RE: Do you think you'd still be a believer if the bible were more pleasant/accurate?
May 3, 2016 at 8:42 pm
(This post was last modified: May 3, 2016 at 8:43 pm by Simon Moon.)
Not a chance.
My disbelief is based on the drastically insufficient evidence to support any of the god claims and supernatural stories in the Bible. Even if the god depicted in the Bible wasn't an evil, genocidal, slave supporting, being, there still is drastically insufficient evidence to support his existence.
So no, a pleasant god of the Bible, would not provide me with any more reason to believe he exists.
My disbelief is based on the drastically insufficient evidence to support any of the god claims and supernatural stories in the Bible. Even if the god depicted in the Bible wasn't an evil, genocidal, slave supporting, being, there still is drastically insufficient evidence to support his existence.
So no, a pleasant god of the Bible, would not provide me with any more reason to believe he exists.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.


