Comments on: What would it take to convince you that there is/is not a god?

By: Mystery Porcupine

Mystery Porcupine — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:38:15 +0000

After years of believing in Jesus-God, I am an agnostic at this point…I may even be an atheist. But if I were to see God, the God of everything, I am pretty sure I would bow down. I hope that if he exists he will give me that chance before he sends me to hell. Because boy I loved him, or who I thought he was, and I would love to see him. I am assuming of course that things would be made right and that there would be some good explanation for all of these things that don’t make sense, and that he wouldn’t mind sharing that with me. If he turned out to be a god who enjoys watching humans suffer or just doesn’t mind…well I guess hanging out with him in the afterlife would be hell.

Of course my entire comment is about the afterlife because I have given up on seeing him here. It doesn’t seem likely.

Someone on this site mentioned that “highs” in church, experiences of the Holy Spirit, were nothing more than hormones. Something clicked when I read that – no wonder I was so confused in high school. Dating boys – going to church – dating boys from church. That feeling of God was around an awful lot. I thought it was the Holy Spirit leading me, but it was my hormones all along. Pesky devils!

By: Eupraxsophy

Eupraxsophy — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:57:11 +0000

I use to be a Christian, but I started to realize that I was thinking with a closed mind. Is this what it means to be a Christian? To be doubtful to others who might have a different view or belief?
When I was a Christian I found that I was almost always second guessing myself. Was I pleasing God? Do I have enough faith?
Am I even forgiven? I have never been in so much doubt as I was being a Christian.

But then I remembered a verse in the Bible about when Jesus
said; “The wise man builds his house upon the rock, but the
fool builds his house upon the sand”. In other words the
wise man base’s his beliefs on truth and the fool bases his truths
on beliefs. Keeping that in mind I soon realized that my problem
was that I was being doubtful as opposed to being objective.
With an open mind I started to see contradictions in the bible and
christian faith. An example would be that the bible starts out as
saying Old Testiment, and yet the very first verse, in the very
first chapter, in the very first book of the bible it says; ” In the
beginning God created Heaven and Earth”, but I wonder as to who it was that witnessed this event so they could give their
testimony. Is this basing one’s beliefs on truth, or is it basing
one’s truth on belief?

Is there any witness that can be subject to cross examination
that has witnessed any of the events mentioned in the bible?
No! Does the bible have any substanciated proof? No! Does any
theist have any kind of proof other than circumstantial evidence?
No!

Mark Twain said it best; “The best cure for Christianity is to read
the Bible”.

It is better to have questions that can not be answered, than to
have answers that can not be questioned.

I have chosen to be agnostic and I can respect the choices that
others make as long as they respect mine.

From the variety of life springs forth the fountain of diversity
which only makes us more distigushed and less insignificant.

By: LeoPardus

LeoPardus — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:05:16 +0000

By accepting Christ and being a “new” creation, you are transformed from the inside out, no longer being who you were before, i.e. dying to self and taking on the righteousness of Christ

And this is evidenced by the overwhelming majority of “christians” remaining unchanged and often becoming even bigger assholes than they were without the faith.
Sorry, but if changed lives are supposed to be evidence for the faith, unchanged lives (or lives changed for the worse) have to constitute evidence against the faith. You can’t have it one way and not the other.

By: LeoPardus

LeoPardus — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:02:51 +0000

that direct revelation is the Bible.

That is one horrendously poor revelation then. Chock full of blatant contradictions. Written by primitive people. Completely open to any degree of (mis)interpretation.
Oh and don’t forget that it wasn’t’ even around for the first 100 years or more of the church and then no one knew which books belong between the covers even after that.
What a mess! Honestly I could do better than that, and I’m not even claiming any ‘omni’ qualities.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:29:40 +0000

All I’d need to believe in to believe in god would be a direct, unequivocal, simultaneous revelation of him/her/itself to all humankind.

I know this is going to cause a storm of comments, but that direct revelation is the Bible. That is how God speaks today. And I already know most here disagree with that and think it is nothing more than a book of mythology. But for the Christian, it defines our lives.

orDover:
1. Doesn’t the H.S. only come “into” one’s “heart” after Christ is accepted? Can the H.S. interact actively with nonbelievers to show them the way? If the H.S. can indeed interact with nonbelievers, then why does it matter if he “lives in our hearts” or not? And if he can’t, then how are we supposed to come to God in the first place? That leaves us with zero revelation.
2. Why didn’t this “you only get the H.S.” rule go into affect right after Pentecost. Wasn’t Saul converted after that? He sure did get a miracle.

1. Yes, the H.S. enters one’s heart only after the heart has been re-created through repentance and accepting Christ as Savior. Yes, the H.S. is what draws the non-believer to God.
2. Saul’s conversion was different because that’s how God decided to do it. He doesn’t interact the same with everyone He calls, just like one doesn’t interact with one’s children the same way.

By accepting Christ and being a “new” creation, you are transformed from the inside out, no longer being who you were before, i.e. dying to self and taking on the righteousness of Christ. Because Christ took on the full wrath of God in our place, his perfect life allows us to be called children of God because God no longer sees us, but Christ in us. And therefore, we are no longer his enemies but sons and daughters, heirs to an inheritance.

Anyway, I know you already know all of this but just for clarification purposes, that is how I, a Christian, would answer your questions.

By: anti_supernaturalist

anti_supernaturalist — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:44:39 +0000

There are no religious phenomena, only religious interpretations of phenomena.

– with apologies to Nietzsche (BG&E section 108)

the anti_supernaturalist

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:45:45 +0000

I’ve gone into meditation any experienced a peace that cannot be experienced through natural phenomena.

What about meditation is not natural?

By: ZXtheD

ZXtheD — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:37:09 +0000

I don’t know how anyone can convince me that there is no god. I’ve gone into meditation any experienced a peace that cannot be experienced through natural phenomena. I’ve said this once before on this site; no one can prove to you god exists but yourself, and no one can prove to me god exists but me. Experience is key to everything, and to say that one’s experieces(or miracles) are nothing but natural phenomena is a bit arrogant and condescending, since any of you haven’t had any of the experiences you work so hard to disprove.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:48:33 +0000

I didn’t read any of the comments, don’t have time now.

I would except a miracle as long as I actually saw it. If I actually saw the red sea parting, shazaaam! As is, I’m pretty sure that story is made up. So its doing little in way of evidence.

By: The Chaplain

The Chaplain — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:46:54 +0000

First of all, let me apologize for having the same nom de plume as you: The Chaplain. I swear I didn't know you existed when I chose it for my blog! Anyway, I received the "what evidence will you accept question" from a Christian friend of mine and this was my response: "I will accept evidence that derives from the scientific method that has, in just a few hundred years, made discoveries that humans had not been able to make any progress on for tens of thousands of years. That automatically makes it a heuristic to stand in awe of. It has done no less than discover the things that have led to the creation of the technologies (industrial, medical and otherwise) that have led to the modern world. Other forms of evidence I will accept are arguments from sign, induction, cause, deduction, analogy, definition and statistics, as long as those arguments are substantiated enough to avoid being labeled fallacies. I should also mention what I will not accept: personal, anecdotal evidence. This is very reasonable, since personal, anecdotal evidence exists for all beliefs in the supernatural. If we were to accept this type of evidence, we would have to say that all beliefs in the supernatural are proven. You can see the full response here: Angry Conversations with a Childhood Friend & Calvinist: Part VI