Christians, what would it take...

[Targaryen]

You're saying god didn't have anything to "prove" to man to get him to believe in god, or his word, or anything. Yet you believe that god came to earth as Jesus (or some version of that) to preach to man, die for our sins, and be resurrected back to life. You may not think that's god proving himself to man, but IMO it clearly is.

As for my beliefs as an atheist...they don't have anything to do with this thread. Did you actually read the topic? I haven't mentioned my beliefs except once to answer a question that a poster had regarding them. So if you've got some bone to pick with atheism, it isn't because of me.

I came to that faith in god myself, based on things I was presented with. I could have eaily taken that same knowledge I was presented with and said it's not relevant to me and denied that there was a god. That's what faith is.

And yes your views are apart of this thread otherwise you would be making rather ridiculous questions like that if it wasn't coloring your views. you've already pre-judged people so therefore of course your views are going to be apart of your interpretation.

God didn't force me to believe or not. That's what free will is. Just like the freedom of speech or any other freedoms it's in the choice of the person rather then the group or society or whatever else to choose. You have it in the back of your mind that cause christians believe in this and I don't, that were are either duping ourselves or we are not acting on all the possible knowledge we can have.

I didn't say it did, nor did I try to prove anything.I don't recall doing anything of the sort...can you copy and paste or quote me where I did?

You practically implied, never said but implied. It's rather clear in the OP. don't like a christian calling a spade a spade?

"So, Christianity could prove to be faulty. It still brought people to God...."

Would you say the same thing about Islam or Hinduism? That it doesn't matter that they're wrong as long as they brought people to god?

Yeah, I would say the same thing. not only does it leave the judging up to god, where in matters of faith it belongs but who am I to say that their ideas are wrong? Jesus taught a fairly simple message that often gets overlooked but needs a reminder here. We as christians are called to love god and serve him the best we are able and to love our neightbour as ourselves. which means doing the best we can for our world.

Is the thought of that so repugnant to you?

 

[Josephus]

I agree with what you're saying about not being able to prove every assumption (belief) that I have...no one can. The things I believe I believe because of the evidence that I'm aware of regarding them...but I can't necessarily prove much of my beliefs. On that much we agree, but then you went on to say this....

"And this is the challenge I give atheists all the time to great success: consider our set of assumptions and see if you can reason your way out of it. If you are honest with the assumptions, then you can't."

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. It's hard for me to come up with any beliefs I hold that would not change if I were given sufficient evidence otherwise. For example, it's no secret that I don't believe in god....but if I were faced with a scenario like the one I've outlined in the OP....I would instantly believe in the existence of god. That's where I think you and I differ...I'm far more concerned with the truth than believing my "worldview" is correct. If the evidence shows that something I believe in is wrong...well then I was wrong and I change mybeliefs. Maybe that isn't the case for you...but I don't see why you think everyone else thinks as you do. As this thread has shown...even some christians will change their beliefs, beliefs they hold above all others...in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I bolded your statement above.

If you truly hold to this position, honestly, and without reservation, then your worldview actually doesn't preclude the existence of God. Think about it. You believe God might exist if... fill in the blank. Except you're going further than that and saying that God would exist if... fill in the blank.

For if you held to a purely naturalistic worldview, even if you saw the great miracles described in your OP bending what you think are the known laws of science, then the naturalistic worldview that you seem to want to have would seek to understand what you observe, no matter how strange, in a naturalistic way - even if you can't explain it now. A circular box of reasoning. But that is what a worldview is. It's an a priori assumption that has you subjectively interpret the evidence around you ultimately in favor of the assumption! Even if God showed up and performed a bunch of supernatural miracles, including rising someone from the dead, or splitting a sea of water, one who purely holds to a naturalistic worldview would only accept a naturalistic explanation of what was observed - even if there was no explanation at the moment, the naturalistic worldview would hold out in faith that at some in time, a point of knowledge could be reached where what you saw could all be explained naturally.

This is the fallacy I see most athiests have - they either can't see clearly that they already believe by faith in a worldview - an a priori circular unprovable assumption that no proof can refute (which I'm glad to hear you've agreed that no one can prove these levels of assumptions), or they aren't honest with what they want to believe, and actually do hold out some possibility that God exists, which really makes them an agnostic (which I think at this point is an accurate description of where you really are in your "atheism"). If you really hold out the possibility that at some point evidence could be presented to you that God exists, then I suggest you aren't being honest with yourself about which worldview you actually cling to. You actually seem to me to really be an agnostic who doesn't know it yet, and are actually closer to believing in God than you think. Perhaps that is why God lead you to this forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I bolded your statement above.

If you truly hold to this position, honestly, and without reservation, then your worldview actually doesn't preclude the existence of God. Think about it. You believe God might exist if... fill in the blank. Except you're going further than that and saying that God would exist if... fill in the blank.

For if you held to a purely naturalistic worldview, even if you saw the great miracles described in your OP bending what you think are the known laws of science, then the naturalistic worldview that you seem to want to have would seek to understand what you observe, no matter how strange, in a naturalistic way - even if you can't explain it now. A circular box of reasoning. But that is what a worldview is. It's an a priori assumption that has you subjectively interpret the evidence around you ultimately in favor of the assumption! Even if God showed up and performed a bunch of supernatural miracles, including rising someone from the dead, or splitting a sea of water, one who purely holds to a naturalistic worldview would only accept a naturalistic explanation of what was observed - even if there was no explanation at the moment, the naturalistic worldview would hold out in faith that at some in time, a point of knowledge could be reached where what you saw could all be explained naturally.

I'm not sure where you think the "faith" comes in. We have many examples of phenomena that were once explained by invoking supernatural constructs, but which, in the end, had a natural explanation that turned out to be better. Not having an explanation right now isn't sufficient justification for believing whatever supernatural explanation happens to come blundering by.

This is the fallacy I see most athiests have - they either can't see clearly that they already believe by faith in a worldview - an a priori circular unprovable assumption that no proof can refute (which I'm glad to hear you've agreed that no one can prove these levels of assumptions), or they aren't honest with what they want to believe, and actually do hold out some possibility that God exists, which really makes them an agnostic (which I think at this point is an accurate description of where you really are in your "atheism"). If you really hold out the possibility that at some point evidence could be presented to you that God exists, then I suggest you aren't being honest with yourself about which worldview you actually cling to. You actually seem to me to really be an agnostic who doesn't know it yet, and are actually closer to believing in God than you think. Perhaps that is why God lead you to this forum.

You can be an agnostic and an atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Josephus]

Not having an explanation right now isn't sufficient justification for believing whatever supernatural explanation happens to come blundering by.

You sir are a true believer of the naturalist worldview.

You hold out hope that what can't be explained naturally now, can be explained naturally someday when sufficient knowledge and understanding is available. If that's not a faith statement, then I don't know what is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You sir are a true believer of the naturalist worldview.

You hold out hope that what can't be explained naturally now, can be explained naturally someday when sufficient knowledge and understanding is available. If that's not a faith statement, then I don't know what is.

How is it a faith statement? We already have multiple instances where this is exactly the case.

 

[Targaryen]

I'm not sure where you think the "faith" comes in. We have many examples of phenomena that were once explained by invoking supernatural constructs, but which, in the end, had a natural explanation that turned out to be better. Not having an explanation right now isn't sufficient justification for believing whatever supernatural explanation happens to come blundering by.

We also still have phenomena which as of yet cannot be proven by non-"supernatural" constructs either. Your point is?

You can be an agnostic and an atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

I agree on that. But it's only matters of degree, not that they don't share a common root.

 

[Freodin]

You sir are a true believer of the naturalist worldview.

I know that this wasn't adressed to me, but can I take it as a compliment regardless?

So now you have established that we all have "faith", and that some of us can even be "true believers".

Now what?

 

[Targaryen]

I know that this wasn't adressed to me, but can I take it as a compliment regardless?

So now you have established that we all have "faith", and that some of us can even be "true believers".

Now what?

Up to you...always is.

 

[Freodin]

Up to you...always is.

And up to you... and everyone else... "no man is an island" and all that, you know?

So what would you propose?

 

[Targaryen]

And up to you... and everyone else... "no man is an island" and all that, you know?

So what would you propose?

Like I said, it's up to you.

What you do or do not do is not my choice.

That's the beauty of free will.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We also still have phenomena which as of yet cannot be proven by non-"supernatural" constructs either. Your point is?

That doesn't mean that supernatural explanations are justified. The argument that they are justified because we currently lack an explanation is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Targaryen]

That doesn't mean that supernatural explanations are justified. The argument that they are justified because we currently lack an explanation is an argument from ignorance.

Can you justify things that don't have a good thesis or theory that has been proven definiatively yet?

Straw man argument still exists in that terminology. "Give me a sign in a way I can buy it or it's not real"

 

[Eudaimonist]

A year and a half ago a "voice" came to me. The voice was identical to what I thought was God's "voice", which I had been listening to for the past 15 years, except it didn't line up with the things I had been taught.

This sounds like mental illness to me. I don't say this flippantly. Betty Page had that same problem at one point during her life, and some drugs helped to dispel her voices.

The presence of something so full of love was upon me that it was nearly impossible to believe it wasn't God. That presence stayed with me for 2 weeks or more. It gave me perfect peace and there was absolutely no chance I could possibly sin during that time.

There was one time in my life that I had a crush so intense it made me feel like I was walking inside a cloud of happiness and peace for several months. I was far less self-conscious and far more self-sacrificing during that time. I would burst out singing sometimes while driving just because I couldn't contain how happy I had felt. A flood of neurochemicals can do that.

A voice that no one could ever convince me was not God's voice said; Write your testimony and everybody on earth will be saved.

This is the smoking gun. Why would the salvation of everyone on earth depend on your testimony?

Anyway, voices in my head and neurochemical highs could never be enough to convince me that a God exists, unless "God" is defined as merely some psychological condition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

I came to that faith in god myself, based on things I was presented with. I could have eaily taken that same knowledge I was presented with and said it's not relevant to me and denied that there was a god. That's what faith is.

And yes your views are apart of this thread otherwise you would be making rather ridiculous questions like that if it wasn't coloring your views. you've already pre-judged people so therefore of course your views are going to be apart of your interpretation.

God didn't force me to believe or not. That's what free will is. Just like the freedom of speech or any other freedoms it's in the choice of the person rather then the group or society or whatever else to choose. You have it in the back of your mind that cause christians believe in this and I don't, that were are either duping ourselves or we are not acting on all the possible knowledge we can have.




You practically implied, never said but implied. It's rather clear in the OP. don't like a christian calling a spade a spade?




Yeah, I would say the same thing. not only does it leave the judging up to god, where in matters of faith it belongs but who am I to say that their ideas are wrong? Jesus taught a fairly simple message that often gets overlooked but needs a reminder here. We as christians are called to love god and serve him the best we are able and to love our neightbour as ourselves. which means doing the best we can for our world.

Is the thought of that so repugnant to you?

"And yes your views are apart of this thread otherwise you would be making rather ridiculous questions like that if it wasn't coloring your views. you've already pre-judged people so therefore of course your views are going to be apart of your interpretation."

I asked the question in the OP because I am interested in how much evidence plays into the beliefs of christians. I didn't "pre-judge" anyone...I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Some have stated that in the face of irrefutable evidence, they would change their beliefs. Others have basically stated that any evidence, no matter how irrefutable, that contradicts their beliefs would be denied. A couple have even stated that it wouldn't even take irrefutable evidence...just really good evidence...for them to change what they believe. Honestly, I was surprised a bit at that answer.

I still don't see what my views have to do with the question either....you certainly haven't explained what you think the connection is. I don't see why a christian couldn't have asked the same thing...or a Muslim, or a Jew.

"You have it in the back of your mind that cause christians believe in this and I don't, that were are either duping ourselves or we are not acting on all the possible knowledge we can have."

I don't think any such thing...I know I didn't say any such thing in the thread. If you must know, I think christians are wrong...as are all believers. In most cases though, it's not really of any consequence so it doesn't really matter that you're wrong.

"You practically implied, never said but implied. It's rather clear in the OP. don't like a christian calling a spade a spade? "

Actually no, lol I couldn't care less what you think of me. There are a few christians here on this forum who I genuinely like and wouldn't want to offend by saying anything you've claimed I have...but you aren't one of them. Since I haven't said any of those things either, I don't have to concern myself with cleaning up my comments...regardless of whatever you think I've implied.

"Is the thought of that so repugnant to you?"

Not at all, it's the reality that I find repugnant. Christians so rarely use their faith to bring love and goodwill to their neighbors...instead they seem to prefer using it to judge, ostracize, condemn, and justify their own repugnant behavior. I can't really say the same of every other religion since I've mostly lived around christians my whole life. It's not difficult though to look around the globe and figure out which people seem genuinely altruistic and which ones just claim to be.

 

[Freodin]

Like I said, it's up to you.

What you do or do not do is not my choice.

That's the beauty of free will.

I was more interested in what your (or rather, Josephus') reaction to that astonishing conclusion is.

 

[Targaryen]

Cause the question is rather slanted already. that's why. and I did say, if God did this, I'd ask what took him so long. but it wouldn't be the end of my world either. God talked to me, so that would be something there and then. but reality is that, I've had no indication from god to say I'm wrong and therefore why would I think otherwise.

And good, you shouldn't be concerned with what I think. I'm not all that concerned by your indignation either.

 

[Targaryen]

I was more interested in what your (or rather, Josephus') reaction to that astonishing conclusion is.

my own conclusion is whatever speak to you (or in this case,doesn't) is your own concern.

Not mine.

Josephus could feel differently or not. His choice as well

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Can you justify things that don't have a good thesis or theory that has been proven definiatively yet?

Straw man argument still exists in that terminology. "Give me a sign in a way I can buy it or it's not real"

I'm not sure what it is you're saying here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I bolded your statement above.

If you truly hold to this position, honestly, and without reservation, then your worldview actually doesn't preclude the existence of God. Think about it. You believe God might exist if... fill in the blank. Except you're going further than that and saying that God would exist if... fill in the blank.

For if you held to a purely naturalistic worldview, even if you saw the great miracles described in your OP bending what you think are the known laws of science, then the naturalistic worldview that you seem to want to have would seek to understand what you observe, no matter how strange, in a naturalistic way - even if you can't explain it now. A circular box of reasoning. But that is what a worldview is. It's an a priori assumption that has you subjectively interpret the evidence around you ultimately in favor of the assumption! Even if God showed up and performed a bunch of supernatural miracles, including rising someone from the dead, or splitting a sea of water, one who purely holds to a naturalistic worldview would only accept a naturalistic explanation of what was observed - even if there was no explanation at the moment, the naturalistic worldview would hold out in faith that at some in time, a point of knowledge could be reached where what you saw could all be explained naturally.

This is the fallacy I see most athiests have - they either can't see clearly that they already believe by faith in a worldview - an a priori circular unprovable assumption that no proof can refute (which I'm glad to hear you've agreed that no one can prove these levels of assumptions), or they aren't honest with what they want to believe, and actually do hold out some possibility that God exists, which really makes them an agnostic (which I think at this point is an accurate description of where you really are in your "atheism"). If you really hold out the possibility that at some point evidence could be presented to you that God exists, then I suggest you aren't being honest with yourself about which worldview you actually cling to. You actually seem to me to really be an agnostic who doesn't know it yet, and are actually closer to believing in God than you think. Perhaps that is why God lead you to this forum.

First off, I don't believe god exists. However, I am reasonable enough to say that it's possible I'm wrong. If we were to describe god as simply an extremely powerful being which created our universe and all the life therein...it would be silly for me to preclude the possibility that I'm wrong without a testable, verifiable, explanation for how the universe came to be and how life came to be. Truthfully, christians don't have this either....I've never heard one give a testable, verifiable explanation for how god created the universe or life. When you look at the track record of the two explanations (1 being that the cause of something is natural, the other being that the cause of something is supernatural) one explanation has only gained ground while the other has only lost ground. I'm sure you know which is which. If that's what you call naturalism, then I suppose I'm a naturalist...though I've never really looked into what naturalism is.

As I've said though, I can be wrong. The terms atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not too arrogant to say so and frankly neither are several of the other christians who've answered this thread. As I've said before, I think it's rather brave of them to admit as much considering the stigma that resides in christianity about doubting god or ones' faith.

Also, I don't think believing in a claim that you cannot prove requires faith. I believe Gaius Julius Caesar existed and did some pretty amazing things....I can't prove it at all, but I have some very clear evidence for believing it. Does that require "faith"-? I don't think it does.

I don't like mentioning it, because it sounds like bragging, but since I've been at this forum I've actually had another member tell me that my posts helped him accept his loss of faith in the existence of god and become an atheist. So if god "brought me to this forum" to help me realize he exists, he's currently 0-1.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You sir are a true believer of the naturalist worldview.

You hold out hope that what can't be explained naturally now, can be explained naturally someday when sufficient knowledge and understanding is available. If that's not a faith statement, then I don't know what is.

First off, I don't believe god exists. However, I am reasonable enough to say that it's possible I'm wrong. If we were to describe god as simply an extremely powerful being which created our universe and all the life therein...it would be silly for me to preclude the possibility that I'm wrong without a testable, verifiable, explanation for how the universe came to be and how life came to be. Truthfully, christians don't have this either....I've never heard one give a testable, verifiable explanation for how god created the universe or life. When you look at the track record of the two explanations (1 being that the cause of something is natural, the other being that the cause of something is supernatural) one explanation has only gained ground while the other has only lost ground. I'm sure you know which is which. If that's what you call naturalism, then I suppose I'm a naturalist...though I've never really looked into what naturalism is.

Contrary to what Josephus has claimed, that's why it's not a statement of faith. We have the track record.