Skepticism is a large component of atheism – as most
atheists are, by definition, skeptics.
What does being a skeptic really mean? According to the dictionary:
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.
While some may “experiment” with other religions during adolescence,
or ignore it altogether, over half will remain in, or fall back on, the
religious beliefs of either their parents or spouse when it comes time to
choose a church and raise children of their own.
Against this backdrop, say you are Catholic and a Mormon or
Jehovah’s Witness knocks on your door to bring the good word to you. Are you not immediately skeptical of their
claims as they contradict your informed religious beliefs?
Religious conversion rates, according to the Pew Center
(graphic above) show that, even when people do convert, they tend to convert
within the broader context of Christianity (for example, Baptist to Methodist
or Catholic to Episcopalian).
Here’s the point – if you are skeptical about someone
telling you about the glory of magic underwear, or some other far-fetched
component of their faith, is it such a stretch that an atheist or agnostic
would apply the same level of skepticism to the underpinning story of your own
faith?
What may seem to you to be clearly true, doesn’t necessarily
pass the same level of evidence required by a skeptic to accept as the truth.
Let’s start with the bible – since without it, the whole
thing falls apart. Christians accept one
of two things – the bible is either the living word of god or at the very least
is inspired by god even if it is not god’s word verbatim.
Therefore, in order to convince a skeptic, one would have to
show that the bible is one or the other.
For a skeptic, this is a high bar to overcome!
First and foremost, the skeptic will require correlation and
cross-referencing. Does the recorded
history of the bible correspond to independent records of history of the time
and geography?
Second, and just as important, can independent sources of
god’s intervention be shown from both within and outside the bible? From a biblical standpoint, on nearly every
occasion god reveals himself to his people, it is done through a single prophet
or messenger. This is similar to Joseph
Smith’s founding of the Mormon Church.
He alone could have access to the sacred plates, instructed by an angel
to not show them to anyone else.
In today’s world, when people claim they talk to god,
they’re either running as a Republican for political office or they get that
hairy eyeball look from passersby (sometimes both apply).
![]() |
The 4 billion include Christians, Muslims, and Jews worldwide |
The point here is that god rarely reveals himself (at least
in the sacred texts) to more than a single individual at a time – a skeptic might easily
think that the bible is the recorded word of a bunch of nut jobs claiming to
have had “conversations” with god.
Most skeptical atheists are not against the idea of god per se, they just require proof over faith. Praying for them to "see the light" probably won't sway them in the end, but if a good case with powerful evidence was presented, it would be far more effective.
Wow, I have had people de-friend me before, but to Block me?
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/
You in nut shell.
Frank - you're comment is seriously creepy. Remember the e-mail I sent you back in DECEMBER???? (the one you never responded to - but could just as easily sent an e-mail rather than posting on a blog comment over 4 months later...)
ReplyDeleteActually Frank, I unfriended you about a week ago.
You and I really don't have much in common other than we once attended school together 23 years ago. I'm sure that my views frustrate you as much as yours do me. I'm 45, a father of four. I lead, for the most part, a pretty damn good life with a wonderful woman. I look to my friends to be supportive and at least respectful, even when we disagree on issues. I don't need negativity in my life and, I'm sorry, but all the interactions we've had since reconnecting on Facebook have been of a negative nature. Perhaps if there were some positives thrown in along the way it might be different, but there have not been.
You seem to feel driven to confront me with anything and everything I post that you disagree with. I found myself starting to do the same with you and found it to be rather childish - figured it best just to cut it off altogether.
We have very different outlooks on life and the place where we fit in it - seriously, if we didn't have a history, where would we ever want to be friends today?
I wish you the best - I really do :). That's not a joke.
Sean
You don't get the point. There is a difference between un-friending people and "blocking" them. I only noticed because a mutual friend addressed one of your posts on his page and I noticed I couldn't see it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, refer to the study link above.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteThis was the problem that led to my blocking you in the first place - I do, in fact, "get it."
As I pointed out, you are nothing but negative energy in my life. As I told you, I don't need your incessantly snarky comments on my posts. What you don't seem to get is that you are not a "good" friend. Study whatever you'd like to study...when you decide you can act civillly, I'll be more than happy to unblock you.
Very respectfully, Sean