What de-conversion feels like

[TheListener]

If the only way you can admit that you might be wrong is if you went insane, that's as good as saying you could never admit that you might be wrong, because what's the point of trying to have a serious discussion with an insane person? How can I take you seriously if you, as a rational, honest, reasonable, and sane person are totally unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

I've seen too many wierd things before I became a Christian in the occult and had too many experiences as a Christian in the last 2 years to dismiss them. The only explanation is if I have a mental condition.

 

[Mythunderstood]

I don't believe in Santa because there is insufficient evidence for his existence and scientific reasons why he probably doesn't exist.

Agreed.

I believe in God because there is sufficient evidence for his existence with enough scientific backup.

Would you mind sharing this information with the rest of the class?

God may have given us eyewitnesses to Jesus 2000 years ago but today we have science to see the wonders of God and His creation.
But you can look at science and choose to say "I don't know how this happened" and then say "God doesn't exist".

What are the "wonders of God?" Are you talking about nature? I guess I don't get what you're saying here.

That is what I mean by 2 people looking at the same thing but seeing different things.

I already understood what you meant by 2 people seeing the same thing differently, and agreed with you. Why do you keep bringing this up and what does this have to do with my post about not being able to force or "will" belief?

 

[TheListener]

DNA strands and the information in them is good example behind a intelligent designer.

The lack of the missing links in Darwins theory to me is proof of mans folly.

Which one am I going to lean towards? Intelligent designer of course.

The more we explore space, the more we explore molecular structures the more we see the incredible detail in everything. Science is lost, lets face it. No one seems to have a good explanation, just incomplete theories.

But you might see things differently.

 

[truthmonger89]

I've seen too many wierd things before I became a Christian in the occult and had too many experiences as a Christian in the last 2 years to dismiss them. The only explanation is if I have a mental condition.

Well, then I guess we can't really proceed any further. If you can't admit that as a sane rational person you might be wrong, then what's the point?

 

[TheListener]

Well, then I guess we can't really proceed any further. If you can't admit that as a sane rational person you might be wrong, then what's the point?

Could you be wrong about gravity? Is it possible to you gravity does not exist?

 

[truthmonger89]

Could you be wrong about gravity? Is it possible to you gravity does not exist?

We're not talking about gravity. We're talking about religion.

 

[truthmonger89]

DNA strands and the information in them is good example behind a intelligent designer.

The lack of the missing links in Darwins theory to me is proof of mans folly.

Which one am I going to lean towards? Intelligent designer of course.

The more we explore space, the more we explore molecular structures the more we see the incredible detail in everything. Science is lost, lets face it. No one seems to have a good explanation, just incomplete theories.

But you might see things differently.

By assuming an intelligent designer which is not itself a product of intelligent design, you contradict the logic of assuming an intelligent designer in the first place.

 

[Osiris]

Do you have the intellectual integrity to honestly consider the obvious possibility that your religion is nothing more than superstitious nonsense perpetuated by fear, ignorance, and peer pressure, just like all those other religions you know to be false?

That is your opinion, I could say the same about atheism.

Sorry to intrude but...

I think truthmonger's question wasn't about if it was his opinion or not, it was about 'intellectual honesty'....

You could say the same about atheism... if an atheist with intellectual integrity were to answer this , his answer would be:

1. The reason I am an atheist is because what I find more probable right now that everything happened naturally without the help of god(s)
2. There is no evidence for god(s)... To say that god(s) helped create anything would be an assumption...
3. My beliefs are just based on what's more probable and I can admit that I could be wrong -- because, honestly, I can't rule out god(s) just because they are least probable... this wouldn't be honest.
4. If I rule out god(s) just because they are least probable... then either it means that I am being dishonest or I haven't really put much thought to my beliefs and it would be necessary to go back and review them.

Now, going back to your question...
If you rule out that your religion might be wrong, then you are implying that you hold an absolute truth... a fact (something which other members of religions which you believe are wrong admit to as well... =\).

Either, this must mean that your beliefs are dishonest... or you have not put much thought as you thought you did to your beliefs and you should go back and think them over.

 

[TheListener]

We're not talking about gravity. We're talking about religion.

I just wanted to know what you thought about gravity.

 

[TheListener]

By assuming an intelligent designer which is not itself a product of intelligent design, you contradict the logic of assuming an intelligent designer in the first place.

If I believe in an intelligent designer and if I believe that the Bible is His Word then it will be safe to assume I will also believe what the Bible says. And God has told us He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. He revealed Himself as "I AM". That man made logic you presented is incompatible.

 

[TheListener]

Either, this must mean that your beliefs are dishonest... or you have not put much thought as you thought you did to your beliefs and you should go back and think them over.

I do think about it. That is why I read, that is why I come here.

As it stands, today, I think I am absolutely on the right track.

Maybe you can present a new argument that will shake my faith from it's very foundations?

 

[Osiris]

Could you be wrong about gravity? Is it possible to you gravity does not exist?

Gravity happens, it is there... so wen't can't be wrong about gravity in the sense that we say it exists.

But, we could be wrong in the sense of explaining how it works.

 

[Army of Juan]

DNA strands and the information in them is good example behind a intelligent designer.

Not really, most DNA is junk. Do you know that humans have the genes for producing vitamin C but it's broken?

The lack of the missing links in Darwins theory to me is proof of mans folly.

You apparently don't know anything about evolution. What "missing links" are you speaking of?

Which one am I going to lean towards? Intelligent designer of course.

Which is nothing more than an Argument from Ignorance and only adds more questions about the designer and nothing to explain the design. Totally useless.

The more we explore space, the more we explore molecular structures the more we see the incredible detail in everything. Science is lost, lets face it. No one seems to have a good explanation, just incomplete theories.

Science is lost? Everything around you has a pretty decent explaination and we have yet to find a single thing that would point to a supernatural cause.

But you might see things differently.

More like logically.

 

[truthmonger89]

I do think about it. That is why I read, that is why I come here.

As it stands, today, I think I am absolutely on the right track.

Maybe you can present a new argument that will shake my faith from it's very foundations?

So would you ever be willing to consider, as a sane, rational person that your religious beliefs might be completely wrong? If you can't admit that you might be wrong then what's the point?

 

[TheListener]

So would you ever be willing to consider, as a sane, rational person that your religious beliefs might be completely wrong? If you can't admit that you might be wrong then what's the point?

Are you going to keep asking me that until I tell you what you want to hear?

 

[TheListener]

Not really, most DNA is junk. Do you know that humans have the genes for producing vitamin C but it's broken?

You apparently don't know anything about evolution. What "missing links" are you speaking of?

Which is nothing more than an Argument from Ignorance and only adds more questions about the designer and nothing to explain the design. Totally useless.

Science is lost? Everything around you has a pretty decent explaination and we have yet to find a single thing that would point to a supernatural cause.


More like logically.

Are all stages of evolution accounted for through fossils?

I'm talking about macroevolution, not microevolution.

Are you saying science knows all there is to know about human DNA?

Are you saying science can explain how life first started?

 

[Osiris]

Are all stages of evolution accounted for through fossils?

I'm talking about macroevolution, not microevolution.

Are you saying science knows all there is to know about human DNA?

Are you saying science can explain how life first started?

So is it logical to say...

Because science can't explain X, therefore God must have done it?

How is one relevant to the other? I would say that this statement is a Non Sequitur, perhaps there might be a probability that such fallacies could be affecting your judgement.

 

[TheListener]

So is it logical to say...

Because science can't explain X, therefore God must have done it?

How is one relevant to the other? I would say that this statement is a Non Sequitur, perhaps there might be a probability that such fallacies could be affecting your judgement.

If there was no historical credibility behind the Bible I would be in absolute agreement with you but I keep things in context.

You can look at different parts of a car and say "there is no way this will carry a passenger & drive". You can easily say that for any of the nuts & bolts that make up any machine. But when working together it makes perfect sense.

In the context of Jesus everything makes sense.

IMHO.

 

[Osiris]

If there was no historical credibility behind the Bible I would be in absolute agreement with you but I keep things in context.

So, if I lived 2000 years ago, and wrote something which would survive until now said said, "I live in X in a village named Y... at night when the sky is full of stars, I am able to create new stars and make other stars disappear."

Let's say there was such placed called X, and there was a village called Y... since this document would have historical credibility... it must mean that I was able to create stars and make them disappear as well?

You can look at different parts of a car and say "there is no way this will carry a passenger & drive". You can easily say that for any of the nuts & bolts that make up any machine. But when working together it makes perfect sense.

In the context of Jesus everything makes sense.

IMHO.

If I assumed that Kent Hoving knew everything, then I would try to make sense out of everything he says...

 

[TheListener]

So, if I lived 2000 years ago, and wrote something which would survive until now said said, "I live in X in a village named Y... at night when the sky is full of stars, I am able to create new stars and make other stars disappear."

Let's say there was such placed called X, and there was a village called Y... since this document would have historical credibility... it must mean that I was able to create stars and make them disappear as well?

Jesus didn't perform His miracles in the cover of darkness but in full daylight, often in front of sceptics and unbelievers.