Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Right, I agree. The more evidence one has, the more support is provided for the claim. It is through the process of gaining more support that one has confidence of said claim, do you agree?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right, I agree. The more evidence one has, the more support is provided for the claim. It is through the process of gaining more support that one has confidence of said claim, do you agree?I am not convinced by this evidence.
If it is just a story, that is not convincing. If a video was produced that had an alien coming out of the UFO then I would look at it and make a determination. Videos today are not trustworthy especially with extraordinary claims but I would be willing to listen to experts about the video being altered or not. When you see a video of big foot it is more likely it is a fake, just like videos of aliens. More evidence is required.
In general the more good evidence the better. But a ton of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. Sometimes one piece of good evidence is enough to convince me. If I witnessed an alien body myself that one piece of evidence would be sufficient evidence for belief. If I heard 500 stories of people seeing an alien body then that would not be enough evidence for belief because the claim is extraordinary. Likewise, if I heard 500 people telling stories of visiting McDonald's, that would be sufficient for me to believe them. The claim is mundane. It really depends on the claim and the evidence.Right, I agree. The more evidence one has, the more support is provided for the claim. It is through the process of gaining more support that one has confidence of said claim, do you agree?
It has been my experience that when a Christian finds out you are a non believer and asks what you tried to find god they will always point to one thing you did not do "right" as a reason for your failure. When that does not work it will be something else you did that was wrong or you just were not sincere enough or another Christian will tell you another method to try that will work. How many methods will someone have to try before they can stop and just live their lives?Hi Kylie. You know, back when I first saw you posting here, I noticed that little blurb under your screenname, "defeater of illogic". I often feel a sense of intimidation when speaking with atheists as they tend to be quite intelligent. It's their intelligence which usually leads them to become atheist. It can be easy to become proud of such intelligence and come to believe you are your own God, smoothed over with ideas that subservience to some greater intelligence would, in turn, be akin to abandoning your sense. I doubt there is any atheist who would agree with this assessment (at least, not outwardly), but I feel there is at least some truth to it.
I feel something like this may be happening here. Tough you are a defeater of illogic (and probably in many cases you really can be quite perceptive), in this case I do not see that happening. I see illogic, an illogic which I think should be fairly simple to see. Yet it is not, so I must ask myself, why is this person, who is almost certainly quite intelligent in many areas of life, somehow not getting in in this particular area.
I believe the answer is that this is more so a test of wills rather than a rational examination of the logic behind the argument. You have never heard of the teachings of Jesus before (I mean, specifically what he taught, like the examples I presented to you), despite being married to a Christian. I don't say that to impugn you or your husband, but rather as context. It's rare to find any Christian these days who knows what Jesus taught. For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? That's a real command from Jesus. He said we should just say what we mean without any need to swear on it.
Instead, what you've heard is something which is similar to what Jesus taught; ask Jesus into your heart. It's close, but not quite. Jesus did talk about He and the Father coming into a person and making Their home there, but that was premised on the understanding that the person would initiate the relationship via obedience to Jesus' teachings. It is obedience which would cause Them to come into a person's heart.
This idea that one need only ask Jesus into their heart along with a good feeling and then boom, you're done, is much simpler. It's become popular precisely because it does not require any change or commitment to anything more than a vague list of precepts, all of which are fairly optional, like going to church, reading the Bible, paying tithes, baptism, and a few prayers here and there. You're pretty much free to continue living how ever you like, but you also get all the salvation and good feelings that comes with the knowledge that you are saved.
That same ease-of-performance is what appealed to you. A simple, unobtrusive test you can perform without any need to change, struggle, or suffer; very appealing. The fact that so many Christians today promote it as the ultimate test for knowing God just reinforces that sense of ease and so you tried it.
And, as you've said, nothing happened. Now you have proof; the Christians themselves swear by this test and yet it failed. You were genuine. You were sincere and still the test failed. Now you have confirmation which even the Christians must acknowledge. You have a shield.
But, here I come, saying the test was flawed, that it was wrong and not consistent with what Jesus taught despite whatever these other professing Christians told you. Of course you will get a negative result if you perform an improper test, much like you would not expect water to boil by setting a kettle on a drawing of a hotplate. This "ask Jesus into your heart" thing is like the drawing of the hotplate; it has the appearance of the real thing, but it is only a cheap imitation.
You have already decided in your heart that the test failed. Now I'm taking that victory away from you. I'm removing the convenient shield. I'm invalidating what you've believed to be a genuine effort on your part.
That is why you so stubbornly insist on referring back to the previous instructions you were given. Acknowledging that the test itself was a failure before you ever even tried it would put you right back in the position of being accountable for trying the correct test; the one that actually requires some commitment in order to perform properly.
Defeater of illogic, let go of that false test.
How many methods will someone have to try before they can stop and just live their lives?
How many methods will someone have to try before they can stop and just live their lives?
Where is gods responsibility in this to have one message to everyone on how to know he exists?
Cannot he come down here and clear up the confusion?
Even if the bible has one message on how to be saved/know he exists it is demonstrably not clear as every christian seems to have their own thoughts on it.
No one as of yet has got a message from god to tell me what wold convince me he exists.
It is a sincere request, I want to know if God exists if he does. This is Gods opportunity to convince me.
No, just trying to find out what method to use. What is the reason to keep trying different methods without any evidence they will work?I guess you're trying the, "Just give up because I'll only be disappointed anyway" method?
I will let Kylie answer for herself.No one is saying Kylie can't live her life. I've actually told her a few times now if she's not interested in what Jesus has to offer then she should just say that. But that's not what she's doing. She's saying she tried something Jesus did not say to do, and using that experience as evidence of a problem with Jesus. That is not only irrational but also unfair.
If Jesus teachings are the key then why are they demonstrably confusing?Jesus' teachings. Kylie tried it some other way.
Paul got an appearance from Jesus why not for everyone else? Does god play favorites?He already did that, but what you mean is that you want a personal appearance from God, that you want him to do what you say before you'll acknowledge him. You wouldn't do it that way in normal, day to day life. If you were looking for a job, you would not demand that your employer come to you to prove himself first before you agreed to take the job.
You cannot have a conversation about God without telling others what they think and accusing them of things you cannot possibly know.Right, your confusion equates to a problem with the source material. You'll spend the rest of your life blaming God for your own lack of sincerity.
Did God tell you that? I just have a higher level of evidence than you.Based on what I've heard from you, you're working hard to make sure it stays that way.
I am looking for evidence that god exists. Following him is different and another conversation. Not my personal desires but my personal morals. If the Christian god wants me to follow him he needs to convince me that he exists and is moral.If only God would just do what you tell him to do, then of course you'd be faithful to him, that is, until he asked you to do something contrary to your personal desires. Then you may let Him know he needs to jump through another hoop in exchange for your cooperation, with the promise of many more hoops further along to maintain your loyalty.
Well that is not what I am asking for anyway. But isn't it weird how you cannot tell the difference between your version of god and a god that does not exist?[/quote]Isn't it weird how God doesn't seem to be particularly interested in that kind of relationship?
Well that is not what I am asking for anyway.
he needs to convince me that he exists and is moral.
Please quote my entire post, here it is:If God doesn't do what you say, then you're gonna stick your lip out, stomp your feet on the ground, and declare that you won't believe he's real.
Not at all. Any God worth following and worshiping would understand my situation and not just demand obedience knowing I am sincere and in need of good evidence. I can't just decide to believe he exists and I just cannot decide that he is moral without sufficient evidence. Your formula is just one of hundreds with the success rate of one as far as I can tell.This goes to my comment that you are not sincere about looking for God. Of course, the creator of the universe is not accountable to you. It is not his responsibility to obey you which is why such a thing will never happen and is exactly the point; you've put yourself in a situation where you can righteously ignore what God wants from you, because he will not first do what you want. It's essentially a test of wills, and you're not gonna win that fight.
I won't spend the rest of my life angry at god, I will spend the rest of my life doing good, loving people, enjoying life. You have a stereotype of atheists. We are all different.God will allow you to stubbornly spend the rest of your life shaking your fist at him for the sin of not caving to your demands for proof.
Hi Kylie. You know, back when I first saw you posting here, I noticed that little blurb under your screenname, "defeater of illogic". I often feel a sense of intimidation when speaking with atheists as they tend to be quite intelligent. It's their intelligence which usually leads them to become atheist.
It can be easy to become proud of such intelligence and come to believe you are your own God, smoothed over with ideas that subservience to some greater intelligence would, in turn, be akin to abandoning your sense. I doubt there is any atheist who would agree with this assessment (at least, not outwardly), but I feel there is at least some truth to it.
I feel something like this may be happening here. Tough you are a defeater of illogic (and probably in many cases you really can be quite perceptive), in this case I do not see that happening. I see illogic, an illogic which I think should be fairly simple to see. Yet it is not, so I must ask myself, why is this person, who is almost certainly quite intelligent in many areas of life, somehow not getting in in this particular area.
I believe the answer is that this is more so a test of wills rather than a rational examination of the logic behind the argument.
You have never heard of the teachings of Jesus before (I mean, specifically what he taught, like the examples I presented to you), despite being married to a Christian. I don't say that to impugn you or your husband, but rather as context. It's rare to find any Christian these days who knows what Jesus taught. For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? That's a real command from Jesus. He said we should just say what we mean without any need to swear on it.
Instead, what you've heard is something which is similar to what Jesus taught; ask Jesus into your heart. It's close, but not quite. Jesus did talk about He and the Father coming into a person and making Their home there, but that was premised on the understanding that the person would initiate the relationship via obedience to Jesus' teachings. It is obedience which would cause Them to come into a person's heart.
That same ease-of-performance is what appealed to you. A simple, unobtrusive test you can perform without any need to change, struggle, or suffer; very appealing. The fact that so many Christians today promote it as the ultimate test for knowing God just reinforces that sense of ease and so you tried it.
And, as you've said, nothing happened. Now you have proof; the Christians themselves swear by this test and yet it failed. You were genuine. You were sincere and still the test failed. Now you have confirmation which even the Christians must acknowledge. You have a shield.
But, here I come, saying the test was flawed, that it was wrong and not consistent with what Jesus taught despite whatever these other professing Christians told you. Of course you will get a negative result if you perform an improper test, much like you would not expect water to boil by setting a kettle on a drawing of a hotplate. This "ask Jesus into your heart" thing is like the drawing of the hotplate; it has the appearance of the real thing, but it is only a cheap imitation.
You have already decided in your heart that the test failed. Now I'm taking that victory away from you. I'm removing the convenient shield. I'm invalidating what you've believed to be a genuine effort on your part.
That is why you so stubbornly insist on referring back to the previous instructions you were given. Acknowledging that the test itself was a failure before you ever even tried it would put you right back in the position of being accountable for trying the correct test; the one that actually requires some commitment in order to perform properly.
Defeater of illogic, let go of that false test.
You talk as if 'doing Christianity' should be expected to work like walking into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and placing an order for some 'Original Recipe' ..........................................................
Oh, believe me, I ... do! But, now that you realize the error, you can take steps to get out from under that notion and reassess the epistemology that may be involved, right? It would not only be the more realistic thing to do, but also the more scientific thing to do, too.For that, you can blame the people who said that was the way it could be done.
.......well, we'll see. If there's any "taking up to do" with him, it won't be here in this forum.Of course, if you are taking issue with the recipe analogy, you'll have to take that up with @John Helpher
I have absolutely no problem in accepting that I am mistaken about a particular viewpoint I hold
Oh, believe me, I ... do! But, now that you realize the error, you can take steps to get out from under that notion and reassess the epistemology that may be involved, right? It would not only be the more realistic thing to do, but also the more scientific thing to do, too.Thank God for the concepts of 'human limitation' and the 'Hermeneutic Circle'!
This is the point of my comments. The test you performed (i.e. asking Jesus into your heart) was a faulty test. It's not what Jesus said to do, regardless of who (whether your husband or some other churchy person) told you to do it.
You say you're willing to accept when you're mistaken; this is a situation where it'd be useful for you to demonstrate that sincerity by recognizing that the test you performed is not consistent with what Jesus taught.
In other words, you have not yet tried Jesus. And it sounds like you're not interested in trying Jesus. You were willing to do the "ask Jesus into my heart" thing because it didn't cost you anything any you wanted to satisfy your husband that you at least tried the ritual. But that's not giving Jesus an genuine go. And that's fine, so long as you're able to recognize it as such. What you did was a favor for your husband.
I realized you've already acknowledged that, but it seems to be you still want to be able to say that you gave Jesus a fair go and as a result you got your evidence that there is no God. Those cannot both be true.
Please note the distinction I'm making here; I'm not saying you can't still claim to be an atheist or whatever you want to be, I'm only saying that you cannot say you've tried Jesus as part of the evidence for why you believe there is no God.
If someone wants to give me a better way to do it, they are certainly free to suggest their better method.
Like I've said many times, I didn't do it because I wanted to give Jesus a fair go, I did it because my husband asked me to.
I have already made it abundantly clear to you that I have already done what you asked and I got nothing.I mentioned in a post from January 13th of this year that I did it for my husband.
If you can give me a method I have not tried, then I'd be happy to give it a go. But so far, everything believers have told me amounts to little more than, "This is what got me really convinced of the belief I already believed, so it must work the same for you too!"
I see no reason to waste my time on something that I know from experience is unlikely to produce results.
In any case, It's not just to satisfy my curiosity. If I get the evidence, I'd become a believer, as I've said many times. By giving me said evidence, God would get what he wants - me to believe in him.
And you are completely wrong about this. Why don't you try this:
Kylie - "i always want to know the truth. If God is the truth, then I want to know."
Icon - "are you willing to do what is necessary and come to God on His terms"
Kylie - "I already have done it, and the results I got indicate that there is no God."
Icon - "But it wasn't a test I could see, so you have to do it again."
Kylie - "I see no reason to waste my time doing a test which I've already done that produced no results..."
I prayed for Jesus to come into my life.
Nothing happened.
Likewise, if I got the evidence I needed to believe in God, then I would have followed through with that belief.
Or perhaps I am not interested in obeying anyone until I know for a fact that the person exists?
This really sounds like those skin cream ads that claim that they will fight the "seven signs of aging," you know the ones where they claims that a particular thing is bad and try to make you afraid of them so they can sell you the "cure" they've invented?
If you can demonstrate that Jesus and/or God as described in the Bible is real, I will obey their laws completely.
All you've done is claim that you don't think I really want to follow God's laws even if I was shown irrefutable evidence that God was real.
Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I'd know because I felt Jesus in my heart, wouldn't I?
But surely God could give me something that would utterly convince me.
but I have to do something first without any evidence of results.
I said I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart.
You asked me what it would have been like if that had worked.
I said that if it had worked I'd have felt Jesus in my heart.
And if you'd read the conversation I'd been having with The Iconoclast that this whole thing was in regards to a previous discussion in which he suggested that if I opened my heart to Jesus, then Jesus would come to me and I would get the evidence I required.
I was told to do a thing and I'd get evidence for God.
I did the thing.
I didn't get the evidence.
And if I am provided with evidence that does justify believing that God exists, I will do so.
As I've said many times, I am only interested in getting to the truth.
Hang on...
That test DID fail. You've agreed to this fact.
It [asking Jesus into your heart] wasn't about doing a proper test for God, it was about my husband asking me to do something for him because it was important to him that I do it, and me doing it because I love him and I could see how important it was for him.
Mmmm, this isn't the whole truth. It is part of the truth. You've actually been saying two things, which is why there's so much confusion here. Yes, you've said several times that you were only doing this for your husband; he asked you to perform a ritual that Jesus did not teach his followers to do, and you only performed the ritual to make him happy. It was not about trying to find evidence, or proof, or anything of that nature. It was only for your husband. Keep this quote (above) in mind as you read through these comments form your previous posts...
post #314 (to Iconoclast)
Even in this one statement you're saying both things, that you did it for your husband, but also that you "got nothing". Why would you expect to "get something" if you were doing something you didn't believe in just to make your husband happy? Obviously, you want both to be true; you want to give the impression that you made a genuine effort so you've got something to give the Christians when they come your way, but you also want it to be clear that you don't really take this stuff seriously; it was just a thing you did for your husband.
post #355 (to Iconoclast)
But, this isn't about giving Jesus a fair go, right? It's just about making your husband happy, since you're a devout atheist who is not looking for anything more.
post #355 (to Iconoclast)
Results? It sure does sound like you're talking about more than just making your hubby happy.
post #360
Huh, sure does sound like you're talking about sincerely looking for evidence and not just being curious or performing a ritual to make your husband happy. One could easily get the impression that you're trying to say two different things at the same time...
post #361 (to Iconoclast)
But, you've made it very clear that all this "ask Jesus into your heart" stuff (the very test you're referencing in this comment) was not about giving Jesus a fair go or looking for truth, but rather only to make your husband happy.
post #363
Why would you expect anything to happen? You were only doing this as a favor for your hubby, and not to give Jesus a fair go. That's what you said. It's like you're trying to make two opposite things true at the same time.
post #369
This is you trying to make it sound like you're only interested in evidence, right? But, didn't you say something about none of this relating to genuinely giving Jesus a fair go?
post #386
But, you said the test was not real for you. You weren't looking for evidence of existence, but rather just doing what your husband wanted.
post #386
No, this sounds more like someone claiming to be interested in evidence, when the opposite is true. You are the one selling fake skin cream. On one side of your mouth you make a big deal about how you only want the truth, evidence, and proof, while on the other side of your mouth you say that this was only ever about you just making your husband happy and not about giving Jesus a fair go. There are dozens of comments from you like this. Here, I'll list a few more:
post #386
post #386
post #387 (To Hawkins)
post #434
post #434
post #434
post #452
post #462
Post #495
post #508
post #508
post #508
Remember that first quote from you I pasted at the start of this post? Here it is again:
post #508
I think it's clear who's selling the fake skin cream here, Kylie. I won't waste anymore time on your game-playing.
Does it surprise you that nothing happened then? It doesn't me.Once again, you seem to be missing the point. I was not doing it to find Jesus, I was doing it because that's what my husband asked me to do.
I did what my husband asked me to do, and you're criticising me because I wasn't doing what you thought I should do for a completely different reason.
And even though you agree that I've already acknowledged that, you're still having a go at me for it.
Like I've said many times, I didn't do it because I wanted to give Jesus a fair go, I did it because my husband asked me to.
Well there you go. If God revealed Himself to you, it would be sufficient but your choice was to doubt rather than go to Him. Millions and millions of people have had God reveal Himself to them in a multitude of ways, and once that happens, you never doubt again.In general the more good evidence the better. But a ton of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. Sometimes one piece of good evidence is enough to convince me. If I witnessed an alien body myself that one piece of evidence would be sufficient evidence for belief. If I heard 500 stories of people seeing an alien body then that would not be enough evidence for belief because the claim is extraordinary. Likewise, if I heard 500 people telling stories of visiting McDonald's, that would be sufficient for me to believe them. The claim is mundane. It really depends on the claim and the evidence.
This is not what I said at all. I never had God reveal himself to me. If he did I would have no choice but to believe.Well there you go. If God revealed Himself to you, it would be sufficient but your choice was to doubt rather than go to Him. Millions and millions of people have had God reveal Himself to them in a multitude of ways, and once that happens, you never doubt again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?