausible to me, even on its own terms. And there are issues about the historicity of Moses that I was unaware of before I came to C-D that do give me pause.
However that supernatural events really happen or happened? (Because to an extent I think that's what you're asking) Yeah I have roughly zero problem with that. I understand that naturalism/rational-materialism is going to feel/seem inevitable for many of you, but for me it doesn't seem that way at all.
I can see how such a belief is comforting understand. In the periods of my life I was closest to Rationalism I believe I had less bad dreams. No devils, no paranormal, etc. In it everything does what nature intends, no "demon-haunted world" as Sagan put it. And I'm certainly willing to embrace something unproven because it's satisfying, so I can respect it. Still for me it's not very satisfying, to me one loses more than one gains, and doesn't really gel with my understanding of things.
You might ask, "Then why not believe in a global flood too?" Well believing in a supernatural doesn't mean literal belief in every supernatural fable or story. A global flood in geologically modern times would have more evidence. Roughly speaking I believe in supernatural events that I feel have been confirmed or at least not disproven. You really don't say anything to disprove the Virgin birth or Resurrection accept your own incredulity, and I don't find appeals to personal incredulity at all persuasive. Now like I said the Moses stuff shakes me up a little, but I haven't made my mind up on that. I still think it's possible there was a Moses, of some kind, but that the events maybe got exaggerated in the telling. Or possibly our understanding of Egyptology is not as good as we think.
As for Santa Claus, as I've mentioned, Santa Claus is based in a kind of reality. There's a pagan accretion onto a real guy, but still I believe there is a real guy there. So for me learning about Santa Claus was a different process. Not one of disillusionment, but more of development and evolution. I think the kind of thinkers who get into strict rational materialism or Christian fundamentalism have some difficulty with that and see "evolving/developing" as "making it up as you go." Which might be part of why "Fundamentalists" and "New-Atheists" almost seem to like talking to each other better than to most other groups.
You are wrong, Thom. You rarely 'ramble'. Your posts are always thoughtful and well - reasoned.
The question is perhaps twofold, or three.
We all have a degree of 'atheism' in us about some claims, whether astrology, politics, science (global warming has a lot of disbelievers) and history. I am skeptical about much the story of anna and the King of siam, though not as much as I am about the gospels.
However, people apply atheism to religious matters so yes, people are atheist (unbelieving) about many of the claims of other religions, though they may buy into a god of all of them.
But the third question is surely about the Bible and specifically Christianity. As you say, you doubt that the story of the flood is true but don't have a problem with miracles as such. In fact, if you can believe in turning water into wine, you can believe in God turning a puddle into a flood without it being necessary to fiddle science to produce an ocean under China.
So what is this selective athiesm based on? Is it based on believing what is the 'mainstream' (is the term you once used) view of the Bible, or is it based n what (as you say) has been proven to you at CD? Or is it a question of what one needs to believe (e.g the resurrection) but some things which seem a bit absurd to believe which don't actually impact on Christian faith can be taken as an early myth.
There are those of course who believe that the Bible is accurate and factual (metaphor aside) as it is the actual word or God, without flaw, mistake or contradiction. Most would find it very hard work to keep that assertion up and perhaps some aspect of disbelief of the Bible is a question of conceding what cannot reasonably be maintained - the Creation, the flood, the nativity, the resurrection.
But, as you say, santa is based on a real person though myth has been added on (as well as the efforts of coca- cola advertising agency) to transform St Nicholas into this Hogwarts professor in a red suit with a job and delivery van that makes the ark look quite feasible.
There is also King Arthur, very possibly a real post - roman war-leader transformed by Mallory and Disney into a medieval knight and a cartoon character.
So the nativity doesn't work. Nor does the resurrection, but couldn't there be a basic fact? Birth in Bethlehem, even if two discrepant stories were faked up to explain it, and a real resurrection, even if the stories diverged somewhat?
Everyone but the real hard - line Bible - literalist is going to admit some measure of disbelief, but just how much depends, it seems, on the degree to which they want to believe it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You rarely 'ramble'. Your posts are always thoughtful and well - reasoned. 
