9 Answers

  1. I read the Old and New Testaments, and even the apocrypha of the gospels.

    Conclusions? The very general conclusion is that most of the people who come to tell you about the importance of faith and how bad you are if you don't believe, just invented Christianity for themselves so that it was convenient to justify their behavior and scold you, thus raising their own self-esteem.

    The scriptures contain a lot of obvious contradictions, and the way people resolve these contradictions for themselves, what exactly they consider more important, says more about people than about Christianity. They had a choice and they made it.

  2. Bad is the atheist who does not know what exactly he denies, or does not accept on faith. I considered myself an atheist until I came up with the formula: there are no numbers, but they are needed – I just don't know if such views can be considered atheistic.

  3. Not only did I read most of the books of the Bible, but at one time I was engaged in bible studies, worked in an organization that distributes the Bible in various translations, and studied Hebrew. As the Old Testament was studied, its content became increasingly rejected, and it became increasingly difficult to believe in it as a revelation. Now this text seems to me another good argument in favor of atheism. It is no longer possible for a modern person, with his intellectual baggage, to believe in this.

  4. good question!
    I find this kind of legacy a cultural monument of worldview, an ethical lesson, and an interesting subject for analogical existential reflection.
    in addition, some psalms, for example, put me in a somewhat ecstatic state, inspiring and calming.
    / / I am an agnostic and sincerely consider the idea of an anthropomorphic creator ridiculous, while maintaining extreme tolerance for honest and open theists who are ready for controversy, with whom I quite find a common language, sometimes even allowing myself friendly hairpins ..)

  5. I attended a course of lectures on the history of religion by Professor Andrey Zubov, whose views and activities are highly appreciated by both the scientific community and the Russian Orthodox clergy, and read most of the texts recommended to them. This did not affect my rejection of the supernatural origin of the world and religions.

  6. Do you have to be a follower of any religion if they are essentially talking about the same thing? At a minimum, the grain in them is exactly the general one, and then it is the personal vision of those who wrote the Scriptures, or rather passing them through their own sieve of understanding. God can convey one thing, the prophet can understand it in his own way through his own understanding, and the person who writes it down will write it all down through his own words. Plus, then the clergy will edit all this to adjust it to their own interpretation.

    It is not easy to see the grain in every scripture, but it is still possible

  7. I've read. In addition to the fact that it was a personal interest (to accept or not accept something, you must first know), I had access to lectures and literature on religious studies. And all this only confirmed my conviction that there is no God and can not exist. Especially from a religious point of view.

  8. How interesting the question was asked 🙂

    I read physics, biology, and even geometry and nothing else… I did not become either Einstein, Darwin, or Euclid… nonphysicist, nonbiologist, non-geometer…

    I am an ordinary Person!

    I made simple conclusions – I don't need either the first, second, or third one.

  9. My grandmother was the daughter of a village priest. She graduated from a special school for the daughters of priests. They were trained as wives for priests, and the law of God was the main subject of education.

    As she recalled: “There were no believers among us. Generally. We've seen it all from the wrong side of our nappies.”

Leave a Reply