# Why is this site overwhelmingly atheist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938 "2014-08-30T04:04:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/441 "2014-09-24T05:58:14Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > If that’s the way you talk to other people, I’m glad I’ve never met you. I would certainly not care to visit your large wet rock. Well, care to explain how Judas bought the field for 30 sheckels, and at the same time donated those 30 sheckels to the church leaders, who then bought the field? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/442 "2014-09-24T06:46:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It definitely requires some very energetic logical acrobatics, either involving highly contrived interpretations of the text, or else the interpolation of new text – as in the “high cliff” example we just saw. > > Matthew - Earthquake with angel sitting outside on the recently moved stone; > Mark - Stone already moved and a young man sitting inside; > Luke - Stone already moved with two men standing inside; > John - Stone moved. No one seen on first visit, but two angels sitting inside after two earlier visits. > > This can only work with some very manipulative re-writing and editing. The party visited the tomb, went away, and came back. The party looked the other way, and then looked back. There were three angels. One sat outside but then went inside. There were mirrors involved… Interesting, these sorts of issues never bothered the early or even the medieval Christians, though they read their texts closely and some were expert philosophers. The idea that there are no contradictions in the Bible is a relatively recent one. Part of it relates to Gutenberg, but most of it links with the hubris of American fundamentalism. The traditional view was that the Bible can be read on multiple levels - spiritual, historical, moral, etc - and that if one doesn’t work, another would. Also there wasn’t the presumption that all of God’s words and creation could be readily understood by any schmuck with a Bible, an armchair and excessive pride. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/443 "2014-09-24T10:10:56Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > If that’s the way you talk to other people, I’m glad I’ve never met you. I would certainly not care to visit your large wet rock. I am merely pointing out that you continue to try to do something that you are very bad at. It is that same as my Wife reminding me that I am a terrible singer. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/444 "2014-09-24T12:11:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This reasoning works for the word “faith.” It does not work for the word “belief.” > > So I can’t believe that Carson City is the capital of Nevada? I can’t believe that twice four is eight? > > You’re insisting on a limited definition of the word. It isn’t wrong exactly, because that’s one of several definitions. But it is not the only definition. Believe, trust;( trustfully and on faith in people in the natural goodness of man) Faith is belief! according to Webster belief is a state or habit etc. syn ; to accept the word, or actions of another ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/445 "2014-09-24T12:13:42Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This reasoning works for the word “faith.” It does not work for the word “belief.” > > So I can’t believe that Carson City is the capital of Nevada? I can’t believe that twice four is eight? > > You’re insisting on a limited definition of the word. It isn’t wrong exactly, because that’s one of several definitions. But it is not the only definition. Believe, trust;( trustfully and on faith in people in the natural goodness of man) Faith is belief! according to Webster belief is a state or habit etc. syn ; to accept the word, or actions of another.Belief can be proven to be false or true, but knowledge can be proven. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/446 "2014-09-24T14:26:09Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I am merely pointing out that you continue to try to do something that you are very bad at. It is that same as my Wife reminding me that I am a terrible singer. That’s your tough luck. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/447 "2014-09-24T14:40:32Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Believe, trust;( trustfully and on faith in people in the natural goodness of man) > Faith is belief! according to Webster belief is a state or habit etc. syn ; to accept the word, or actions of another To show that Faith is Belief, all you have to do is match Webster’s definition of Belief to Webster’s definition of Faith, right? > [@Merriam-Webster](#): > > **faith** noun \ˈfāth\ > > : strong belief or trust in someone or something > > : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs > > : a system of religious beliefs So it seems that faith is not just belief, but a _type_ of strong belief in someone or something. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/448 "2014-09-24T14:47:04Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > That’s your tough luck. Do you have an answer for post #441? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/449 "2014-09-24T15:13:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do you have an answer for post #441? :Sigh: Not yet. The way my answers get shot down in this thread, I think I should put considerably more thought (and therefore more time) into my phrasing. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/450 "2014-09-24T16:41:32Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > :Sigh: Not yet. The way my answers get shot down in this thread, I think I should put considerably more thought (and therefore more time) into my phrasing. Or, indeed, some actual answers. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/451 "2014-09-24T16:51:13Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Interesting, these sorts of issues never bothered the early or even the medieval Christians, though they read their texts closely and some were expert philosophers. The idea that there are no contradictions in the Bible is a relatively recent one. Part of it relates to Gutenberg, but most of it links with the hubris of American fundamentalism. Most medieval Christians weren’t allowed Bibles. Only those in the business were, and they could do their preaching while ignoring the inconvenient contradictions. As for the problem being related to fundamentalism, try reading Tom Paine’s **The Age of Reason** which does a good job illustrating the problems and was written at the end of the 18th century - long before the Fundamentalist movement. I suspect the reason for a lack of discussion of the problems before was that saying the Bible was wrong was a serious LLM (Life Limiting Move.) ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/452 "2014-09-24T17:26:42Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Or, indeed, some actual answers. Look, Buster, if I want a smart-aleck response I’ll come up with it myself!! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/453 "2014-09-24T17:33:44Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Look, Buster, if I want a smart-aleck response I’ll come up with it myself!! :mad: That doesn’t help either. Your “witty rejoinders” sound as if you had memorized a 1950s Esquire-published cocktail party joke book. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/454 "2014-09-24T17:43:08Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Look, Buster, if I want a smart-aleck response I’ll come up with it myself!! :mad: You’re being treated with kid-glove care on this board, I figure, compared with what you’d find elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/455 "2014-09-24T18:03:40Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > That doesn’t help either. Your “witty rejoinders” sound as if you had memorized a 1950s Esquire-published cocktail party joke book. I think he prefers the World Almanac. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/456 "2014-09-24T19:21:53Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > …I think I should put considerably more thought (and therefore more time) into my phrasing. This would be an excellent step to take, indeed. However, in the words of Quintus from the movie _Gladiator_: “people should know when they’re defeated.” The supposed infallibility and literally historical accuracy of the bible is indefensible. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/457 "2014-09-24T22:49:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Most medieval Christians weren’t allowed Bibles. Only those in the business were, and they could do their preaching while ignoring the inconvenient contradictions. Nope. Anyone who could afford one was allowed to have a bible. The limiting factor was cost, not ecclesiastical prohibition. The idea that the church opposed people having bibles arose only after the origin of the Renaissance and the Reformation when the church did get hostile to translations to local languages of which they did not approve. > [@Voyager](#): > > As for the problem being related to fundamentalism, try reading Tom Paine’s **The Age of Reason** which does a good job illustrating the problems and was written at the end of the 18th century - long before the Fundamentalist movement. Yes, sorta. The contradictions in the bible did first become an issue after the Enlightenment introduced new standards of historiography and Thomas Paine, (and Jefferson and a number of others), was certainly part of that movement. However, those early efforts at examining the bible with a modern view of historiography did not develop into actual biblical criticism until the late 19th century. It was that serious criticism that led to the reaction that became Fundamentalism. Prior to the Enlightenment, the bible was read with a different perspective regarding what we would now identify as mythology, (in the anthropological sense). > [@Voyager](#): > > I suspect the reason for a lack of discussion of the problems before was that saying the Bible was wrong was a serious LLM (Life Limiting Move.) This presumes that there was such a lack of discussion, which is a modern error along the lines of the assumption that the bible was prohibited to the laity in the medieval period. Such discussions were colored by the general approach to all literature in which the literal meaning was only one of multiple meanings a text could provide, the others being the moral message of a passage or the allegorical or typological meanings of a passage. The contradictions were recognized, but they were considered of less importance than the moral message a passage conveyed or the allegorical or or typological messages. (In typology, one passage provides a prefigurement of a later passage, thus providing support for the moral message by prefiguring it.) Since the important aspect of a passage was its moral lesson, contradictions between passages were not considered of sufficient importance as to invalidate any given passage. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/458 "2014-09-25T00:49:47Z")
It’s not so much that the Bible was prohibited. It’s that a large portion of the population couldn’t have read it even if they could have afforded to buy a copy in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/459 "2014-09-25T06:16:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. Anyone who could afford one was allowed to have a bible. The limiting factor was cost, not ecclesiastical prohibition. The idea that the church opposed people having bibles arose only after the origin of the Renaissance and the Reformation when the church did get hostile to translations to local languages of which they did not approve. Right. Because keeping the Bible in Latin was a sure way of spreading it. > [@](#): > > Yes, sorta. The contradictions in the bible did first become an issue after the Enlightenment introduced new standards of historiography and Thomas Paine, (and Jefferson and a number of others), was certainly part of that movement. However, those early efforts at examining the bible with a modern view of historiography did not develop into actual biblical criticism until the late 19th century. It was that serious criticism that led to the reaction that became Fundamentalism. Prior to the Enlightenment, the bible was read with a different perspective regarding what we would now identify as mythology, (in the anthropological sense). Well before the fundamentalist movement, as I mentioned. And I wasn’t claiming Paine invented this field. However he was certainly not a popular guy - but for other reasons than this, to be sure. In the early 19th century there was a movement by many religious people to study science in order to show that science and the Bible were compatible. (Not in the fundamentalist sense.) A very large number of amateur scientists of the day were ministers. Another branch of religion was suspicious of this effort. Darwin, by undermining special creation and the uniqueness of man, unintentionally discredited the amateur scientist movement. This set the stage for the return to a more strict interpretation. > [@](#): > > This presumes that there was such a lack of discussion, which is a modern error along the lines of the assumption that the bible was prohibited to the laity in the medieval period. Such discussions were colored by the general approach to all literature in which the literal meaning was only one of multiple meanings a text could provide, the others being the moral message of a passage or the allegorical or typological meanings of a passage. The contradictions were recognized, but they were considered of less importance than the moral message a passage conveyed or the allegorical or or typological messages. (In typology, one passage provides a prefigurement of a later passage, thus providing support for the moral message by prefiguring it.) Since the important aspect of a passage was its moral lesson, contradictions between passages were not considered of sufficient importance as to invalidate any given passage. Discouraged because the laity could not understand the very points you mention. We can see the same thing in effect today in how the Bible is taught to children. The multiple stories are edited into a single, non-contradictory story, with the disturbing stuff edited out. I had gone through five years of Hebrew School, but actually reading the Bible cover to cover was quite a revelation. The priesthood had been educated in the intricacies of the Bible, and could be trusted to give the kind of answer you did. How long do you think a layperson calling out the contradictions would have lasted? Paine wrote in revolutionary France, no friend to religion, and then returned to the US where he had powerful friends like Madison. Kind of a best case situation for a doubter. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/460 "2014-09-25T06:17:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It’s not so much that the Bible was prohibited. It’s that a large portion of the population couldn’t have read it even if they could have afforded to buy a copy in the first place. And to be fair the Protestants, who were no less devout, did not have a problem with wide dissemination of the Bible in the vernacular. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=24)