Questioning

[Ooberman]

It occurred to me that in the process of going from a Christian to an Atheist, I have researched and studied numerous subjects. Too many to mention. I have read all I could about science, philosophy, psychology, art, history, music, architecture, logic, reason, politics, and so many other issues. All because I started questioning.

It only took the most minor question about Christianity to spark this - which is why I understand why Xianity is considered a misology.

For example, one of the biggest reasons I became an Atheist was BECAUSE OF Josh McDowell. When I read his book for support, I would mimic his arguments... then people would ask basic questions that I didn't know the answer to and I would go and research them.

For example, just knowing the development of the Bible made a huge difference with how I viewed its inerrancy. That information made me start to question McDowell, which made me question any one he cited, or any one who cited him. And learning made me realize that many Biblical scholars simply made claims based on their beliefs and not clear thinking.

It was enlightening. I thank McDowell for becoming an Atheist. I have read more, researched more and studied more things with a depth and breadth to relearn how I viewed the Universe, instead of simply accepting narrow views from people who are afraid to make any contradiction with the Bible.

Questioning. It is the most dangerous thing to any world view, except the world view that embraces it as part of it's methodology - and even that should be questioned.

It's liberating.


Does anyone else have a similar experience?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Action

This is an interesting topic and certainly worthy of discussion, but it is more of a discussion topic than a debate question. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[McCulloch]

Having got my nasty moderating duties over, I'll respond.

If you have not read anything by AC Grayling, you should. I've just finished Toward the Light of Liberty: The Struggles for Freedom and Rights That Made the Modern Western World by A. C. Grayling (October 2, 2007). In it, he makes the case that western freedoms started with the freedom of religion, the freedom from religious authority fought for in the Reformation. From there freedom of scientific inquiry, freedom from slavery and serfdom and freedom to participate in our own governments proceeded.

I've read Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Dinesh D'Souza. They all confirm my own discovery that the evidential basis for Christianity is very weak. I would strongly recommend that every agnostic and atheist read at least one modern Christian apologist.

[czollers]

i suppose i don't really have a comment to debate this thread per se, but as a christian, i would like to point out a few interesting things-

initially i was taken by mcdowell and by strobel. like you, i went on to read many other things that contested the "truth" i learned from these two and others like them. over the course of time i found that as my faith developed it mattered to me less & less whether the NT scriptures could be "proved". i admit that it seemed very important at the time, but i have kind of grown beyond it. (yes, i'm aware that some will say i've chosen to believe what i want to believe, i wont waste my time with that argument, it is a fruitless one no matter the outcome)

i am a protestant, but at my job i work for a benedictine roman catholic monastery, and there is a priest here who is in his late 70's, and who has spent over 35 years devoting his life to the historical study of jesus and the NT. interestingly, he's loathe to speak about his findings, but i can tell you this: this guy loves god. not in a religious pious way, but in a quiet unobtrusive way. i have never heard him preach (though he is a priest), nor does he offer advice or unsolicited theology. he's a little cranky, because his body is wearing out on him, but he's kind and generous. he isn't always polite, but he truly appreciates things like no one else i know. there's much more i can say about him, but you get the idea.

we can debate all day, quoting scholars and theologians, and philosophers. in the end, we'll just be arguing about who's scholar is more biased by their belief system than whose.

my faith can simply not be shaken. i am not a great man of any kind, nor do i have particularly great faith. i fall victim to selfishness and worse all the time. but in the end, i know god is there. why?

well it's like when someone refers you to a doctor. you may be skeptical to trust him because you don't know him. but see him enough, have some experience with him, and eventually you will either begin to trust or distrust his judgment.

i converted from gnostic to christian in 2000, and since then i have gotten to know this god better & better. because of scripture, but its so much more. the beauty of mathematical precision or the perfect balance of nature or the vastness of the universe or the law in humanity that tells us we ought to do things that are moral even when our instinct tells us not to.

as i said, its not a debate point really, but the proof is not always why you eat the pudding. by now, if you told me none of the gospels could ever have a hope of being even remotely true, i would have no less faith, because i have experienced the philosophy for living taught in the bible, and found it to be beautiful, wonderful, and the best way to live.

[bernee51]

i suppose i don't really have a comment to debate this thread per se, but as a christian, i would like to point out a few interesting things-

initially i was taken by mcdowell and by strobel. like you, i went on to read many other things that contested the "truth" i learned from these two and others like them. over the course of time i found that as my faith developed it mattered to me less & less whether the NT scriptures could be "proved". i admit that it seemed very important at the time, but i have kind of grown beyond it. (yes, i'm aware that some will say i've chosen to believe what i want to believe, i wont waste my time with that argument, it is a fruitless one no matter the outcome)

Positing or indeed proving the non existence of god is always positing or indeed proving the non existence of god defined in a specific way and it is therefore a process that is surprisingly similar to theological debates on ‘god’s nature’. If it was to turn out that there is, after all, a god, then we atheists will have contributed to an accurate description of god’s nature. If, as I think, there is no god, then capable theistic philosophers like Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Swinburne et al (I would not put Stobel or McDowell in this camp) will have contributed, albeit inadvertently, to demonstrating god’s non-existence.

i am a protestant, but at my job i work for a benedictine roman catholic monastery, and there is a priest here who is in his late 70's, and who has spent over 35 years devoting his life to the historical study of jesus and the NT. interestingly, he's loathe to speak about his findings, …/

That is a great pity...he would be a real resource.

…but i can tell you this: this guy loves god. not in a religious pious way, but in a quiet unobtrusive way.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin comes to mind in this description – though he wasn’t exactly ‘quiet’. All the same he managed to fit the natural world neatly and logically into his theology.

..we can debate all day, quoting scholars and theologians, and philosophers. in the end, we'll just be arguing about who's scholar is more biased by their belief system than whose.

I like to think that for genuine scholars - those traversing the pathless field of truth – bias is not an issue.

my faith can simply not be shaken. i am not a great man of any kind, nor do i have particularly great faith.

The purpose of belief is to provide meaning and legitimacy in the face of the apparent suffering in the worlf around us. For you your ‘faith’ clearly fills that role.

i fall victim to selfishness and worse all the time.

Such is the nature and strength of the delusion of a ‘separate self’.

…but in the end, i know god is there. why?

Just as I know that all we can know is that we are animals with a self reflective consciousness and all our thoughts, beliefs, ideas etc are, and can only be, a mental construct.

well it's like when someone refers you to a doctor. you may be skeptical to trust him because you don't know him. but see him enough, have some experience with him, and eventually you will either begin to trust or distrust his judgment.

I have the same ‘trust’ in my understanding of the nature of being.

…the beauty of mathematical precision or the perfect balance of nature or the vastness of the universe or the law in humanity that tells us we ought to do things that are moral even when our instinct tells us not to.

My understanding that we are, at all levels, the physical, the biological, the noological , the spiritual – part of and indeed ‘one with’ the universe moves me to a place of compassion.

as i said, its not a debate point really, but the proof is not always why you eat the pudding.

My ‘pudding’ is 40+ years of study, meditation and self-inquiry.

….
by now, if you told me none of the gospels could ever have a hope of being even remotely true, i would have no less faith, because i have experienced the philosophy for living taught in the bible, and found it to be beautiful, wonderful, and the best way to live.

And long may it do so – for that is its purpose.

May you be happy, kind.,loving and peaceful.

[dgruber]

I've read Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Dinesh D'Souza. They all confirm my own discovery that the evidential basis for Christianity is very weak. I would strongly recommend that every agnostic and atheist read at least one modern Christian apologist.

If you are interested would you mind expanding on Lee Strobel and how his work "confirms your discovery" concerning Christianity?

I would be interested to hear your opinions.

[Goat]

I've read Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Dinesh D'Souza. They all confirm my own discovery that the evidential basis for Christianity is very weak. I would strongly recommend that every agnostic and atheist read at least one modern Christian apologist.

If you are interested would you mind expanding on Lee Strobel and how his work "confirms your discovery" concerning Christianity?

I would be interested to hear your opinions.

That sounds like it could be a whole new thread.

I have an opinion of course, coming from a non-Christian/skeptic point of view, but it would be interesting to see how an ex-Christian responds (I expect somewhat similar to how I felt about his arguments)

[Ooberman]

I've read Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Dinesh D'Souza. They all confirm my own discovery that the evidential basis for Christianity is very weak. I would strongly recommend that every agnostic and atheist read at least one modern Christian apologist.

If you are interested would you mind expanding on Lee Strobel and how his work "confirms your discovery" concerning Christianity?

I would be interested to hear your opinions.

That sounds like it could be a whole new thread.

I have an opinion of course, coming from a non-Christian/skeptic point of view, but it would be interesting to see how an ex-Christian responds (I expect somewhat similar to how I felt about his arguments)

Count me in on this conversation. I'd recommend "Evidence Demands a Verdict" since it is the classic one and it is short.

Plus, we can use this to refer to arguments instead of starting from scratch.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... wder/jury/

[McCulloch]

I've read Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Dinesh D'Souza. They all confirm my own discovery that the evidential basis for Christianity is very weak. I would strongly recommend that every agnostic and atheist read at least one modern Christian apologist.

If you are interested would you mind expanding on Lee Strobel and how his work "confirms your discovery" concerning Christianity?

I would be interested to hear your opinions.

Here is a bit of homework. Get a good reference on logical fallacies. Then read any of Lee Stobel's books, keeping track of how many times he makes each one.

[czollers]

May you be happy, kind.,loving and peaceful.