Review so far of the Romans study

[robvalue]

Sure, learning about Christianity can be important; learning the contents of the bible much less so.

The fact that many christians can't differentiate between these two means they will sadly miss out on the larger picture available to anyone studying it objectively.

The more you learn about Christianity and its history, the less plausible it all becomes (if it was ever considered plausible in the first place) which I suppose is why they are loathe to pursue such study. Also, it's conveniently a sin or something to ask questions.

[Anomalocaris]

Sure, one could learn about Christianity by looking at its sociological aspects just as one could learn about the plague by studying the habits of the population in which the plague spreads.

However,  just as one could learn more about the plague by sequencing the genome of the virus that caused it, one could also learn more about Christianity by sequencing the bible.

[drfuzzy]

Sure, one could learn about Christianity by looking at its sociological aspects just as one could learn about the plague by studying the habits of the population in which the plague spreads.

However,  just as one could learn more about the plague by sequencing the genome of the virus that caused it, one could also learn more about Christianity by sequencing the bible.

I do like what robvalue said, I interpreted it as: the benefit of knowing what the bible says is to be able to enter into intelligent conversation with theists when needed.  However, when one was raised memorizing bible verses daily and hammered with "here's what that passage is REALLY saying" (instead of what it seems to be saying), it can get a little tedious.  And to encounter that here, where an atheist hopes to find an escape from such things, well . . . I have been known to put a few theists on "ignore".  Maybe I'll feel like engaging with them later.  Maybe not.

Anomalocaris:  sequencing!  Have you seen the bibviz website?  It's amazing.  Every bible contradiction and lots more, cross-referenced.   http://bibviz.com/

[robvalue]

Fuzzy: I don't blame you! If I was raised Christian I'd probably never want to see a bible passage ever again.

I have most of the theists on ignore, after attempting and failing to have a sensible conversation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To Drich, and other theists/apologists, it must be our ignorance that makes us not like/follow along with their religion.  They cannot allow for any other answer.

No there are many other reasons: 1) Vanity: If God exists then you cannot set yourself up as your own god, 2) Lust & Greed: If God exists then you can justify your favorite immorality, 3) Relativism: If God doesn't exist then you can make up your own personal truth and no one can tell you you're wrong. The list goes on.

[jenny1972]

To Drich, and other theists/apologists, it must be our ignorance that makes us not like/follow along with their religion.  They cannot allow for any other answer.

No there are many other reasons: 1) Vanity: If God exists then you cannot set yourself up as your own god, 2) Lust & Greed: If God exists then you can justify your favorite immorality, 3) Relativism: If God doesn't exist then you can make up your own personal truth and no one can tell you you're wrong. The list goes on.

you dont think lack of evidence for the existence of God is a good enough reason to not believe in God ? i think most atheists are open to the idea God could exist but are not wanting to blindly believe in something there is no evidence for and why should they thats foolish dont you think? even the Bible says not to put faith in earthly teachers as there are so many false teachers on the earth .

[robvalue]

The argument from personal discomfort again.

[Anomalocaris]

To Drich, and other theists/apologists, it must be our ignorance that makes us not like/follow along with their religion.  They cannot allow for any other answer.

No there are many other reasons: 1) Vanity: If God exists then you cannot set yourself up as your own god, 2) Lust & Greed: If God exists then you can justify your favorite immorality, 3) Relativism: If God doesn't exist then you can make up your own personal truth and no one can tell you you're wrong. The list goes on.

Those could all be reasons.  But all of these reason could just as well, and no doubt particularly in your case actually do, serve as justifications for indulging in the idiotic and supercilious delusion that there is some supreme being that happen to match all the characteristic of some nasty Bronze Age goat herder's convenient excuse for browbeating their opponents, which through pure contingent circumstances became the unfortunate patrimony of the culture into which you were regrettably born, and that such a god as that is looking out for you.

But all the reasons why many were atheists is irrelevant to the fact that there is one reason why one SHOULD BE atheist.   That reason is it is overwhelmingly contrary to humanity's accumulated experiences in effective fact finding to assume pretending any unproven God, let along your particular unproven God, to actually exists could not but grossly weaken the intellectual rigor demonstrated ad infinitum to be essential for effective fact finding, and could not but distort the result of fact finding into delusional wishthink confirmation.

You are, sir, born 3000 years past your sell by date.  Go masturbate drich.

[Minimalist]

The only purpose I see in learning about Christianity is that lots of people think it's true and you want to try and understand it from their point of view.

I suppose xtians can serve as the bad example in any morality play you like.  I don't know if that's worth reading their vapid shit.

[KevinM1]

To Drich, and other theists/apologists, it must be our ignorance that makes us not like/follow along with their religion.  They cannot allow for any other answer.

No there are many other reasons: 1) Vanity: If God exists then you cannot set yourself up as your own god, 2) Lust & Greed: If God exists then you can justify your favorite immorality, 3) Relativism: If God doesn't exist then you can make up your own personal truth and no one can tell you you're wrong. The list goes on.

1. Since atheists don't believe in gods, how can they be their own?

2. This reminds me of that Mormon guy who was here for a bit who wanted to deconvert so he could divorce his wife.  His problem (and yours) is that faith/absence of faith doesn't really work like that.  If you believe in something, you can't just snap your fingers and stop believing.  Beliefs aren't feelings, but ideas.  And in order to change them, you must be able to accept new information, and reassess whether those old ideas hold up under scrutiny.  Really enjoying x - by itself - doesn't add new info.  The circumstances surrounding x might, but not the action itself.

The Mormon guy, AFAIK, is still Mormon.  He kept defending his faith at every turn, and we chastised him for his dishonesty to himself.  He really didn't want to deconvert (which I don't think anyone here really cared about one way or the other).  He just wanted to dump his wife without attempting to at least work things out.  

But it shows that even if you want to do something that's completely against your faith, you can't simply turn your faith on and off like a light switch.  It's hard to imagine there being any legit theist becoming an atheist simply because they wanted to sin.  Life's more complicated than that.

3. While there are stubborn gits anywhere, I'd say that atheists are completely fine with changing their minds when presented with evidence and reason.  Problem is, theists don't bring anything new to the table there.  It's all old, debunked, refuted regurgitation.