The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

bling · Mar 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
For this statement, I would agree. We all harbor our own criteria for belief in anything. Honestly, I personally do not know what would compel me that a postmortem Jesus exists? But God sure does. Further, God seems to be pretty confidence that, at some point in human history, 'every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.' For which I ask, why wait? We could still reject His request, like Satan and many others. Why remain 'hidden'? We would still have a choice to reject the request.

Science does not proof or disproof a god and evidence is very much up to the individual, with reasons not to believe in a god and reasons to believe in a god.

What reasons do you have for believing in a god?

God is extremely patient wanting everyone to be saved, who would be happy in heaven and not force people to go to heaven who would be unhappy there. This messed up cruel world provides lots of reasons to want to be in heaven.

God is not making some kind of “request”, but is presenting a charitable gift for you to accept.

To be a real “choice” there has to be likely alternatives, saying “choose” heaven or hell is not really two likely alternatives and is more like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.

God being “hidden” is to help willing humans have to extend their “faith” toward God (which is extremely easy and the lowliest mature adult on earth can do).

cvanwey said:
I can't. But if I was able to produce an answer, outside of 'god did it', would it even matter?

People who start with the assumption “a previous intelligence did not exist”, already say “chemicals came together (somehow) to form life” and we will someday figure it out. The problem has been, the more we know the more we realize we do not know, and life becomes increasingly complicated.

cvanwey said:
Most likely, no. You would just stop asking this particular question, and move onto other yet unanswered questions. Or, if we were never able to answer this question, is the only conclusion not only god, but YOUR specific flavor of God? If so, how do you know?

I personally have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help me with that question, but that is not where to start.

cvanwey said:
As stated above, if we all had fundamental knowledge of God's existence, we could either emulate "Satan" in a way, by ultimately rejecting Him. Or, accept His presented gift and follow Him. But thus far, we have yet to even establish God's mere existence. Can you at least facilitate this request?

Again, why do you want God to exist?

God is not looking for you to just “acknowledge” His existence and thus be unhappy. Knowledge of God’s existence does not automatically result in “following Him”, as you can see from the Old Testament.

cvanwey said:
I disagree. I was a Christian for decades. I believed it was true, but fell away due to lack in contact, finding conflict in logic, etc etc etc... So unless you are going to accuse me of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, like I said, what you state above appears incorrect.

You can have the Spirit and quench the Spirit, so you have no experience with the Spirit.

I see everything being very “logical” with a few things being only a Godly Logic like “Godly type Love” being illogical since it is being totally unselfish.

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
But perhaps you do have something to show after all? Actual credible answers to prayers, or miracles?

No? I thought not.

Your notion of credible is particular to your way of thinking, I can repeat that another several times if you like. You still won’t accept it.

The obsession with supernatural phenomena is yours, not mine. Feel free to prove that nothing of that sort has or could ever happen, it’s your ‘thing’, so knock yourself out. The actually reality of faith for anyone I know is much more entwined in the business of day to day life. As you appear unable to distinguish the difference between ‘things you think’ and ‘what might be real’, some hands on experience of living in a different way - take your pick - might be just what you need to get you out of your box.

Clizby WampusCat · Mar 10, 2020

Tom 1 said:
The only real answer as far as I am concerned is that if you want to figure it out, you have to take the bible on its own terms and work it out yourself.

What does this mean? I studied and believed it for a long time, what else do I need to do? Have you done this with other religious ideas/texts?

I don't understand why god would hide himself from a sincere seeker.

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

Clizby WampusCat said:
Have you done this with other religious ideas/texts?

Sure, to a point. They all have different sets of criteria to explain themselves.

Clizby WampusCat said:
What does this mean? I studied and believed it for a long time, what else do I need to do?

What it means is pretty straightforward, you can study it like you would any other subject.

I have no idea what you need to do, I don't know anything about you.

Clizby WampusCat said:
I don't understand why god would hide himself from a sincere seeker.

Ok, I don't either.

cloudyday2 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
The interesting thing thing is, religion should improve your life. Having access to an entity like God, being able to communicate with the loving, all-wise creator of the universe - you would think that kind of thing would show up in broad trends of data. But as far as we can tell, Christians live lives just like everyone else. Their prayers don't get answered any more than those of other religions. Their holy book and stories are full of miracles, but we never see them in real life.

It's almost as if the all-powerful, all-wise, all-loving entity they claim to be able to speak to doesn't exist...

It's kind of interesting, because there are two schools of thought. Some believe that faith should result in rewards today. That was the original idea in Judaism and it seems to be the modern trend in Christianity (prosperity gospel, etc.). On the other hand, others believe that Christianity should result in suffering today and rewards in the afterlife. The sayings of Jesus seem more in line with this latter view IMO.

So I don't know that this suffering view can be tested unless the apocalypse arrives or we die. Of course the delay in the expected apocalypse understandably makes many doubt Christianity.

cvanwey · Mar 10, 2020

bling said:
What reasons do you have for believing in a god?

I'm not sure I quite follow the question? Currently, my belief in the asserted Christian God is severely lacking. If you want the reasons for this current conclusion, I can wrap it up in a nut shell... Even (if) god(s) exist(s), it's 'likely' the Christian God is not [the] one? Why? Because I see too much conflict between 'His' assertions, verses my perceived reality. This is my honest assessment.

However, many here assert He is real, and I am here, patiently awaiting a solid case for His existence, since I could not find it on my own. Do you have one?

bling said:
God is extremely patient wanting everyone to be saved, who would be happy in heaven and not force people to go to heaven who would be unhappy there. This messed up cruel world provides lots of reasons to want to be in heaven.

God is not making some kind of “request”, but is presenting a charitable gift for you to accept.

To be a real “choice” there has to be likely alternatives, saying “choose” heaven or hell is not really two likely alternatives and is more like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.

God being “hidden” is to help willing humans have to extend their “faith” toward God (which is extremely easy and the lowliest mature adult on earth can do).

No offense, but quite frankly, I find 'rationalization' in this response

(Point 1) Many verses state God answers [all] prayer (i.e.) Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, and John 16:23. And especially when done in earnest, if numerous requests are left unanswered, I can only wonder how an honest seeker is expected to hold a completely one-sided dialogue until natural death? And yet, God may fault such individuals for eventually turning away, if the feeling of attempted contact is not ever mutual?

(Point 2) Many claim God contacts them. Hence, God seems to choose to reveal His existence to many; both seekers and scoffers. Hence, why contact many, but expect [some] to continue life-long faith alone? And when some stop trying, for lack in result, why condemn them?

(Point 3) Knowing He exists still allows for choice/'freewill'. Heck, when Christopher Hitchens was asked what he would do if God appeared before him? To be brief, he stated he would not follow Him.

(Point 4) I would imagine the term 'heaven' is a nice place to be. If the concept of heaven/hell truly are the only two planes of existence post natural death, I would at least like to know they are for real; and not just made up from some dudes whom wrote in a Book long ago?

(Point 5) Can't this exact version of 'faith' essentially be used for virtually any unfounded assertion?

(Point 6) Seems as though God might sometimes reward credulity above, beyond, and over investigation and verification.

I'll stop here

bling said:
People who start with the assumption “a previous intelligence did not exist”, already say “chemicals came together (somehow) to form life” and we will someday figure it out. The problem has been, the more we know the more we realize we do not know, and life becomes increasingly complicated.

Though I agree that there may exist some 'questions' for which we may never have answers for, is it 'reliable' to invoke a possible argument from ignorance variety? How about instead, we don't know yet, may never know in our lifetime? But to instead use this topic as 'evidence' for your creator at all, seems somewhat fallacious?

In being honest with myself, I even have a hard time wrapping my brain around scientific theories, which have already been 'proven.'

Further, if 'abiogenesis' happens to pan out, then what? Seems as though, as we discover more and more, the 'gaps' get smaller and smaller for 'god's work'. Does this mean God is not at the end of all of it? Of course not. But, if we are to objectively 'play the odds', what is more likely?

And compound this with Biblical conflict, and I do not find that my current conclusion, that even if there exists creation, it's likely not YHWH, does not seem unreasonable?

bling said:
I personally have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help me with that question, but that is not where to start.

I will ask you an honest question here... When someone makes the same unfalsifiable assertion towards you, but invokes a differing/opposing agent, how do [you] respond?

bling said:
Again, why do you want God to exist?

The only thing here, I want, is to know if YHWH is actually real? I currently doubt He is. Why am I mistaken?

bling said:
God is not looking for you to just “acknowledge” His existence and thus be unhappy. Knowledge of God’s existence does not automatically result in “following Him”, as you can see from the Old Testament.

Yes, exactly. We can then decide to follow or rebel. Can you produce anything persuasive, to demonstrate His mere existence, for which I can then choose whether or not to follow Him? Or, is this request too much for you to bare?

bling said:
You can have the Spirit and quench the Spirit, so you have no experience with the Spirit.

I see everything being very “logical” with a few things being only a Godly Logic like “Godly type Love” being illogical since it is being totally unselfish.

I don't follow. As I've told others, regardless of my mental state, denial, other, I have no choice but to acknowledge that Donald Trump is our current president.

cvanwey · Mar 10, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Eve coming from the rib? Hmmmm. I don't know how the Catholics make that believable, but I suppose they probably have something.

I'm sure they do. But this seems to elevate the possibility that instead of flat out denying discovery, which appears to clash with literal Biblical interpretation, the Catholic realm instead chooses to (possibly) invent ad hoc / post hoc 'explanation(s)'. Is this really any better than the 'fundi' side?

cloudyday2 said:
I have been very impressed with the Catholic efforts to tie-up all the loose ends in Christian theology.

Not me. See above.

cloudyday2 · Mar 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
I'm sure they do. But this seems to elevate the possibility that instead of flat out denying discovery, which appears to clash with literal Biblical interpretation, the Catholic realm instead chooses to (possibly) invent ad hoc / post hoc 'explanation(s)'. Is this really any better than the 'fundi' side?

It seems a little better to me. Fundamentalists often refuse challenging information outright, but the Catholics attempt to incorporate the challenging information into their current model of reality (which is Catholicism of course).

Here is the link I was thinking about:
Adam, Eve, and Evolution

cloudyday2 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
There are plenty of atheists who did try Christianity, for many years, and eventually realised there was nothing to it.

From reading the testimonies of many ex-Christians, it seems to me that you are overlooking an important ingredient. There must be something negative that makes Christianity uncomfortable. For example a Christian might read parts of the Bible and feel confused that God would order genocides.

It is not simply the absence of positive evidence in most cases. Most people are complacent and willing to go with the flow until it becomes uncomfortable for some reason.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
From reading the testimonies of many ex-Christians, it seems to me that you are overlooking an important ingredient. There must be something negative that makes Christianity uncomfortable. For example a Christian might read parts of the Bible and feel confused that God would order genocides.

It is not simply the absence of positive evidence in most cases. Most people are complacent and willing to go with the flow until it becomes uncomfortable for some reason.

I think what it is is cognitive dissonance. Christians are almost always brought up in a Christian culture, and usually brought up as Christians. They are taught from an early age that Christianity is always right, and so anything in Christianity that clashes with their sense of morality - the fact that the Bible endorses slavery, for example - is simply compartmentalised or rationalised away. And then one day they read or hear or think something, and that makes them rethink things they've never really considered before, and the cognitive dissonance becomes too strong, and they start to ask questions and realise Christianity doesn't have answers.

Dan Barker, who was a preacher for many years before becoming an atheist, had this to say:

"I kept moving and moving, picking up the pace, enjoying the scary feeling of “growing up” and learning. My mind felt like it was waking up. In my thirst for knowledge I did not limit myself to Christian authors since I also wanted to understand the reasoning behind non-Christian thinking. I figured the only way to truly grasp a subject was to look at it from all sides. If I had limited myself to Christian books I would probably still be a Christian today. I read philosophy, theology, science and psychology. I studied evolution and natural history. At first I laughed at these worldly thinkers, but I eventually started discovering some disturbing facts—facts that discredited Christianity. I tried to ignore these facts because they did not integrate with my religious worldview.
During those years of migration, I went through an intense inner conflict. On the one hand I was happy with the direction and fulfillment of my Christian life; on the other hand, my intellectual doubts were sprouting all over. Faith and reason began a war within me. And it kept escalating. I would cry out to God for answers, and none would come. Like the lonely heart who keeps waiting for the phone to ring, I kept trusting that God would someday come through. He never did. The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat—an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only indemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith. Biblical contradictions became more and more discrepant, and apologist arguments became more and more absurd.
When I finally discarded faith, things became more and more clear. But don’t imagine that this was an easy process. It was like tearing my whole frame of reality to pieces, ripping to shreds the fabric of meaning and hope, betraying the values of existence. It hurt badly. It was like spitting on my mother, or like throwing one of my children out a window. It was sacrilege. All of my bases for thinking and values had to be restructured. Adding to that inner conflict was the outer conflict of reputation. Did I really want to discard the respect I had so carefully built over so many years with so many important people? But even so, I couldn’t be distracted from the questions that had come to the forefront. Finally, at the far end of my theological migration, I was forced to admit that there is no basis for believing that a god exists, except faith, and faith was not satisfactory to me."

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

Tom 1 said:
You keep inserting your own ideas in to my comments. Those are criteria for evaluation, not a straight line to a predetermined end. I think we can save time by skipping over such superficial notions and simplistic reasoning, I don't see what purpose it serves.

All you're doing is displaying your lack of understanding. I'm not "inserting my own ideas into your comments," I'm correcting your mistakes. For the third time: I said "Following your reasoning, I take it that if a person from another religion came to you and said, "Your religion is false; my religion is true. You may think your religion is true, but if you try my religion, you will find that you were mistaken, and that mine is the true one," - presumably you would then convert to their religion, to see if they were right?
Of course you wouldn't.
Now put yourself in an atheist's shoes. You live in a world in which there are multiple religions, all claiming to be the correct one, and all claiming that the others are wrong. None of them have any proof, but all of them say that if you try their religion, you will see that it's true. You ask how long you need to try their religion for, and they all say "try it until you realise it's the truth."
See the problem?"
And then you just ignored the point, probably because you realised it shows your arguments to be at fault, but possibly because you simply didn't understand it.

Tom 1 said:
He was indeed a great thinker, not so great at the application of ideas though. Many if not all of the great modern philosophers lived in ways that were entirely inconsistent with their expressed ideals.

Since you are clearly out of your depth here, I don't find your assessment of Russell convincing. I don't think you've shown that you're capable of understanding his arguments.

Tom 1 said:
Why do you insist on making statements about things you know nothing about? What is the point?

You misunderstood me.
You said:
"The bible is about living, trying to turn it into the inverse process of developing some abstract notions about it and trying to apply those to it is no different to the idea of trying to conceptualise the flavour of some univerally great cereal rather than just tasting it."
Now this is clearly a ridiculous argument, because any religion could use it. Hence, it proves nothing. I demonstrated that by repeating what you said, and switching the name of a holy book.

Tom 1 said:
No, I'm quite familiar with your way of thinking. It's certainly useful for some things.

To spell it out: you have a habit of accusing other people of your own logical faults. This is, of course, a mistake. Can I suggest that you try to become aware of when you do it?

Tom 1 said:
The only real answer as far as I am concerned is that if you want to figure it out, you have to take the bible on its own terms and work it out yourself.

"The only real answer as far as I am concerned is that if you want to figure it out, you have to take the Koran on its own terms and work it out yourself."
Again, we see that your argument works for any religion, and so sabotages itself.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Your notion of credible is particular to your way of thinking, I can repeat that another several times if you like. You still won’t accept it.

Well, no, I won't, because it's a foolish argument.
Both of us, I suspect, share rather similar high standards for accepting extraordinary claims. Neither of us, I imagine, makes a habit of answering emails from Nigerian princes promising to make us millionaires, and if either of us met a person who claimed that fairies, unicorns or secret alien overlords of Earth existed, I suspect that neither of us would find their claims persuasive without evidence, and we'd probably have fairly similar ideas about how credible that evidence would need to be. The fact that you have lowered your standards for evidence to a ridiculous extent in favour of Christianity is your problem, not mine.

Tom 1 said:
The obsession with supernatural phenomena is yours, not mine.

I'm sorry if you get tired of people not just believing what you say and instead ask you for evidence. But again, that's your problem.

Tom 1 said:
Feel free to prove that nothing of that sort has or could ever happen, it’s your ‘thing’, so knock yourself out.

Feel free to look up the burden of proof sometime, and realise why your arguments are nonsensical.
Dear old Bertrand Russell might be able to help you with his teapot.

Tom 1 said:
The actually reality of faith for anyone I know is much more entwined in the business of day to day life.

I'm sure it is. Just like it is for the Muslims and Hindus and every other religion that exists or has ever existed, all of which you disbelieve in as much as I do.

Tom 1 said:
As you appear unable to distinguish the difference between ‘things you think’ and ‘what might be real’, some hands on experience of living in a different way - take your pick - might be just what you need to get you out of your box.

Always nice to try new things, of course. Which religion do you suggest I try first? There are several thousand to choose from, you know, all of them making the same claim as yours. Just out of interest, how many religions did you try before you settled on Christianity? A number smaller than one, perhaps?

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
Feel free to look up the burden of proof sometime, and realise why your arguments are nonsensical.

The claims are yours, it’s your burden to prove them. All you’ve offered up here are some vague notions about religion and a bit of pop psychology. Pony up, put your money, as you say, where your mouth is and offer something other than vague references to things you have no knowledge and understanding of to support what you insist is in some form a valid line of reasoning.

As you appear to be interested in debates, I should point out than making random assumptions about what you think other people have or haven’t done is not a debate tactic. As the rest of your post is just random assumptions to go with your unsupported views, I think we can just forego it.

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
All you're doing is displaying your lack of understanding. I'm not "inserting my own ideas into your comments," I'm correcting your mistakes. For the third time: I said "Following your reasoning, I take it that if a person from another religion came to you and said, "Your religion is false; my religion is true. You may think your religion is true, but if you try my religion, you will find that you were mistaken, and that mine is the true one," - presumably you would then convert to their religion, to see if they were right?
Of course you wouldn't.
Now put yourself in an atheist's shoes. You live in a world in which there are multiple religions, all claiming to be the correct one, and all claiming that the others are wrong. None of them have any proof, but all of them say that if you try their religion, you will see that it's true. You ask how long you need to try their religion for, and they all say "try it until you realise it's the truth."
See the problem?"
And then you just ignored the point, probably because you realised it shows your arguments to be at fault, but possibly because you simply didn't understand it.

Since you are clearly out of your depth here, I don't find your assessment of Russell convincing. I don't think you've shown that you're capable of understanding his arguments.

You misunderstood me.
You said:
"The bible is about living, trying to turn it into the inverse process of developing some abstract notions about it and trying to apply those to it is no different to the idea of trying to conceptualise the flavour of some univerally great cereal rather than just tasting it."
Now this is clearly a ridiculous argument, because any religion could use it. Hence, it proves nothing. I demonstrated that by repeating what you said, and switching the name of a holy book.

To spell it out: you have a habit of accusing other people of your own logical faults. This is, of course, a mistake. Can I suggest that you try to become aware of when you do it?

"The only real answer as far as I am concerned is that if you want to figure it out, you have to take the Koran on its own terms and work it out yourself."
Again, we see that your argument works for any religion, and so sabotages itself.

You’re confusing your arguments with something that bears some relation to the topic being discussed. If I base my argument that liquids are good for keeping you hydrated, and hand you a bottle of oil, a bottle of water and a bottle of wine, as they are all liquids and therefore all good for hydration, my reason for doing so would be perfectly sound. If I actually spent some time to find out how to tell the difference between the properties of one liquid and another, I might see there’s a problem with it.
Pushing flimsy notions built on ignorance is not reasoning in any useful sense.

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
"The only real answer as far as I am concerned is that if you want to figure it out, you have to take the Koran on its own terms and work it out yourself."

uh.. yes -?

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

Tom 1 said:
uh.. yes -?

So why aren't you trying being a Muslim, to see if their claims are true?

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
So why aren't you trying being a Muslim, to see if their claims are true?

I spent a few years on it, if you knew anything about Islam it might be worth discussing it with you.

The point, which you keep skirting around, is that issues of different sorts require different approaches, different knowledge sets and so on to address them. You appear to think that your approach is somehow useful or valid, but you avoid offering any evidence for this that bears some relation to the topic.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

Tom 1 said:
You’re confusing your arguments with something that bears some relation to the topic being discussed. If I base my argument that liquids are good for keeping you hydrated, and hand you a bottle of oil, a bottle of water and a bottle of wine, as they are all liquids and therefore all good for hydration, my reason for doing so would be perfectly sound. If I actually spent some time to find out how to tell the difference between the properties of one liquid and another, I might see there’s a problem with it.
Pushing flimsy notions built on ignorance is not reasoning in any useful sense.

Still got nothing, eh?

Now perhaps you'd like to start taking this seriously.

You're the one who believes that God exists. If you want me to believe it - and to forestall your next comment, let me remind you that the purpose of this forum is to convince unbelievers to be believers - then you're going to have to put your money where your mouth is. I don't have to do that, my friend - I don't have to do anything. I'm not the one making the claim. And if your "evidence" is "try it and see," then I'm afraid it's no good, because there are hundreds of other religions all saying the same thing.

Tom 1 · Mar 10, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
I'm not the one making the claim.

?

You’re claiming that your specious arguments have something to do with whether or not God exists. Prove it.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 10, 2020

Tom 1 said:
I spent a few years on it, if you knew anything about Islam it might be worth discussing it with you.

A few years? Is that all? If you'd really have taken the time to commit to learning the truth, you would have found it.
Is what a Muslim would say.

Tom 1 said:
The point, which you keep skirting around, is that issues of different sorts require different approaches, different knowledge sets and so on to address them. You appear to think that your approach is somehow useful or valid, but you avoid offering any evidence for this that bears some relation to the topic.

My approach is tremendously useful and valid. It's the same approach you use in different areas of your life in order to determine which claims might be worth listening to, and which might be mere empty assertions that can be dismissed.

As an example: say, Tom, did I tell you I have the cure for cancer? All I need is a few hundred dollars - that's how good it is! - to produce it. Please could you advance me some funds - just a small amount - and together we can save millions of lives.
What's that? You don't believe me? Well, then, just send me the money, try for yourself, and you'll soon see if I'm telling the truth or not!

The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

Regular Member

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Veteran

Optimistic sceptic

Veteran

Similar threads