Why I'm not willing to accept Scriptures as objective truth

[Rainbow Mage]

There are many reasons why, but I suppose the primary reason would be this:

I am a person who has always liked to study and learn new things. Accepting that one book or a few can give you objective truth is too easy. You don't have to seek for it, and to me, that would make it not a truth worth having.

 

[truseeker]

so if you read something in a science book you will not believe that either or is it only religious things that you need to prove?

 

[Revoltingest]

Without evidence, is a sought after truth any better?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

so if you read something in a science book you will not believe that either or is it only religious things that you need to prove?

Well I don't accept things automatically I read in a science book either. I go and study into how much evidence what they're putting forth has, then I decide to accept it or not. I don't accept many modern mainstream science theories.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Without evidence, is a sought after truth any better?

Depends what one would call evidence

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends what one would call evidence

True dat. I wouldn't even know what to look for.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well Revoltingist I'm assuming you arrived at your Atheism by seeking, so reverse question. What evidence did you see that Atheism was correct?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Okay if there are no further points of discussion, reason second for why I reject scriptures as containing objective truth:

Because scriptures are written by human beings, even if they are inspired by god. The human being could no more understand things beyond their limited minds then we could. They could write down whatever the deity dictates, but they couldn't write it in a way that does justice to god's infalliability. It's a very limited vehicle of putting forth this truth. Did they understand human biology 2000 years ago? To use an example.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well Revoltingist I'm assuming you arrived at your Atheism by seeking, so reverse question. What evidence did you see that Atheism was correct?

I arrived at it by always having been one....no seeking involved.
Since there's no evidence it's correct, I don't claim it is.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I arrived at it by always having been one....no seeking involved.
Since there's no evidence it's correct, I don't claim it is.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[fallingblood]

So you won't accept scripture as objective truth as it is written by man and there are other sources? So what can be objective truth then? Because you've basically ruled out everything.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So you won't accept scripture as objective truth as it is written by man and there are other sources? So what can be objective truth then? Because you've basically ruled out everything.

Objective truth need not be known by man for it to exist. The claim that a less then perfect book is the source of objective truth is a stretch.

 

[fallingblood]

Objective truth need not be known by man for it to exist. The claim that a less then perfect book is the source of objective truth is a stretch.

Where do you find objective truth then?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Where do you find objective truth then?

I don't. Objective truth is not something I need. I'm willing to claim my views are true for me, and something else might be true to someone else. If I'm wrong, oh well. Usually those who claim "objective truth" have a motive behind that claim, like wanting to push it on everyone.