What does it take to move folk from bible teaching?

[marco]

We hear stories of people brought up in a Christian faith, then leaving. But no matter what evidence is presented about Jehovah being a fiction we are answered with the equivalent of a pious prayer. Obviously religious belief is a very strong plant and people in the past have willingly been burned in support of their odd ideas. Is it possible to take a Calvin and make him a person who sees the bare, real truths in life?


I don't see any evidence that anyone here has changed their view, one way or another. This isn't good news for God or Jesus, since you would suppose their support has big arguments. But is it the fault of the non-theist that they win no converts or the potency of acquired religious faith?

Should we expect people to change their religious views on a forum such as this?

[otseng]

Should we expect people to change their religious views on a forum such as this?

I don't think people should come here expecting to change anyone's views. We might be able to influence it, but we can't expect someone to completely alter their views simply because of what is posted here.

Though someone can present convincing logical arguments all day, we don't form our beliefs entirely on logic. This goes for Christians as well as non-Christians. We have life experiences that impact us, whether for good or bad. Our relationships affect what we believe. Our environment and culture shape us. Our personal needs, wants, and desires influence us. Perhaps even our DNA and God's decrees predetermine our beliefs.

I believe our goal should be for seeking truth, not convincing others that we have the truth and should also believe in our truth.

I believe that nobody alone possess the truth. But, all of us cross examining each other and testing our ideas, we can come closer to the truth.

[marco]

I believe our goal should be for seeking truth, not convincing others that we have the truth and should also believe in our truth.

I believe that nobody alone possess the truth. But, all of us cross examining each other and testing our ideas, we can come closer to the truth.

These are wise words. I suspect that many offer what they believe as golden truth and if indeed there exists supernatural inspiration, it is surely reasonable to expect that this informs the views of at least a few, and would be recognised as such.

Perhaps Heisenberg's Principle applies to the atoms of truth: our very examination of it alters its position and its nature. So maybe no one actually posssesses truth, just the desire to search for it, as for the Holy Grail.


But you are right - exchange of views is an important human activity and I suspect in small ways we each change in some way as we discuss. It might just be that we become less hostile to a belief set or we might gain understanding of why it attracts.

[Zzyzx]

.

Should we expect people to change their religious views on a forum such as this?

I don't think people should come here expecting to change anyone's views. We might be able to influence it, but we can't expect someone to completely alter their views simply because of what is posted here.

I'll settle for presenting ideas that encourage readers to think critically / analytically and to recognize and look for fallacies in arguments. They can take it from there if so inclined.

[Divine Insight]

I believe our goal should be for seeking truth, not convincing others that we have the truth and should also believe in our truth.

Unfortunately religious evangelists do try to convince others that they have the truth and that others should also believe in their truth.

I believe that nobody alone possess the truth. But, all of us cross examining each other and testing our ideas, we can come closer to the truth.

I don't see where this is true when speaking of the masses in general. If there were any truth to this idea then we should see the masses coming closer to truth. But we clearly don't see this. Christians continue to believe that their theology is truth, Muslims continue to believe that their theology is truth. Jews continue to believe that their theology is truth, and so on for all the major religions of the world.

So I think it's already been demonstrated that none of these religious people are interested in coming closer to truth. All they are interested in is supporting the theology of their own culture. And they clearly aren't getting any closer to truth.

In fact, if we just look at Christianity alone we can see it becoming more widely diverse. There are more disagreeing sects of Christianity than probably any other world religion. So they aren't coming closer to truth. Instead they are dispersing into even more speculative ideas about what they would like to believe.

A good example of this in Christianity is the idea of Hell. Many modern sects of Christianity are trying desperately to abolish the idea of hell because they recognize this as a major problem with the theology. So rather than recognize the truth that perhaps the theology is false, they would rather just redefine the theology into something they feel they can better defend. Is that seeking truth?

[otseng]

I don't see where this is true when speaking of the masses in general. If there were any truth to this idea then we should see the masses coming closer to truth. But we clearly don't see this. Christians continue to believe that their theology is truth, Muslims continue to believe that their theology is truth. Jews continue to believe that their theology is truth, and so on for all the major religions of the world.

I'm not referring to the entire population, but only my purposes on this forum.

A good example of this in Christianity is the idea of Hell.
Is that seeking truth?

We've had a good discussion on hell - What is the Biblical view of hell?. And I think it's a great example of how we can arrive closer to truth through debate.

[Divine Insight]

We've had a good discussion on hell - What is the Biblical view of hell?. And I think it's a great example of how we can arrive closer to truth through debate.

So what is closer to truth there?

Has their been a forum consensus on that issue?

If so what was the consensus?

Also I see you replied to BlueGreenEarth with the following post:

Please note the Guidelines for the TD&D subforum. TD&D does not allow for the challenging of the authority of the Bible.

If all you have done in that thread is settle the question of the Biblical view of hell, (which I doubt that you have) how does that get you any closer to truth regarding whether the Bible has any authority to speak for any God?

I mean just about any atheist will agree that the Bible claims that Jesus died and rose from the dead. But just because the Bible makes this claim how does that get us any closer to truth?

[bluegreenearth]

On one hand, everyone should have the right to believe whatever they want. On the other hand, beliefs inform actions. Nobody disputes that there are objective consequences for actions. Some actions produce consequences that maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the most people, some actions produce consequences that are neutral, and some actions produce consequences that hinder well-being and contribute unnecessary harm towards the most people. Whether the desire to maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the most people is an objective or subjective moral standard, the majority of theists and non-theists do not dispute that this is a mutually beneficial goal.

For most theists, they credit belief in god for informing their moral actions which serve in the effort to maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the most people. For most non-theists, they credit belief in reciprocal altruism or other secular values for informing their moral actions which serve in the effort to maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the most people. It doesn't necessarily matter which group has the true belief at this point as long as the objective outcome continues to satisfy the mutually beneficial goal of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people.

Where problems occur is when an unvalidated belief informs actions which produce objective consequences that demonstrably contradict that shared moral goal. Prior to taking an action informed by an unvalidated belief, the believer should consider whether any truly harmful consequences that are known to result from the action can be logically justified by the belief which is not yet known to be true. Unvalidated beliefs, by definition, are not known to be objectively true or else they would be classified as knowledge. As such, it will be difficult to logically justify a faith-based decision to choose the more objectively harmful action over the action that is known to produce mutually beneficial results.

At this point, the moral obligation to act in a way that is known to objectively maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm should be a superior justification for the believers to at least temporarily prohibit the unvalidated belief from informing an action that will contradict their intended goal. The cognitive dissonance produced by this experience should provide a sufficient enough motivation for the believers to reconsider their confidence in the belief. Otherwise, they are choosing to act in a way they know will cause true harm based on a belief they have not yet validated to be true.

For the most part, Christians are already accustomed to behaving in this way. Church history demonstrates where theologians have revised a few of their doctrines to accommodate moral progress that was irrefutable and arguably inevitable. It is through this type of moral reasoning that I suspect we will observe more and more Christians departing from a literal interpretation of the scriptures. I am willing to help them along in this regard by attempting to argue from within their own world-view against faith-based actions which are known to be harmful rather than by attempting to disabuse them of their beliefs altogether. I really don't care what they believe as long as it doesn't interfere with our progress towards maximizing well-being and minimizing harm for the most people.

[SallyF]

We hear stories of people brought up in a Christian faith, then leaving. But no matter what evidence is presented about Jehovah being a fiction we are answered with the equivalent of a pious prayer. Obviously religious belief is a very strong plant and people in the past have willingly been burned in support of their odd ideas. Is it possible to take a Calvin and make him a person who sees the bare, real truths in life?


I don't see any evidence that anyone here has changed their view, one way or another. This isn't good news for God or Jesus, since you would suppose their support has big arguments. But is it the fault of the non-theist that they win no converts or the potency of acquired religious faith?

Should we expect people to change their religious views on a forum such as this?

One would expect that if folks are genuinely looking for "truth", they WOULD change their views.

But that doesn't quite seem to happen when it comes to RELIGIOUS views.

No matter how much evidence is presented that the biblical Yahweh/Jehovah is NOT God with a capital G ...

No matter the total absence of evidence for the influence of Jehovah in the biblical propaganda …

Certain people will STILL believe - or pretend to believe - they are dealing with the commands of "God".

As a child I was brainwashed to believe that the biblical propaganda was the "Word of God", and Jesus had come down to Earth from up in Heaven to die for my sins.

I had both the intellect and the courage to recognise that I was dealing with make-believe, and to question and reject it, and I am grateful to the people who gave me information counter to the "Christ My Lord and Saviour" fraudulence I had been brainwashed with.

The decline in the number of Christians posting in the sub-forum, and the reluctance of certain of those that still do to directly address certain very fundamental questions, is some indication that some folks may have, privately at least, changed their religious views.

I suggest we can expect change; but not the admission of change.

And who can know how many Christians who question the angels and virgins and talking donkeys and blood drinking and ascensions and assumptions, visit this site, and go away without ever posting, and happily toss their Bibles in the trash can for the superstitious propaganda it is ...?

On the other hand …

I have yet to see a single Atheist arguing on ANY site like this suddenly declare that they were now convinced of the factuality and reality of everything from the mud-man and his rib-woman to the multi-headed monster and the fire and hail mixed with blood and all the genocide and multiplying fish and such in between …

And say they are now going to fall on their knees in the nearest megachurch and admit they were a worthless sinner in need of redemption, and give their heart and their mind and a generous amount of cash to Jesus … (or at least to those who were going to take care of the cash until Jesus comes back with those legions of genocidal angels that didn't turn up last time he was down here on the planet he created … and flooded).

The slightest hint of good hard, independently verifiable, evidence for God and magic and certain of us would.

There would be a non-imaginary mansion (or an entire planet) waiting for us …!

[marco]

Christians continue to believe that their theology is truth, Muslims continue to believe that their theology is truth. Jews continue to believe that their theology is truth, and so on for all the major religions of the world.

So I think it's already been demonstrated that none of these religious people are interested in coming closer to truth. All they are interested in is supporting the theology of their own culture. And they clearly aren't getting any closer to truth.

Nor are you, DI. The point made was that perhaps no one has a totality of truth: there may be pockets of truth in each belief system. The correct picture may be nothing like what believers believe, but something of astonishing beauty and power that Jehovah or Allah does not do justice to. Perhaps we should see a world in Blake's grain of sand rather than God in rainbows. But all the same there may just be a molecule of truth in what is offered: but a wrong interpretation.

A good example of this in Christianity is the idea of Hell. Many modern sects of Christianity are trying desperately to abolish the idea of hell because they recognize this as a major problem with the theology. So rather than recognize the truth that perhaps the theology is false, they would rather just redefine the theology into something they feel they can better defend. Is that seeking truth?

I think people THINK they are seeking and obtaining truth. I wondered if discussion here might make that search more meaningful. As for hell: when we read of Orpheus descending into Hades to retrieve his wife Eurydice, we can dismiss the account as an absurdity. But view it in another way, as a person descending into the hell of their own agony in order to win back something of a dead loved one and we have the grains of truth. In the end when we try to return with our prize, we lose her to reality.