Atheist here (Ask me anything)

[nicknack28]

Sorry about the vagueness of the question guys. It's one of those situations where in my head they sounded clear (because I knew my own line of thinking) but that probably doesn't translate well on the page. Maybe they'll make more sense if I answer them myself.

To demonstrate the questions I'd like to briefly use an example of something that fits the criteria -- the Holy Trinity. I'm not here to debate anything about it, I just want to use it out of familiarity.

Does such a thing exist?

What I meant here is do you think such a thing exists, regardless of your reasons for thinking so.

The Trinity contains a paradox within it. Many people can accept this through faith and the sureness that with God anything is possible (even things such as paradoxes) and this is therefore would not be an issue. According to my understanding, however, something that is paradoxical cannot exist no matter what force is at work. The existence of something paradoxical like the Trinity is as impossible as violating laws of mathematics.

I would respond then, that such a thing does not exist. I'm obviously using a specific example to answer this but the same line of thinking would apply to anything else that fits the criteria.

Should such a thing exist?

I was more aiming toward should such a thing be allowed to exist (as Coder suggested).

I don't personally think something that is fundamentally irrational and requires faith to believe or accept should be allowed to exist because it's repercussions would be beyond what we can conceive. Something as fundamental as mathematical laws would be put into question -- they're only useful because they are 100% reliable. If something exists where A equals B but B does not equal A then this would prove that they -- the most basic forms of knowledge -- are not 100% reliable. I do not see a universe where our most basic forms of knowledge are questionable as good, and therefore would say that such a thing as the example should not be allowed to exist.

Do you want such a thing to exist?

In light of my earlier response I would have to say no to this one as well. I listed both this and the previous question because I could see somebody not thinking it should be allowed to exist but wanting it anyway. For example, a person could believe as I do that its existence would shake our most basic understandings of the universe but not see this as a bad thing. It could be reflective of our need to put only limited value in our search for knowledge and focus instead on something of superior importance, whatever that may be.

Would you be happier if such a thing existed?

This might now be splitting hairs, honestly. It can generally be assumed that if someone wants such a thing to exist then naturally they would be happier if it did. However, this is not true for many things and therefore I left the question open and its answer without assumption.

....

In all of this I'd like to explore ways the mindset of a believer may differ from the mindset of a non-believer (other than those that are so frequently brought up) that might have an influence on whether someone is religious or not. No correlations being suggested here, just an interest in the differences.

 

[Dragons87]

Sorry for the long post...

Even if we don't look at a map, no person can deny that religions are for the most part geographically oriented. You will find many Christians in the western world. You'll find many Muslims in the Middle East. You'll find many Hindus in India. You'll find many Buddhists in East Asia. It's just how it is.

How does culture not influence what someone believes as an adult? Whether a person eventually discards the beliefs of their culture is up to them, but if you're surrounded day and night for the first twenty odd years of your life with people worshiping So-And-So, odds are you'll be doing the same.

When you mean "you'll be doing the same", I assume that you mean doing all the activity that goes with the belief, which is very different from believing it all. You can follow the traditions of the religion to the dot, but if you don't believe, you don't believe; your culture may have an influence on your beliefs, yes, but belief is a conscious choice, not something you are cajoled into.

Culture is man-made too, which means that it's not just something that just influences you; you have an influence on it too.

I have a more detailed answer about the geographic spread of religions below...

We can argue that Christianity breaks this "defined by geography" rule because it is all over the western world, but that's because it was deliberately and successfully spread. It is one of the core beliefs that a true believer must spread the word of God to others. Many religions don't have this attribute and so remain centered in a single area.

Christianity is also the only real religion in the game of converting so heavily. I can agree that Christianity has a message that other religions don't that persuades many people to convert. However, the message of Christianity is spread by people. This is vastly different then someone having a life-changing experience and then converting to Christianity because of it. This isn't a unique feeling of the Holy Spirit's influence in people's lives (the "nametag" thing), this is unique effort of proselytism.

Yes, evangelism is a major part of Christianity--major, major.

One question we should consider is: why?

Why are Christians so eager to spread their message, when other religions are, so to speak, so content in their own skin? Why, even in the most dire of situations, are they still willing to stand by what they believe and proclaim it?

You may say that they are deluded, or drunk, or stupid, or whatever, as the people criticised the early evangelists (in Acts 2), but I hope you understand that is how powerful the idea behind Christianity is, how it drives people.

Yes, evangelism is done by humans, but the power behind it comes from God. The Christian God is one who wants to work in partnership with humans, in part because we are made in His image, and we have the power to do, in part because to let those who participate in evangelism to experience more of His great power and good work.

Our belief in divine-human partnership stems from how Christianity was born. If God chose to work alone in bringing the Good News to people, we wouldn't need His physical incarnation that is Jesus. He needn't suffer on the Cross as a mere mortal. Isn't He God? Doesn't He have a wondrous place to be in Heaven? Why become a criminal in the eyes of men? Why suffer for us, especially we who are ungrateful?

And without Jesus, there would be no Christianity. If even salvation for all Christians came from a man (albeit a divine, perfect man), then even more must the message of this salvation be spread by men, though driven by the Spirit of God.

And of course, as the "Gospel" is literally the "Good News", it would be completely selfish for those who have received it to keep it to themselves.

"Freely you have received, freely give." -- Matthew 10:8

is the order of Jesus.

Now, about the west. I'm sure you know that Christianity's early roots are in fact in the east, more specifically, the near east. There were churches from Jerusalem, to Antioch in Turkey, to Baghdad, and in the sixth century Christianity reached China--the same time it finally came to England.

It was only when Islam conquered the near east in the seventh to fifteenth centuries that the story of Christianity in the near east was all but terminated, which then forced Christianity into a solely European venture. But there's a lot of history behind that, too much for here.

But before that, Christianity was actually introduced to Europe from Asia in around 40 to 50 AD. The Bible records the first time Christianity was spread to Europe:

'Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia [in Turkey], having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia [in Turkey]. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia [in Turkey], but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas [Troy, on the western coast of Turkey, with Greece just across the sea]. During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." After Paul had seen the vision, we [St. Luke and co.] got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.' -- Acts 6:6-10

Luke doesn't say why he thought the Spirit would ask them to preach the Gospel in Europe. They only concluded that He did, and they did it. To them, it wasn't their own decision.

Luke was writing before 100 AD, and wouldn't know at all that 600 years later Christianity would be all but extinguished in Asia. It was probably this calling from the Spirit that ensured Christianity's survival.

In conclusion, yes, Paul and his team, all humans, were preaching Christianity, but it was the Spirit who led them to where He wanted them to go.

And the faith was definitely intended to be a global faith. Jesus didn't say that He had come to save only Europeans, or white people; He literally meant everyone.

Perhaps the spread of Christianity has so far been limited to the western world, but I stress "so far"--Christianity is currently making massive in-roads in Asia and Africa, at the same time when it seems to be waning in Europe and North America.

Evangelism is done by humans, yes. But if the idea behind the persuading wasn't convincing enough, no amount of persuading would alter anyone's minds. On the other hand, we have in Christianity a very, very powerful idea that spurs people to suffer greatly, at no obvious self-gain, and go to great lengths to preach it.

Something about your wording here is making it hard for me to understand what you're saying. If you're interested in wording it differently so that I don't misunderstand I'd be happy to hear out your points. It feels like we're drifting into fuzzy language here where just about anything goes.

I'd like to turn away from this direction though for this back and forth point and counterpoint pattern is exhausting and unproductive. It isn't convincing anyone of anything and isn't exploring the nuances of people's beliefs. I'd like to return to asking questions of either side to simply build one another's understanding.

Sorry...I edited that part a couple of times, and by what you said I think I made it worse rather than better. We can leave this, maybe come back to it later or something, if you want.

I thought that it was going in a nice direction, to be honest...because I am actually getting a feel of what you think with your questions. Rest assured that what you're getting from me is genuine, not a spiel--I haven't actually done this on this scale before; I'm feeling my way as I go...

But feel free to drive the direction of the discussion whichever way you want. I'll try to stop addressing with general points.

 

[Dragons87]

Thank you for your politeness.


Your assumption is correct.


Because when I was young, everything about Christianity was fun. The baby Jesus, talking donkeys, Noah's ark, Jesus' taking time for the children, diseases and deformities healed; it was all like magic and fairy tales! The church I remember the most had wonderful, nice people. I specifically remember one older gentleman at our church who always kept a pocket full of Jolly Ranchers for the kids. To this day I think of him when I eat Jolly Ranchers.


It was more like 14. I was very active in the church and I wanted to start teaching Sunday School classes and VBS. I realized that I hadn't really dug into the Bible as much as I'd need to in order to teach, so I was bent on really reading and studying it in detail.

That sounds great!

So you've enjoyed church in your young age because, as you said, it was "fun".

Then you were 14, the beginning of a time of great change and upheaval, no doubt--physical, mental and emotional.

And you wanted to teach Sunday School classes. Why exactly did you want to do that?

And obviously you set out to study the Bible. What did you first do? How did you go about "studying" it?

 

[nicknack28]

I also apologize for the length.

I do not wish to abandon the topic entirely. I feel that the original question I was driving did not require the level of complexity in its consideration that we have been growing toward. I also do not wish to focus on Christianity specifically in this question, but more religion in general. In efforts to simplify and "contain" our discussion I'd like to speak more in hypothetical terms than digging with detail into any particular religion.

I questioned at length on two very closely related topics as follows (although they weren't specifically broken down like this):

1. How does a person assign a personal experience to a particular divine influence, therefore implying that such is the one true god (nametags discussion)?
2. Why, if not for the fact that people's beliefs are very heavily influenced by their culture, are the major religions of the world geographically distributed as they are?

By my first question I was obviously suggesting that if you were to remove a person from their cultural context (or any major influence for that matter) they would not be able to assign their personal experience to any particular god. They could at best conclude that there indeed is something divine out there but have little idea anything else about it.

By my second question I was suggesting that if millions of people worldwide are all receiving personal experiences from the same true god, and these experiences weren't being "edited" by their culture, there would be no geographic distribution at all. There would be nearly equal distribution of all religions everywhere (multiple religions would still exist obviously because people interpret experiences differently).

Our discussion about these questions was good and informative but it felt as if we traveled down too many tangents that weren't directly relevant. While the history of Christianity, its message of evangelism, and its spread into various regions is an interesting topic in itself, it was unclear to me its connection to our discussion of whether...

experience + influences = homemade nametag + resulting convictions

In short, then, I argue that without pre-existing influences there is no nametag. Without a nametag the best you can be is convinced of the existence of the divine but agnostic about everything else.

This all assumes that the experience is anything that forces a person to believe in the divine (no matter how reluctant) because their experience is too extraordinary to be explained through reason. This seems to be the most common reason for becoming religious -- extraordinary experience. Unfortunately this can range from seeing your name in the clouds to surviving a bullet to the head.

At the end of the day you hear one person attributing their newborn baby to God's love, another person saying their life was saved because Yahweh willed it, another person claiming that their surgery was successful because he was favored by Allah... or even in older times that two nations issued a treaty of peace because Athena's wisdom was with them.

If there is one true god then our patterns of assigning experiences to the divine are extremely problematic. I just seek, if there indeed is one true god, how this comes to happen (if it isn't through previous influences) and why it isn't seen as a problem.

Also, I realize you may have responded to this more than adequately already in your previous posts (for I mentioned there were parts where I did not quite understand your comments), and I apologize if it looks like I'm ignoring them. I definitely am not meaning to and have read them entirely. I simply have not perceived a strong and direct response to this issue. This isn't a challenge of any form either, just me voicing a major concern that I wouldn't mind being addressed.

 

[Dragons87]

I also apologize for the length.

I do not wish to abandon the topic entirely. I feel that the original question I was driving did not require the level of complexity in its consideration that we have been growing toward. I also do not wish to focus on Christianity specifically in this question, but more religion in general. In efforts to simplify and "contain" our discussion I'd like to speak more in hypothetical terms than digging with detail into any particular religion.

I understand what you mean. My concern is that by pulling things too far back, the arguments would just get too woolly. My main worry is that I can only speak for Christianity (or even more narrowly, myself), and am unable to offer any guidance on other religions. You will have to pull in members of other religions for a pan-religious conference of some sort. Hehe.

Plus, not all religions are the same. Lumping them together for discussion might not be as fruitful. At the end of the day, you need others to come in.

Your point is duly noted, but please recognise the limits I am under in responding. If you get a bit bored of me, please tell me, and I will stop responding. Hehe.

I questioned at length on two very closely related topics as follows (although they weren't specifically broken down like this):

1. How does a person assign a personal experience to a particular divine influence, therefore implying that such is the one true god (nametags discussion)?
2. Why, if not for the fact that people's beliefs are very heavily influenced by their culture, are the major religions of the world geographically distributed as they are?

By my first question I was obviously suggesting that if you were to remove a person from their cultural context (or any major influence for that matter) they would not be able to assign their personal experience to any particular god. They could at best conclude that there indeed is something divine out there but have little idea anything else about it.

I will rephrase a previous answer in hope that it will answer your question.

For Christianity (and Christianity alone), it grew out of a Jewish, Middle Eastern context, very different from the current Western forms of Christianity. Today, if you look at form of Christianity, spread by Western missionaries of past, to Africa and Asia, you will find different forms of Christianity.

It's Christianity all the same, but breaking out of the binds of its original culture and merging itself with the local culture, creating a new culture for adherents.

Now if people hadn't heard of Christianity, obviously they would assign their experiences to something else. It would be illogical to suggest that that isn't the case. But as you say, they would associate it with something, if not divine, then supernatural. I suggest that it is almost human instinct to do that.

By my second question I was suggesting that if millions of people worldwide are all receiving personal experiences from the same true god, and these experiences weren't being "edited" by their culture, there would be no geographic distribution at all. There would be nearly equal distribution of all religions everywhere (multiple religions would still exist obviously because people interpret experiences differently).

Your suggestion is true--unless there is more than "one true god" in the emotional and spiritual world that can give us personal "experiences". And, according to Christianity, there is more than "one true god" in the emotional and spiritual world.

And your suggestion is true if we all had religious freedom throughout the world, that you won't be persecuted if you professed to a different religion. Some religions, including Christianity, are, in some places in the world, or were in history, imposed by force. That would skew results.

A limitation to my answer is that I have never heard anyone of any other religion say that they have experienced a "personal experience" of the type that Christians say they do. I'm not assuming that it doesn't happen at all, but since I haven't heard about it, I cannot assume that it has happened either.

This "personal relationship experience" thing seems to be a very Christian concept, and I would caution against using it to include all other religions.

If indeed experiences from God happen everywhere, perhaps what people need to do is be told of what those experiences were. An experience isn't self-evident, and in Christianity, a faith that emphasises teamwork, it wouldn't be.

Our discussion about these questions was good and informative but it felt as if we traveled down too many tangents that weren't directly relevant. While the history of Christianity, its message of evangelism, and its spread into various regions is an interesting topic in itself, it was unclear to me its connection to our discussion of whether...

experience + influences = homemade nametag + resulting convictions

In short, then, I argue that without pre-existing influences there is no nametag. Without a nametag the best you can be is convinced of the existence of the divine but agnostic about everything else.

I would, with my folly, amend your equation to:

present situation + nametagged influence --> experience --> acceptance or rejection of influence and experience--> resulting convictions --> new situation

But in essence I agree with your conclusion that without pre-existing influences there is no name-tag for a spiritual experience.

This all assumes that the experience is anything that forces a person to believe in the divine (no matter how reluctant) because their experience is too extraordinary to be explained through reason. This seems to be the most common reason for becoming religious -- extraordinary experience. Unfortunately this can range from seeing your name in the clouds to surviving a bullet to the head.

Well, for me it rescued me from an addiction, from which reason, or my own efforts, were not able to save me.

At the end of the day you hear one person attributing their newborn baby to God's love, another person saying their life was saved because Yahweh willed it, another person claiming that their surgery was successful because he was favored by Allah... or even in older times that two nations issued a treaty of peace because Athena's wisdom was with them.

If there is one true god then our patterns of assigning experiences to the divine are extremely problematic. I just seek, if there indeed is one true god, how this comes to happen (if it isn't through previous influences) and why it isn't seen as a problem.

That is, if you are assuming that all such personal experiences come from that one, true God, or when having such an experience from the one, true God, whether that person is willing to acknowledge so.

And by personal experience I do not mean a change in external circumstances, i.e. physical life being saved, or a successful surgery, or the conclusion of peace treaty, but something internal that violently changes the attitude and outlook in one's heart, even when external circumstances are the same.

This is a very important point to make. Religion, at least Christianity, is not about physical changes, but spiritual changes. So this experience is not tangible like a change in circumstances, but intangible in one's heart, that then translates into tangible changes in the person's character.

Also, I realize you may have responded to this more than adequately already in your previous posts (for I mentioned there were parts where I did not quite understand your comments), and I apologize if it looks like I'm ignoring them. I definitely am not meaning to and have read them entirely. I simply have not perceived a strong and direct response to this issue. This isn't a challenge of any form either, just me voicing a major concern that I wouldn't mind being addressed.

It's fine. I hope I have addressed them. I am realising that we do not agree on some fundamental things, such as what an experience consists of, so perhaps we should both make our meanings much clearer, which would define the boundaries of the discussion better.

 

[nicknack28]

Now if people hadn't heard of Christianity, obviously they would assign their experiences to something else. It would be illogical to suggest that that isn't the case. But as you say, they would associate it with something, if not divine, then supernatural. I suggest that it is almost human instinct to do that.

[Later in your post...] But in essence I agree with your conclusion that without pre-existing influences there is no name-tag for a spiritual experience.

I am very very glad that we can agree on this. I'm glad because I get the impression that many people would not agree, suggesting that no matter one's previous exposure to anything Christian they would come to believe in the Christian god and all its attachments with whatever extraordinary experience they had.

Your suggestion is true--unless there is more than "one true god" in the emotional and spiritual world that can give us personal "experiences". And, according to Christianity, there is more than "one true god" in the emotional and spiritual world.

And your suggestion is true if we all had religious freedom throughout the world, that you won't be persecuted if you professed to a different religion. Some religions, including Christianity, are, in some places in the world, or were in history, imposed by force. That would skew results.

I can accept that in Christianity it may be more useful and accurate to speak in terms of the Trinity regarding divine influence rather than something singular. I should admit (whether in has any consequence or not) that I should have kept more sensitive approach in mind instead of treating the godhead as something more or less homogeneous.

I cannot argue whether or not religious freedom in the world has enough weight to become a problem in this discussion because I simply am not educated enough about it. I will definitely take the point in mind, of course.

A limitation to my answer is that I have never heard anyone of any other religion say that they have experienced a "personal experience" of the type that Christians say they do. I'm not assuming that it doesn't happen at all, but since I haven't heard about it, I cannot assume that it has happened either.

This "personal relationship experience" thing seems to be a very Christian concept, and I would caution against using it to include all other religions.

I understand you perfectly and can concede that my questions may very well have been applied inappropriately. If I am to approach the subject from this angle it would be best to deal directly with Christianity or to revise the question to accurately reflect other religions' mode of thinking. And, as you said, it may be more productive to limit how wide of a religious scope is used to look at things, given the enormous diversity of religions.

And by personal experience I do not mean a change in external circumstances, i.e. physical life being saved, or a successful surgery, or the conclusion of peace treaty, but something internal that violently changes the attitude and outlook in one's heart, even when external circumstances are the same.

This is a very important point to make. Religion, at least Christianity, is not about physical changes, but spiritual changes. So this experience is not tangible like a change in circumstances, but intangible in one's heart, that then translates into tangible changes in the person's character.

I would like to clarify that the examples of the newborn baby, the saved life, the successful surgery, and the peace treaty weren't intended to be examples of experiences that would make someone become a believer. However, I do think they could be.

Your point of how experiences are internally (not externally) concerned is well noted and I would further suggest that this is probably the case for any religion where experience is an important component of belief, not just Christianity. External events are still the key to beliefs, though. A person can conclude from something such as winning a fight against cancer that something out there exists that is beyond our limits of rational explanation. To them their victory is simply so improbable that some divine must exist.

This isn't the only way external events have impact though. Winning a fight against cancer could definitely do exactly as you said -- violently change the attitude and outlook in one's heart:

"Something more than myself or this world has a personal concern with me. This divine thing chose the most vulnerable moment of my life to intervene. It wished to make itself known to me in a miraculous way. The intimacy I felt with its movement in my life -- almost as if it were an all-loving companion or father, safeguarding me from death and despair -- is something I've never experience before. It is my savior and must have been alongside me my entire life, working its will into my circumstances to guide me as it saw was best toward our eventual relationship. It must be the force that works that which is meaningful into people's lives just as it worked in my life, making me aware of it and reverent of its mercy and love. It is unlike anything I have ever experienced before, this divine presence that I can do nothing but be in awe of and subject myself to."

It sounds a little cheesy because I made it up on the spot. Of course all these such thoughts would be dramatic internal repercussions of a simple external event. The only point I wish to make here is that internal changes come from external changes -- cause and effect. I do not see how someone can change so incredibly internally if not prompted by something externally. That (to me) suggests a effect without a cause. Millions upon millions of people's shared testimonies come to mind when considering this topic, people sharing what prompted them externally to have an internal revelation.

It's fine. I hope I have addressed them. I am realising that we do not agree on some fundamental things, such as what an experience consists of, so perhaps we should both make our meanings much clearer, which would define the boundaries of the discussion better.

I hope I illustrated well what I mean by experiences so that we can understand where each is coming from. I'm concerned with the entire thing, meaning both the external and the internal whether it is through simple (but emotionally flavored) deduction like my first cancer example or through very heavy emotional reflection like in my second cancer example.

To summarize (if I may) your disagreements with my questions: they are not as appropriate as they should be given who they address. Sometimes assumptions are made based on the beliefs of Christianity, sometimes assumptions are made that in essence lump religions together in ways they should not be, sometimes assumptions are made based on incomplete information about religions' status worldwide, etc. If the questions were more appropriate they could be addressed more appropriately.

Is this a correct summary? If it is then I agree with you. Perhaps we can consider some other issues instead. Please let me know your thoughts on all this, and as a side note I cannot thank you enough for your patience in responding so frequently and at such length.

 

[Dragons87]

I am very very glad that we can agree on this. I'm glad because I get the impression that many people would not agree, suggesting that no matter one's previous exposure to anything Christian they would come to believe in the Christian god and all its attachments with whatever extraordinary experience they had.

It's far too easy to make up somebody's argument or opinion for them. I've made the mistake far too often. Never assume.

I quote Paul again, who stresses that we should play our part in influencing others:

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" -- Romans 10:13-14

It's simple as that.

I can accept that in Christianity it may be more useful and accurate to speak in terms of the Trinity regarding divine influence rather than something singular. I should admit (whether in has any consequence or not) that I should have kept more sensitive approach in mind instead of treating the godhead as something more or less homogeneous.

Oh...I meant the other spirits of the world, not God. In the Christian world the supernatural doesn't end with just God; it includes demons and other spirits.

So when someone is under a certain spiritual influence, it might not actually be from God.

I understand you perfectly and can concede that my questions may very well have been applied inappropriately. If I am to approach the subject from this angle it would be best to deal directly with Christianity or to revise the question to accurately reflect other religions' mode of thinking. And, as you said, it may be more productive to limit how wide of a religious scope is used to look at things, given the enormous diversity of religions.

Excellent.

I would like to clarify that the examples of the newborn baby, the saved life, the successful surgery, and the peace treaty weren't intended to be examples of experiences that would make someone become a believer. However, I do think they could be.

Your point of how experiences are internally (not externally) concerned is well noted and I would further suggest that this is probably the case for any religion where experience is an important component of belief, not just Christianity. External events are still the key to beliefs, though. A person can conclude from something such as winning a fight against cancer that something out there exists that is beyond our limits of rational explanation. To them their victory is simply so improbable that some divine must exist.

This isn't the only way external events have impact though. Winning a fight against cancer could definitely do exactly as you said -- violently change the attitude and outlook in one's heart:

"Something more than myself or this world has a personal concern with me. This divine thing chose the most vulnerable moment of my life to intervene. It wished to make itself known to me in a miraculous way. The intimacy I felt with its movement in my life -- almost as if it were an all-loving companion or father, safeguarding me from death and despair -- is something I've never experience before. It is my savior and must have been alongside me my entire life, working its will into my circumstances to guide me as it saw was best toward our eventual relationship. It must be the force that works that which is meaningful into people's lives just as it worked in my life, making me aware of it and reverent of its mercy and love. It is unlike anything I have ever experienced before, this divine presence that I can do nothing but be in awe of and subject myself to."

It sounds a little cheesy because I made it up on the spot. Of course all these such thoughts would be dramatic internal repercussions of a simple external event. The only point I wish to make here is that internal changes come from external changes -- cause and effect. I do not see how someone can change so incredibly internally if not prompted by something externally. That (to me) suggests a effect without a cause. Millions upon millions of people's shared testimonies come to mind when considering this topic, people sharing what prompted them externally to have an internal revelation.

External events can trigger internal changes, yes. But that's just what they are: a trigger, which may have no influence at all in what those internal changes are, or whether they can have any impact on someone's internal spiritual (as opposed to emotional) situation. This can be seen in how not every cancer recovery leads someone to a religion.

I would like to bring up the Christian perspective.

The internal transformation for someone who was not a Christian to become a Christian is a very specific one. Your made-up example of change may bring one to conclude that the divine is out there, but it doesn't help in converting anyone to the specific religion that is Christianity.

Why? Because there is only one internal transformation that will convert non-Christians into Christians, and that is when one humbly admits that he/she is guilty as a sinner in the eyes of God, accepts the gift of salvation as offered by Jesus's experience on Good Friday and Easter Sunday and agrees to repent.

A person must experience life-saving grace to become Christian. No other experience can convert them to Christianity.

So returning to your question on name-tagging, how does one know what one experiences, as an internal change in outlook, is of what religion?

The answer for Christianity is that the experience one is looking out for is very specific, that of life-saving grace. If one has that as their internal transformation, regardless of their external trigger, it is almost guaranteed that that is a calling from the Christian God.

I hope that I made that clear. I have no idea what the case is for other religions.

To summarize (if I may) your disagreements with my questions: they are not as appropriate as they should be given who they address. Sometimes assumptions are made based on the beliefs of Christianity, sometimes assumptions are made that in essence lump religions together in ways they should not be, sometimes assumptions are made based on incomplete information about religions' status worldwide, etc. If the questions were more appropriate they could be addressed more appropriately.

Is this a correct summary? If it is then I agree with you. Perhaps we can consider some other issues instead. Please let me know your thoughts on all this, and as a side note I cannot thank you enough for your patience in responding so frequently and at such length.

I think that's the main bulk of my concerns. I suppose wooliness of argument is a very general problem with forum discussions, having trolled about in various forums for several years now. As long as we're both aware of the limits of the other side's understanding, and that words on a page alone do not convey all meaning, we'll be fine.

And you are very kind. It isn't always that I meet any other person who has such a patient attitude to my long-winded and sometimes nonsensical posts.

 

[nicknack28]

I think that's the main bulk of my concerns. I suppose wooliness of argument is a very general problem with forum discussions, having trolled about in various forums for several years now. As long as we're both aware of the limits of the other side's understanding, and that words on a page alone do not convey all meaning, we'll be fine.

Whenever you try to look at something on a more and more fundamental level the conversation always starts to drift toward philosophy rather than practicality. Meanings start to get fuzzy and words start to become exchanged frequently and concepts become too abstract to think about satisfactorily. It just can't be helped, I think. I think the same thing would happen if people spoke face to face as well.

I like the phrase "internal transformation" so I'll be mirroring you by using that.

I'm not going to respond to each part of your post independently this time because I'd like to pull the ideas together into a simplification. Please excuse my constant need to simplify things but it helps cut down a great amount of the wooliness you mention.

If a person were to have a genuine conversion to Christianity according to the parameters you suggested, would it look something like this?

1. Hear the message of Christianity from others (Paul's quote)
2. Have an internal transformation that was prompted by some trigger
3. Identify this internal transformation as experiencing "life-saving grace"
4. Recognize that this (life-saving grace) is part of the message of Christianity that you heard earlier
5. Conclude that this is a calling from the Christian God
6. Convert to Christianity

This is a simplification but simplifications are useful. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with this model, is this an accurate reflection of your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Dragons87]

If a person were to have a genuine conversion to Christianity according to the parameters you suggested, would it look something like this?

1. Hear the message of Christianity from others (Paul's quote)
2. Have an internal transformation that was prompted by some trigger
3. Identify this internal transformation as experiencing "life-saving grace"
4. Recognize that this (life-saving grace) is part of the message of Christianity that you heard earlier
5. Conclude that this is a calling from the Christian God
6. Convert to Christianity

This is a simplification but simplifications are useful. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with this model, is this an accurate reflection of your thoughts on the matter?

Essentially, yes, though if I may I would like to make some modifications to the terminology and the order of process:

1. Hear the message of life-saving grace (= the message of Christianity = the calling from the Christian God) from others.
2. Prompted to reflect on the message by external stimuli (i.e. circumstances).
3. Decides to accept life-saving grace (= convert to Christianity).
4. Experience internal transformation.

As you said, this is an extremely simplified overview of how one might come to Christ. No one limits how God may appear to and inspire individuals.

On a side note, I'm off on holiday until Christmas Eve, so I will not be able to respond. I'll come back afterwards and dig up your post to respond to, if you make one.

 

[nicknack28]

This post may be slightly unnecessary but I don't think so. I just wanted to reassure any passers-by out there that this thread needn't be monopolized by Dragons and I. It just drifted in that direction gradually. Skeptic created the thread with the idea of people asking him (or other atheists, possibly) any question they'd like. Respecting this intent, I'd like to invite others out there to jump back in with anything at any time if and when they wish.

I also posted a four-part question a couple pages back if anyone had any interest in picking that discussion back up again. If not I'll just let it sit.

Thanks, and cheers!

 

[woundedsoldier]

I am curious. What prompted you to join this type of forum? Do you think God has been knocking on your door? If you are still open-minded to reasoning about Christianity I am up for discussion... By the way Jesus
loves you! (I know you've heard that before...but it sounds like you need to hear that again.)

 

[Skeptic90]

I am curious. What prompted you to join this type of forum? Do you think God has been knocking on your door? If you are still open-minded to reasoning about Christianity I am up for discussion... By the way Jesus
loves you! (I know you've heard that before...but it sounds like you need to hear that again.)

Yes, I am open to all ideas. I will evaluate and rationally discuss ideas. If I get provided with enough evidence to drop by current belief, I will exchange it.

So what prompt me from joining this forum. To be honest, I had nothing to better to do. At first I talked to like minded people, but after a while, there is no real discussion. So, to actually improve upon my own knowledge, and actually talk to people who differ in opinion from me. This is what to known to science as progress. So how better to expand my ideas than to talk to the people who think differently from I do.

So I will evaluate, let you know my opinion, and why I think, how your opinion deviates from my opinion. In other words discussion of ideas to reach a logical and reasonable conclusion.

I know jesus along with, horus, Krishna, budda, dionysus, orpheus,and all the other saviour gods love me. But the one I know loves me are my parents, and family. What more can I ask.

So ask me anything.

 

[nicknack28]

Yes, I am open to all ideas. I will evaluate and rationally discuss ideas. If I get provided with enough evidence to drop by current belief, I will exchange it.

So what prompt me from joining this forum. To be honest, I had nothing to better to do. At first I talked to like minded people, but after a while, there is no real discussion. So, to actually improve upon my own knowledge, and actually talk to people who differ in opinion from me. This is what to known to science as progress. So how better to expand my ideas than to talk to the people who think differently from I do.

So I will evaluate, let you know my opinion, and why I think, how your opinion deviates from my opinion. In other words discussion of ideas to reach a logical and reasonable conclusion.

If I may respond as well, I can't put it any more directly than Skeptic has for these are my reasons as well. Lately I've become more curious about what exactly (when we get down to an extremely fundamental level) makes one person think this way and another person think that way. That would eventually lead to psychology though. I've also taken an interest in all the nuances and complexities of people's beliefs and how they compare to each other, if only for curiosity's sake and to better understand people.

I guess I put this a little dramatically in another thread but I'll repeat it here. Considering that the question of the divine is one of the biggest and most consequential questions of all time and it has had a larger impact on human history than anyone can calculate, I'm a firm believer that religion should be taken seriously and cannot be afforded a mind too open or too closed.

 

[woundedsoldier]

So basically bordome and curiosity. I see. Well I am glad anyway that you are both here to discuss. I just have two questions for both of you.
I. Why do ALL people have faith in something? Whether Buddist, Hindu, Christian, Agnostic or Atheist there has never been a person born who did not place faith in something.
II. Do you see a difference in Christianity from every other religion? I mean why come to this site and not to a Hindu or Buddist website? There must be a reason.

What do you think?

 

[nicknack28]

I like to think of my time on here as learning about (at least Christian) belief. Religious topics in general are captivating but I find this one particularly interesting. I get to understand others better and let others learn about my views if they wish as well.

I'm not entirely sure what your first question is asking. Everyone has faith in things -- it's just common practice. For this application I'm thinking of faith as "belief without evidence." You trust your mom when she says she said she skipped breakfast, you trust that your brand new pair of headphones will work, etc. It can a useful tool for assessing minor, practically no-risk things without taking the time to gather evidence about them. I would argue that in common practice faith and intuition are pretty much indistinguishable.

If we're talking specifically religious faith then I don't think I can agree that agnosticism or atheism inherently puts faith in anything. Agnostics or atheists can do so in any manner depending on the individual, of course, regardless of whether it's looked upon as good or bad. Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting your question because I'd like to answer it better.

I came to a Christian forum because I was raised Christian and have had enormously more exposure to Christian concepts than any other religion (being in the United States influences this majorly too). I would not feel comfortable on other religious forums where I am unfamiliar with the beliefs involved. Many of the conversations I take part in aren't necessarily Christian-specific but still are heavily Christian in just the way language is used.

 

[CoderHead]

So basically bordome and curiosity. I see.

That's not too far from the truth for me. Although I do find it immensely interesting to see all of the disparate views on Christianity alone from so many people who profess to believe the same Bible. So, moreso than boredom, it's curiosity.

I. Why do ALL people have faith in something? Whether Buddist, Hindu, Christian, Agnostic or Atheist there has never been a person born who did not place faith in something.

This only works if you massively blanket-statement the term "faith." Of course I have "faith" that the chair in which I'm about to sit will hold my weight. But it's not blind faith; it's based off of prior experience and an understanding of how the chair is constructed, and for what purpose. If I were to sit in a rickety-looking chair, I'd most certainly be cautious and take my time putting my full weight in it. That's certainly not "faith." But to take it even further than that and say that atheists and agnostics have "faith" in the religious context is actually pretty laughable. It's nothing more than you projecting an invalid view onto them in order to make an invalid point.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the whole world has faith in something, especially in the manner you're implying.

II. Do you see a difference in Christianity from every other religion? I mean why come to this site and not to a Hindu or Buddist website? There must be a reason.

I view all religions the same. The thing about Christianity is that it's been a huge part of my life since I was born and the overwhelming majority of the country in which I live identifies with some type of Christian faith. My family members are Christian and I, at one point, was as well. So Christianity is a topic near and dear to my heart and I enjoy discussing it. I realize that people get overly emotional about it, but I can't help that. It's never my intent to upset people by questioning their beliefs. I'd just really like better answers than, "That's just how I feel."

 

[woundedsoldier]

First, I should clarify that when I say in my opinion that everyone has faith in something I do mean religious faith. Yes, I believe Agnostics and Atheists have religious faith. Because ignoring the evidence that God exists takes faith.

I will try to give more of an answer for this than "overwhelming emotional feelings." Just use common sense. Do you celebrate Christmas? The fact is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was a historical person who actually lived. We are still celebrating His birth 2,000 years later! I don't really want to argue with someone against that fact, because there is more evidence that He walked the earth than that Caesar Augustus did. So then, if He lived 2,000 years ago who was He?

Even a Muslim would say Jesus was an actual person who lived and that He was a good person. But Jesus himself said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." What was Jesus saying? He referred to himself as the Son of God throughout Scripture. You must reconcile that Jesus was a real person who was everything He claimed to be or you are calling God a liar. I John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" You can continue to be glib about the most important decision you could ever make, but you are only hurting yourself. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:7 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Isaiah 1:18 God gives to every man a measure of faith. All you have to do is accept Him. The question is why insist on denying what you don't understand?

 

[Ayersy]

First, I should clarify that when I say in my opinion that everyone has faith in something I do mean religious faith. Yes, I believe Agnostics and Atheists have religious faith. Because ignoring the evidence that God exists takes faith.

I will try to give more of an answer for this than "overwhelming emotional feelings." Just use common sense. Do you celebrate Christmas? The fact is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was a historical person who actually lived. We are still celebrating His birth 2,000 years later! I don't really want to argue with someone against that fact, because there is more evidence that He walked the earth than that Caesar Augustus did. So then, if He lived 2,000 years ago who was He?

Even a Muslim would say Jesus was an actual person who lived and that He was a good person. But Jesus himself said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." What was Jesus saying? He referred to himself as the Son of God throughout Scripture. You must reconcile that Jesus was a real person who was everything He claimed to be or you are calling God a liar. I John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" You can continue to be glib about the most important decision you could ever make, but you are only hurting yourself. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:7 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Isaiah 1:18 God gives to every man a measure of faith. All you have to do is accept Him. The question is why insist on denying what you don't understand?

Yo. I, for one, don't deny that Jesus was probably a real person, it was a popular name back then...however I do deny that he was the son of God, simply because I don't believe in God in the first place. I'm not calling God a liar because I don't believe he exists, I claim that whoever wrote the bible was mistaken, that's all.

I wouldn't say it takes faith to be an atheist, because to me, at least, faith means believing in something even without evidence. Not the other way around. My disbelief is a product of research, looking at the world, alot of thinking and finally coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist...so I do understand, thankyou very much.

Also, for future reference, hurling a ton of scripture at atheists isn't going to get you very far, since we dismiss it as being untrue anyway.

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

First, I should clarify that when I say in my opinion that everyone has faith in something I do mean religious faith. Yes, I believe Agnostics and Atheists have religious faith. Because ignoring the evidence that God exists takes faith.

orly?


I will try to give more of an answer for this than "overwhelming emotional feelings." Just use common sense. Do you celebrate Christmas? The fact is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was a historical person who actually lived. We are still celebrating His birth 2,000 years later! I don't really want to argue with someone against that fact, because there is more evidence that He walked the earth than that Caesar Augustus did. So then, if He lived 2,000 years ago who was He?

Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

Even a Muslim would say Jesus was an actual person who lived and that He was a good person. But Jesus himself said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." What was Jesus saying? He referred to himself as the Son of God throughout Scripture. You must reconcile that Jesus was a real person who was everything He claimed to be or you are calling God a liar. I John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" You can continue to be glib about the most important decision you could ever make, but you are only hurting yourself. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:7 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Isaiah 1:18 God gives to every man a measure of faith. All you have to do is accept Him. The question is why insist on denying what you don't understand?

/

 

[nicknack28]

First, I should clarify that when I say in my opinion that everyone has faith in something I do mean religious faith. Yes, I believe Agnostics and Atheists have religious faith. Because ignoring the evidence that God exists takes faith.

I will try to give more of an answer for this than "overwhelming emotional feelings." Just use common sense. Do you celebrate Christmas? The fact is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was a historical person who actually lived. We are still celebrating His birth 2,000 years later! I don't really want to argue with someone against that fact, because there is more evidence that He walked the earth than that Caesar Augustus did. So then, if He lived 2,000 years ago who was He?

Even a Muslim would say Jesus was an actual person who lived and that He was a good person. But Jesus himself said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." What was Jesus saying? He referred to himself as the Son of God throughout Scripture. You must reconcile that Jesus was a real person who was everything He claimed to be or you are calling God a liar. I John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" You can continue to be glib about the most important decision you could ever make, but you are only hurting yourself. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:7 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Isaiah 1:18 God gives to every man a measure of faith. All you have to do is accept Him. The question is why insist on denying what you don't understand?

I put good effort into sounding warm enough in conversations on here so forgive me if this sounds rather blunt. I honestly cannot glean a whole lot out of your post that is relevant to what we were discussing.

I very severely disagree that everyone has religious faith but that's not the part that bothers me. It is the part where the topic of Jesus' existence (which I don't dispute) is brought up as if it is evidence of a god and the preaching about Jesus' virtues and divinity via Bible references that I have have zero interest in. Firstly they don't have any relevance to your question (about all people supposedly having religious faith) and secondly they're simply not formatted for a discussion. They are, as stated by myself and others, assumptions for the first part and preaching for the second part.

I'm still interested in discussion but not in this manner. Thanks though and hopefully we can turn this in a productive direction.