Do you think you'd still be a believer if the bible were more pleasant/accurate?
May 3, 2016 at 7:58 pm
A thought occurred to me. What if the bible were far more pleasant? Instead of stories of Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, of God flooding the world, and of Hebrews stoning people... you'd find stories of God actually showing what we consider kindness. No laws against working on Sunday, or disbelievers going to hell, or eating shellfish, or gay people.
Take out some of the scientific inaccuracies, the sexism, the homophobia, the genocidal rage, etc... and replace it with more pleasant things. For example the ideas of feeding the poor being important, while also allowing gay people to get married, being against slavery, etc... Instead of saying the world is only 6000 years old, it might make no claim to the age of the Earth.
Do you think you'd still be a believer if the bible were more pleasant and less inaccurate?
I'm inclined to think that I would be. Obviously there would still be a lack of evidence. But I think most people believe because they already find the bible rather pleasant. They don't like the idea of gay people having sex, so they aren't bothered by the idea that God forbids gay people having sex. They can accept it with ease because they are comfortable with it. I'm willing to admit that if I was far more comfortable with it, I think I'd still be a believer. It's not the only reason I disbelieve now, of course. But take the inaccuracies out too, and I doubt I'd still be an Atheist even without proof of god. I'd probably be like many theists are now, and not need proof, other than my own confirmation bias. I'd like to think I'm more intelligent than that, but I don't think that I am.
Take out some of the scientific inaccuracies, the sexism, the homophobia, the genocidal rage, etc... and replace it with more pleasant things. For example the ideas of feeding the poor being important, while also allowing gay people to get married, being against slavery, etc... Instead of saying the world is only 6000 years old, it might make no claim to the age of the Earth.
Do you think you'd still be a believer if the bible were more pleasant and less inaccurate?
I'm inclined to think that I would be. Obviously there would still be a lack of evidence. But I think most people believe because they already find the bible rather pleasant. They don't like the idea of gay people having sex, so they aren't bothered by the idea that God forbids gay people having sex. They can accept it with ease because they are comfortable with it. I'm willing to admit that if I was far more comfortable with it, I think I'd still be a believer. It's not the only reason I disbelieve now, of course. But take the inaccuracies out too, and I doubt I'd still be an Atheist even without proof of god. I'd probably be like many theists are now, and not need proof, other than my own confirmation bias. I'd like to think I'm more intelligent than that, but I don't think that I am.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
