The real evidence that prayer does not work.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

They want to believe there's more to existence than this brief flash on Earth. MetalGear_Ninty

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth

Don't make the mistake of assuming Macbeth WANTED this to be true. It was more of a bitter realization on his part about what life may actually be about.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Lol. Don't know. But I have faith in God. God has helped me so much in my life and the least I can do is be faithful. I do believe that God can work in mysterious ways.

LikeHaterade

How do you know it's God helping you?

Because there's a feeling of love and content that I have felt in the past that was I guess you could call supernatural. I can feel his presence when I pray and through the good and bad.

So the Muslims who feel love and content towards God... how to you know they're not right? What is your basis for dismissing their feelings of love and content? Besides which, feelings of love and content do not constitute proof of the efficacy of prayer.

Well I don't question anyone's beliefs out of respect for that particular person, but of coarse I do not believe that their God exists. I wouldn't tell someone that because it would be disrespectful, but would be happy to tell that person about my God if they asked me. Someone that truely believes in prayer and the Lord, I believe that their prayers are answered. There are cases whenever they aren't answered, but I believe that there is a higher purpose. There have been a lot of prayers that have been answered including my own. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in prayer, I'm just telling you that love and content are feelings that I experience whenever I pray sometimes.

1. I never mentioned whether you should mention to them that their beliefs are wrong. I asked how you know they're wrong.

2. In other words... you, pray, and if it's answered, God's answered it, and if it isn't, there's some higher reason why it's not. Ugh...

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="pianist"]

They want to believe there's more to existence than this brief flash on Earth. pianist

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth

Don't make the mistake of assuming Macbeth WANTED this to be true. It was more of a bitter realization on his part about what life may actually be about.

Yeah, I know that.

That's just what I thought of, when I read what you'd written.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I do see where you're coming from, however I do not believe in converting others by coersive means. I believe that God loves his people enough to give them the choice of what they want to believe in. You can make assumptions as to why God may not exist with theories, ideologies or conjectures, but you cannot disprove God's existence. It truely is a matter of faith, especially with all of the skeptisism nowadays, but I would want to help someone truely believe in God because of his love and not because you're going to hell if you don't. When you walk by faith and not by sight simply because of my emotional experience with God and some of the things that I have been through, praying has helped me. Before Jesus performed miracles, he would try and teach others about God so that they may walk by faith. There are a lot of miracles today that are tied to God, that is if you believe they are. I believe that they are.

pianist

Good... because frankly, there shouldn't be any need to convert people by any means, coercive or otherwise. No converting would need to take place if people had what they needed to make their own choice. You would undoubtedly say they do, but I can assure you they do not, because if there WAS conclusive proof of God's existence, I would be a Christian... albeit one who does not understand or accept certain positions taken by my God.

We don't need inexplicable miracles, because inexplicable miracles may well be caused by natural processes that we do not yet understand. What we NEED is something that CAN be explained, and for which no other explanation exists aside from the existence of God. A tangible personal appearance would do the trick. Again, this would not in any way affect peoples' freedom of choice. They could still refuse to submit to God, as Satan did. But people could then make an informed choice based on real evidence. Until that happens, I can not be a Christian, nor can many people I know and love. We're all going to burn for eternity as a result, assuming Christianity is true.

I believe inexplicable miracles to be acts of God. People have their free-will which is all they need to make up their own minds when they are of age. I don't need conclusive proof of God's existance simply because of my personal experiences with God. I used to be a Christian out of fear of going to hell but I grew out of that. However, there isn't any real evidence that disproves the existence of God which is therefor the belief in God can very well be an informed choice. I believe that we all have a God given free-will to think and choose as we see fit. But I do not agree with the coersive converting that you speak of and I know that it's very true that people in this world do preach that way.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Lol. Don't know. But I have faith in God. God has helped me so much in my life and the least I can do is be faithful. I do believe that God can work in mysterious ways.

Funky_Llama

How do you know it's God helping you?

Because there's a feeling of love and content that I have felt in the past that was I guess you could call supernatural. I can feel his presence when I pray and through the good and bad.

So the Muslims who feel love and content towards God... how to you know they're not right? What is your basis for dismissing their feelings of love and content? Besides which, feelings of love and content do not constitute proof of the efficacy of prayer.

Well I don't question anyone's beliefs out of respect for that particular person, but of coarse I do not believe that their God exists. I wouldn't tell someone that because it would be disrespectful, but would be happy to tell that person about my God if they asked me. Someone that truely believes in prayer and the Lord, I believe that their prayers are answered. There are cases whenever they aren't answered, but I believe that there is a higher purpose. There have been a lot of prayers that have been answered including my own. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in prayer, I'm just telling you that love and content are feelings that I experience whenever I pray sometimes.

1. I never mentioned whether you should mention to them that their beliefs are wrong. I asked how you know they're wrong.

2. In other words... you, pray, and if it's answered, God's answered it, and if it isn't, there's some higher reason why it's not. Ugh...

Well I never said that I knew they were wrong. I just said that I believe that their beliefs are wrong. And like I said before, through my personal experience with Jesus Christ is why I believe their God doesn't exist, just as you have your reasons for believing that my God doesn't exist.

I believe inexplicable miracles to be acts of God. People have their free-will which is all they need to make up their own minds when they are of age. I don't need conclusive proof of God's existance simply because of my personal experiences with God. I used to be a Christian out of fear of going to hell but I grew out of that. However, there isn't any real evidence that disproves the existence of God which is therefor the belief in God can very well be an informed choice. I believe that we all have a God given free-will to think and choose as we see fit. But I do not agree with the coersive converting that you speak of and I know that it's very true that people in this world do preach that way.

LikeHaterade

You're free to believe that... but certainly a small part of you must entertain the nagging doubt that inexplicable miracles are not the result of God, because to be blunt, there's no proof whatsoever that they are the doing of the Christian God. They could be the doings of another God. Or they could be the result of natural processes or coincidences that we do not yet understand - like my earlier example about illness. We once attributed illness to the supernatural. At the time, that would have seemed to be the only explanation. But was it true?

People need more than free will to make an informed decision. I could make up my own deity using my free will and believe in it... but would it be an informed choice? One would really have to ask WHY I decided to believe in this particular deity and not one of the countless other unprovable deities that humans have conjured up through the ages.

The reason a lack of evidence for the non-existence of God can not be used as evidence for His existence is because, in addition to the existence of one particular God, the lack of evidence could be equally applicable to any other explanation a person comes up with. So one person may say that a miracle was the result of your God, another person may say it was the result of his God, and another that it was an as of now inexplicable natural phenomenon, and not one of these people would be in a position to prove his claim. Also, not one of these people would be in a position to disprove the other people's claims - so what does that mean? That all three explanations are correct? If we are to believe that a lack of evidence for the non-existence of something is evidence for its existence, that is precisely what we must believe. Pretty illogical, no?

I actually haven't mentioned a distaste for coercise converting - maybe you're thinking of someone else? My position on the matter is that no converting should NEED to occur, because God should prove His existence in a conclusive manner that can not be disputed so that His creations can make a properly informed decision about whether or not to follow Him.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I believe inexplicable miracles to be acts of God. People have their free-will which is all they need to make up their own minds when they are of age. I don't need conclusive proof of God's existance simply because of my personal experiences with God. I used to be a Christian out of fear of going to hell but I grew out of that. However, there isn't any real evidence that disproves the existence of God which is therefor the belief in God can very well be an informed choice. I believe that we all have a God given free-will to think and choose as we see fit. But I do not agree with the coersive converting that you speak of and I know that it's very true that people in this world do preach that way.

pianist

You're free to believe that... but certainly a small part of you must entertain the nagging doubt that inexplicable miracles are not the result of God, because to be blunt, there's no proof whatsoever that they are the doing of the Christian God. They could be the doings of another God. Or they could be the result of natural processes or coincidences that we do not yet understand - like my earlier example about illness. We once attributed illness to the supernatural. At the time, that would have seemed to be the only explanation. But was it true?

People need more than free will to make an informed decision. I could make up my own deity using my free will and believe in it... but would it be an informed choice? One would really have to ask WHY I decided to believe in this particular deity and not one of the countless other unprovable deities that humans have conjured up through the ages.

The reason a lack of evidence for the non-existence of God can not be used as evidence for His existence is because, in addition to the existence of one particular God, the lack of evidence could be equally applicable to any other explanation a person comes up with. So one person may say that a miracle was the result of your God, another person may say it was the result of his God, and another that it was an as of now inexplicable natural phenomenon, and not one of these people would be in a position to prove his claim. Also, not one of these people would be in a position to disprove the other people's claims - so what does that mean? That all three explanations are correct? If we are to believe that a lack of evidence for the non-existence of something is evidence for its existence, that is precisely what we must believe. Pretty illogical, no?

I actually haven't mentioned a distaste for coercise converting - maybe you're thinking of someone else? My position on the matter is that no converting should NEED to occur, because God should prove His existence in a conclusive manner that can not be disputed so that His creations can make a properly informed decision about whether or not to follow Him.

I know that there is no proof that leads to miracles nowadays to be the work of God, as there is no proof that they're not the work of God. I choose to believe that it is God simply because of my experiences with the Lord. The lack of evidence could very well balance out to someone's claims that back the nonexistance of God. That is where the faith comes in. You're preaching to my choir right now pianist. Earlier, you mentioned that many people are Christians for fear of going to hell, and the reason being is because of coersive preaching. I just stated that, simply because I don't agree with that as a reason to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

I know that there is no proof that leads to miracles nowadays to be the work of God, as there is no proof that they're not the work of God. I choose to believe that it is God simply because of my experiences with the Lord. The lack of evidence could very well balance out to someone's claims that back the nonexistance of God. That is where the faith comes in. You're preaching to my choir right now pianist. Earlier, you mentioned that many people are Christians for fear of going to hell, and the reason being is because of coersive preaching. I just stated that, simply because I don't agree with that as a reason to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

LikeHaterade

I did?:? Fear may be a reason for a lot of people to accept a religion without evidence, but I think hope is a much more powerful motivator. People are at least as afraid of the very notion of death itself as they are of punishment, and religion helps to alleviate that fear, because it suggests that death is not the end of your existence (or of those you love and lose). When you alleviate fear, you are creating hope. Anyway, I don't think I've directly addressed fear of punishment in this thread. Fear of dying, yes, but not fear of punishment. That was only meant to explain why certain religions become popular despite their lack of evidence - people will be more keen to believe what provides them with hope. Any religion that provides hope, alleviates fear, and is difficult to disprove is bound to survive a long time, true or not.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I know that there is no proof that leads to miracles nowadays to be the work of God, as there is no proof that they're not the work of God. I choose to believe that it is God simply because of my experiences with the Lord. The lack of evidence could very well balance out to someone's claims that back the nonexistance of God. That is where the faith comes in. You're preaching to my choir right now pianist. Earlier, you mentioned that many people are Christians for fear of going to hell, and the reason being is because of coersive preaching. I just stated that, simply because I don't agree with that as a reason to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

pianist

I did?:? Fear may be a reason for a lot of people to accept a religion without evidence, but I think hope is a much more powerful motivator. People are at least as afraid of the very notion of death itself as they are of punishment, and religion helps to alleviate that fear, because it suggests that death is not the end of your existence (or of those you love and lose). When you alleviate fear, you are creating hope. Anyway, I don't think I've directly addressed fear of punishment in this thread. Fear of dying, yes, but not fear of punishment. That was only meant to explain why certain religions become popular despite their lack of evidence - people will be more keen to believe what provides them with hope. Any religion that provides hope, alleviates fear, and is difficult to disprove is bound to survive a long time, true or not.

Sure. I misunderstood your previous post involving the "fear" part.

Hungry children in Ethiopia are still suffering.

That should be enough, but for those who can't see past their noses, allow me to explain.

Every single day, since the beginning of our awareness that there are starving children in impoverished parts of the world, good-hearted people have been praying to the lord to help these children receive the nourishment they so desperately need. How long ago was this? At least a few decades. Hell, I'll bet that even just today alone, there were probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of prayers from all over the world, that hungry children should not be hungry any longer.

What really strikes me as odd however, is why god wouldn't notice this on his own, as he actually needed people to pray to him and notify him of the problem :roll: But anyway, if he cared, he would rectify this situation immediately, right? Perhaps god will make examples out of some people, to teach others...but why innocent children? There is absolutely no justification for that. NONE.

Since starving children first came to our attention, billions of prayers have been said. Yes, billions. Easily. Yet, not even ONE was answered. I wonder why...

So not only does god not give a crap about innocent babies suffering the horrible pain of extreme malnutrition, but he obviously doesn't give a crap about the cries of his other people, the supposedly "chosen" christians, the ones who are pleading with him to send some much needed help to the hungry.

God ignores the suffering of the innocent, and ignores the prayers of the good-natured. Wow. What a swell guy. :roll:

Deity_Slapper

I think someones an atheist ;)

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]"Prayer: The idea that god's plans are so unimportant he will change them if you ask him to."Funky_Llama

Prayer be more than asking for things.

Personal favours from God still remain a strong element of prayer.

It shouldn't be God's responsibility to feed them, it should be our own. I have no idea what prayers God answers, or rejects but all I know is that my prayers have been answered on multiple occassions. 123625

And what of those that haven't been answered?

Coincidence leads to Superstition leads to...religion

Coincidence is bound to happen.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

God wants his people to walk by faith, not by sight.

pianist

I've always found this bewildering. There's no reason at all that you can not truly love someone or something that you know exists. I know my parents exist. Would I love them more if I was simply told I have parents, but never saw them? Of course not. This is strange enough to begin with, but when you take into account that our ETERNAL fate is apparently at stake here, and that God, as a 'parent' of sorts, doesn't want us to be condemned to an eternity of suffering, why on Earth would He fail to provide compelling evidence of His existence? Why would He fail to recognize that many people are going to be condemned to eternal suffering because they can't commit to the idea of one particular deity when there are countless other equally unprovable deities vying for their lifelong attention and adoration? If He is truly a good God, then He has nothing to fear in showing us that He does in fact exist.

Nonetheless, you are thinking like a human (understandable) but not applicable. Your eternal fate comes down to one of two options...believe and accept and be in Heaven with God...or don't and be without God. Rather a simple choice actually. Signs are there....but are not always noticed. You have to be receptive.

Just as some kids rebel against their parents (who they know exist), some people would still rebel against God. They would still be free to choose whether or not they would follow Him, and they would still be free to choose whether or not they loved Him if they knew He existed.

I don't agree with that analogy. There is a difference in believing without proof. People do react differently.

This is the chief reason that I believe Christianity to be untrue. It is an enormously illogical position, and as a result of it, many good people will be condemned to eternal suffering merely because they can not accept the existence of the supernatural without seeing proof of its existence - which incidentally is a completely logical position to take. If we failed to take this position, we'd likely still believe that disease and mental illness are caused by evil spirits. And we'd still be burning people for witchcraft.

That is of course your interpretation. Which does not make it the correct interpretation.

When you get right down to it, the Christian God is no different than the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or any other fairy tale... except that it's a little easier to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, because the people who play these roles are obviously responsible for the 'miracles' that delight a child's mind and convince him or her of the existence of such beings. When no one can provide evidence of a deity's existence beyond the anecdotal, it is unlikely that others will believe in it.

You would be surprised what you can ascertain....if you are open to it. If not...this ^^^ is what happens.

So why have religions like Christianity and Islam survived? Simple. They present a message people want to hear. People are afraid of death. They want to believe there's more to existence than this brief flash on Earth. They want to believe that someone is looking out for them. They want to believe they'll see dead loved ones again. It's a great comfort. But if this unprovable God had been portrayed differently - if He had been portrayed instead as a tyrant who delights in our suffering, or if the religion made the claim that when we die, we will truly be dead and cease to exist, do you think the religion would survive? Simply put, no. Satan isn't the same thing, because Satan is connected to a religion of hope. If there is no hope presented by an unprovable religion, no one has any reason to follow it. So let's just say it straight - it's awfully easy to convince people something is true (even if it's not true) when that something is what they want to hear...

I disagree with that as well. It would actually be easier to believe in nothingness. Then there would be no consequences for actions. Your interpretation is rather simplisitc.

Voted most intelligent GS user Vs Voted GS's best debater

*Grabs popcorn*

Voted most intelligent GS user Vs Voted GS's best debater

*Grabs popcorn*

MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Voted most intelligent GS user Vs Voted GS's best debater

*Grabs popcorn*

Jandurin

Nonetheless, you are thinking like a human (understandable) but not applicable. Your eternal fate comes down to one of two options...believe and accept and be in Heaven with God...or don't and be without God. Rather a simple choice actually. Signs are there....but are not always noticed. You have to be receptive.

Only if you accept that Christianity is true. If you accept that Christianity may not be true, then there are many more options - such as believing in the wrong God and being condemned for it, believing in the wrong God but being forgiven for it, nothingness, and so forth. As for signs, humans have a remarkable capacity for finding what they want to find when it comes to the unprovable. So what you see as signs may well be nothing more than coincidence, and as a Christian, you will naturally see all happenings from a Christian perspective. So if someone survives cancer after praying, you will be more likely to accept that prayer was the reason the person survived than you would accept that prayer had no effect at all, and the person just had a strong body that managed to survive a normally fatal illness.

Being receptive to a particular belief system is nothing more than looking at all happenings from the right perspective. But if you start from an outside perspective, you will always be skeptical. If you, for instance, were asked to give up Christianity for Islam, you would be unlikely to do so, and you would be unlikely to see events from the perspective of the Islamic faith. You are not receptive to it. And yet, the possibility of it being true is no more or no less than Christianity's chances of being true.

I don't agree with that analogy. There is a difference in believing without proof. People do react differently.

Indeed they do. They're much less likely to believe, and the depth of their emotional connection will be hindered. You believe that a real life romance will be more successful than an online romance, right? So why is that? You also believe that it's much more difficult to know whether or not someone is who he claims to be online, right? What reaction is that going to bring about in an individual? If God's purpose was to make it difficult for people to accept Him, then mission accomplished. The problem is that doesn't really line up with His desire to save every one of His creations from Hell, now does it?

I anticipate that you'll respond with a variation of the "we can't use our human ideas to understand God" argument. What was that you were saying about arguments of convenience? Whether by man or by God, there are rational and irrational ways to approach a problem. And sorry, but unless God is not trying to save every soul from Hell, He is not going about this in a rational way that takes into account the nature of His own creations.

That is of course your interpretation. Which does not make it the correct interpretation.

Interpret it however you like. It's true. People who would have believed had they seen simple, tangible proof will be tortured eternally because simple, tangible proof was not presented to them. And we did at one time believe disease was caused by evil spirits, then learned later that this is not the case. I fail to see why you feel this is in any way open to interpretation, and presumably, that it can not be extended to include other as yet unproven supernatural claims, such as the existence of the Christian God or the divinity of Jesus.

You would be surprised what you can ascertain....if you are open to it. If not...this ^^^ is what happens.

Again, being 'open to it' is just a way of saying 'ignore the lack of evidence, ignore the countless other possibilities which can not be disproven either, and interpret everything you see from the Christian perspective.' If you do this, then yes, you will probably become a Christian. But you'll still have no way of knowing it's true, because in reality, all you'll have done is convinced yourself that it's true. When it comes to claims that have not been disproven, you can really believe anything you wish to believe... and for many, that is to believe that death is not the end, that their loved ones are not really dead, and that there's a higher being looking out for them and comforting them in times of need.

I disagree with that as well. It would actually be easier to believe in nothingness. Then there would be no consequences for actions. Your interpretation is rather simplisitc.

That's unfortunate, because what I wrote isn't simplistic - it's true. Humans have been fearing death for far longer than Christianity has been around. Procreation and death are the two most important ideas in the earliest primitive art we've found. So for thousands of years, people have believed in gods to bring them comfort, and I don't think it's coincidental that you'll not find many (if any) religions that claim that when you die, you cease to exist in any way. So answer this, then - if it's easier to believe in nothingness, why the hell do so few people believe in nothingness? Do YOU find the idea of not existing to be a great comfort? If religion was not developed to provide people with comfort, and if religions do not survive because they provide people with comfort, I'd like to know the 'non-simplistic' explanation for why they survive. What is the motivating factor for religious belief?

We all have opinion...but this is nothing I haven't heard before. It's a convenience argument.

I wouldn't doubt that, because anybody who is frequently involved in religious debate is going to reach a point where they've heard all the usual arguments. It's not like your rebuttals are any more original. When was the last time you presented a truly unique theological argument? The problem is that the religious still have not answered these questions in a satisfactory way, and that's why people keep asking. You have a boundless confidence that your belief system is right and that every other belief system is wrong, and yet you have no evidence to support that claim in an acceptable way. If you did, everybody who is not delusional would be a Christian, and certainly everybody with intelligence would be Christian. Show me an intelligent person who does not believe in gravity. Strange, then, that so many intelligent people don't believe in Christianity. One has to wonder why...

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]"Prayer: The idea that god's plans are so unimportant he will change them if you ask him to."LJS9502_basic

Prayer be more than asking for things.

Personal favours from God still remain a strong element of prayer.

I never said that all did. But this research shows that no prayers get answered.

Voted most intelligent GS user Vs Voted GS's best debater

*Grabs popcorn*

MetalGear_Ninty

I'm rooting for pianist. :P

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

9/11 is a product of greed, hatred, and lust for power. Those are all in opposition to God. The bible continually states that all sin is traced back to man's disobedience to God.

Funky_Llama

Strange, then, that lust for power, hatred, and greed are all instinctive. These emotions that God supposedly hates are hard-coded into us.

Not very knowledgable in theology, I see. the thing we were wired with is free will. Man excersized free will and disobeyed God. that ushered in those negative things. The alternative would be God forcing us to obey. That would be slavery. Your logic is extremely flawed.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

9/11 is a product of greed, hatred, and lust for power. Those are all in opposition to God. The bible continually states that all sin is traced back to man's disobedience to God.

Trashface

Strange, then, that lust for power, hatred, and greed are all instinctive. These emotions that God supposedly hates are hard-coded into us.

Not very knowledgable in theology, I see. the thing we were wired with is free will. Man excersized free will and disobeyed God. that ushered in those negative things. The alternative would be God forcing us to obey. That would be slavery. Your logic is extremely flawed.

:roll: Wrong. The emotions I listed are nothing to do with free will. They are in our DNA; humans are naturally like that. So... why would God plant these emotions into out minds?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

9/11 is a product of greed, hatred, and lust for power. Those are all in opposition to God. The bible continually states that all sin is traced back to man's disobedience to God.

Trashface

Strange, then, that lust for power, hatred, and greed are all instinctive. These emotions that God supposedly hates are hard-coded into us.

Not very knowledgable in theology, I see. the thing we were wired with is free will. Man excersized free will and disobeyed God. that ushered in those negative things. The alternative would be God forcing us to obey. That would be slavery. Your logic is extremely flawed.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Dear Deity_Slapper,

Your insistence to convert people to atheism do not work, because you resort to bullying and scrutinizing the belief of others. Deity_Slapper

I'm not trying to convert anyone. :roll:

Hmmm. In a different religious thread, you had bragged about leading people to deconvert and claimed that you had planted seeds of doubt in my mind. I told you that you didn't have that kind of ability. You responded with "that's what they all say". Seems reasonable to conclude that deconversion is an objective or at the very least that you take pride in it.

Yes, it makes me feel good to hear that I helped someone get out of the box, but it's not necessarily what I try to do. The main objective is to simply balance out the nonsense with some actual sense.

To those of strong faith, your efforts only strengthen their faith. I can say this from personal experience. You have no more solid assurance that what you believe is true than anyone else. To me, everything you type is arrogant non sense.

Only if you accept that Christianity is true. If you accept that Christianity may not be true, then there are many more options - such as believing in the wrong God and being condemned for it, believing in the wrong God but being forgiven for it, nothingness, and so forth. As for signs, humans have a remarkable capacity for finding what they want to find when it comes to the unprovable. So what you see as signs may well be nothing more than coincidence, and as a Christian, you will naturally see all happenings from a Christian perspective. So if someone survives cancer after praying, you will be more likely to accept that prayer was the reason the person survived than you would accept that prayer had no effect at all, and the person just had a strong body that managed to survive a normally fatal illness.

For the purposes of this thread that is exactly what we are talking about.:| Again I disagree. But when the mind is closed to other ideas I can see why one would believe everything is coincidence.

Being receptive to a particular belief system is nothing more than looking at all happenings from the right perspective. But if you start from an outside perspective, you will always be skeptical. If you, for instance, were asked to give up Christianity for Islam, you would be unlikely to do so, and you would be unlikely to see events from the perspective of the Islamic faith. You are not receptive to it. And yet, the possibility of it being true is no more or no less than Christianity's chances of being true.

And yet there exists those that switch relilgions.

Indeed they do. They're much less likely to believe, and the depth of their emotional connection will be hindered. You believe that a real life romance will be more successful than an online romance, right? So why is that? You also believe that it's much more difficult to know whether or not someone is who he claims to be online, right? What reaction is that going to bring about in an individual? If God's purpose was to make it difficult for people to accept Him, then mission accomplished. The problem is that doesn't really line up with His desire to save every one of His creations from Hell, now does it?

I believe no such thing. Both scenarios are dependent on the individuals.

I anticipate that you'll respond with a variation of the "we can't use our human ideas to understand God" argument. What was that you were saying about arguments of convenience? Whether by man or by God, there are rational and irrational ways to approach a problem. And sorry, but unless God is not trying to save every soul from Hell, He is not going about this in a rational way that takes into account the nature of His own creations.

That is not an argument of convenience. It is a fact that taking two entitiies with different metaphysical properties would be quite different. You are, of course, assuming quite a bit about what God intends here. Not factual...but assumption.

Interpret it however you like. It's true. People who would have believed had they seen simple, tangible proof will be tortured eternally because simple, tangible proof was not presented to them. And we did at one time believe disease was caused by evil spirits, then learned later that this is not the case. I fail to see why you feel this is in any way open to interpretation, and presumably, that it can not be extended to include other as yet unproven supernatural claims, such as the existence of the Christian God or the divinity of Jesus.

Again you are making assumptions about the intent of God. This argument has no merit.

Again, being 'open to it' is just a way of saying 'ignore the lack of evidence, ignore the countless other possibilities which can not be disproven either, and interpret everything you see from the Christian perspective.' If you do this, then yes, you will probably become a Christian. But you'll still have no way of knowing it's true, because in reality, all you'll have done is convinced yourself that it's true. When it comes to claims that have not been disproven, you can really believe anything you wish to believe... and for many, that is to believe that death is not the end, that their loved ones are not really dead, and that there's a higher being looking out for them and comforting them in times of need.

Or maybe the evidence is present and you just refuse to see it. And you make assumptions yet again about one's experiences.

That's unfortunate, because what I wrote isn't simplistic - it's true. Humans have been fearing death for far longer than Christianity has been around. Procreation and death are the two most important ideas in the earliest primitive art we've found. So for thousands of years, people have believed in gods to bring them comfort, and I don't think it's coincidental that you'll not find many (if any) religions that claim that when you die, you cease to exist in any way. So answer this, then - if it's easier to believe in nothingness, why the hell do so few people believe in nothingness? Do YOU find the idea of not existing to be a great comfort? If religion was not developed to provide people with comfort, and if religions do not survive because they provide people with comfort, I'd like to know the 'non-simplistic' explanation for why they survive. What is the motivating factor for religious belief?

Again...you have presented assumptions. Not everyone believes for the reasons you "think" they believe. I realize it's hard for one without the mindset of a religious person to make sense of the whys and wherefores...but you really aren't speaking for many with this opinion.

I wouldn't doubt that, because anybody who is frequently involved in religious debate is going to reach a point where they've heard all the usual arguments. It's not like your rebuttals are any more original. When was the last time you presented a truly unique theological argument? The problem is that the religious still have not answered these questions in a satisfactory way, and that's why people keep asking. You have a boundless confidence that your belief system is right and that every other belief system is wrong, and yet you have no evidence to support that claim in an acceptable way. If you did, everybody who is not delusional would be a Christian, and certainly everybody with intelligence would be Christian. Show me an intelligent person who does not believe in gravity. Strange, then, that so many intelligent people don't believe in Christianity. One has to wonder why...

Perhaps not satisfactorily to one who doesn't believe...but to those that do....they are answered.

pianist

I'm rather surprised to see ad hominem attacks from you. Wow. That last couple of statements need not have been said. When all is said and done you have no proof that your belief is actually the correct one and to make such statements toward those that believe differently than yourself is rather surprising.....

[QUOTE="pianist"]

Only if you accept that Christianity is true. If you accept that Christianity may not be true, then there are many more options - such as believing in the wrong God and being condemned for it, believing in the wrong God but being forgiven for it, nothingness, and so forth. As for signs, humans have a remarkable capacity for finding what they want to find when it comes to the unprovable. So what you see as signs may well be nothing more than coincidence, and as a Christian, you will naturally see all happenings from a Christian perspective. So if someone survives cancer after praying, you will be more likely to accept that prayer was the reason the person survived than you would accept that prayer had no effect at all, and the person just had a strong body that managed to survive a normally fatal illness.

For the purposes of this thread that is exactly what we are talking about.:| Again I disagree. But when the mind is closed to other ideas I can see why one would believe everything is coincidence.

Being receptive to a particular belief system is nothing more than looking at all happenings from the right perspective. But if you start from an outside perspective, you will always be skeptical. If you, for instance, were asked to give up Christianity for Islam, you would be unlikely to do so, and you would be unlikely to see events from the perspective of the Islamic faith. You are not receptive to it. And yet, the possibility of it being true is no more or no less than Christianity's chances of being true.

And yet there exists those that switch relilgions.

Indeed they do. They're much less likely to believe, and the depth of their emotional connection will be hindered. You believe that a real life romance will be more successful than an online romance, right? So why is that? You also believe that it's much more difficult to know whether or not someone is who he claims to be online, right? What reaction is that going to bring about in an individual? If God's purpose was to make it difficult for people to accept Him, then mission accomplished. The problem is that doesn't really line up with His desire to save every one of His creations from Hell, now does it?

I believe no such thing. Both scenarios are dependent on the individuals.

I anticipate that you'll respond with a variation of the "we can't use our human ideas to understand God" argument. What was that you were saying about arguments of convenience? Whether by man or by God, there are rational and irrational ways to approach a problem. And sorry, but unless God is not trying to save every soul from Hell, He is not going about this in a rational way that takes into account the nature of His own creations.

That is not an argument of convenience. It is a fact that taking two entitiies with different metaphysical properties would be quite different. You are, of course, assuming quite a bit about what God intends here. Not factual...but assumption.

Interpret it however you like. It's true. People who would have believed had they seen simple, tangible proof will be tortured eternally because simple, tangible proof was not presented to them. And we did at one time believe disease was caused by evil spirits, then learned later that this is not the case. I fail to see why you feel this is in any way open to interpretation, and presumably, that it can not be extended to include other as yet unproven supernatural claims, such as the existence of the Christian God or the divinity of Jesus.

Again you are making assumptions about the intent of God. This argument has no merit.

Again, being 'open to it' is just a way of saying 'ignore the lack of evidence, ignore the countless other possibilities which can not be disproven either, and interpret everything you see from the Christian perspective.' If you do this, then yes, you will probably become a Christian. But you'll still have no way of knowing it's true, because in reality, all you'll have done is convinced yourself that it's true. When it comes to claims that have not been disproven, you can really believe anything you wish to believe... and for many, that is to believe that death is not the end, that their loved ones are not really dead, and that there's a higher being looking out for them and comforting them in times of need.

Or maybe the evidence is present and you just refuse to see it. And you make assumptions yet again about one's experiences.

That's unfortunate, because what I wrote isn't simplistic - it's true. Humans have been fearing death for far longer than Christianity has been around. Procreation and death are the two most important ideas in the earliest primitive art we've found. So for thousands of years, people have believed in gods to bring them comfort, and I don't think it's coincidental that you'll not find many (if any) religions that claim that when you die, you cease to exist in any way. So answer this, then - if it's easier to believe in nothingness, why the hell do so few people believe in nothingness? Do YOU find the idea of not existing to be a great comfort? If religion was not developed to provide people with comfort, and if religions do not survive because they provide people with comfort, I'd like to know the 'non-simplistic' explanation for why they survive. What is the motivating factor for religious belief?

Again...you have presented assumptions. Not everyone believes for the reasons you "think" they believe. I realize it's hard for one without the mindset of a religious person to make sense of the whys and wherefores...but you really aren't speaking for many with this opinion.

I wouldn't doubt that, because anybody who is frequently involved in religious debate is going to reach a point where they've heard all the usual arguments. It's not like your rebuttals are any more original. When was the last time you presented a truly unique theological argument? The problem is that the religious still have not answered these questions in a satisfactory way, and that's why people keep asking. You have a boundless confidence that your belief system is right and that every other belief system is wrong, and yet you have no evidence to support that claim in an acceptable way. If you did, everybody who is not delusional would be a Christian, and certainly everybody with intelligence would be Christian. Show me an intelligent person who does not believe in gravity. Strange, then, that so many intelligent people don't believe in Christianity. One has to wonder why...

Perhaps not satisfactorily to one who doesn't believe...but to those that do....they are answered.

LJS9502_basic

I'm rather surprised to see ad hominem attacks from you. Wow. That last couple of statements need not have been said. When all is said and done you have to proof that your belief is actually the correct one and to make such statements toward those that believe differently than yourself is rather surprising.....

Just about every athiest in OT does that. With a few exceptions. (Vax)

[QUOTE="pianist"]

Only if you accept that Christianity is true. If you accept that Christianity may not be true, then there are many more options - such as believing in the wrong God and being condemned for it, believing in the wrong God but being forgiven for it, nothingness, and so forth. As for signs, humans have a remarkable capacity for finding what they want to find when it comes to the unprovable. So what you see as signs may well be nothing more than coincidence, and as a Christian, you will naturally see all happenings from a Christian perspective. So if someone survives cancer after praying, you will be more likely to accept that prayer was the reason the person survived than you would accept that prayer had no effect at all, and the person just had a strong body that managed to survive a normally fatal illness.

For the purposes of this thread that is exactly what we are talking about.:| Again I disagree. But when the mind is closed to other ideas I can see why one would believe everything is coincidence.

LJS9502_basic

I'd say that a critical perspective requires extraordinary claims for extraordinary events. I'm unaware of any evidence that shows a high correlation with prayerfulness/divine intervention (a pretty extraordinary claim) at a statistically higher rate than coincidence would indicate. I don't think that this indicates close-mindedness, just an empirical mindset.xaos

I'm rather surprised to see ad hominem attacks from you. Wow. That last couple of statements need not have been said. When all is said and done you have to proof that your belief is actually the correct one and to make such statements toward those that believe differently than yourself is rather surprising.....

LJS9502_basic

Since I'm off to work in a few minutes, I wanted to clear up this misunderstanding - I'll get to the rest later. My intent was not to claim that you must be unintelligent to be Christian. Rather, the intent was to claim that many intelligent people are not Christian. So there must be a reason for that. By contrast, ANY intelligent person of any faith will accept that gravity exists. We don't really understand gravity very well, and we can't see gravity, and yet no one has any reason to question it. There's a reason for that, too.

So that is what I intended to say - not what you thought I was saying. Apologies for the confusion. And now I must run...

[QUOTE="xaos"] I'd say that a critical perspective requires extraordinary claims for extraordinary events. I'm unaware of any evidence that shows a high correlation with prayerfulness/divine intervention (a pretty extraordinary claim) at a statistically higher rate than coincidence would indicate. I don't think that this indicates close-mindedness, just an empirical mindset.LJS9502_basic

I'd certainly take issue (and have) with fire-breathing atheists who make such absurd claims as "science disproves God", just as I would with theists who claim that science proves God. The only reason you can't say it never happens is that you cannot prove a negative, but wiggle room is not really supporting evidence.xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"] I'd certainly take issue (and have) with fire-breathing atheists who make such absurd claims as "science disproves God", just as I would with theists who claim that science proves God. The only reason you can't say it never happens is that you cannot prove a negative, but wiggle room is not really supporting evidence.LJS9502_basic

I did jump late into this thread so I missed a lot of context that came before. I will absolutely agree that prayer can be very helpful (as can meditation or just an upbeat worldview) irrespective of any supernatural element, just by creating a more positive perspective for someone. I was looking at it from the supernatural angle in my previous posts.xaos

Now for the purpose of the thread..the TC seems to have a vendetta against God as all his topics are anti religious...mostly anti Christian...and well there is his name. But the answer to this thread is the same....it can't be answered by us mere mortals. We all have our own opinion and that isn't going to change because of a forum.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

For the purposes of this thread that is exactly what we are talking about.:| Again I disagree. But when the mind is closed to other ideas I can see why one would believe everything is coincidence.

State an opinion about any controversial matter, and you can rest assured your opponents will call you close-minded. It's just as possible that the person's body survived because of the body and that the prayer had nothing to do with it. If you believe prayer did have an effect, you must dismiss the notion that prayer didn't have an effect. Which are you, as a Christian, more likely to assume? And do you consider it possible that prayer had no effect at all, and that it was indeed a coincidence?

I don't get it. Are you really disagreeing with the notion that Christians are more likely to view events from a Christian perspective? Do you think a Christian would outright say "Prayer didn't help you. You were just one of the lucky ones?"

And yet there exists those that switch relilgions.

Of course - it's always possible that you find an unproven belief that you like even more than your previous unproven belief. And it's not at all uncommon for people to convert to another religion to please other people - especially ones that matter to them. But bear two things in mind - firstly, people who convert from one religion to another often convert to a religion which is similar to theirs. So a Muslim converting to Christianity isn't quite like abandoning one's entire way of thinking, because the two religions share quite a few similarities, especially with respect to God and the afterlife. And secondly, competing beliefs will always be met with skepticism and even a degree of hostility, even if a person does eventually decide to convert. Were this not the case, wars would not be fought over religious belief. If you were told that everything you 'know' to be true is wrong and that you should convert to religion X, you would be skeptical. If I told you that only me and my special cult worships the proper deity, you'd be skeptical.

To be honest, it's not all that surprising that some people convert despite the natural human impulse to cling to what is already known... given that none of the major religions have any more or less chance of being true.

I believe no such thing. Both scenarios are dependent on the individuals.

I'm too lazy to dig through your previous posts, but I could have sworn that you have claimed that a romantic online relationship will not work out. I remember this because I remember agreeing with you. In any event... how many online marriages do you know of? Not people who met online... but actual online marriages. Would you wager good money on the bet that an online relationship is more likely to succeed than an 'in person' relationship? Do you know of anyone with an ounce of intelligence who would claim that everyone on the internet is definitely who they appear to be, and that they feel no skepticism whatsoever towards anyone's claims on the internet?

Forget the exceptions. Think about what happens most of the time with respect to online relationships and the way people react to claims on the internet. If someone comes here and claims he's famous, you wouldn't believe the claim outright. The point here is that interpersonal contact will, in almost every instance, develop a stronger relationship than one that has no interpersonal contact. And a person will naturally be less trusting of someone who is hidden and mysterious to him than someone that he knows well. If it works that way with humans, it's going to work that way with God, too. Remaining hidden makes it more difficult to accept that He is real, since humans are still humans.

That is not an argument of convenience. It is a fact that taking two entitiies with different metaphysical properties would be quite different. You are, of course, assuming quite a bit about what God intends here. Not factual...but assumption.

The common denominator is the human being. Look, it really doesn't matter if you're another human, a flying chimp, or God... if your goal is to form relationships with other humans to save them from suffering, you'll be less effective in achieving that goal if you hide yourself from them and fail to give them a clear and irrefutable sign about who you are and what you're trying to do. So I'll say it again: if God's intention is to save every soul from Hell, He is going about it in an irrational way, because humans tend to regard that which is unproven with skepticism. You can't save someone when he has no reason to believe you're even real. And from what we understand of human interaction, you'll actually develop a DEEPER relationship with someone when you have interpersonal contact than you would when you have no interpersonal contact. Again - don't point out exceptions. Look at what happens in the vast majority of human relationships.

Again you are making assumptions about the intent of God. This argument has no merit.

Huh? There was nothing at all in that block of text about the intent of God. If you think that you can dismiss what was written there with "this argument has no merit" we may as well not be discussing this at all. Debate my points if you disagree, because you certainly didn't address them the first time around:

1) Many people do not believe in the Christian God because of a lack of simple, tangible proof. They're going to suffer eternal punishment because of that.

2) We did at one time believe disease was caused by evil spirits. It was later found that disease is in fact caused by micro-organisms, not the supernatural. We can thus assume that any other unproven supernatural claim may also be untrue.

3) The existence of the Christian God and the divinity of Jesus are unproven supernatural claims until such a time as irrefutable tangible evidence of the sort upon which our scientific laws are based is presented.

Or maybe the evidence is present and you just refuse to see it. And you make assumptions yet again about one's experiences.

Sure... but it's certainly not clear evidence if it's there. There are a lot of things that I know exist. It would be very difficult to claim they don't exist, because they are tangible. And there are many intangible things which I know exist as well - like emotions. I've never questioned the existence of emotions, nor do I imagine has any other skeptic. You like the word assumptions - as though it somehow discredits what I've written. So tell me then... if you don't ignore the countless other possibilities, if you don't ignore the lack of evidence (and in so doing develop faith in your unprovable belief), and if you don't interpret what you see happening in the world from a Christian perspective, are you going to become a Christian? I think I'm on strong ground to 'assume' that these three things MUST happen for a person to become a Christian. Obviously if you believe in several competing beliefs simultaneously or fail to view what happens in the world from a Christian perspective, you would not be a Christian.

I'm also on strong ground in claiming that you have no way of knowing if you've done anything but convince yourself that Christianity is true when you become a Christian... unless you've got some shocking new evidence to share with the world!

And finally, are you going to claim that most people hope that they'll face nothingness after they die, that most people never want to see their dead loved ones again, or that most people don't want comfort in times of need? I feel pretty safe in assuming that the opposite is true in the vast majority of cases... and I have the very existence of religion to prove that. Again, religion existed long before Christianity, and not surprisingly, none of the primitive religions that we know of claimed that there was no form of afterlife or reincarnation whatsoever. That tells you something important about what humans are hoping for when it comes to death. They're not hoping for nothingness.

Again...you have presented assumptions. Not everyone believes for the reasons you "think" they believe. I realize it's hard for one without the mindset of a religious person to make sense of the whys and wherefores...but you really aren't speaking for many with this opinion.

If what I stated represents only a minority as you claim, I'll ask you again - if not for comfort, what are the motivating factors for religious belief? Name some. Why do all major religions address death? Why do they involve the concept of afterlife and/or eternal existence in some form or another? Why do people pray in times of need? Why is the majority of the world religious? Why do people feel uncomfortable when presented with the idea of ceasing to exist? You keep saying that I'm making baseless assumptions, and yet you're not stating what the REAL answers to these questions are. If my assumptions are baseless, that can only be because there are different answers to these questions. So let's have them.

I think you're stretching if you honestly believe that the chief motivating factor of religion isn't fear - fear of death, fear of disasters, fear of being alone, fear of the unknown... fear of punishment for failing to believe - all of these fears alleviated by a supreme being. People don't develop random beliefs for no reason. Rather they develop beliefs which make them feel better about their existence. Religions that don't make people feel better about their existence don't survive.

Perhaps not satisfactorily to one who doesn't believe...but to those that do....they are answered.

Seek and ye shall find, right? Especially when you already know what you see before you've seen it. Once again, if the evidence for God was as clear as the evidence for gravity - something else that we don't understand and can't see - then nearly everybody on the planet would be a Christian. If you're already Christian, of course you're going to find evidence to support your beliefs, even if that same sort of evidence, presented by another religion, would be dismissed as 'inconclusive at best.'

LJS9502_basic

I'm rather surprised to see ad hominem attacks from you. Wow. That last couple of statements need not have been said. When all is said and done you have no proof that your belief is actually the correct one and to make such statements toward those that believe differently than yourself is rather surprising.....

Already addressed. There was no intention of an attack there. In fact, I got to wondering why you thought there was one. I re-read the passage, and it expresses what I intended it to express - that if the the evidence for God was as conclusive as the evidence for gravity, all intelligent, non-delusional people would believe in God. A non-suicidal, intelligent person of any faith won't jump off a skyscraper, because he knows he'll die. But an intelligent person may well dismiss the Christian God in favour of the Muslim God... even though the consequences may be even GREATER than death.

Lol, I love it when Atheists go on rants, there so very naive.Thecatgun101

Hungry children in Ethiopia are still suffering.

That should be enough, but for those who can't see past their noses, allow me to explain.

Every single day, since the beginning of our awareness that there are starving children in impoverished parts of the world, good-hearted people have been praying to the lord to help these children receive the nourishment they so desperately need. How long ago was this? At least a few decades. Hell, I'll bet that even just today alone, there were probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of prayers from all over the world, that hungry children should not be hungry any longer.

What really strikes me as odd however, is why god wouldn't notice this on his own, as he actually needed people to pray to him and notify him of the problem :roll: But anyway, if he cared, he would rectify this situation immediately, right? Perhaps god will make examples out of some people, to teach others...but why innocent children? There is absolutely no justification for that. NONE.

Since starving children first came to our attention, billions of prayers have been said. Yes, billions. Easily. Yet, not even ONE was answered. I wonder why...

So not only does god not give a crap about innocent babies suffering the horrible pain of extreme malnutrition, but he obviously doesn't give a crap about the cries of his other people, the supposedly "chosen" christians, the ones who are pleading with him to send some much needed help to the hungry.

God ignores the suffering of the innocent, and ignores the prayers of the good-natured. Wow. What a swell guy. :roll:

Deity_Slapper

you lost all credibility when you named yourself diety slapper, because it clearly shows you are incredibly biased towards any type of diety or religion, so the bottom line is, who are you to say what god needs to do or should do to make it right? how much of the big picture do you see? not much,

State an opinion about any controversial matter, and you can rest assured your opponents will call you close-minded. It's just as possible that the person's body survived because of the body and that the prayer had nothing to do with it. If you believe prayer did have an effect, you must dismiss the notion that prayer didn't have an effect. Which are you, as a Christian, more likely to assume? And do you consider it possible that prayer had no effect at all, and that it was indeed a coincidence?

As I stated earlier...not ALL prayer is answered as to what is asked. In addition...it's highly possible to NOT know prayer was answered. But as of yet no one can authoritatively say nay when one feels their prayer was answered. It's illogical to try to definitely and absolutely make such statement. That doesn't mean that all who believe a prayer was answered are correct either.

I don't get it. Are you really disagreeing with the notion that Christians are more likely to view events from a Christian perspective? Do you think a Christian would outright say "Prayer didn't help you. You were just one of the lucky ones?"

You don't get what? Christians don't believe that simply asking for something gets it. That is not the intent of prayer. It's a mistake that many non religious make if that is indeed what you are referring to here. I've lost track of some of the specifics with the quote editing.

Of course - it's always possible that you find an unproven belief that you like even more than your previous unproven belief. And it's not at all uncommon for people to convert to another religion to please other people - especially ones that matter to them. But bear two things in mind - firstly, people who convert from one religion to another often convert to a religion which is similar to theirs. So a Muslim converting to Christianity isn't quite like abandoning one's entire way of thinking, because the two religions share quite a few similarities, especially with respect to God and the afterlife. And secondly, competing beliefs will always be met with skepticism and even a degree of hostility, even if a person does eventually decide to convert. Were this not the case, wars would not be fought over religious belief. If you were told that everything you 'know' to be true is wrong and that you should convert to religion X, you would be skeptical. If I told you that only me and my special cult worships the proper deity, you'd be skeptical.

To be honest, it's not all that surprising that some people convert despite the natural human impulse to cling to what is already known... given that none of the major religions have any more or less chance of being true.

See here as well you make assumptions as to the reason for conversion. This is not an absolute and in dealing with true faith...which I had assumed we would be...then the conversion is for oneself.

I don't agree with your assessment as to only converting to something similiar. There are those raised religious that become atheist and agnostic. Not exactly similiar. And from the little I've read on Islam...I don't consider it compatible with Christianity at all.

I'm too lazy to dig through your previous posts, but I could have sworn that you have claimed that a romantic online relationship will not work out. I remember this because I remember agreeing with you. In any event... how many online marriages do you know of? Not people who met online... but actual online marriages. Would you wager good money on the bet that an online relationship is more likely to succeed than an 'in person' relationship? Do you know of anyone with an ounce of intelligence who would claim that everyone on the internet is definitely who they appear to be, and that they feel no skepticism whatsoever towards anyone's claims on the internet?

I don't like to make absolute statements and I have known some that get involved in relationships with one met over the internet. As for working out...well I'm skeptical of that in any relationship. Sorry...that's just me.

Forget the exceptions. Think about what happens most of the time with respect to online relationships and the way people react to claims on the internet. If someone comes here and claims he's famous, you wouldn't believe the claim outright. The point here is that interpersonal contact will, in almost every instance, develop a stronger relationship than one that has no interpersonal contact. And a person will naturally be less trusting of someone who is hidden and mysterious to him than someone that he knows well. If it works that way with humans, it's going to work that way with God, too. Remaining hidden makes it more difficult to accept that He is real, since humans are still humans.

Faith requires a personal relationship with God. Again...I doubt that is easy for a non believer to understand.

The common denominator is the human being. Look, it really doesn't matter if you're another human, a flying chimp, or God... if your goal is to form relationships with other humans to save them from suffering, you'll be less effective in achieving that goal if you hide yourself from them and fail to give them a clear and irrefutable sign about who you are and what you're trying to do. So I'll say it again: if God's intention is to save every soul from Hell, He is going about it in an irrational way, because humans tend to regard that which is unproven with skepticism. You can't save someone when he has no reason to believe you're even real. And from what we understand of human interaction, you'll actually develop a DEEPER relationship with someone when you have interpersonal contact than you would when you have no interpersonal contact. Again - don't point out exceptions. Look at what happens in the vast majority of human relationships.

Thst is of course opinion and assumption. As God is not human it doesn't do any good to bound Him by human logic. I don't get this hidden idea though. Ask any religioius person if they feel their God is hidden from them. Your measuring a supernatural being against humans. The only possible outcome you can achiever here is human. You also assume that a human has no reason to believe in a supernatural being. Just curious...how much actual experience do you have with religious people? You are making many of the same errors in describing how religious feel/thin/decide that some of the other atheists do here. Even without faith one should attempt an understanding of what they argue. Does NOT mean you have to believe. It's not contagious.

Huh? There was nothing at all in that block of text about the intent of God. If you think that you can dismiss what was written there with "this argument has no merit" we may as well not be discussing this at all. Debate my points if you disagree, because you certainly didn't address them the first time around:

1) Many people do not believe in the Christian God because of a lack of simple, tangible proof. They're going to suffer eternal punishment because of that.

What they face is eternity without God. That is the "punishment" if you wish to use that word. Actually I think it means He's giving them what they want.

2) We did at one time believe disease was caused by evil spirits. It was later found that disease is in fact caused by micro-organisms, not the supernatural. We can thus assume that any other unproven supernatural claim may also be untrue.

So? Humanity has believed many things that we now scoff at. That is not important to this. You can't say that God is not with certainity just because people believed differently back in the day.

3) The existence of the Christian God and the divinity of Jesus are unproven supernatural claims until such a time as irrefutable tangible evidence of the sort upon which our scientific laws are based is presented.

Which in no way backs up your claims either.

Sure... but it's certainly not clear evidence if it's there. There are a lot of things that I know exist. It would be very difficult to claim they don't exist, because they are tangible. And there are many intangible things which I know exist as well - like emotions. I've never questioned the existence of emotions, nor do I imagine has any other skeptic. You like the word assumptions - as though it somehow discredits what I've written. So tell me then... if you don't ignore the countless other possibilities, if you don't ignore the lack of evidence (and in so doing develop faith in your unprovable belief), and if you don't interpret what you see happening in the world from a Christian perspective, are you going to become a Christian? I think I'm on strong ground to 'assume' that these three things MUST happen for a person to become a Christian. Obviously if you believe in several competing beliefs simultaneously or fail to view what happens in the world from a Christian perspective, you would not be a Christian.

There is the pesky group that weren't Christian that chose to become Christian...yes they do exist. They must have had a reason don't you think?

I'm also on strong ground in claiming that you have no way of knowing if you've done anything but convince yourself that Christianity is true when you become a Christian... unless you've got some shocking new evidence to share with the world!

Just as you have no way of knwoing if you've done anything but convince yourself that atheism is correct when you chose that route.

And finally, are you going to claim that most people hope that they'll face nothingness after they die, that most people never want to see their dead loved ones again, or that most people don't want comfort in times of need? I feel pretty safe in assuming that the opposite is true in the vast majority of cases... and I have the very existence of religion to prove that. Again, religion existed long before Christianity, and not surprisingly, none of the primitive religions that we know of claimed that there was no form of afterlife or reincarnation whatsoever. That tells you something important about what humans are hoping for when it comes to death. They're not hoping for nothingness.

I believe I stataed that nothingness was easier. Then you can do whatever you want with no thought that it matters. It's much harder to not do so.

If what I stated represents only a minority as you claim, I'll ask you again - if not for comfort, what are the motivating factors for religious belief? Name some. Why do all major religions address death? Why do they involve the concept of afterlife and/or eternal existence in some form or another? Why do people pray in times of need? Why is the majority of the world religious? Why do people feel uncomfortable when presented with the idea of ceasing to exist? You keep saying that I'm making baseless assumptions, and yet you're not stating what the REAL answers to these questions are. If my assumptions are baseless, that can only be because there are different answers to these questions. So let's have them.

Motivating factor is simple. They beleive what they believe is correct. They believe God is...it's just that easy.

I think you're stretching if you honestly believe that the chief motivating factor of religion isn't fear - fear of death, fear of disasters, fear of being alone, fear of the unknown... fear of punishment for failing to believe - all of these fears alleviated by a supreme being. People don't develop random beliefs for no reason. Rather they develop beliefs which make them feel better about their existence. Religions that don't make people feel better about their existence don't survive.

I think you might be stretching it to say it is fear. Whether religious or not...everyone is going to die. Period.

Seek and ye shall find, right? Especially when you already know what you see before you've seen it. Once again, if the evidence for God was as clear as the evidence for gravity - something else that we don't understand and can't see - then nearly everybody on the planet would be a Christian. If you're already Christian, of course you're going to find evidence to support your beliefs, even if that same sort of evidence, presented by another religion, would be dismissed as 'inconclusive at best.'

I never said evidence was clear. It's apparent it's not. But again you assume that those of faith don't think about their faith and come to a decision. This most of all irks me....as it simply isn't true. Those going through the motions may not have thought about it...but then it would be hard to say they embrace it either.

Already addressed. There was no intention of an attack there. In fact, I got to wondering why you thought there was one. I re-read the passage, and it expresses what I intended it to express - that if the the evidence for God was as conclusive as the evidence for gravity, all intelligent, non-delusional people would believe in God. A non-suicidal, intelligent person of any faith won't jump off a skyscraper, because he knows he'll die. But an intelligent person may well dismiss the Christian God in favour of the Muslim God... even though the consequences may be even GREATER than death.

pianist

I cannot believe this topic is still here. You OTers should be ashamed of yourselves for responding to these idiotic threads. You don't even know enough about the subject to make any valid argument and no one is going to change their opinion anyway. What baffles me the most is why so many of you care enough about this subject to discuss it on a video game forum... Solid_Snake325

If you don't like it, then why did you bump it?

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]I cannot believe this topic is still here. You OTers should be ashamed of yourselves for responding to these idiotic threads. You don't even know enough about the subject to make any valid argument and no one is going to change their opinion anyway. What baffles me the most is why so many of you care enough about this subject to discuss it on a video game forum... Vax45

If you don't like it, then why did you bump it?

I cannot believe this topic is still here. You OTers should be ashamed of yourselves for responding to these idiotic threads. You don't even know enough about the subject to make any valid argument and no one is going to change their opinion anyway. What baffles me the most is why so many of you care enough about this subject to discuss it on a video game forum... Solid_Snake325

So let's just say this: AGNOSTICS WIN!!

/thread

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]I cannot believe this topic is still here. You OTers should be ashamed of yourselves for responding to these idiotic threads. You don't even know enough about the subject to make any valid argument and no one is going to change their opinion anyway. What baffles me the most is why so many of you care enough about this subject to discuss it on a video game forum... lostprodigy3141

So let's just say this: AGNOSTICS WIN!!

/thread

There have been...and continue to be...intelligent people that accept we don't have all the answers and don't rule out God.LJS9502_basic

The problem isn't so much accepting that God did what he did, it's that there's unanswered questions with the faith. For example:

If God is all-knowing and pre-ordained everything, then how do we have free will?

How could God have come out of nothing?

If God is perfectly good and cannot participate in evil in any way, then how does evil exist?

I'm about to get quite the flaming aren't I?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There have been...and continue to be...intelligent people that accept we don't have all the answers and don't rule out God.Vax45

The problem isn't so much accepting that God did what he did, it's that there's unanswered questions with the faith. For example:

If God is all-knowing and pre-ordained everything, then how do we have free will?

How could God have come out of nothing?

If God is perfectly good and cannot participate in evil, then how does evil exist?

Always was...wasn't created. You have to ignore natural law as they didn't exist at the time.

Evil exists because people aren't perfectly good.