If you lost your faith.. do you think you would become depressed?

[acropolis]

Ditching the fetters of religion was one of the best decision I've made to date. I feel better about myself, life, and the people around me.

 

[MehGuy]

What would qualify as enough evidence? How much evidence would be required? Not baiting, really asking out of curiosity.

Any that can withstand intense scrutiny. I'd really have to see it for myself to judge, with a blank God itself I'd say less, with something more specific such as the Christian God a whole lot more.

 

[K9_Trainer]

Christian morality is "subjective and emotionally based?" It's actually based upon some well-studied and understood documents and traditions. And killing people because "God told them to" is horrid, & in no way has basis in Christian objective morality. Such actions are due purely to sin. Surely you know this. I fear we're talking past each other.

Well technically, morality in the form of altruism is an evolved trait because it is advantageous to passing on genes. If one individual of a genetically similar group dies protecting its kin, it's protecting its genes and helping to insure they continue. The alternative is that no individual sacrifices themselves to save the group, and a big portion of the group gets killed....Not good for furthering the gene pool.

But anyway, you cannot say something is objective when it is based off faith. Faith is not objective, its subject to interpretation. "God said so" is the entire basis of Christian morality. You just choose to believe what the authors of the Bible say God said rather than the mass murderer. You put your faith in what the Bible says, rather than what the murderer said. Thats subjective.

 

[Drax]

Well technically, morality in the form of altruism is an evolved trait because it is advantageous to passing on genes. If one individual of a genetically similar group dies protecting its kin, it's protecting its genes and helping to insure they continue. The alternative is that no individual sacrifices themselves to save the group, and a big portion of the group gets killed....Not good for furthering the gene pool.

But anyway, you cannot say something is objective when it is based off faith. Faith is not objective, its subject to interpretation. "God said so" is the entire basis of Christian morality. You just choose to believe what the authors of the Bible say God said rather than the mass murderer. You put your faith in what the Bible says, rather than what the murderer said. Thats subjective.

I'd argue that love of God and love of neighbor is the basis of Christian morality. And I can indeed say that our morality is objective, because it precedes faith. It doesn't spring from it, though it might appear (to a non-Christian) to do so. It originates in one who is unchanging and who reveals holiness to us. I do see what you're saying, and I appreciate the discussion! But if one understands that the Christian's faith is a gift from God to the believers, than we're not choosing to believe anything. For a non-Christian, it might very well appear subjective (and perhaps could even be described as such). But for us, we are "guided in all Truth." Where we mess up, we are at fault. But the Truth remains. God grants us knowledge of things like morality; any subjectivity is due to human imperfection. And I also think that we're using the word "faith" very differently. These are fascinating topics, but I'll let it go at that.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

All I know, is that one day I woke up and found faith and I've never looked back. I don't need other people telling me if there is a God or not. Now I can ask to move a mountain, I believe it truly with my heart and that mountain is moved for me. If I had no faith, I'd have to go around the mountain or struggle by climbing it.

Faith is not mine, but a gift which was given freely by our Father, and why would a son throw away such a gift from his Father?

If you've lost yours, if you even had it to begin with, you need to think about all the reasons you were believing. I don't know why it brings you worry or depression. For I get spiritual highs and feel happy. Looking through heaven's eye's I've come to see a whole new view of the world, rather than looking through the eye's of a blind man.

 

[Isambard]

What would qualify as enough evidence? How much evidence would be required? Not baiting, really asking out of curiosity.

Something demonstrable would be nice, but I guess the real problem is that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to back it up. Claming the existance of an infinite omnipotent is thus understandably difficult for believers to provide adequate evidence for.

 

[MehGuy]

I'd argue that love of God and love of neighbor is the basis of Christian morality. And I can indeed say that our morality is objective, because it precedes faith. It doesn't spring from it, though it might appear (to a non-Christian) to do so. It originates in one who is unchanging and who reveals holiness to us. I do see what you're saying, and I appreciate the discussion! But if one understands that the Christian's faith is a gift from God to the believers, than we're not choosing to believe anything. For a non-Christian, it might very well appear subjective (and perhaps could even be described as such). But for us, we are "guided in all Truth." Where we mess up, we are at fault. But the Truth remains. God grants us knowledge of things like morality; any subjectivity is due to human imperfection. And I also think that we're using the word "faith" very differently. These are fascinating topics, but I'll let it go at that.

And I'd say to be careful and skeptical with about feelings. Maybe see what science has to say about some of it. Like when I was a Christian I discovered I could feel God's "love" just by sheer will, and that I was just interpreting certain emotions to God and giving them a personality. Not saying to throw away all of your feelings, but just be skeptical about it, plus I don't think that is such an unChristian thing to do. I practiced this heavily as a Christian.

Of course this is just my opinion.

But I understand what you mean by objective morality, which what I was talking about a page ago.

 

[Miles]

FWIW, science has never been, and can never be, anti-theistic. It is a process and a discipline that pertains to analyzing the natural world/creation. Philosophy, on the other hand, can certainly be anti-theistic. Atheists don't have science on their side. What they have is a philosophical position. To be fair, the same can be said for the Intelligent Design camp. That's all well and good, but it's not their job to play theologian. These people should spend more time in the lab and less time masquerading their personal beliefs as science.

 

[Isambard]

FWIW, science has never been, and can never be, anti-theistic. It is a process and a discipline that pertains to analyzing the natural world/creation. Philosophy, on the other hand, can certainly be anti-theistic. Atheists don't have science on their side. What they have is a philosophical position. To be fair, the same can be said for the Intelligent Design camp. That's all well and good, but it's not their job to play theologian. These people should spend more time in the lab and less time masquerading their personal beliefs as science.

What about when theists make testable claims? An ever more metaphorical reading of the Bible and other "infallible texts" has been the pattern as scientific understanding becomes more and more established.

 

[Balugon]

No amputees healed though, right?

They have had several people who have had metal in their bodies where God either made the metal flexible in a way it shouldn't have been able to be (rods put there by doctors and stuff previously), or have had the metal completely replaced. I have also heard of legs growing out that were shorter than the person's other leg, and after prayer it was the same length. I haven't dug into the research to see that everything was verifiable, but they have mentioned quite a few people going back to their doctors and getting confirmation of healings having taken place, so I trust them. There are probably a lot of reports on the net from people that have gone to the healing rooms at Bethel and have talked about it. That church has staff members going all over the world on a regular basis, so it's not necessarily small or so unknown that people wouldn't have a general idea of whether it was completely shady or not.

EDIT: I checked out the site for a little bit and the fact that they have this on their Healings page...

... leads me to question the effectiveness of such healings (not to mention all the results are simply testimonials and thus highly subjective).

The basis of the Healing Rooms is that they don't guarantee that healings will take place. They are there to pray for people, and if the healing comes, great, but if it doesn't, sometimes that happens for whatever reason. Because healing isn't a guaranteed thing, the disclaimer is there to protect them legally, as some people assume they must have received their healing and might try to do something they shouldn't. The Healing Rooms at Bethel advise people to get checked out by a doctor after prayer if it was something serious and the person thinks they were healed, because the staff know that it's better to be safe than sorry, and doctors will often be able to verify whether a healing has taken place or not for certain.

And to add something to the current discussion, I believe part of my calling is to help bring the practical back into existence when it comes to evidence of God. In the future I plan to write a book showing how science aligns with the Bible, like how lying, murdering, stealing, committing adultery, and etc have all been proven to have negative effects on society, and so God's reasoning makes sense for his existence there. Possibly also align that with concepts like unconditional love. And, of course, in addition to that, also help to continue to bring the supernatural back into everyday life and situations to show people that God still uses his power today and still speaks to people; that would happen through prayers where people getting instantly healed, random signs like certain objects changing form (like Moses did with the staff turning into a snake) or defying known laws of physics, and through me speaking to people facts about them that there was no way I could have known (but that God told me). I have had both the first and last thing happen, and it certainly would be awesome to defy some laws of physics at some point, but God might be holding that one back so I don't get prideful or start chasing after it trying to make it happen just for the sake of doing it. If any of the non-Christians want me to seek God for a word for them, when I get free time (I'm busy with college a lot), I could do that. My hearing ability isn't perfect, just like any other child trying to learn their parents words and language after they are born, but I did this as part of a ministry team at my church for 2 years and saw quite a few people cry happy tears from the words they heard, and I've gotten a few words that were pretty specific. I also used to do it on here openly in the Singles forum, but CF axed everything to do with the prophetic a while back (because so many people claimed to "hear from God" and valued their own opinions above telling people that life should be balanced and that everything needs to line up with the Bible), and so CF told me that if I wanted to do it, that I had to do it through PM's. But I'm still game. I enjoy doing it for people, and I know God wants people to know that he exists. Paul, in the Bible, said "5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. ..." 1 Corinthians 14:5. God wants every Christian to be able to learn to hear his voice (and non-Christians are able to hear it too, though they might mix it up a bit more with voices that aren't his). It's not that God is silent, it's just that people haven't been trained to have better ears to hear.

 

[Miles]

What about when theists make testable claims? An ever more metaphorical reading of the Bible and other "infallible texts" has been the pattern as scientific understanding becomes more and more established.

Are you talking about something like the creation story as told in Genesis? If so, the metaphorical interpretation is older than Christianity. In the New Testament, Jesus is also shown to make extensive use of metaphors in his teaching. Biblical metaphors aren't a recent development.

If a theist or an atheist makes a testable claim, and that claim is conclusively proven to be inaccurate, then it's an inaccurate claim. However, I don't see how that would contradict the philosophical position that there is a creator.

I don't try to pass my personal philosophical positions off as science, and I don't put much stock in those who try to pass theirs off as science. However, I do attribute what is revealed through scientific inquiry to God.

 

[r035198x]

I'm not sure how science found its way in here but I doubt that God can be scientifically proven just like science cannot account for the universe. Also, saying the bible is scientifically accurate is a bit surprising since Jesus' birth is scientifically impossible.

 

[Isambard]

Are you talking about something like the creation story as told in Genesis? If so, the metaphorical interpretation is older than Christianity. In the New Testament, Jesus is also shown to make extensive use of metaphors in his teaching. Biblical metaphors aren't a recent development.

If a theist or an atheist makes a testable claim, and that claim is conclusively proven to be inaccurate, then it's an inaccurate claim. However, I don't see how that would contradict the philosophical position that there is a creator.

Yes, the story of creation can be tested as can the incredibly long life-spans mentioned throughout the OT, the Flood, the story of Babel, instances of magic practiced by Jews and non-Jews in the OT, attribution of disease to spirits, faulty scientific claims, not to mention faulty predictions.

 

[Miles]

Yes, the story of creation can be tested as can the incredibly long life-spans mentioned throughout the OT, the Flood, the story of Babel, instances of magic practiced by Jews and non-Jews in the OT, attribution of disease to spirits, faulty scientific claims, not to mention faulty predictions.

In other words, your interpretation of the the Bible is similar to YEC and highly literal, especially the parts that are written in a poetic form, and you reject your own interpretation. In the process, you not only dismiss Judaism and Christianity, but you also conclude that there is no Creator. That last step is a rather large leap in my opinion.

Even as a theist, the idea that Earth started with abiogenesis seems plausible to me. Why wouldn't God do it that way? It's like a list of ingredients. Science helps us discover what things are made of, what processes are involved etc. None of which is a threat to theism. Why should I conclude that God doesn't exist just because the universe is comprised of stuff and has predictable properties? That would be ridiculous. The scientific method helps us gather data. Engineering and medicine then play a big role in helping us put that data to good use. The result is a world that's a nicer place to live in. Everyone can participate in the process, regardless of one's side in the theism/atheism debate.

Speaking of which, wouldn't it be great if people took the energy that we put into this kind of back-and-forth, and instead used it to contribute to the betterment of humankind... or even just the improvement of our own personal lives?

As far as your assertions are concerned, I suspect that they're a smoke screen for something else that I'd rather not get into here. If you're legitimately interested in how different Christians answer those questions, feel free use Google or start another thread in one of the debate forums. I've spent most of my life around engineers and scientists, and it's safe to say that don't see "faulty scientific claims" or "faulty predictions" as inherent in Christianity, let alone endemic to theism as a philosophical position. If you want to argue that phrases like "the sun rises" means that Christians are flat-Earthers or something equally absurd, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Isambard]

In other words, your interpretation of the the Bible is similar to YEC and highly literal, especially the parts that are written in a poetic form, and you reject your own interpretation. In the process, you not only dismiss Judaism and Christianity, but you also conclude that there is no Creator. That last step is a rather large leap in my opinion.

You seem to be making the rather large leap my friend, given that you are stating my position to me based on nothing. I believe that's called a strawman.

Speaking of which, wouldn't it be great if people took the energy that we put into this kind of back-and-forth, and instead used it to contribute to the betterment of humankind... or even just the improvement of our own personal lives?

The same could be said of any pass-time.

As far as your assertions are concerned, I suspect that they're a smoke screen for something else that I'd rather not get into here.

Go for it. I would be genuinely amused to see you play arm-chair psychologist based on observations which only exist in your imagination.

If you're legitimately interested in how different Christians answer those questions, feel free use Google or start another thread in one of the debate forums.

Why? The question "why believe?" is as old as religion itself and remains insufficiently answered.

I've spent most of my life around engineers and scientists, and it's safe to say that don't see "faulty scientific claims" or "faulty predictions" as inherent in Christianity, let alone endemic to theism as a philosophical position. If you want to argue that phrases like "the sun rises" means that Christians are flat-Earthers or something equally absurd,

By-the-by, the bolded comes from your imagination.

I'm curious as to why you think Christianity is the religion for you if you're just going to throw away historic readings of the Bible in favour of picking and choosing what you want to believe. That said, you kinda just demonstrated my earlier point.

I have better things to do with my time.

Like creating strawmen apparently.

 

[Supplanter]

You seem to be making the rather large leap my friend, given that you are stating my position to me based on nothing. I believe that's called a strawman.


Go for it. I would be genuinely amused to see you play arm-chair psychologist based on observations which only exist in your imagination.


Why? The question "why believe?" is as old as religion itself and remains insufficiently answered.


By-the-by, the bolded comes from your imagination.



Like creating strawmen apparently.

Apparently a lot of people (if not all zealous Christians) seem to create strawmen, make up things about you and live in a fantasy world that stems from their imaginations.

These are the same things you've said about several other Christians that I've seen you debate with. Guess what? No matter how many times you use the words strawman, imagination, or accuse people of basing their conclusions about what you say on nothing, doesn't make it true.

As for the questions you can't sufficiently answer for yourself, that doesn't mean it has not been sufficiently answered. Indeed, it is sufficiently answered for many, you just reject the answer.

If you want proof, then put yourself to the test and become humble enough to accept whatever the truth is even if it means that you have to reject everything you think you know, even if it means that you have to lay your own ego down and your own pride in your intellect and they way you live your life. I was one who thought I knew, that felt the question was insufficiently answered, thought I was more than open to the truth and didn't believe in a Creator, much less a Savior, but until the truth became the most important thing to obtain in my life (and still is) I couldn't see that there were so many things I didn't understand, not just things about faith, but about literally everything.

I know you will probably say you have done this, and also say that I am yet again making presumptions about you. And yet, I know that God wants you and that Jesus loves you (none of the cheesiness intended).

And yeah, this is off-topic and I'm just a rule breaker, but meh . . . . .




On Topic:

To the OP, Christians have faith in a person, so it is pretty much impossible to lose that faith if you've ever met the person and have an ongoing relationship with that person. You might reject that person, but you can't deny his existence. So, yes, I would be depressed if I chose to reject Jesus, knowing who He is and all that He has given to me and offers me. I would be very depressed by my own actions and willingness to disbelieve what I know to be true.

 

[Isambard]

Apparently a lot of people (if not all zealous Christians) seem to create strawmen, make up things about you and live in a fantasy world that stems from their imaginations.

These are the same things you've said about several other Christians that I've seen you debate with. Guess what? No matter how many times you use the words strawman, imagination, or accuse people of basing their conclusions about what you say on nothing, doesn't make it true.

Hey wanna know something awesome? When you post on a forum, you can go back and check what a person said. True story. That means people can actually go back and re-read what I or others have typed and see if the accusation of strawman fits. Amazing I know.

As for the questions you can't sufficiently answer for yourself, that doesn't mean it has not been sufficiently answered. Indeed, it is sufficiently answered for many, you just reject the answer.

I believe I already talked about the lack of demonstrable evidence.

If you want proof, then put yourself to the test and become humble enough to accept whatever the truth is even if it means that you have to reject everything you think you know, even if it means that you have to lay your own ego down and your own pride in your intellect and they way you live your life. I was one who thought I knew, that felt the question was insufficiently answered, thought I was more than open to the truth and didn't believe in a Creator, much less a Savior, but until the truth became the most important thing to obtain in my life (and still is) I couldn't see that there were so many things I didn't understand, not just things about faith, but about literally everything.

Got something not based on circular reasoning?

 

[Supplanter]

Hey wanna know something awesome? When you post on a forum, you can go back and check what a person said. True story. That means people can actually go back and re-read what I or others have typed and see if the accusation of strawman fits. Amazing I know.

Do you honestly think I'm unaware of this? Indeed, I know people can go back and read exactly what has been said unless a thread or posts have been removed. You have done exactly what I said many times. Do you just totally lack self-awareness or do you think if you pretend the other person is stupid that others will believe the masquerade?

I believe I already talked about the lack of demonstrable evidence.

Again, you feel that the evidence is in lack, there are many of us who do not. The evidence is there for us and for the most part isn't hard to find if you actually want it.

Got something not based on circular reasoning?

Again something you say at some point to everyone you debate with. You really don't know what circular reasoning is. I was not debating in my statements, nor did I offer you any conclusion that was stated implicitly or explicitly in my statement that the truth must be the most important thing even if it means you must put down all that you have previously believed. I did not say what conclusion you should come to, though I did use myself as an example of one who needed to legitimately seek the truth. I was not implying you should come to the same conclusions I did though I might hope that for you. I was simply stating that truth is what is important and you can only find truth if it becomes all important and you have a willingness to become absolutely humble.

 

[Ayersy]

Weak Atheists reject the notion of a God/Goddess/whatever because so far there hasn't been any compelling evidence.

The only type of Atheists I can think of having to have faith is the ones who propose with 100% certainty there is no God, and I've personally never met one of them.

So until someone gives us some good evidence we'll stay right where we are.

I'm probably the closest person to that description that you'll ever speak to on this forum.

I literally can't see any logical way in which a deity can exist. The only 0.0000000000000000000001% of possible belief that there could be the mere possibility of a designer is only due to the fact that I am not perfect. Otherwise, I outwardly state there is no God.

I have the same amount of belief in unicorns and the tooth fairy.

 

[Isambard]

Do you honestly think I'm unaware of this? Indeed, I know people can go back and read exactly what has been said unless a thread or posts have been removed. You have done exactly what I said many times. Do you just totally lack self-awareness or do you think if you pretend the other person is stupid that others will believe the masquerade?

O cool, so you do know about that feature. I guess you'll be kind enough to demonstrate my accusation of a strawman is false then with some quote, I mean you might look incredibly silly if you don't back your assertions....

Again, you feel that the evidence is in lack, there are many of us who do not. The evidence is there for us and for the most part isn't hard to find if you actually want it.

So, what demonstrable evidence do you offer for the validity of your God?

Again something you say at some point to everyone you debate with. You really don't know what circular reasoning is. I was not debating in my statements, nor did I offer you any conclusion that was stated implicitly or explicitly in my statement that the truth must be the most important thing even if it means you must put down all that you have previously believed. I did not say what conclusion you should come to, though I did use myself as an example of one who needed to legitimately seek the truth. I was not implying you should come to the same conclusions I did though I might hope that for you. I was simply stating that truth is what is important and you can only find truth if it becomes all important and you have a willingness to become absolutely humble.

Humble towards who or what then?