Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
If you don't care what I believe or what I don't believe, then it should be no problem that I'm an atheist.
"No problem" means "it's not my problem".
You started with a reasonable question and I indicated how reasonable people can come to agreed interpretations of unclear ancient texts. You then flag-waved your atheism and your standards of belief, and I pointed out the core issue necessary to determine their consistency or inconsistency, and linked you a number of compelling, falsifiable evidences. I've said my peace each time. Should your apathy be my problem? Perhaps you've hung out with Christians who believe their righteousness in part depends on convincing you of something?
Either you pursue truth in its spirit, or you aren't as interested in truth as you profess. Since you don't even seem interested in c/Atheist, but you do seem interested in snap botlike answers, which should I conclude?
Interestingly enough, that's the same way I feel about you wasting your life being in love with a fairy tale.
It's not my problem.
Talking about areas where people do agree is avoiding the question which was about the areas where they don't agree.
The question was is it a problem for the "bible only" approach to Christianity when people disagree on interpretations, or is it okay if every Christian has their own personalized version of it?
If you haven't figured out the answer, it's that it's not a problem to us.
There are sometimes disagreements on nonessentials, there are sometimes disagreements on essentials that get resolved over time, and there are sometimes disagreements on essentials that don't get resolved, in which case over time it becomes realized that one party was not pursuing truth. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but in every long serious disagreement there is either a historical resolution and agreement, an ongoing dialogue, or a disappearance of one of the parties from the debate, usually due to other demonstrable evidence of not pursuing truth in the same spirit.
This principle is also useful for atheists seeking interpretations of physical evidence, so I share it.
If by "fairy tale" you mean an interpretation lacking a full explanation or understanding, all good scientists admit that their theory of everything is a fairy tale by that definition. But what other definition could there be to distinguish between us two?
Yeah.... See, that's what I was getting at... You believe in a personalized version of god, which is going to have different requirements for his followers depending on who you ask.
In which case, either the rules for getting into heaven are pretty loose, or a hell of a lot of Christians are going to hell for believing the wrong things.
There are over 50,000 denominations of Christianity based on differing interpretations of the 900+ English versions of the bible.
It seems to me like you never resolve the disagreements, and instead just fracture into a separate branch and then claim the other side aren't real Christians.
Since all of you are asserting knowledge of the truth, and none of you are demonstrating a way to verify that knowledge, I think none of you are actually pursuing truth.
I mean you claim to believe a story chock-full of supernatural elements.... and yet you can't demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural in the slightest. That makes it a fairy tale as far as I'm concerned.
The difference is I don't go around professing faith and absolute belief in scientific theories, nor do I waste my time pouring over them thinking absolute truth is buried in there somewhere as long as I magically come to the correct interpretation of what it says.