Why do fundies think atheists are unversed in your bible? (hell, Mormon)
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.
Reading the bible and studying it cemented my Atheism. I honestly can't see how anyone could read the bible and still be a believer.
This is your opinion only Jet. I see it this way. How can anyone read the bible and not be a believer. I am not a fundie though I am a christian. My studies have taken me from within the bible and outside the bible into areas such as philosophy and science. For you to make a blanket statement like that about any religion is just pushing your beliefs or disbeliefs about god onto everyone else. To read the bible and get a physical and mental vision of it is one thing but the bible was never meant to be that way. You need to look at it from a philosophical and spiritual standpoint. Some people see the science of god (deism in its pure form).
Doctor Antony Flew was the leading atheist intellectual appologetic for 50 years and shook the whole atheist community when he made the conversion from atheism to deism. Apparently this guy who is way more educated then you and me put together thought that there was simply too much evidence on the intelligent design side (fine tuning to get into more detail) to not believe in the concept of god. 4 years after his debate with doctor craig and many years after his famous debate with platanga he announced it to the world. At this time he doesnt believe in a personal god but he did have many kind words to say about christianity and jesus. He is even starting to hang out with some christian appologetics.
Clearly blanket statements like yours belong on a forum but would never hold ground in a debate. People are free to choose the belief system that they want but for you to flat out say that every religion is only based on fairy tales is a statement without historic, philosophic and scientic certainty, and in fact there compelling evidence in favor of a creator.
As recently as 100 years ago the worlds leading atheists believed that the universe was eternal. They simply believed this because the theists believed otherwise. It would have been funny to see how these supposed intellectuals felt when scientists found out that the universe indeed had a beginning point and was finite instead of being infinite. Sir Frederick Hoyle also had a very tough time believing in god as he was also huge in the scientific community as he was always trying to push his steady state theory which blew up in his face and he eventually ended up being a deist.
Do you understand why making blanket statements without researching them only serves to push your beliefs on someone and isnt about true reason and rationality.
I respect unbiased agnostics because they honestly say that they dont knwo for sure scientifically, but as most learned people understand science isnt the be all that ends all in finding truth. There are indeed many things that we alll believe in rationally (atheists, agnostics, deists, spiritualists and theists alike) that science cannot prove.
When I went on my journey, it was a journey based on science, spirituality and philosophy.
Your statement about the bible might make sense to you but there are many people that are much more intellectual then you that have come to a different conclusion about god and the bible.
For someone to say Faith is illogical, they cant really say that also with certainty because even science hasnt really discovered everything about humanity and the universe to dispell the believe in spirituality.
Arequipa, your statement about genesis is a bit misleading not sure if it was intentional or because you dont understand that most christianity outside of new earth creationists know that most of genesis was written conceptually, but the concept of creation from literally nothing really does stand on solid ground now with mainstream science.
Last edited by wallstreeterww; 11-16-2009 at 03:24 AM..
Apparently when one of us non-believers read the bible and comes to the conclusion that it's mostly a bunch of bs, it's because we're either not enlightened enough to understand it, or we're not scholars with advanced degrees so we have no business reading it, quoting it, or studying it for any reason. The later it particularly funny: Going by that logic, most Christians have no business reading and quoting the Bible to anyone either.
I'm a firm believer that everyone should read whatever holy book that's popular (usually the Bible in America) and draw their own conclusions. I did it and I'm 100 percent convinced the bible is no more the word of God than The Cat in The Hat is.
It's every bit the same superstitious nonsense that breaking a mirror, walking under a ladder, black cats, and all the other good stuff is.
Since you referred in passing to my post, apparently without undstanding it, i'll jump in here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallstreeterww
This is your opinion only Jet. I see it this way. How can anyone read the bible and not be a believer.
Because it does not add up as fact and you yourself appear to realize that.
Because if understood metaphorically or spiritually (or whatever label is attached to belief in something for no good reason), it equally applies to the holy books of other religions. Why not believe those equally with the Bible? Tell me. I'd love to hear your reasons
Quote:
I am not a fundie though I am a christian. My studies have taken me from within the bible and outside the bible into areas such as philosophy and science. For you to make a blanket statement like that about any religion is just pushing your beliefs or disbeliefs about god onto everyone else. To read the bible and get a physical and mental vision of it is one thing but the bible was never meant to be that way. You need to look at it from a philosophical and spiritual standpoint. Some people see the science of god (deism in its pure form).
Which is fair enough but, if you understood atheists you'd realize that deism is not the issue. It is belief in the Bible. The non fundy (I take that as implying belief in the Bible as fact) sees it as metaphor for some areas that science cannot reach and which the 'spiritual' only can give some insight.
Quote:
Doctor Antony Flew was the leading atheist intellectual appologetic for 50 years and shook the whole atheist community when he made the conversion from atheism to deism. Apparently this guy who is way more educated then you and me put together thought that there was simply too much evidence on the intelligent design side (fine tuning to get into more detail) to not believe in the concept of god. 4 years after his debate with doctor craig and many years after his famous debate with platanga he announced it to the world. At this time he doesnt believe in a personal god but he did have many kind words to say about christianity and jesus. He is even starting to hang out with some christian appologetics.
I am glad at least that you know he doesn't believe in a personal god. We shall have to wait to see where he ends up. Don't be too quick to assume that he has been sold the theist package. He can read: he must now know that ID doesn't stand up anymore.
Quote:
Clearly blanket statements like yours belong on a forum but would never hold ground in a debate. People are free to choose the belief system that they want but for you to flat out say that every religion is only based on fairy tales is a statement without historic, philosophic and scientic certainty, and in fact there compelling evidence in favor of a creator.
In fact, there isn't. There is a First cause argument but that is only an argument from ignorance. There is an argument from 'zones of comfort' but that overlooks the evidence that coincidence and accident is really what it was. There is also argument from design but that really has been soundly refuted and I find it astonishing that Anthony Flew hasn't understood that. As I say, we shouldn't jump to conclusions about where he ends up.
Quote:
As recently as 100 years ago the worlds leading atheists believed that the universe was eternal. They simply believed this because the theists believed otherwise. It would have been funny to see how these supposed intellectuals felt when scientists found out that the universe indeed had a beginning point and was finite instead of being infinite. Sir Frederick Hoyle also had a very tough time believing in god as he was also huge in the scientific community as he was always trying to push his steady state theory which blew up in his face and he eventually ended up being a deist.
The universe may still be eternal. I think you will find that your understanding of science, cosmology and the various theories about it are in need of some more work. As to the ID thing...
"As Fred Hoyle himself said, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it .... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution."
Chris Ho-Stuart replied
"Fred Hoyle is mistaken; neither he nor anyone else has anything like a sufficient understanding to calculate a probability, since meaningful calculations have to be based on a very comprehensive model."
I am sure that those scientists who went out of their own area of expertise and were persuaded of the claims of ID, now utterly discredited, would drop their allegiance to ID, if they still thought about it as scientists, that is.
Even if they remained deist or pantheist, perhaps, I would not be seriously put out unless they said they believed in it rather than saw it as an possible explanation which had some merit. I wouldn't disagree with that, but there really is no good evidence for it.
Quote:
Do you understand why making blanket statements without researching them only serves to push your beliefs on someone and isnt about true reason and rationality.
I respect unbiased agnostics because they honestly say that they dont know for sure scientifically, but as most learned people understand science isnt the be all that ends all in finding truth. There are indeed many things that we alll believe in rationally (atheists, agnostics, deists, spiritualists and theists alike) that science cannot prove.
Your entire argument falls to the ground as agnosticism (not - knowing) logically requires athesism (not - believing). Until you understand that, your entire argument is irrational, flawed and illogical.
Quote:
When I went on my journey, it was a journey based on science, spirituality and philosophy.
When a theist says that, it usually turn out to be about a Faith - based mental jaunt with some personal inclinations luted on plus a bit of handy half understood science terms waved about to make it sound a bit scientific.
Quote:
Your statement about the bible might make sense to you but there are many people that are much more intellectual then you that have come to a different conclusion about god and the bible.
You again show how flawed your approach is. It isn't about how many people were persuaded of this or that or how clever they were or what certificates they could wave about. It is about the evidence, not numbers or authority figures. To trot out supposed science Icons as theists is the stock in trade of the theist apologist and it is fundamentally the wrong approach to the discussion.
Quote:
For someone to say Faith is illogical, they cant really say that also with certainty because even science hasnt really discovered everything about humanity and the universe to dispell the believe in spirituality.
Sorry, you again show how illogical and flawed your entire approach is. Faith is, by it's very nature illogical since it is, and has to be, belief in what is not shown to be believable. If it was, it wouldn't be Faith. It would be evidence - based belief and that is what science is all about.
Quote:
Arequipa, your statement about genesis is a bit misleading not sure if it was intentional or because you dont understand that most christianity outside of new earth creationists know that most of genesis was written conceptually, but the concept of creation from literally nothing really does stand on solid ground now with mainstream science.
Does it? I'd love to see a link as I have been arguing for some time that 'nothing comes from nothing' may well apply to what we know but there is no reason why it couldn't apply in some other parts of the universe or so other time of the universe of which we know nothing.
You of all people should know that some theists argue that Genesis is fact, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon how much science they are prepared to dismiss.
If we end up with 'conceptually' (don't know quite what that is supposed to mean) but if that means a mythical attempt to describe where it all came from by people who had no idea, that I'd say that is a good starting point for asking 'if we can't believe the Bible on that, what can we believe it on?'
I'd say on demonstrable evidence, Jewish history, shorn of an supposed God input. At least, post 1,000 B.C to Maccabees. The Gospels cannot be trusted and thus, there is no reason to believe either Judaism or Christianity. And Mormonism and Islam go in the bin together with them.
There may be odd observations worthy of merit or quote. So there are in many other holy books. There is simply no good reason to be a Christian, even if one does buy into deism.
It's like two people looking at the same image, but from the opposite side. Non-believers see it one way, and believers see it a completely different way. And no matter how many times accounts, ideas, doctrines, supposed contradictions are explained by a believer to help a non-believer see it from our perspective, it usually doesn't happen.
Same thing happens between different sects of believers as well. Not even the people who claim the Bible is true can agree on what it means, so you can't exactly put the blame on non-believers here. The root of the problem is trying to learn "truth" through faith in a bronze-age book of mythology.
Same thing happens between different sects of believers as well. Not even the people who claim the Bible is true can agree on what it means, so you can't exactly put the blame on non-believers here. The root of the problem is trying to learn "truth" through faith in a bronze-age book of mythology.
It really irks me when I read posts here that implies that we heathen have not read your buybull and come to the conclusion it is all man-made BS.
Are you taught that we are unenlightened or what is it with you folk?
Hint, read your bible and study early church history and maybe you will join our ranks. Most of us posting here were once devout theists.
Why would a person CARE to spend a lot of time studying something they don't believe in?
Most atheists I've debated with tended to have a cursory knowledge at best. They've been able to present straw-man arguments and copy/paste from their favorite website....but ther just isn't much in the way of real u derstanding.
Why would a person CARE to spend a lot of time studying something they don't believe in?
For most of us, the intensive studying preceded the realization that we were an atheist.
Quote:
Most atheists I've debated with tended to have a cursory knowledge at best. They've been able to present straw-man arguments and copy/paste from their favorite website....but ther just isn't much in the way of real u derstanding.
Oh right. Because an atheist just can't understand an ancient book of conflicting myths plagiarized from the legends of previous civilizations. Gotcha.
Why would a person CARE to spend a lot of time studying something they don't believe in?
Most atheists I've debated with tended to have a cursory knowledge at best. They've been able to present straw-man arguments and copy/paste from their favorite website....but ther just isn't much in the way of real u derstanding.
You know something, you seem VERY familiar. Some writing styles are easy to spot. Hmmm....We don't know you, huh? lol
You don't have to hide behind another alias just to make your point, you know.
In any event, I see it the other way around. I think you are confusing true atheists/agnostics with regular run of the mill non-Christians. In other words, people who are still influenced by Christianity, pay it some lip service but not just ready to take the plunge yet. They may have a few objections here and there. They may not think the bible is totally inerrant. They may think Jesus was black or that Saturday is the Sabbath or that it is okay to do this or that and still be a Christian. Whatever Christian exposure they may have had still lingers in their heads.
Yes, these people may have cursory knowledge "at best" and you Christians can convince them if pressured enough because they are already pretty much convinced your god exists. The atheist/agnostics I know are generally people who were once Christians OR grew up in or around Christian influence and often know the bible better than most Christians. When I was a Christian, this was something that was quite evident to me and it always amazed me.
Anyway, see you around on the Christian forum where you can be yourself again.
Son of Methodist theologian, nephew of Baptist minister; obligatory sunday bible study for 6 years; attended Catholic school with extensive religious study for four years, atheist of the last 35 years.
I began reading the bible around age 5. I went further. By age 19 or so, I had an extensive library of books on the bible and its various concepts. I had lexicons, concordances, bible dictionaries and chain reference bibles. Not satisfied with just those, I purchased books on Christian apologetics by authors like, Martin, Morris, Geisler and Josh McDowell. I had just about every book on End Time prophecy and a few books on other religions (from a Christian perspective, of course).
When the internet came into my life, I sucked up even more Christian material. I was even the nerdy Christian who read all the boring stuff in the bible many Christians don't even read. I read all the boring Levitical laws and all the "begats" in I Chronicles. I knew who all the different "ites" were (Horites, Hittites, Amalekites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Canaanites, etc). There was not much passing me when it came to the bible and the different concepts and spins Christians put on things. I was LOADED with Christian babble.
I am now an agnostic (READ: "atheist: to the Christian because I refuse to believe in his god) and I still know the bible than the majority of Christians.
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 11-16-2009 at 09:43 AM..
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.
