-my father is a Baptist who believes in creationism and fundamentalism
-I tell my father I do not believe in Christianity now
-My father said that was scary since I would go to hell and burn forever.
-I told him I didnt believe in hell now, so i’m not afraid and don’t worry about me.
-He told me hell was real.
-it is too
-is not, but i’d rather not go there since you enjoy your religion.
-it is, because the bible says so.
-Cue arguing for three hours about the truthfulness of bible, and its inconsistencies. -We discuss the problem of evil, and various scriptures.
-we also discuss the hypocrisy of Christians, the origin of religion, how Christianity has been misinterpreted, and where the bible is at odds with science or history.
– He acts paternally and lectures me about how passages are meant to be interpreted, and he forgets I am in my mid twenties and have read the bible.
-can hardly say a sentence whenever he butts in with an uninterruptable page of familar /christian/ stock monolog
-I respectfully agree to consider things from his point of view that there could be a god when he makes an argument, but he refuses to do the same with me because, “that would be a lie, since there is a god. I can’t refute that for the sake of argument!”
-he says nothing has ever proven the bible wrong
-cue my spaghetti monster argument
-but you know someone invented that. On the other hand, the bible is true.
(Here we have just gone full circle.) Eventually the conversation ends with him telling me its okay to leave the church for a while when you’re young, but try to keep an open mind and keep searching because the truth is out there. I close it by tell him the truth has been leading me this way for years, so that is unlikely. But I say “okay, I’ll do that,” just to comfort him a little that maybe I will repent and not burn for all eternity. The sadness.
he says nothing has ever proven the bible wrong
Christian here. How exactly has The Bible been proven wrong? You do know not all parts of The Bible are to be taken literally, right? Also, are you really trying to say science can explain supernatural stuff?
That’s the same reasoning as the FSM. That flawed reasoning in logic is summarized: “The absence of evidence disproving something exists does not imply something is true.” Any author could write stories about underwater narwhales, cosmic whales, cosmic unicorns, bigfoot, power rangers in another dimension, and giant eyes floating in space which no one could disprove. That doesn’t logically mean they exist, and it’s the job of the arguer to produce enormous evidence to suggest extraordinary things exist, not to expect the disbeliever to produce enormous evidence disproving things like, “There are space whales singing songs and generating background radiation at the edge of space.”
>How exactly has The Bible been proven wrong?
Firstly, by a plethora of self-contradictions within the Bible itself, because you know, the Bible is a disparate collection of antiquity books written by different loonies over a period spanning centuries, mistranslations, etc.
Second, at specific claims, by science. Things like damnation turning out to be natural disease, heliocentrism deprecating earth-centrism in the Renaissance, biological evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection deprecating the literal and sanest (because it is the least complex) intepretation of the Genesis myth. To name a few of the most outstanding historical examples of very specific and strong allegedly-divine claims in the Bible that people have found deeply contradicting and problematic with scientific discovery.
>You do know not all parts of The Bible are to be taken literally, right?
yeah, as a kid, relaxation is what kept me believing in the religion my parents taught me in face of obvious imperfections going on with the salvation plan of a perfect god. depending on how rational and intelligent you are you try to rationalise challenged beliefs before discarding them. others simply do belief in scripture verbatim like anon’s father and my mother, and a “rational believer” like you might be sinner in their eyes.
After inspection, the seemengly united religous group turns out to be a group of people with different beliefs and different, sometimes contradictory reasons for believing what they believe. And they all delude themselves into thinking their faith is reassured by the large amount of people that also call themselves “a christian” or “a whatever” at church service, at family and at their neighbourhoods. It’s the magic of ambiguity! a horrendous world of personal and groupal truth-making pleasantly disguised by the tricks of language! A plethora of contradicting concepts and mental masturbations with a slight brushstroke of connection all under the label of “god”, quite useful for all sorts of Jews, all sorts of Christians and all sorts of Muslims when defending against the argument of inconsistent revelations, yet invalid. The same goes for words like “soul”, “spirituality”, “supernatural”, “religious experience”. It’s kind of making yourself look bigger and stronger against the atheists and the ones who outright reject all sorts of deities and mysticism. Yet Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox; Protestants and Mormons; Evangelical, Pentecostal, Anglicans, Calvinists, Baptists and Adventist; Unitarians and Trinitarians; Sunnis and Chias; Christians, Jews and Muslims; Hindus and Buddhists; Neopagans, Satanists and Ancient astronauts believers; they all hate and kill each other, and they will dedicate larger times and efforts talking about how wrong the other faiths are and whose beliefs are superstitious after debating atheism and agnosticism.
>are you really trying to say science can explain supernatural stuff
most of it wouldn’t even need decades of research and meta-analysis to figure out that it’s plain bullshit. In fact scientists do it sometimes and have done in the past, but people simply want to keep believing in magic.
The kind of mysteries scientists are actually more concerned about don’t even show up in traditional supernatural belief because it is the result of highly technical and specialized discoveries and theories that your average churchgoer doesn’t understand and don’t immediatly care about. But then again, semi-informed people and educated believers informally try to push fringe theories and new mainstream magical thinking steming from advanced scientific misteries. See for instance Deepak Chopra and all the pseudo-scientific animism purpotedly coming from quantum physics (did I say physicists are on average more atheistic even than the average scientist?)
But maybe I should just have said that it is a fallacy as well as intellectually dishonest to sustain belief in the supernatural with the unknown. What follows from not having an explanation is the conclusion that you are ignorant, and that you should keep working to possibly, eventually find out a proper and honest explanation; not the conclusion that some specific ancient myth must be true, nor that people is now allowed to make up whatever shitty pseudo-explanation they want.