The Long and the Short of it.

[John_S3V]

This might seem like a shallow reply, but I don't believe because I find the bible to be stupid. Even as a kid I thought it was stupid, (even though my parents were christians). When I was 5 yrs old and heard the story of Noah's Ark I just couldn't believe it. It sounded so much like a fantasy novel or fairy tale. It didn't sound divine or spiritually enlightening. It just sounded like a dumb story to me and as I got older and started finding even more and crazier stories in the bible my perception of it simply being ludicrous has only strengthened.

I seem to simply lack the capacity to understand the bible the same as christians do. I am just outright incapable of seeing their point of view. My brain is wired differently.

Additionally, I find the bible focuses a lot on villainizing people and making people feel guilty about their humanity. In my experience, guilt is a shitty motivator and does more damage than good. Give a man a good reason not to kill. Don't just tell him he's a 'bad man' if he kills people. Don't just tell him that bad people burn in hell. It doesn't work. If you keep telling some one that they're evil eventually they'll say, fine, I guess I'm evil and I like it that way.

[downbeatplumb]

Reasons for no belief :

bozo : no attraction to belief
downbeatplumb : no empirical evidence
Welsh cake : no empirical evidence
Minimalist : ludicrous story
Shell B : no empirical evidence
Dotard : ignorance
Zen Badger : no empirical evidence
KichigaiNeko : no empirical evidence
padraic : no empirical evidence
(Paul the Human : undisclosed)

So 6 out of 9 have no logical objection. Quite a poor showing I think.

Are you saying I gave no empirical evidence for my lack of belief or that I disbelieve because of lack of evidence.

I think you meant the latter but it was a bit ambiguous and want to tie it right down.

By the way I also find the idea of a god (as descibed in the bible) to be odious. So I am glad that it is not true.

Does this colour my judgement of 'evidence' for its existance?

I'll let you know when ever I see some.

[fr0d0]

I think at the core you have acceptance of what the bible presents. The default position is ignorance of this, and a lot of people are persuaded when presented with an explanation of what it's really saying over commonly held misconceptions.

[Paul the Human]

I think at the core you have acceptance of what the bible presents. The default position is ignorance of this, and a lot of people are persuaded when presented with an explanation of what it's really saying over commonly held misconceptions.

What? Are you saying that once someone who 'understands' the bible explains it to you, you can begin to believe it?

[fr0d0]

Precisely. Some people work it out for themselves from reading it directly. I'd say the predominant method is word of mouth.

[Minimalist]

I think at the core you have acceptance of what the bible presents.

I don't think that anyone who is completely sane should accept such nonsense. Once you suspend reason you can 'believe' in anything. Were you born in Afghanistan you'd be a Taliban recruit and you'd believe all of their bullshit stories with equal fervor.


Allah akbar, homie.

[fr0d0]

How would you know Min? You spend your entire time examining the historicity and ignore the point it's trying to make. Unless you want to make a start in addressing any.

[Minimalist]

The 'point' it tries to make is whatever you want it to be, Frodo. It's a Rohrschact test. Anyone can see anything they like in it.

It's meaningless.

[Paul the Human]

Precisely. Some people work it out for themselves from reading it directly. I'd say the predominant method is word of mouth.

I agree that this describes how many people probably come to 'believe' the bible, but I contend that a desire for belief and a willingness to accept outrageous stories at face value, must exist first. I do not have that capability. I have read both bibles (and parts of that Mormon thing) more than once and have been exposed to choice portions from both sides for years and years. I have had it explained to me by those who 'understand' it.

I still don't believe a word of it. Back to the why such differing conclusions?

[Watson]

This is for you, Paul, on the subject of personal experience and the Bible.

1. The lessons in the Bible are ones that can also be learned and believed by examining the real world, adding to the amount of personal evidence I talked about earlier.
2. I learned these lessons on my own after I began to re-evaluate my world view and found them to hold true to what human nature is.
3. I had an experience in which I found what I now believe was what is known as the 'Holy Spirit' inside myself for guidance and strength.
4. I have since had further experiences which I can only attribute to God and the Holy Spirit, as I have learned how to understand what that means.
5. No atheist argument or perspective has been able to satisfyingly explain or attribute these events to anything else other than God.

And for Min:

1. The core difference between your atheistic world-view and my theistic wolrd-view is that I trust in my perception and my senses to tell me the truth.
2. I found that, while atheism was a good stepping stone for doing so, in the long run it did not provide a satisfying or complete world-view.
3. If I were insane, I would expect my insanity to have some sort of negative or anti-beneficial affect on my life and the lives of those around me. It does not, therefore I can affirm for myself that I am not insane.