Author Topic: My problem with Christianity  (Read 23217 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #105 on: July 05, 2011, 12:54:05 PM »
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans.  It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding.  To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.

BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.

it's not at all like that, I'm (as an atheist) perfectly fine with not knowing everything, I just don't fill those empty spaces with a God.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #106 on: July 05, 2011, 01:21:04 PM »
(being completely aware that the Trinitarians here might see this as the same thing)

rumborak

Yep.

Offline WildeSilas

  • Posts: 481
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #107 on: July 05, 2011, 02:28:47 PM »
Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.

And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"

It was many things, too many to detail here. Some specific examples would be:

1) Prayer - despite the assurance of the scriptures that God does hear and answer prayer (though not always in the way we want), I can't honestly say I never saw a specific answer to prayer. Now keep in mind that I not only prayed continually on-and-off all day for almost 25 years, but have also prayed for specific things for people - healing, guidance, wisdom to navigate difficult situations, etc. In most every case, I found that I was eventually left to my own devices to figure out what to do, where to go, or how to handle something. Of course,  I tried to use the scripture as a guide, but there are many specific situations in life and counseling where you can only apply biblical principles, but specifics must be decided through some other means. In my case, I wanted to rely on the Holy Spirit, but I can't say that I ever once had any kind of conviction or internal push to do one thing or the other. What I did find however, was that when I made pragmatic decisions based on logic and evidence, it was usually a right or "good" decision in the end. When I did not consider logic and evidence, but rather acted "in faith" for what I thought was the will of God (or should be, according to the biblical principles applied in the situation), the decision typically led to disaster, heartache, and confusion. This became very distressing to me over time as I found that acting in concert with faith (when it contradicted logic and reason) ended badly. It's too much to go into here, but suffice to say that as a result of 25 years of doing this, I ended up bankrupt, despised by the people I was ministering to, on the brink of divorce, physically ill, and fearful for my own physical safety (this all has to do with the fact that I pastored an extremely poor church in the middle of gang-land Little Rock, Arkansas, and physical threats were not uncommon, nor was hunger, poverty, dysfunction, etc.). Either way, after 25 years, I had no "miracle" stories to tell, no inspiring anecdotes of how "God came through" at the last minute to rescue me or anyone else. What I did see was however were the natural consequences of irrational decisions (based on faith) and irresponsible reliance on God to deal with situations where police, psychologists, physicians, and social workers would have been a million times more helpful.

2) Spiritual Growth - despite being a very intense student of the bible, pursuit of mission work, constant prayer, service, and even willingness to sacrifice my life in the work of ministry, I found that after 25 years, I was still pretty much exactly the same person with exactly the same quirks, sins, and struggles that I had been at age 15. I gained a lot of experience and knowledge for sure, but no increase in what Paul refers to as the Fruits of the Spirit. I witnessed this same lack of change in the people around me. If the Holy Spirit makes us "new creatures" and abiding in Christ makes us more like him, why was I simply becoming more like myself, and more like my parents, from whom I've inherited much of my nature? I honestly couldn't point to a single thing in my personality, character, or "spirit" (if you will) that was different as a result of following Jesus all those years. Either something is wrong with the promises of scripture (i.e. there IS no Holy Spirit), or something is wrong with me. Well, of course there's something wrong with me, I'm a sinner, right? I can't achieve Christ-likeness through works. I hope it doesn't sound like that's what I was trying to do. I list these "works" as evidence that my faith had muscle to it - these things were (I felt) a natural response to salvation and being a "new creature" - not the means to it. That said, I was earnestly seeking to be changed, to commune with God, to have a close relationship and communion with him. But in the end, I have no sense that anything supernatural ever happened to me. Any "experience" I had can be easily duplicated by listening to a stirring speech, seeing a movie that moves me, or listening to Octavarium.

I could go on, but the lack of change, lack of seeing tangible answer to prayer, along with constantly having to play theological whack-a-mole with contradictions and competing doctrines made me face the fact that while the whole thing would be awesome if it really were true, and if it really worked, it simply wasn't and didn't. Low and behold, I changed the way I made decisions, stopped praying and looking for answers in the scripture and BOOM pretty much everything in my life straightened out, started to make sense, etc. I also became a better husband and father because I had more time and attention for the things of earth. All the patience, devotion, peace, contentment, financial security, and peace of mind I'd sought through scripture and a relationship with God, I found outside of that whole mindset and culture.
No light at the end of the tunnel due to budget contraints

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #108 on: July 05, 2011, 02:34:01 PM »
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans.  It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding.  To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.

I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.

rumborak


The problem is complexity is a relative term.  We understand it in a human context.  God may be something completely different than our human understanding can conceive.  He may not be something that can be described in terms of science.  Science is of the universe.  God created the universe and may dwell beyond all that we as humans understand as the workings of the universe.

Whether then that you want to believe that a creator then is the God of the Bible is a whole different discussion but in no way does the argument of scientific complexity disprove any existence of God.  If anything it would seem to support it.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #109 on: July 05, 2011, 02:36:38 PM »
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.

Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.

To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #110 on: July 05, 2011, 02:42:23 PM »
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.

Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.

To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.

Sigh...

Atheists don't believe in gods.  If one doesn't believe in a god, regardless of how sure one is about their lack of belief, they're an atheist.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36232
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #111 on: July 05, 2011, 03:06:44 PM »
This discussion again?









Reo, atheists don't need reasons to not believe in god anymore than you need a reason to not believe in a great jellybean, it just doesn't seem true to you just as god doesn't seem true to atheists. 
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #112 on: July 05, 2011, 03:10:34 PM »
As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.

Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.

To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.

Sigh...

Atheists don't believe in gods.  If one doesn't believe in a god, regardless of how sure one is about their lack of belief, they're an atheist.

Fair enough...In my first post I am referring to Atheists who use science as a reason for God to not exist.  Obviously anyone can call themselves anything they like for any reason.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #113 on: July 05, 2011, 03:24:46 PM »
I have always contended that science can neither prove nor disprove God.  A belief, or non-belief, in a creator requires a leap of faith.  This is where I disagree with people like Richard Dawkins who seem to argue the non-existence of God through the empirical evidence of science .  On the same level, there are plenty of Christians who will argue the opposite just as passionately.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #114 on: July 05, 2011, 03:25:23 PM »
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans.  It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding.  To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.

I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.

rumborak


The problem is complexity is a relative term.  We understand it in a human context.  God may be something completely different than our human understanding can conceive.  He may not be something that can be described in terms of science.  Science is of the universe.  God created the universe and may dwell beyond all that we as humans understand as the workings of the universe.

Why are you so eagerly excluding God from "understandability"? Where do you get this certainty that God can not be understood by humans? And even more interestingly, how can you be so certain to "understand" its non-understability? Seems like a contradiction in your own argument. "I don't know what X is at all, but I can tell you it's too hard to understand".

My point is, IMHO, the closest to having any insight into the creation is by studying physics. And if there's any guiding principle that has worked in physics, it was that of simplicity. If I had an inclination to look for the divine, I would look for simplicity. Not clumsy antropomorphizations which, frankly, is what the Christian god is described by best.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #115 on: July 05, 2011, 03:29:48 PM »
My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans.  It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding.  To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.

I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.

rumborak


The problem is complexity is a relative term.  We understand it in a human context.  God may be something completely different than our human understanding can conceive.  He may not be something that can be described in terms of science.  Science is of the universe.  God created the universe and may dwell beyond all that we as humans understand as the workings of the universe.

Why are you so eagerly excluding God from "understandability"? Where do you get this certainty that God can not be understood by humans? And even more interestingly, how can you be so certain to "understand" its non-understability? Seems like a contradiction in your own argument. "I don't know what X is at all, but I can tell you it's too hard to understand".

My point is, IMHO, the closest to having any insight into the creation is by studying physics. And if there's any guiding principle that has worked in physics, it was that of simplicity. If I had an inclination to look for the divine, I would look for simplicity. Not clumsy antropomorphizations which, frankly, is what the Christian god is described by best.

rumborak


I am only saying that it stands to reason that God, if he is the creator of all things, possess a quality that may be beyond all human understanding.  I have no idea what those qualities are, but why should I assume that they are something that has to fit within the mold of natural science and if natural science does not allow us to talk, see, hear, feel, taste, or touch a creator then the creator must not be true.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #116 on: July 05, 2011, 03:31:14 PM »
It might, but you seem hell-bent on asserting that it is, despite lacking any substantial reason for this.
In essence, I don't see how you get to make any positive statement about a Creator. Especially about whether it can be understood or not.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #117 on: July 05, 2011, 03:35:59 PM »
It might, but you seem hell-bent on asserting that it is, despite lacking any substantial reason for this.
In essence, I don't see how you get to make any positive statement about a Creator. Especially about whether it can be understood or not.

rumborak


My point exactly, and someone like Richard Dawkins shouldn't either.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #118 on: July 05, 2011, 03:38:44 PM »
Who cares about Dawkins? Are you using his abrasive stance as an excuse to make statements of your own?

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #119 on: July 05, 2011, 03:44:06 PM »
Who cares about Dawkins? Are you using his abrasive stance as an excuse to make statements of your own?

rumborak


My whole first post was in response to Dawkins position.  My "abrasive" stance is that you cannot use the argument "because science hasn't proved God then God is not true" because it assumes that a human understanding of all things can only come from science and assumes that God must fit into a scientific mold.

Do you disagree with that?

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 53231
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #120 on: July 05, 2011, 03:45:40 PM »
A belief, or non-belief, in a creator requires a leap of faith.  
I strongly disagree that a non-belief in a creator requires a leap of faith.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #121 on: July 05, 2011, 03:48:20 PM »
A belief, or non-belief, in a creator requires a leap of faith.  
I strongly disagree that a non-belief in a creator requires a leap of faith.

So then God can emperically be disproven?

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #122 on: July 05, 2011, 03:54:18 PM »
No, it's just the default position.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #123 on: July 05, 2011, 04:01:20 PM »
No, it's just the default position.

Really, I didn't know God doesn't exist until proven otherwise was a humankind default position.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #124 on: July 05, 2011, 04:15:47 PM »
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas atheism deals with belief.

Agnostic means "a person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists." That's from my Oxford dictionary although I'd say it applies more broadly than just the singular "God" and applies to religions with multiple gods, but you get the idea from what I've quoted.

Atheism means "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods."

The point here is that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God but doesn't necessarily claim that they know that God doesn't exist.

And even if they explain why they feel good about their stance on disbelief through something like science, that isn't claiming they know God doesn't exist.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #125 on: July 05, 2011, 04:18:55 PM »
No, it's just the default position.

Really, I didn't know God doesn't exist until proven otherwise was a humankind default position.

It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #126 on: July 05, 2011, 04:42:09 PM »
No, it's just the default position.

Really, I didn't know God doesn't exist until proven otherwise was a humankind default position.

It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.

rumborak


So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #127 on: July 05, 2011, 04:43:06 PM »
To be an Atheist by definition infers a reason for God not existing otherwise they would be an Agnostic.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas atheism deals with belief.

Agnostic means "a person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists." That's from my Oxford dictionary although I'd say it applies more broadly than just the singular "God" and applies to religions with multiple gods, but you get the idea from what I've quoted.

Atheism means "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods."

The point here is that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God but doesn't necessarily claim that they know that God doesn't exist.

And even if they explain why they feel good about their stance on disbelief through something like science, that isn't claiming they know God doesn't exist.

Makes sense.  Thank-you.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #128 on: July 05, 2011, 05:33:06 PM »
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.

rumborak


So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.

And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #129 on: July 05, 2011, 05:57:02 PM »
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.

rumborak


So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.

And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.

Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact.  It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption.  To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.

The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does.  At this point the debate turns to a critical analysis of what is considered the evidence for or against the existence of God.

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36232
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #130 on: July 05, 2011, 06:02:59 PM »
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Portrucci

  • Fission Mailed
  • Posts: 1383
  • Gender: Male
  • You're just another hero riding through the night
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #131 on: July 05, 2011, 06:11:38 PM »
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.

rumborak


So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.

And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.

Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact.  It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption.  To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.

The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does.  At this point the debate turns to a critical analysis of what is considered the evidence for or against the existence of God.
Haha, we've gone from non-belief in a creator to empirically asserting he doesn't exist. I'm sorry, but that's rather a big jump. Please re-read hefdaddy's post. Lacking belief in deities is the default position. Just like lacking belief in any other supernatural concept or theory, the initial position is that of skepticism and/or requiring evidence before you make a commitment. There is no leap of faith. Some people maintain this skepticism for their whole lives, if they are underwhelmed by the evidence of a creator being presented to them. Some are indoctrinated at an early age so believing becomes just a part of your life (whether you chose it or not).  
on par with the anguish one would have from getting unconsensually bent over and buttloved.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #132 on: July 05, 2011, 06:28:49 PM »
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?

Not scientifically.  I have my own reasons to believe they are not true but I have not proven them to anyone not to be true.

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36232
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #133 on: July 05, 2011, 06:34:33 PM »
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?

Not scientifically.  I have my own reasons to believe they are not true but I have not proven them to anyone not to be true.

So what's the difference?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #134 on: July 05, 2011, 06:49:38 PM »
It is the position of every child that is born on this planet.

rumborak


So is the pleasure of crapping in their pants, unfortunately we grow up and gain knowledge of other possible things.
Yes but logic doesn't rest on the stance of crapping in your pants or not. It rests on the stance that the person making a claim (namely that God exists) be the one to prove it. The atheists simply assume it's not true unless it's proven to be true.

And to be fair, that's how most of our rational discourses are based. Like lets say someone thinks some drug leads to lower blood pressure. While testing it, they must use the double-blind placebo testing because their "null hypothesis" is the assumption that really this drug doesn't do shit.

Exactly that, the default position is an assumption and not an empirical fact.  It takes proof in either direction to discount or to confirm that assumption.  To assume a drug doesn't do shit still requires you to test the drug to confirm it doesn't do shit.

The default position that God does not exist will require us to prove that he doesn't once evidence is presented that maybe he does.  At this point the debate turns to a critical analysis of what is considered the evidence for or against the existence of God.
Haha, we've gone from non-belief in a creator to empirically asserting he doesn't exist. I'm sorry, but that's rather a big jump. Please re-read hefdaddy's post. Lacking belief in deities is the default position. Just like lacking belief in any other supernatural concept or theory, the initial position is that of skepticism and/or requiring evidence before you make a commitment. There is no leap of faith. Some people maintain this skepticism for their whole lives, if they are underwhelmed by the evidence of a creator being presented to them. Some are indoctrinated at an early age so believing becomes just a part of your life (whether you chose it or not).  

You just confirmed what I said earlier.  The debate becomes about the evidence then and the default position becomes a mute concept because at that point the subject must weigh the evidence and make a decision about his/her belief.

I don't think I even agree with the idea of a default position other than we know nothing until knowledge is presented to us.

Offline reo73

  • Banned
  • Posts: 395
  • Gender: Male
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #135 on: July 05, 2011, 06:50:11 PM »
Reo have you critically disproven all religions and sets of beliefs that you do not adhere to?

Not scientifically.  I have my own reasons to believe they are not true but I have not proven them to anyone not to be true.

So what's the difference?

What's the difference between what?

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36232
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #136 on: July 05, 2011, 07:51:54 PM »
The difference between you not believing in Tefnut without disproving it and an atheist not believing in god and not disproving it
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Portrucci

  • Fission Mailed
  • Posts: 1383
  • Gender: Male
  • You're just another hero riding through the night
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #137 on: July 05, 2011, 08:11:58 PM »
Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.

And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"

It was many things, too many to detail here. Some specific examples would be:

1) Prayer - despite the assurance of the scriptures that God does hear and answer prayer (though not always in the way we want), I can't honestly say I never saw a specific answer to prayer. Now keep in mind that I not only prayed continually on-and-off all day for almost 25 years, but have also prayed for specific things for people - healing, guidance, wisdom to navigate difficult situations, etc. In most every case, I found that I was eventually left to my own devices to figure out what to do, where to go, or how to handle something. Of course,  I tried to use the scripture as a guide, but there are many specific situations in life and counseling where you can only apply biblical principles, but specifics must be decided through some other means. In my case, I wanted to rely on the Holy Spirit, but I can't say that I ever once had any kind of conviction or internal push to do one thing or the other. What I did find however, was that when I made pragmatic decisions based on logic and evidence, it was usually a right or "good" decision in the end. When I did not consider logic and evidence, but rather acted "in faith" for what I thought was the will of God (or should be, according to the biblical principles applied in the situation), the decision typically led to disaster, heartache, and confusion. This became very distressing to me over time as I found that acting in concert with faith (when it contradicted logic and reason) ended badly. It's too much to go into here, but suffice to say that as a result of 25 years of doing this, I ended up bankrupt, despised by the people I was ministering to, on the brink of divorce, physically ill, and fearful for my own physical safety (this all has to do with the fact that I pastored an extremely poor church in the middle of gang-land Little Rock, Arkansas, and physical threats were not uncommon, nor was hunger, poverty, dysfunction, etc.). Either way, after 25 years, I had no "miracle" stories to tell, no inspiring anecdotes of how "God came through" at the last minute to rescue me or anyone else. What I did see was however were the natural consequences of irrational decisions (based on faith) and irresponsible reliance on God to deal with situations where police, psychologists, physicians, and social workers would have been a million times more helpful.

2) Spiritual Growth - despite being a very intense student of the bible, pursuit of mission work, constant prayer, service, and even willingness to sacrifice my life in the work of ministry, I found that after 25 years, I was still pretty much exactly the same person with exactly the same quirks, sins, and struggles that I had been at age 15. I gained a lot of experience and knowledge for sure, but no increase in what Paul refers to as the Fruits of the Spirit. I witnessed this same lack of change in the people around me. If the Holy Spirit makes us "new creatures" and abiding in Christ makes us more like him, why was I simply becoming more like myself, and more like my parents, from whom I've inherited much of my nature? I honestly couldn't point to a single thing in my personality, character, or "spirit" (if you will) that was different as a result of following Jesus all those years. Either something is wrong with the promises of scripture (i.e. there IS no Holy Spirit), or something is wrong with me. Well, of course there's something wrong with me, I'm a sinner, right? I can't achieve Christ-likeness through works. I hope it doesn't sound like that's what I was trying to do. I list these "works" as evidence that my faith had muscle to it - these things were (I felt) a natural response to salvation and being a "new creature" - not the means to it. That said, I was earnestly seeking to be changed, to commune with God, to have a close relationship and communion with him. But in the end, I have no sense that anything supernatural ever happened to me. Any "experience" I had can be easily duplicated by listening to a stirring speech, seeing a movie that moves me, or listening to Octavarium.

I could go on, but the lack of change, lack of seeing tangible answer to prayer, along with constantly having to play theological whack-a-mole with contradictions and competing doctrines made me face the fact that while the whole thing would be awesome if it really were true, and if it really worked, it simply wasn't and didn't. Low and behold, I changed the way I made decisions, stopped praying and looking for answers in the scripture and BOOM pretty much everything in my life straightened out, started to make sense, etc. I also became a better husband and father because I had more time and attention for the things of earth. All the patience, devotion, peace, contentment, financial security, and peace of mind I'd sought through scripture and a relationship with God, I found outside of that whole mindset and culture.
Wow, excellent response. I've met a few Christians who've had similar experiences and now no longer need to believe. Most of them I'd argue seem much more free and happy now that they no longer have this omnipresent judge sitting on their shoulder. They're still perfectly kind and caring people, which leads me to believe it's a lot more about personal virtue and values than divine guidance (as I think you were getting at). I'm interested to find out what your responses were to atheism while you still whole-heartedly believed. Were you respectful? annoyed? perplexed? Thanks.
on par with the anguish one would have from getting unconsensually bent over and buttloved.

Offline Portrucci

  • Fission Mailed
  • Posts: 1383
  • Gender: Male
  • You're just another hero riding through the night
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #138 on: July 05, 2011, 08:17:49 PM »
You just confirmed what I said earlier.  The debate becomes about the evidence then and the default position becomes a mute concept because at that point the subject must weigh the evidence and make a decision about his/her belief.

I don't think I even agree with the idea of a default position other than we know nothing until knowledge is presented to us.
Well evidence is a broad term. Some people are satisfied with unexplained anecdotal events as evidence of a creator. Others require empirically verifiable evidence. Others don't require any evidence at all and act on faith alone. Some point to the bible as evidence, others point to the tendency of man throughout history to invent/believe in Gods is evidence. I think you're not taking into account the variability in the amount of evidence required for any one person to accept the idea of a creator. It depends a lot on how you were brought up, your education level and your own personal mind-set regarding spirituality.
on par with the anguish one would have from getting unconsensually bent over and buttloved.

Offline Portrucci

  • Fission Mailed
  • Posts: 1383
  • Gender: Male
  • You're just another hero riding through the night
Re: My problem with Christianity
« Reply #139 on: July 05, 2011, 08:19:23 PM »
-i love double posting-
on par with the anguish one would have from getting unconsensually bent over and buttloved.