• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Humbling Journey: Theism to Atheism...

The Big Dog said:
I was talking about the above posts, thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's far off TBD. Do we believe in a virgin birth or a physical resurrection? How about transubstantiation? Hey, I think there are some good philosophical lessons in the bible about forgiving others and ourselves. About how we are more capable than we realize . I like to think philosophically, I'm a Christian, but there is a lot of bs in the bible.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think he's far off TBD. Do we believe in a virgin birth or a physical resurrection? How about transubstantiation? Hey, I think there are some good philosophical lessons in the bible about forgiving others and ourselves. About how we are more capable than we realize . I like to think philosophically, I'm a Christian, but there is a lot of bs in the bible.
Click to expand...

Well that is fine, however, in this case he was specifically referred to statements that parts of the Bible are allegorical and metaphorical.

If he wanted to simply declare his "humble" belief that everything is WRONG he should have done that in the first place rather than mislead people who thought his questions were asked in good faith.
 
acbytesla said:
Not really. None of the claims have any evidence. And the Noah story is particularly moronic. They couldn't convince me that was true in Sunday School when I was 6. The resurrection story is more plausible in that people thought to be dead have woken up. That the world was created in 7 days and that Jesus was Son of God/God/Holy Ghost is ridiculous. But people go with it to be culturally acceptable. Believing your neighbor is JC is ridiculous as well, but isn't socially acceptable.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree, however the DSM make an exception for certain commonly held beliefs in a social group being a possible exception to being a delusion.
 
Autolite said:
Okay, I think I've got it now.

Believing in Zombies= Not Crazy

Believing Jesus lives next door= Nutters

Thanks for clearing that up. It might be a little awkward though when during the second coming JC actually does end up as your neighbor. I'm just guessing that he's gonna need to crash somewhere...
Click to expand...

In some social settings believing and therefor possibly not a delusion. in zombies may be commonly held.

I did work with a woman who thought her picture of Jesus talked to her...
 
"Nut cases"? Mental health issues something else you're humbly trying to learn about and understand rather than thoughtlessly and ignorantly mock?
 
The Big Dog said:
Well that is fine, however, in this case he was specifically referred to statements that parts of the Bible are allegorical and metaphorical.

If he wanted to simply declare his "humble" belief that everything is WRONG he should have done that in the first place rather than mislead people who thought his questions were asked in good faith.
Click to expand...
But surely TBD, there are many churches in the USA (and round the world to be fair) that do believe and state explicitly that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, not a book containing allegory and metaphor. Every word is to be taken literally. Your particular branch of the faith may not believe that but it is common enough to be a valid judgement on Christianity, for some values of Christian.
 
Parsman said:
But surely TBD, there are many churches in the USA (and round the world to be fair) that do believe and state explicitly that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, not a book containing allegory and metaphor. Every word is to be taken literally. Your particular branch of the faith may not believe that but it is common enough to be a valid judgement on Christianity, for some values of Christian.
Click to expand...

The gist of this part of the thread seems to be that the bible is indeed considered by the majority of believers to be a book of allegories and metaphors. And I have read a few links on this issue that underscores this. In the monologue "Letting Go of God", Julia Sweeney tells how her priest describes to her the 'Adam-n-Eve' story as being "myth-ish".

There are books of fairy tales and those by 'Dr. Seuss' that are complete fabrications of fiction (some with good moral lessons) that AFAIK have never been passed off as anything other than what they are.

However, this has not been the case with the Christian bible. Ken Ham, founder of the 'Creation Museum' in Petersburg Kentucky, openly promotes the literal interpretation of the bible. He even wants to people to think that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have read posts on other forums where there were Theists who actually believe this to be the case referencing the Paluxy River Footprints as 'proof'. I was severely bashed just for pointing out that this was widely accepted as a hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River

The fact that the bible is considered by any supposedly mentally healthy individual as being literally true is for me very disconcerting. If the bible is a fictional fabrication of myths and legends then the overwhelming vast majority of those in religious authority should emphatically, unanimously and loudly declare that to be so. IMO, just silently allowing people to believe otherwise isn't right...
 

Attachments

  • Dinosaur Saddle.jpg
    Dinosaur Saddle.jpg
    9 KB · Views: 60
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You've been dismissive of what's been said to you. You've ignored evidence that didn't demonstrate what you wanted it to demonstrate until enough people kept reminding you that it existed that you were forced to accept that it existed.
Click to expand...

The people you've referenced are lame in comparison to people like Dan Barker. Mr. Barker was an Evangelical minister who figured out that all religion and the bible was pure B.S. And he's now an Atheist who makes a serious effort trying to spread the truth.

There's also the 'Clergy Project'. It's a support site for clergymen, ministers and pastors who have turned to Atheism.

The fact that some of these 'Atheist' preachers are still spreading the holy gospel (according to Barker) should tell you that there is something seriously wrong going on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clergy_Project
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You consider the Pope less of a religious authority figure than Dan Barker?
Click to expand...

Well the Pope (one of them anyway) was eventually forced to acknowledge evolution. The RCC was losing people and they knew that they had to bend in order to stop losing folks who could no longer buy into ridiculous biblical B.S.

It was a self serving compromise. Barker OTOH just decided to come totally clean and he was/is very overt about it. I have more respect for Barker than the RCC or any Pope...
 
Autolite said:
Well the Pope (one of them anyway) was eventually forced to acknowledge evolution. The RCC was losing people and they knew that they had to bend in order to stop losing folks who could no longer buy into ridiculous biblical B.S.
Click to expand...

It is rare that you see such blatantly made up claims.... wow.
 
A number of off topic posts have been sent to AAH. Please keep to the topic of the thread, which is not, as ever, each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
Autolite said:
Well the Pope (one of them anyway) was eventually forced to acknowledge evolution. The RCC was losing people and they knew that they had to bend in order to stop losing folks who could no longer buy into ridiculous biblical B.S.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a citation for this assertion, please?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Can you provide a citation for this assertion, please?
Click to expand...

It's what I was told by a seemingly very devote Catholic on another forum quite some time ago. It turns out that acknowledging evolution is apparently optional in the RCC.

"The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church


If that isn't considered a cop-out intended for mass appeal then I have absolutely no idea what else would be...
 
Last edited:
Autolite said:
It's what I was told by a seemingly very devote Catholic on another forum quite some time ago. It turns out that acknowledging evolution is apparently optional in the RCC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

If that isn't considered a cop-out intended for mass appeal then I have absolutely no idea what else would be...
Click to expand...

Ah, no support for the claim "The RCC was losing people and they knew that they had to bend in order to stop losing folks"

And considering that Humani generis was released in 1950 when the Church was growing, it would appear that the claim is as far fetched as the source (some guy on some other forum quite some time ago)
 
The Big Dog said:
Ah, no support for the claim "The RCC was losing people and they knew that they had to bend in order to stop losing folks"

And considering that Humani generis was released in 1950 when the Church was growing, it would appear that the claim is as far fetched as the source (some guy on some other forum quite some time ago)
Click to expand...

The RCC it seems has made belief in evolution or creation optional. It's the Theists again playing the both sides of the fence. AFAIK, nowhere in the Bible does it mention any sort of evolution. An evolution longer than six days anyway.

If this type of equivocation wasn't intended for mass appeal then what else would be the reason for it???

(And your point is valid. I should never really trust anything any individual Catholic might have to say about religion.)
 
Last edited:
Autolite said:
The RCC it seems has made belief in evolution or creation optional. It's the Theists again playing the both sides of the fence. AFAIK, nowhere in the Bible does it mention any sort of evolution. An evolution longer than six days anyway.

If this type of equivocation wasn't intended for mass appeal then what else would be the reason for it???
Click to expand...

arguments from incredulity ROCK!.

Yes, the catholic Church does not mandate a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible as has been explained in detail in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom