If one were to be successful in convincing an intelligent biblical fundamentalist that the position is wrong, you might be surprised to find that the former fundamentalist does not become a more moderate Christian but an atheist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There isn't any good reason
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
If one were to be successful in convincing an intelligent biblical fundamentalist that the position is wrong, you might be surprised to find that the former fundamentalist does not become a more moderate Christian but an atheist.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I'm not surprised by that because people go for all sorts of things. I just don't like fundamentalism from religion, or non religion.
There's many paths one could take, or choose not to take any path.
Fundamentalism provides an absolute certainty based on a belief that every word in the Bible really has been dictated by God and one needs only hold to the literal meaning. It does not recognize that every word in the Bible, even though inspired by God, has been written by human beings who had limitations. The message of the Incarnation is that there is no way to avoid the interplay of the divine and the human in approaching God. Biblical literalism, since it makes all divine, supplies a false certitude that often unconsciously confuses the human limitation with the divine message. A literalist interpretation destroys the very nature of the Bible as a human expression of divine revelation. One must understand that only human beings speak words. The very valid description of the Bible as "God's word" has both the divine element ("God's") and the human ("word").
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, because their position is just as valid as the believer position, since there is no proof that God exists.
One can know but they cannot prove what they know to other people.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There are many paths and that is one reason people are so confused and why some choose to take no path at all!
That reminded about what Baha'u'llah had to say about why people are so confused.
“What “oppression” is greater than that which hath been recounted? What “oppression” is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? For opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God have multiplied. This “oppression” is the essential feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error. For this reason, in all chronicles and traditions reference hath been made unto these things, namely that iniquity shall cover the surface of the earth and darkness shall envelop mankind. As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions.” The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 31-32
What makes you think atheists are scared? You've read dozens of them here on RF and likely elsewhere as well. Do they seem scared? Do I seem scared to you? While theocratic tendencies in the States, where most of my understanding of religion derives, are an obvious problem now, if that can ever be contained, I'd guess that most atheists wouldn't think about religion again, as the rest of it is irrelevant to unbelievers. My chief activity here besides observing the spectrum and distribution of theists and atheist is making the argument against belief by faith if what is believed by faith affects one's life choices. I just read about a guy who won't be purchasing a house because he assumes the rapture is near. Maybe buying a house is a bad idea for him, but if it would have been a good choice and he let his faith-based beliefs modify his decision, he made a mistake. That's why I participate. Not because people like him scare me. They teach me.
Also, evaluating the arguments of believers is instructive and endlessly fascinating. One learns critical thinking skills better by identifying and naming fallacies, for example.
So, belief in gods per se doesn't scare skeptics, but the opposite is often the case. Many Christians and Muslims take offense that atheists exist. They have been taught that unbelievers are an abomination to what they believe is a good god, making atheists that god's enemy, a god that they believe is also offended by atheists and intends to punish them severely for it. There are many here on RF. You were formerly one. It is to your credit that you modified your position on that. There is another atheophobe posting here that has stifled his atheophobic comments for about a year after being called on it. There's the one who keeps equating atheists with Satan and who wonders out loud how he can ever love one. These people treat atheists like they're a danger.
Thank you for that. I agree.
I just had this discussion on RF after claiming that I would trust my own interpretation of scripture over any believer's, and that I thought I understood the central message of the Christian Bible better than believers. One theist asked me to prove that by describing Old testament eschatology in three sentences or less. I explained that I'm not interested in theology, by which I mean the study of things that only matter to a believer. What was meant is that the unbeliever understands the Bible better in terms of being able to see it internal contradictions, errors in history and science, moral and intellectual errors attributed to a perfect god, because unlike the believer who assumes that the deity is good and the scripture truth and wisdom even before reading the first word, he is free to call these errors for what they are as the apologist goes into his verbal gymnastics routines in vain trying to convince disinterested people that up is down and in is out.
The believer also sees the entire purpose of his faith differently from the unbeliever. They see the central message of the Bible as love. I see submission. They see the purpose of the church as saving souls. I see it otherwise. So in that sense, I don't go to believers for biblical knowledge and don't defer to their contradictory opinions in areas where I hold opinions, which excludes theology.
The problem there is that you're saying that at most only some of the words come from the mind of a deity, the rest being human writing. Since there is no test to decide which are which, none of the words should be assumed to come from a deity even if some did. How would you feel about others making changes to your will without your knowledge or consent such that some of it is probably what you wanted, but even if so, nobody can tell which parts are which. How should the law proceed? I'd say that whatever your answer, it should apply equally to those reading scripture and trying to decide which parts were written by guessing people.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I have no reason to fear Atheists, they are free to hold their view as I am free to hold my views and belief
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I know that isn't true
. I'm also sure you've seen loads of atheists without even realising they're atheist (especially if they don't know they're atheist). You can't rationally claim to know what atheists believe any more than you can claim to know what theists believe.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not think atheists are scared of the unseen God that believers believe in.
Why would atheists be scared of what they do not believe exists?
It is believers who fear God, since we believe He exists.
This not unique to atheists, I believe it's true of all people who do not follow the truth of God's judging light. The concept is "Your biggest sin is your own existence". Sufis say this, but I realize, it is hard for people to often see themselves as something distant from God in need of a complete change over.
Its easier to not feel ashamed. Its easier to not feel a big sense of responsibility as well to change the situation.
Hell and fear of that is amplified, in that it is very hard to see friends, loved ones, acquaintances, nice people, going there. It's daunting and overwhelming.
People who do not see the lights and visited family in the sky, often will also fear the notion that you have to strive to see them and want to see them, because they fear in despair. That is they fear with despair it will never come to happen and its chasing an end to a rainbow, it will never be reached.
People who do believe in miracles even, do not want to ask God to see one, in fear of despair, it will not happen.
They are afraid to hope in what they despaired about. So they do want to put hopes and so fear that, and avoid praying to God to show inward unseen signs and on the horizon where God is, and to show miracles by the hands of his guide on earth potentially (he can meet an individual and show such signs).
But some hope goes a along way, and prayer can change fate.
People sometimes fear to look at God and accept him, because of the responsibility that ensues from that. We are all to a degree running away from God and his caller, while they thunder every step we take away and warn us of consequences, but very little hear. Few in the world are not complete running away from God.
Last edited:
There are several choices to make when discussing composition of, compiling of Scripture, keeping in mind it is not a right or wrong question. One is free to believe that all Scripture is 'dictated' word for word by God 'speaking' those words to the one taking the dictation. There is also a belief, just as trustworthy, that God inspired, so we say God 'breathed' Scripture, it is those so inspired who must place the fruits of that inspiration at the disposal of all, in words and form familiar to time and culture, that they/we may also believe. What ones heart receives must reconcile with ones head.
Good luck with that. Each theist seems to have a different "truth." No religion offers truth as the unbeliever defines it. No holy book contains such truth, just guesses and hopes. The universe does speak to us, but not in words. We have to examine it and apply reason to our apprehensions for that knowledge.
No doubt, especially if one isn't listening to clerics or reading holy books. If one feels shame because he has been told that he offended or disappointed a god, he's been needlessly and unfairly guilted, and it will degrade the quality of his life. Why allow others to do that to you?
To an unseen god? It's very easy, if one uses reason instead of faith. And desirable.
So what does big mean in this context? An onerous sense? A guilty sense?
You're correct. All of that goes away with atheism. Look at how many problems religions create for their adherents that evaporate with unbelief, i.e., rejecting so-called religious truths.
I'm reminded of this from Pat Condell: "I mean it must be quite galling for religious people to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self-loathing, and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind, and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment. I have to admit if I was religious I'd probably think to myself: "How come I've got all this weight on my shoulders while these bums are getting a free ride?"
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
It depends on the atheist. Some atheists are dangerous .. yes.
Believers can be dangerous too.
Atheism, in general, is a danger. Disbelief can lead to disunity .. just as the many theist creeds can also.
As atheism isn't a religion, they don't congregate except for other agendas. Is Socialism a religion? Is Republicanism a religion? No!
Disagree. Atheism isn't a danger. It teaches nothing. There is no atheist behavior or creed.
If theism disappeared, THAT would promote unity. Theism is the danger. It DOES teach damaging ideas. Look at what it's done to American women of late. Now there's some major disunity. Watch what happens over the next several months and years in America as culture war is waged openly and angrily. Remove Christianity and all of that goes away. Make the whole nation humanists and you will see unity as well as wisdom prevail. Homophobia goes away. Misogyny goes away. Forced childbirth Anti-scientism goes away. The Republicans go away. Theocracy goes away.
From the pen of the poet:
Imagine there's no religion. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I'll add something then.
They have a concept that they call "baby Christian". That's a newly converted Christian whose faith is not yet strong enough to resist the attacks of the Devil. These people are indeed vulnerable and must be protected at all costs.
Only a chosen one coming to us can unite us if he can unite us. Without this future, its going to get only worse with religions.
If we let clergy lead us, it is divide and conquer and further conflict.
Religions today naturally are lead by clergy who do not care if they are sure of what they teach being truly something they should.
So over all I agree with you. To me, the only solution is to recognize the need of God and his king now and seek this from God. Otherwise, we are better off with no religion.
With Islam, we saw slavery in history and other things. So fallible people interpreting religion makes people use religion in harmful and ugly ways.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
That is a pipe-dream.
Human beings are inherrently violent. You perceive that without religion, men will all live in peace. You are mistaken. You are being misled by "the one" who is at the bottom of it all. "The one" who encourages us to look after number one, making sure that we are alright Jack.
It's always b***** money!
Why would that be surprising?
The default position is atheism, and deciding that their previous interpretation of Christianity is wrong wouldn't necessarily imply that some other interpretation they've so far rejected is likely to be right.
In fact, some of the positions they hold that imply moderate Christianity is wrong wouldn't necessarily disappear just because they decide that God doesn't exist. Fundamentalist Christians will often have reasons for thinking moderate Christians are wrong that don't depend on their belief in God being correct.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Enough atheists express things the way I said. It's called naturalism.I know that isn't true