The Bible influenced my disbelief

[JJ50]

I wouldn't say I was particularly intelligent but where matters of religion are concerned I like to work it out for myself. Everyone's thoughts on the topic are purely a matter of conjecture anyway.

[Doug1029]

Atheism is not a statement that there is no Gods, or God, but that there is no evidence for any.

That would be my definition of agnosticism.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

I wouldn't say I was particularly intelligent but where matters of religion are concerned I like to work it out for myself. Everyone's thoughts on the topic are purely a matter of conjecture anyway.

In the end we make our own minds up about things. In fact we can't avoid it. Even if we decide to follow a guru, that is us making the decision.

Still, when we read someone we admire and who is great and wise (I forget the Sutra) we should stop and pause and honor their words and be sure we understand that they are probably right, even if we would like to argue.

[Frank Merton]

That would be my definition of agnosticism.

Doug

Well usually when there is no evidence we don't accept. You can't prove a negative. There is evidence of God, but we are not persuaded by it and find most of it contrived. Still, if we concede that the evidence has any merit at all then we are agnostic. The point was made above that Einstein was a different sort of Einstein -- he just did not deal with the question.

[Perceptivum]

For those who are confused:

atheism: (a·the·ism) - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

agnostic: (ag·nos·tic) - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[Hawkins]

When I read the Bible in its entirety instead of picking out chapters and verses here and there, I realised that it read like a very human production. Every time I read the book it convinces me that my disbelief in the deity, featured therein, is justified.

Well, so you choose to rely on your intelligence (Tree of Knowledge) to judge (true from false, good from evil etc.). Human intelligence is never reliable. Human intelligence, human knowledge, science and etc. won't reveal you anything about the next reality. They are limited to reach only this reality but not beyond.

The same day you eat of it, the same day you should surely die.

Of course, God have the Tree of Life well guarded from you, such that (even with your knowledge) you won't be able to see life beyond the physical death.

[Perceptivum]

Obviously, there are two sides of the coin here. One side being the belief that what is contained in the Bible is true, despite the contradictions (i.e., faith). The other side being that the Bible is nothing more than a book of questionable stories, due to the contradictions, among other things (i.e., wisdom of men). It is impossible for a Christian to not use the Bible itself as a basis of their belief and it is inherently a circular relationship, i.e., the Bible is true because the Bible states “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). However, how do you explain the existence of an apple without pointing to it and stating, “there is an apple”? It is by faith alone that we believe. Is the problem with the Bible as evidence to the existence of God, Jesus, etc. merely the contradictions within its pages? Is it because a “scholar” cannot definitively state a particular author wrote a specific book of the Bible and here is the evidence to support it? I would agree with skeptics that these are valid concerns and excellent reasons to dismiss the Bible’s contents and build a case against it. The wisdom of men is unquestionable on earth, normal on earth, and sound in earthly logic; this is natural human behavior.

For Christians, natural human behavior is sinful (i.e., original sin). Our default setting (i.e., natural behavior) is sinful disbelief and therefore ungodly. If an ungodly person refuses to humble themselves and obey the gospel, and instead desires to build a case against the Bible, God gives them enough material to build their own gallows. It is way too easy to be atheist or agnostic, it does not take much effort. However, God has turned the tables on proud, arrogant, self-righteous. When they proudly stand outside the kingdom of God, and seek to justify sinfulness through evidence they think discredits the Bible, they don’t realize that God has simply lowered the door of life so that only those who are prepared to exercise faith and bow in humility may enter.

For believers, we exercise our faith:

• Hebrews 11:1-3, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
  
• 1 Corinthians 2:5, “That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”
  
• Proverbs 3:5-6, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”
  
• 2 Corinthians 5:7, “For we walk by faith, not by sight.”
  

Even demons know (and what does that say about non-believers then):

• Mark 3:11, “And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’”
  
• Matthew 8:29, “An behold, they cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come there to torment us before the time?’”
  
• Acts 19:15,”But the evil spirit answered them, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?’”
  

[Davros of Skaro]

^ Punish those that use their Brains, and reward those that have a slave mentality.

Sounds Man made to me.

[karmakazi]

It is way too easy to be atheist or agnostic, it does not take much effort. However, God has turned the tables on proud, arrogant, self-righteous. When they proudly stand outside the kingdom of God, and seek to justify sinfulness through evidence they think discredits the Bible, they don’t realize that God has simply lowered the door of life so that only those who are prepared to exercise faith and bow in humility may enter.

Seeking the truth through the muck mankind has made is anything but easy. As for the effort of being agnostic, I spend a lot of time researching and the reflecting on what I've learned. Then there is the emotional toll of challenging your own assumptions and seeking one's own confirmation bias which is not easy. It's sneaky and hard to spot but sometimes it is possible to catch myself doing it and then examine why, what my motivation was.

I don't know if what you wrote was your own opinion or a generalization of Christian opinion but I wanted to share an opposing view from my own experience.

[Perceptivum]

Seeking the truth through the muck mankind has made is anything but easy. As for the effort of being agnostic, I spend a lot of time researching and the reflecting on what I've learned. Then there is the emotional toll of challenging your own assumptions and seeking one's own confirmation bias which is not easy. It's sneaky and hard to spot but sometimes it is possible to catch myself doing it and then examine why, what my motivation was.

I don't know if what you wrote was your own opinion or a generalization of Christian opinion but I wanted to share an opposing view from my own experience.

What I write is always my own opinion. Looking at atheism or agnostic per strict definition, I believe it is far too easy to rest your belief in no god, or have not an opinion either way, than it is to take a leap of faith without substance or foundation (when you exclude the Bible of course). There are obvious exceptions, as there are no absolutes, and you are an exception.

[Perceptivum]

^ Punish those that use their Brains, and reward those that have a slave mentality.

Sounds Man made to me.

You are sadly mistaken if you believe Christians have a slave mentality. It appears you are projecting your own short-comings onto a broad community of people. I will not comment on who God condemns and/or under what circumstances as God will be the judge of that; I can only reference what is in the Bible. You can draw your own conclusions from that and if that is your conclusion, than may be you should stop using your brain and follow your heart and faith.

[Doug1029]

I am 100% the other direction. One of us is likely correct, one day we'll find out for certain. Until then, best of wishes in your life journey

~ Regards, PA

Odds are that we will lose consciousness slightly before death, thus never knowing which way it turned out - either of us.

Doug

[eight bits]

karmakazi

Aggies rule. Rock on, sister.

Davros

This was a private letter that was not for the public.

That actually isn't so. Gutkind was a public figure, obscure now, but well known in New York City intellectual circles at the time. Gutkind sold the letter in a public sale. It is an accdient that that buyer salted it away for so long. However, Einstein archived his response (I mentioned his secretary's transcription), indicating his intention to preserve the record of his remarks for public use. Scholars knew of the letter from the archives' transcription (and from Gutkind's answer to Eintein, also archived) long before the letter was offered for resale in 2008.

There is nothing actually in Einstein's letter to Gutkind that differs much from his other public remarks on Judaism or God. The phoney "somethings found in the translation" are not the only remarks of his on religion that have been faked. For example, some comments on Buddhism, easily found on the web, are also inventions.

I see him publicly using God metaphoricly,...

As most European and European heritage people do from time to time. It is an integral part of our languages. On other occasions, he meant the God in which (not in whom) he believed. That that wasn't a personal God, he never hid or pandered to public tastes. That he didn't pray, was proud of being Jewish but not observant, etc., were all very publicly disclosed, and not always well received. There wasn't the now-familiar social pressure against anti-Semitism back then, not even for a good long while after WW II in the United States.

One of the joys of reading Einstein is how comfortable he was in his own skin, and how gracefully he discusses even the touchiest of subjects, including the paradigmatic taboos of religion and politics. He would have made a great Prssident of Israel, but he declined.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

What I write is always my own opinion. Looking at atheism or agnostic per strict definition, I believe it is far too easy to rest your belief in no god, or have not an opinion either way, than it is to take a leap of faith without substance or foundation (when you exclude the Bible of course). There are obvious exceptions, as there are no absolutes, and you are an exception.

Thats where we differ. I think that it makes a lot more sense not to believe in something that is without substance or Foundation.

How can you know that the bible/koran/torah etc. is real and not based on a terminological inexactitude, when there is no substance to back it up ?

[Davros of Skaro]

karmakazi

Aggies rule. Rock on, sister.

Davros

That actually isn't so. Gutkind was a public figure, obscure now, but well known in New York City intellectual circles at the time. Gutkind sold the letter in a public sale. It is an accdient that that buyer salted it away for so long. However, Einstein archived his response (I mentioned his secretary's transcription), indicating his intention to preserve the record of his remarks for public use. Scholars knew of the letter from the archives' transcription (and from Gutkind's answer to Eintein, also archived) long before the letter was offered for resale in 2008.

There is nothing actually in Einstein's letter to Gutkind that differs much from his other public remarks on Judaism or God. The phoney "somethings found in the translation" are not the only remarks of his on religion that have been faked. For example, some comments on Buddhism, easily found on the web, are also inventions.

As most European and European heritage people do from time to time. It is an integral part of our languages. On other occasions, he meant the God in which (not in whom) he believed. That that wasn't a personal God, he never hid or pandered to public tastes. That he didn't pray, was proud of being Jewish but not observant, etc., were all very publicly disclosed, and not always well received. There wasn't the now-familiar social pressure against anti-Semitism back then, not even for a good long while after WW II in the United States.

One of the joys of reading Einstein is how comfortable he was in his own skin, and how gracefully he discusses even the touchiest of subjects, including the paradigmatic taboos of religion and politics. He would have made a great Prssident of Israel, but he declined.

The case is closed.

Unless you can prove this qoute is a fake?

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein, Letter, 24 March 1954. Quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

http://www.quotes.net/quote/41322

[Davros of Skaro]

You are sadly mistaken if you believe Christians have a slave mentality.  It appears you are projecting your own short-comings onto a broad community of people.  I will not comment on who God condemns and/or under what circumstances as God will be the judge of that; I can only reference what is in the Bible.  You can draw your own conclusions from that and if that is your conclusion, than may be you should stop using your brain and follow your heart and faith.

You are in complete obedience to a fairy tale, which is the ultimate short coming of the mind.

Stop using my Brain and render myself in a bliss of psychosis?

No thanks, and keep away from children is my advice.People may see you as nice, but the same people do not see the price.

[Occult1]

The Bible was a major factor in my move to agnosticism. After careful study, I realized that most (maybe all) of its "miracles" have very rational explanations and are not miracles at all. If there are no miracles, then there is no way for a god to perform them. And without the ability to perform miracles, any entity is not a god. Especially, that all-important miracle distinguishing men from gods: men die; gods don't. Without miracles, gods must die, too. And that means they are not gods.

Doug

In my personal beliefs, I don't consider the need of ''miracles'' and '' Godly interventions'' to be a prerequisite for the existence of a Metaphysical Entit(ies) or God(s), whichever the terminology one choose to use.

To me, observations of the sheer complexity of the natural world are sufficiant to determine that world is likely to be the product of an Intelligent Design. I do not not need sacred texts, supernatural revelations or religious institutions to reach that conclusion, to accept this possiblity but only reason and observation.

Edited June 27, 2014 by sam_comm

[Davros of Skaro]

In my personal beliefs, I don't consider the need of ''miracles'' and '' Godly interventions'' to be a prerequisite for the existence of a Metaphysical Entity or God, whichever the terminology one choose to use.

To me, observations of the natural world are sufficiant to determine that our world is likely to be the product of an Intelligent Design. I do not not need sacred texts, supernatural revelations or religious institutions to reach that conclusion but reason and observation.

Would you thank God if you got a Tapeworm, or your nervous system damaged by lightining?

[Occult1]

Would you thank God if you got a Tapeworm, or your nervous system damaged by lightining?

It's the laws of nature, it's functioning, which I think just about every living organisms need to adapt to.

Edited June 27, 2014 by sam_comm

[Davros of Skaro]

It's the laws of nature, it's functioning, which I think just about every living organisms need to adapt to.

Life has been adapting for billions of years.It's time for the next step in evolution which is to pick up some science books.

[+Liquid Gardens]

What I write is always my own opinion. Looking at atheism or agnostic per strict definition, I believe it is far too easy to rest your belief in no god, or have not an opinion either way, than it is to take a leap of faith without substance or foundation (when you exclude the Bible of course).

I'd have to entirely disagree with this, on the contrary, I think it is far too easy to just believe something on faith. Per its strict definition, faith allows the comfort of never ultimately having to truly deal with the possibility of conflicting evidence or the issues normally implicit with non-existent evidence. What people believe on faith is just 'true' and nearly impenetrable from without, only sometimes from within (that is not a point in its favor). There really isn't much need in investigating or studying positions counter to yours except maybe out of curiousity, as that's not necessarily relevant to faith-based belief.

The only thing I think is difficult about taking a 'leap of faith' is that I don't think it's actually possible, at least for me. I can't just take a leap of faith and start believing in God, how would I do such a thing? Do I pretend that my entirely normal and standard questions that I and most everyone asks concerning the existence of something have been adequately answered? Do I ignore that I'm really hard-pressed to think of anything that has been verified as actually being true using this 'way of knowing' involving faith? I already spend plenty of time trying to look at the world as if God was real and in my view it is just entirely unsupported using the methods we use to determine the truth about most everything else, and as an explanation given the possibilities of what reality may actually be seems quite limited.

I think an argument can be made that it's more difficult to live in a reality with many unknowns and no assurances that we'll get what we want than it is to have faith and not necessarily have to even wonder about it.

[Occult1]

Life has been adapting for billions of years.It's time for the next step in evolution which is to pick up some science books.

You are preaching to the converted.

Though as far as I know, the fundamental nature of reality is still pretty much an open debate in which scientists and philosophers have their own personal opinions. Having a keen interest for science does not mean I should hold a reductionist view of the world, nor does the concept of 'God' has been ruled out in any of the current scientific models.

Edited June 28, 2014 by sam_comm

[Frank Merton]

There is far more scientists don't know now than any time in the past. The fact is the more we learn the more it opens vistas before unseen and unsuspected. The vast majority of people just don't get this because they know so little science and operate in a world of myths. Indeed, I would say a great part of scientific progress has been nothing more than breaking through these myths.

[Omnaka]

Seeking the truth through the muck mankind has made is anything but easy. As for the effort of being agnostic, I spend a lot of time researching and the reflecting on what I've learned. Then there is the emotional toll of challenging your own assumptions and seeking one's own confirmation bias which is not easy. It's sneaky and hard to spot but sometimes it is possible to catch myself doing it and then examine why, what my motivation was.

I don't know if what you wrote was your own opinion or a generalization of Christian opinion but I wanted to share an opposing view from my own experience.

Wow! Nice

[Marcus Aurelius]

Liquid Gardens, it seems like every time you write a post I want to respond to it because they are always so good lol

I had a few thoughts about what you wrote in #46.

I'd have to entirely disagree with this, on the contrary, I think it is far too easy to just believe something on faith.

This may be the case for some, but it certainly isn't the case for everybody. As you and I were discussing on another thread, I have had what some would call 'mystical experiences' or experiences of the Holy Spirit; even though I rarely speak about them in 'debates.' But there WAS problems with that. I really was a philosophical atheist, and I had been so for a number of years. So when this stuff happened, after the 'glamour' wore off and the dust settled; my first inclination was to doubt everything that had happened to me. I seriously found myself wondering if I'd somehow taken leave of my senses. So I poured over the study of theology and the philosophy of religion. I had to back up my experiences with my thought. I had to answer my own objections to Christianity, faith; and investigate the whole thing myself. This led to a deeper conviction of my faith. Was I too 'biased' or 'too far gone' into the camp of theism by this point? I don't think so. The skeptic inside me was still scratching and clawing and trying to get back to the surface; but over time I found that I could rationally answer every single one of my own (previous) objections to belief.

So while some have certainly weighed the scales of belief and unbelief; and found themselves weighing into unbelief like the OP and many other great minds; the scales have tipped to the other side for others. Blaise Pascal had been an atheist/agnostic. C.S. Lewis was once an atheist. My favorite living theologian, Alister Mcgrath, also a biochemist; was once an atheist. These people didn't just believe on faith and neither did I.

Per its strict definition, faith allows the comfort of never ultimately having to truly deal with the possibility of conflicting evidence or the issues normally implicit with non-existent evidence.

Yes, it can. And I DO know a number of Christians like that. In fact, just the other day I was talking with some lay leaders in my church about the possibility of my starting a sort of 'theology for beginners' small-group or class, and as we were talking I mentioned something about Richard Dawkins...and too my utter amazement...none of them had ever even HEARD of him, much less read him [yes, I have read the God Delusion.] Just like YOU, I am equally befuddled with my own brethren who seemingly just bury their heads in the sand.

There really isn't much need in investigating or studying positions counter to yours except maybe out of curiousity, as that's not necessarily relevant to faith-based belief.

I do find it relevant because if I can't RATIONALLY articulate my faith, if I can't at least demonstrate to some extent it's plausibility, if I don't know what's out there, if I just bury my head in the sand like the people above...then I would feel like my faith is stagnant. I want to constantly be challenged and increase in my knowledge. I make it a point to read the prominent atheist writers of today, I'm very well read on the classical atheist writers as a former atheist who was influenced by them; I watch the lectures and debates just like all of you. But just like nothing has convinced you that God DOES exist, nothing has convinced me that He DOESN'T. So on the one hand we are poles apart, but on the other, we are rather alike.

The only thing I think is difficult about taking a 'leap of faith' is that I don't think it's actually possible, at least for me. I can't just take a leap of faith and start believing in God, how would I do such a thing? Do I pretend that my entirely normal and standard questions that I and most everyone asks concerning the existence of something have been adequately answered? Do I ignore that I'm really hard-pressed to think of anything that has been verified as actually being true using this 'way of knowing' involving faith? I already spend plenty of time trying to look at the world as if God was real and in my view it is just entirely unsupported using the methods we use to determine the truth about most everything else, and as an explanation given the possibilities of what reality may actually be seems quite limited.

You could do all that; but simply put: you are too smart for that. You are far too intelligent to make a non-rational, existential leap into the dark. I don't blame you, really.

But when we look at what constitutes 'faith', I think all too often we think of it as a purely existential leap wholly separate from reason and evidence. I just don't think that's the case, and those giants of the past and present would probably agree with me. We make it out to be 'either/or' when it should be 'both/and'. Liquid Gardens, if you (hypothetically) sincerely prayed to God to answer you and to reveal Himself to you, and truly wait for that answer with an open mind...I believe there is a high probability that prayer would be answered in some supernatural or existential fashion, apart from reason or empirical evidence. But at the same time, if you turned your attention away from the cartoon characters that make up much of modern Churchianity today and instead devoted your attention to the greats like Augustine, Aquinas, Lewis and others you could (hypothetically) perhaps find some of those arguments, answers and evidence you say you are looking for as well.

I for one could never simply believe in a wholly 'upper-story' existentialist, non-rational faith.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius