Is the theist's problem that they don't know what reality is? (beliefs, bible)

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

A lot of people are saying that "The entire Bible is false". But in reality, how would know if it is false? Sure, there is no proof that what happened is real but there also no proof that every thing written is false, either. (I hate making statements like this since it opens up to ridicule, but I will make it anyway.

Another thing people seem to forget- The Bible is not just one book, it is 66 books put together in one volume. They had been passed around and recopied from scrolls for a very long time before being put into one volume. They may have even left out some books that also may been inspired.

I also have to bring up the fact that there are other writings from other religions and faiths that are read and followed. Why just focus on the Bible?

Not all of it. Some is probably true. Its just the references to god or rising from the dead... or that part where they guy lost his strength because of a haircut... or that part when some chick turned to a pillar of salt.... or the parting of the red sea... or like revelations and horsemen of death.... or the whole creation bit... Anything to do with satan and demons... hmmm water to wine....

Like the manna part is probably true... When they found food. And I believe some people really did write letters.

Armegeddon... no....

Some of the cities and stories are probably real. Definitely some of the cities. We found evidence. We may even have found evidence of an ark... but it could be just an old boat because its decidely a little small for all the animals in the world to fit on. (Two of each, 1 male and 1 female...)

So no the entire bible is not false. But the bible as a whole and story and implications it makes are false. They are misleading, dishonest and designed in such a way as to avoid being questioned and to be blindly followed.

The bible people believe in is false.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

A lot of people are saying that "The entire Bible is false".

I wouldn't say the entire Bible is false. I would say that the belief that the Bible -- or the Qur'an, or any other sacred text -- is inerrant is entirely false.

[3.14]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

Is the barrier to the theist's understanding of the real world that they don't know what reality is?

no they know they just don't like it

have you ever seen a cartoon, read a book in wich not everything was based on reality?
most theists acknowlage reality but are not restricted by it.

[science_is_my_god]

Like I have said before, if part of the Bible is true and parts unture, I would find it as an unreliable source for interpreting a god. It would be like having google give you wrong links half of the time- yes that would still make it useful, but 100% accurate? No.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

All theist view a world with God or Gods; if there are no Gods at all then they have a inaccurate take on things.

If there is one, and only one, accurate take on the world, then which of us has it? You? Me? Him? If each of us doesn't have it --that is to say, if all of us have an "inaccurate take on things" --then who are we to point a finger at any one of us and say that that person has a take that is the inaccurate one?

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

But beyond that it is not uncommon for a theist or theistic group to base a set of beliefs on that singular belief that there is a God or Gods. While those beliefs may follow a logical line with a God or Gods included, the whole system is way off if there is no such thing as Gods.

That "if" represents uncertainty; therefore, it represents reality if uncertainty represents reality. If uncertainty represents reality, then we all, each of us, have as accurate a take on things as the next person.

(Good thread, by the way.)

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I think the distinction between strong and weak atheism is artificial and contrived. It seems to serve no purpose other than to stigmatize "strong atheists," and most people who use it seem to feel that atheism is better if it's "weaker," which might imply that atheism is undesirable in itself, and becomes more objectionable the "stronger" it is.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

Is the barrier to the theist's understanding of the real world that they don't know what reality is?

Frequently, yes. It's also frequently a barrier to most "atheists" understanding of the nature of "reality."

[science_is_my_god]

Originally Posted by Willamena

If there is one, and only one, accurate take on the world, then which of us has it? You? Me? Him? If each of us doesn't have it --that is to say, if all of us have an "inaccurate take on things" --then who are we to point a finger at any one of us and say that that person has a take that is the inaccurate one?

The person who has an accurate take on the world is someone who understands that north is north and south is south. The one accurate take on the world is what can be logically proven to be true. Sure, you could think north is south and south is north, but you better hope you never get lost in a jungle.