Christians, what would it take...

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyway, I am done here on this forum, I have made a big enough fool out of myself already.

Oh, you don't have to take it that way. You are a better poster than most.

Not to mention I have found that most everybody here wants to present their ideas and most are not all that interested in learning anything from others.

Welcome to humanity. Enjoy your stay.

But I did learn something from you, it's just not something that you are likely to agree with.

But it has been nice to have met you all.

It was nice to meet you. Go in peace, and may you find a measure of happiness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm sorry, I fear I did not make my point at all clear. My question to you was did you at one time believe in Christianity, but then because of some sort of "convincing" choose to no longer believe? It was an interesting question to me because the scenerio you described happened to me. That voice I described challenged "Christianity" as I understood it, but did not challenge the fact that God exists.

Your question was, Christians, what would it take...for you to stop believing in Christianity? I was trying to explain to you what it took for me to stop believing Christianity as I understood it.




just as you described in your scenario this "voice" that told me many things, didn't stick around and left me very confused, not to mention feeling insane.




I'm sorry again I am very new at trying to express my thoughts in written form, I am sure again I have been unclear, I have had no problem getting many to read or listen to my testimony, it is a couple chapters in the Bible that no one is able to find time for.

Perhaps you, an atheist, or one of your atheist friends would be willing to take a look, but even that would be a stretch, as most would probably consider looking at a few chapters from what they would consider a "waist of time book" recommended by a "crazy person" a giant squandering of their short time on this earth.

But nonetheless, I suppose I will throw it out there:

Jesus asked the question, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? This question is recorded by 3 different authors, in 3 different walks of life. (Matthew 12:3, Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3) With reason, "logical thinkers", religious or not, might believe these words were actually spoken, just because 3 witnesses are all telling the same story. Unlike many of the "unbelievable stories" recorded in "the book" that only have one witness. (ie. Peter walking on the water, Lazarus being raised from the dead.)

Anyway, the story being referred to is recorded in 1 Samuel 20-22 and David's contemplation on the matter is found in Psalm 52. The question that I have been trying to get others to answer to no avail is: (1 Samuel 22:22) Was that really necessity, how exactly is that the spirit of the law? If Jesus indeed did ask this question, what was he trying to tell us?



Mark, At the time, I too didn't rule mental illness out, my pastor also thought the same thing when I told him what I had experienced, and recommended that I see a doctor. You see I come from a very narrow minded independent fundamental baptist church that does not believe any of the "crazy stuff", not to mention the fact that I am a woman (1 Timothy 2:14). Oh yeah, and the one leading my household, my husband, is an atheist to the core.

I sound like about the most ridiculous candidate for God to choose out of the "whole world" to bring forth this "mighty truth", believe me I know! I think its just as stupid as you do, which is bringing me to tears right now and has caused me to raise my fist up to God many times. It's as stupid a scenario as it could be!




The key that was hidden in my testimony will also be hidden in the testimony of any "true follower" of Jesus.

It becomes hard to see the truth when we have been so indoctrinated for so many years, even if we are living that truth. You see even though I was living that truth for 14 years, I didn't notice that there was a teacher teaching that truth while not living it, hidden, in plain sight, right in "the book". (Btw that has nothing to do with 1 Samuel)

Jesus says, There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Matthew 24:24, Mark 13:22). And deceived us they have. Wolves in sheeps clothing, bitter and sweet coming from the same fountain and we have all drunk and become intoxicated.

If this "AntiChrist" is revealed we could see peace on earth and salvation to all, it just seems an almost impossible task because believers are under the impression that the only one able to bring peace to the earth is the Devil himself, and the only peace he is able to bring is false peace.

From my limited understanding, their isn't a denomination of Christians who believe everyone will be saved, that is a very "AntiChrist" idea in Christianity.

(as an example)

Anyway, I am done here on this forum, I have made a big enough fool out of myself already. Not to mention I have found that most everybody here wants to present their ideas and most are not all that interested in learning anything from others. But it has been nice to have met you all. And hopefully, if all goes as planned, I'll see you on the other side of Paradise. Until then Smiles

...Yet do I have hope.

"My question to you was did you at one time believe in Christianity, but then because of some sort of "convincing" choose to no longer believe? "

No, not really. I was being "invited" to church as an 10-11 yo by another young boy in my neighborhood. His invitation was basically a threat, if I didn't go to church for x y z reasons...then my eternal soul was in danger. I began to ask him questions about this that he had trouble answering...instead he just kept repeating his same points. I didn't end up going.

It did start me thinking about god and religion and such over the next three weeks. I hardly thought of anything else. After much thinking and questioning...I decided it wasn't real, it didn't make sense to me.

It's a pretty boring story of becoming an atheist, but there you have it.

 

[Josephus]

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

As a believer in naturalism, your worldview requires that you hold out hope for a naturalistic explanation, for everything.

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

Now what?

Great! That's the most honest conclusion anyone can have here in this discussion. That being said, I ask you to consider for a moment that the worldview I hold to - that G-d exists and the bible is true, is entirely self-reinforcing, that if I truly believe G-d exists and the bible is true, that I will interpret everything I see and experience in that light. That just like you, there is no evidence that can be presented that my worldview can't account for.

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.

Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that everything can be explained by natural causes.

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.

There is a measure of trust that the evidence is telling the truth. Faith is simply a trusting dependence though on that which can't be proven absolutely.

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

As explained above, as a believer in naturalism, your worldview requires that you hold out hope for a naturalistic explanation, for everything. This "hope" is a trust in something that can not be absolutely proven or disproven: namely that there is a natural explanation for everything. Until you see this, then your viewpoint remains in the box. At least the OP is willing to step outside his box for a moment to consider the nature of the box, and to see that it's just as much a set of unprovable assumptions, as Christians who believe G-d exists and the bible is true.

 

[Aldebaran]

"My question to you was did you at one time believe in Christianity, but then because of some sort of "convincing" choose to no longer believe? "

No, not really. I was being "invited" to church as an 10-11 yo by another young boy in my neighborhood. His invitation was basically a threat, if I didn't go to church for x y z reasons...then my eternal soul was in danger. I began to ask him questions about this that he had trouble answering...instead he just kept repeating his same points. I didn't end up going.

It did start me thinking about god and religion and such over the next three weeks. I hardly thought of anything else. After much thinking and questioning...I decided it wasn't real, it didn't make sense to me.

It's a pretty boring story of becoming an atheist, but there you have it.

Doesn't sound like that boy had a whole lotta wisdom. Trust me, it's much better than that....

 

[Josephus]

Doesn't sound like that boy had a whole lotta wisdom. Trust me, it's much better than that....

Don't goad please.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Doesn't sound like that boy had a whole lotta wisdom. Trust me, it's much better than that....

Well to be honest my reasons for not believing weren't all that fantastic at the time either...not that they're invalid, just not that well reasoned. It doesn't really matter to me if it's "much better than that"...religion doesn't really have anything to offer me.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Job 13.15: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As explained above, as a believer in naturalism, your worldview requires that you hold out hope for a naturalistic explanation, for everything. This "hope" is a trust in something that can not be absolutely proven or disproven: namely that there is a natural explanation for everything. Until you see this, then your viewpoint remains in the box. At least the OP is willing to step outside his box for a moment to consider the nature of the box, and to see that it's just as much a set of unprovable assumptions, as Christians who believe G-d exists and the bible is true.

You're making a false equivalence. As I said previously, we have the track record, which shows that fanciful supernatural explanations tend to give way to more meaningful natural explanations. What about this is "unprovable"?

 

[Josephus]

You're making a false equivalence. As I said previously, we have the track record, which shows that fanciful supernatural explanations tend to give way to more meaningful natural explanations. What about this is "unprovable"?

I don't see how the equivalence is false. You trust there is a natural explanation for everything. I trust that G-d exists and the bible is true, and that there are natural explanations for the vast majority of things, and supernatural explanations for an extremely small minority of some things.

To say we both hope in something that is not absolutely provable, is not a false equivalence. You as one who clings to naturalism, can't possibly absolutely prove that nature is all there is, unless you arrived at a place where you knew everything - which is the impossibility. Thus your trust in it is placed in something you will never be able to absolutely prove.

Furthermore, I as one who clings to theism and the truth of the bible, can't possibly absolutely prove that there are supernatural explanations for an extremely small minority of things, unless I arrived at a place where I knew everything - which is the impossibility.Thus my trust in it is placed in something I will never be able to absolutely prove.

If you were to fit a pair of glasses that equates to my worldview, you would see the same thing I see concerning any facts that present themselves - as facts that fit within my accepted view of the world.

If I were to fit a pair of glasses that equates to your worldview, I would see the same thing you see concerning any facts that present themselves - as facts that fit within your accepted view of the world.

There wouldn't be any track records to compare because the track records themselves would interpreted within the corresponding worldview as justifying it.

Your attitude of superiority (ie what you call a "track record") falls flat when one finally realizes that your attitude is still based on beliefs that are rooted solidly in your worldview box. Yet until you give my worldview the real honest benefit of the doubt, you will never see just how reasonable and valid its "track record" is. All you will see is my worldview from your worldview and thus forever be stuck in your worldview until you make the choice to step out of the box for a moment, and hop in mine. It's the most dangerous leap any athiest can make, and not many are brave enough to go there. Will you? Will you for a moment, give my worldview the benefit of the doubt, and examine anything you'd like when doing so?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see how the equivalence is false. You trust there is a natural explanation for everything. I trust that G-d exists and the bible is true, and that there are natural explanations for the vast majority of things, and supernatural explanations for an extremely small minority of some things.

To say we both hope in something that is not absolutely provable, is not a false equivalence. You as one who clings to naturalism, can't possibly absolutely prove that nature is all there is, unless you arrived at a place where you knew everything - which is the impossibility. Thus your trust in it is placed in something you will never be able to absolutely prove.

I don't need to have "absolute proof" to be confident in our ability to develop explanations for the phenomena we observe. I can look to the track record, which shows that supernatural explanations tend to give way to better, more meaningful, natural explanations.

Furthermore, I as one who clings to theism and the truth of the bible, can't possibly absolutely prove that there are supernatural explanations for an extremely small minority of things, unless I arrived at a place where I knew everything - which is the impossibility.Thus my trust in it is placed in something I will never be able to absolutely prove.

But do you have a track record of success in this regard?

If you were to fit a pair of glasses that equates to my worldview, you would see the same thing I see concerning any facts that present themselves - as facts that fit within my accepted view of the world.

If I were to fit a pair of glasses that equates to your worldview, I would see the same thing you see concerning any facts that present themselves - as facts that fit within your accepted view of the world.

Your attitude of superiority (ie what you call a "track record") falls flat when one finally realizes that your attitude is still based on beliefs that are rooted solidly in your worldview box. Yet until you give my worldview the real honest benefit of the doubt, you will never see just how reasonable and valid its "track record" is. All you will see is my worldview from your worldview and thus forever be stuck in your worldview until you make the choice to step out of the box for a moment, and hop in mine. It's the most dangerous leap any athiest can make, and not many are brave enough to go there.

Why should I give your worldview the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it is reasonable? From what you've just told me it sounds very unreasonable.

 

[Freodin]

Great! That's the most honest conclusion anyone can have here in this discussion.

I haven't said that I agree with the view you presented. In fact, I disagree, but I am willing to accept it is true for the sake of the discussion.

Which, as it seems to me, you evaded.

That being said, I ask you to consider for a moment that the worldview I hold to - that G-d exists and the bible is true, is entirely self-reinforcing, that if I truly believe G-d exists and the bible is true, that I will interpret everything I see and experience in that light. That just like you, there is no evidence that can be presented that my worldview can't account for.

And here is the thing that I (strongly) disagree with: that there is no evidence that can be presented that my worldview cannot account for. It would be rather easy to do so... and the very fact that no one does present evidence of that kind is on of the arguments for it.
That is rather the opposite of the way you present your worldview, where there is indeed no possibility of unaccountable evidence, due to the deliberate introduction of mechanisms that can account for everything.

I see that as a weakness in a worldview, not a strength.

But that only as a clarification of my position. For the sake of the question I asked, let's just assume that I agreed with your statement: we both have faith, and both our positions are internally consistent to the point where they are unassailable.

The question - that you didn't answer - was: now what? What does that conclusion mean for our own positions, as well as for the interaction between us.

Our positions are directly contradicting: they cannot both be correct. But, as we have established, it is impossible to show which one is wrong... and thus which is right.

So how are we - and I ask especially you as the one who makes this statements - going to deal with contradicting worldviews?

 

[Eudaimonist]

As explained above, as a believer in naturalism, your worldview requires that you hold out hope for a naturalistic explanation, for everything. This "hope" is a trust in something that can not be absolutely proven or disproven: namely that there is a natural explanation for everything. Until you see this, then your viewpoint remains in the box.

You really shouldn't tell other people what they "really" think. You should ask questions instead.

While I consider myself a naturalist, this isn't some kind of faith commitment. It isn't a "hope" or a "trust", but rather the rational acceptance of a perspective that has no better philosophical alternative. I'm a naturalist only because it makes no sense to me to be anything else given my life experience and judgment, just as I believe that I am a human being living a human life instead of an AI stuck in the Matrix.

Could I change my mind? Yes, if induction leads in that direction, though it can be difficult to know in advance just what kinds of experiences would change my mind. (Perhaps I really am an AI stuck in a simulated universe, though it would, no doubt, take some epic movie-worthy experiences to convince me of that.) All I can do is examine what experiences non-naturalists offer as evidence for their metaphysical beliefs, though to date these have been lacking in persuasiveness for me personally.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[Mcleanch1]

I was a member of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon). I am now still figuring out how to label what my belief system is, I'm leaning toward Agnostic Secular Humanist.

What it took for me to drop Christianity is the overall business-like structure of it. I know there are a lot of rules against offensive subjects on here, so I can't go far into detail. I believed that a religion should never have to use scare-tactics to keep you with them, nor should you have to pay them.

I also have a deep belief that every single human is completely equal and should be treated as such. Any hint of opposition to that belief from my church had me feeling very uneasy. The fact that African American men could not hold a position in our church until it was illegal to deny them seemed like a very man-made view for the church. I bet the same thing will happen in a few years with a different group.

The last thing that got me was something I had to think about for a while. The more I thought about it, the better I felt. I thought about how many different cultures and peoples there are out there, while I'm stuck in my isolated community of Christianity. Those millions and millions of people believing in Buddhism, Hinduism, various sects of Christianity... I can't simply accept that only one of them are right and the others are wrong! The vast majority of the people in each of those sects are good, smart people, trying their hardest. They cannot be wrong. That's a basic summary of my thought process over a few years. The more I thought, "what if everyone is right? What if there is no one right answer? What if all you have to do is try and have empathy for others?", the happier I felt.

Now, I'm not saying I'm right and Christianity is wrong. I don't want to stir a debate, I'm just explaining to Ana the Ist what changed me.

 

[Paradoxum]

I was a member of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon). I am now still figuring out how to label what my belief system is, I'm leaning toward Agnostic Secular Humanist.

What it took for me to drop Christianity is the overall business-like structure of it. I know there are a lot of rules against offensive subjects on here, so I can't go far into detail. I believed that a religion should never have to use scare-tactics to keep you with them, nor should you have to pay them.

I also have a deep belief that every single human is completely equal and should be treated as such. Any hint of opposition to that belief from my church had me feeling very uneasy. The fact that African American men could not hold a position in our church until it was illegal to deny them seemed like a very man-made view for the church. I bet the same thing will happen in a few years with a different group.

The last thing that got me was something I had to think about for a while. The more I thought about it, the better I felt. I thought about how many different cultures and peoples there are out there, while I'm stuck in my isolated community of Christianity. Those millions and millions of people believing in Buddhism, Hinduism, various sects of Christianity... I can't simply accept that only one of them are right and the others are wrong! The vast majority of the people in each of those sects are good, smart people, trying their hardest. They cannot be wrong. That's a basic summary of my thought process over a few years. The more I thought, "what if everyone is right? What if there is no one right answer? What if all you have to do is try and have empathy for others?", the happier I felt.

Now, I'm not saying I'm right and Christianity is wrong. I don't want to stir a debate, I'm just explaining to Ana the Ist what changed me.

In reply to your message to me:

You might not like the idea that when we die we're just dead, nor do I, but I think it's the honest position to take. I like sleeping, and death is sort of like eternal sleep... so while it's sad that we'll die, it will be peaceful.

I hope for a world where people are loving and free, without arbitrary rules from religion or tradition.

 

[Mcleanch1]

In reply to your message to me:

You might not like the idea that when we die we're just dead, nor do I, but I think it's the honest position to take. I like sleeping, and death is sort of like eternal sleep... so while it's sad that we'll die, it will be peaceful.

I hope for a world where people are loving and free, without arbitrary rules from religion or tradition.

I am still sorting things out spiritually, in the future I may agree with you, I may have this same opinion. Either way, I know I am much more at peace being away from organized or defined religions.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

 

[znr]

Mormonism and Christianity (according to the gospels, according to the OT) are completely different.

I was a member of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon). I am now still figuring out how to label what my belief system is, I'm leaning toward Agnostic Secular Humanist.

What it took for me to drop Christianity is the overall business-like structure of it. I know there are a lot of rules against offensive subjects on here, so I can't go far into detail. I believed that a religion should never have to use scare-tactics to keep you with them, nor should you have to pay them.

I also have a deep belief that every single human is completely equal and should be treated as such. Any hint of opposition to that belief from my church had me feeling very uneasy. The fact that African American men could not hold a position in our church until it was illegal to deny them seemed like a very man-made view for the church. I bet the same thing will happen in a few years with a different group.

The last thing that got me was something I had to think about for a while. The more I thought about it, the better I felt. I thought about how many different cultures and peoples there are out there, while I'm stuck in my isolated community of Christianity. Those millions and millions of people believing in Buddhism, Hinduism, various sects of Christianity... I can't simply accept that only one of them are right and the others are wrong! The vast majority of the people in each of those sects are good, smart people, trying their hardest. They cannot be wrong. That's a basic summary of my thought process over a few years. The more I thought, "what if everyone is right? What if there is no one right answer? What if all you have to do is try and have empathy for others?", the happier I felt.

Now, I'm not saying I'm right and Christianity is wrong. I don't want to stir a debate, I'm just explaining to Ana the Ist what changed me.

 

[Mcleanch1]

Mormonism and Christianity (according to the gospels, according to the OT) are completely different.

That depends if you are a Mormon or not. Mormon's believe they are Christians, but Christians believe Mormons worship false gods. Since I read and believed in the Bible while growing up, I considered myself a Christian.