Christian Skeptic

I am a bit confused with the following debate, originally part of the Moon Landing Thread under Conspiracy Theories.

I agree with ewan that, on the surface, there should be no link between the belief that the landings were faked and being Christian, with one exception:

The belief, or continued belief, in something that one has no confirmable, repeatable evidence for is, in fact, a trait shared amongst the irrational. Once irrational belief sets in, it is almost impossible to change it, even if the belief is challenged on many levels.

The only way to be a Christian and skeptical, in my opinion, is to be irrational about religion, and skeptical about certain other things.

Can one then claim to be a true Skeptic? Is it habitual?

I pose, that Skepticism as a personal trait, from a religious point of view, will lead to Agnosticism and/or Atheism.

As mentioned in the above thread, this is all semantics. My father said he can do with language what God cannot do. He can refer to a square circle but God cannot create one. :stuck_out_tongue:

In my personal experience, it’s people that believe in the spiritual realm, using quantum mechanics as a means to place orders for things you want, ghosts and shape shifting reptiles, who believe in the moon landing hoax and that the American government attacked their own country.

There’s another essential element common to (mono)theistic religion and conspiracy theories, namely the idea that it’s all been carefully orchestrated by a powerful force for some greater purpose. What distinguishes the one from the other, though, is that if that purpose is nefarious then it’s a conspiracy, whereas when the purpose is noble then it’s a supremely benevolent god.

And, no, I don’t agree that scepticism and religion are compatible. Scepticism demands that an unproven hypothesis be rejected, pending convincing evidence. Religion never rejects any part of its doctrine, no matter how untenable it may have become.


I am of the opinion that it is the fault of the Christians themselves that most of the skeptics and atheists tend to revert to christian-bashing as soon as possible.

Christianity can not be understood by attending church and reading the bible. Christianity needs to be studiedfor years and years, and experienced for years and years. ONLY then can you begin to understand it… and have the right to be judgmental on whether it is feasible as a way of life. In the same way that one can not profess to understand or condemn the Internet by spending a week on Google.

As far as I am concerned FEARplays no major role in religion.

In my experience, skepticism can be a part of christian life, once you are an adult in Christ. I might just be an “habitual” christian Skeptic. In fact I was skeptical of Christianity at first.

I pose, that Skepticism as a personal trait, from a religious point of view, will lead to Agnosticism and/or Atheism.

I tend to disagree. That will only happen if you are insecure in Christianity, and has not experienced it.

The issue I think is not whether Christianity is a myth,a doctrine for fools, absurd, or correct, as that has been debated to death in a plethora of forums. I think one can be a christian, and a skeptic ant the same time, without having to revert to Agnosticism and/or Atheism.

A while back I read in the following statement in an article, with which I tend to agree:

You can only forsake Christ - If you have never known Him

Hi 'Luthon… Long time no read… ;D

I think the key word would be “convincing”(as in … evidence) Someone might be convinced by evidence, that to YOU might be far from substantial or convincing. There are many disputes in the christian community on the interpretation of certain passages in the bible, thus rejected by some… so I tend to disagree with you on that.

Yes, it’s been a while ― welcome back, qrios. :slight_smile:

I mean, of course, evidence in the scientific sense: objective, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable, and unequivocal. If it’s subjective, it doesn’t qualify as evidence. Everything about monotheistic religions, including Christianity, is subjective and actively disdains impartial examination of its precepts.

That’s why you have to feed it to children from the earliest age onwards otherwise they’ll laugh at it later on – just as they should. Hence also the alleged need to study it for years once one has been suckered into it so as to keep the meme alive.


“Christian-bashing” is not quite accurate. Attempting to educate and create a rational world maybe. To attain freedom from religion - definitely.

As with any meme, Christianity will constantly attempt to replicate itself and spread in order to survive. This is why Christians are so pasionate about “spreading the Gospel”. I’m not sure if one can blame the individual for this side-effect. Grown men and women, after studying this nonsense for seven years and continue to pass on the meme, perhaps.

The point is: Everybody should practise their religion in private, and not let it interfere with anything or anyone. Then, perhaps, we won’t be having this debate and people won’t feel “bashed”.

I have studied Christianity for years and years (only the passages given to me by my peers), experienced it for years and years, and fully understood it the way I was taught. I even went as far as reading the parts that were skipped for some reason. Therefor I can say that it is not feasible as a way of life, as some of the concepts taught are incompatible with modern human rights and the common law. You would find yourself in a dark, damp cell if you follow the intructions as per Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Leviticus 26:29 for example.

The point I was trying to make was that one can be skeptical about something (like the interpretation of a passage in the bible, or a scientific finding), but that does not make the person a skeptic.

Only through unquestionable faith and firm indoctrination can one continue to believe that the universe is 6000 years old and that we are descendants of mud and a rib.

Through a skeptical approach, this belief should soon expire…

I know what you mean by “know” from a Christian perspective, but how can one know someone that probably never existed? Roman records show detailed accounts of court cases of the time. Great care was taken to record crucifixions. None of these records bear resemblance to A Jesus Christ. If a horde of skeletons marched upon Jerusalem, many of the historians or then reporters would have recorded it, just as they recorded other trivial events of the day.

Sorry, I remain skeptical. In fact, it goes beyond skepticism. I am about 99.99% convinced, and when I started at 00.01% convinced, I was a Christian with skeptical tendencies!

I’ll just chip in and say that I’m enjoying this debate I seem to have sparked (at least in part) - a compliment to all involved that the thread hasn’t degenerated into meaningless insults as so many seem to do.

Well done for picking up on this, Sentinel, it caught my eye as well. Would “christian sceptic” be considered an oxymoron? When reading some of these it may be apparent that it is - “sane conspiracy theorist”, or “honest crook”, or “exact estimate”. In this case I think a more appropriate oxymoron comes to mind - “clearly confused”. :slight_smile:

I agree with your takes on this -

Followed up with a solution to the problem -

Agreed. It just doesn’t make sense to me.