I agree with this. As long as we can agree that it is illogical to either refuse or accept prayer outright, we need go no further with this particular point.
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?"
That particular point. There are Christians that would say that but I don't think I was talking about that. And to be honest...I don't remember the start of the conversation.
No, not that - the claim that a Christian isn't going to have a Christian perspective or bias, and that a person will not be more open to ideas that support current beliefs than to those which do not. This isn't about the specific effects or the intent of prayer, but rather about the way one can expect the majority of people in a certain group to react to a situation. If someone has a serious illness, prays for health, and gets better, Christians are more likley to assume that it is an example of an answered prayer than to assume that the person is lucky and that his body managed to overcome the illness.
Well I hate to brand any group with generalizations. As for prayer..it's not necessarily an outward sign that makes one feel they were answered.
Of course the conversion is for oneself. But I'm not addressing 'who.' I'm addressing 'why.' There will always be a reason that one abandons his current unproven beliefs for different unproven beliefs. And you must agree that it is far more likely for a person to resist competing beliefs than to embrace them, especially as they enter adulthood and have formed their opinions. Most Christians will not become Muslims. And most Buddhists won't become Christians. People don't change easily. They don't give up their beliefs easily. Those that do are the exception, not the rule.
But you said converting for another. I take exception to this. To have faith one does have to examine it and look at it from both sides of the equation and then see if one does indeed have faith. It seems some atheists don't understand how one can examine religion as they did and come up with the opposite answer.
Those who are raised religious and become atheist or agnostic do so through dismissal of their religion, so they're not really 'converting' to agnosticism or atheism. They're just deciding that their previously-held religious beliefs weren't true. And though the practices of Muslims and Christians are quite different, there are very important similarities between the faiths on the points that really matter - God and the afterlife. Those two things are incredibly important, because they are what provide the person with the comfort and answers they seek. When you get right down to it, these religions are all about suggesting the proper way for a person to live to get to Heaven and avoid Hell. The 'how' is very different, but the 'what' - the goal - is the same.
I used the word convert for convenience...but you got the meaning. From the outside I can understand a non Christian thinking they were similar enough...but for a Christian...they aren't.
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.
:lol:
Fair enough... but forced to make a wager, is probability on the side of the interpersonal relationship or the online relationship? In my experience, relationships can begin online, but they will never develop as far as they can be developed on an interpersonal basis. So meeting someone online can be the start of a relationship, but unless you eventually move to an interpersonal relationship, it isn't going to stand much of a chance of lasting in the way that about half of the marriages do. 50% may not be a great success rate, but it's better than less than 50%. A couple that remains a couple for their entire lives using only online communication would be quite remarkable indeed.
But with Christianity etc....you aren't alone forever either. You do get to know your God...whatever faith you practice.
I understand... but by the same token, I know that it is very easy for people to convince themselves that their own thoughts are coming from an external influence. That may or may not be the case. If you form a relationship with God, it may well be you that is constructing God using your imagination and a codified set of rules that you learn in religious study. And it could very well be nothing more than that.
And the flipside can be true as well. One can convince themselves that nothing exists except as we know it.
When I refer to remaining hidden, I'm referring to the inability to answer this question conclusively. We don't KNOW for certain that the God with whom we communicate in our heads is real or conjured up by our imagination, because we have no physical evidence of God. It's interesting, really, that God was not at all shy to show Himself in the Old Testament. On numerous occasions, He would come down from Heaven and interact with humans. And that's the logical way of going about things if you want everybody to believe you're real. It doesn't make any sense at all that He no longer comes down to pay us a direct, tangible, and irrefutable visit. It would make a believer out of countless people who are currently Hell-bound.
It's a bit different. But not easily explained to another. Hard to say that they will remain non believers all their life. Perhpas so...but again...Heaven means with God. Hell...is without. If one is an atheist...and believes that ideology then one would choose to go where God was not because to want to be with God would mean one was not an atheist...no?
Ah, but we're not talking about God here, are we? We're talking about the way humans develop relationships. That's why I said it really doesn't matter if you're dealing with God, or another human, or a flying chimp - if you're trying to develop a relationship with a human, you need to account for human tendencies in forming relationships. Humans have a tendency to be skeptical of extraordinary claims that can not be proven, and they tend to be skeptical of people they don't know. You never tell a person to become more sociable by hiding in his mom's basement writing on forums. You tell him to get out there and interact with people, because that's how people form meaningful relationships.
Well the development of the relationship is different. The purpose is not physical contact...though if one is happy and able to function at school/work then if they wish to waste time in mom's basement...more power to them.
It matters not if God is felt by those who already believe. The people He needs to reach are those who don't believe because they have no reason to believe. They'd have a perfectly valid reason to believe if there was no doubt that He was real.
Yes...and people do continue to convert.
As for experience, I do have religious friends, I did spend three years of my life as a regular church-goer, and I have had a Christian girlfriend. I've also read the Bible several times... though it's been a while. So I'm not a total newb when it comes to religion. And I can tell you that I really did want to become a Christian, because my first relationship would probably have led to marriage if I had. But I could not overcome my nagging doubts about the beliefs. I did pray, and I did talk to God, but the more I did it, the more I became convinced that the conversations were my own creation. That's rather disheartening.
Indeed...could have been insecurity making you feel that. Humans can create positive or negative reactions to "God" in their mind.
I still agree with many of the teachings of Christianity, but I do not believe in the supernatural aspect of the faith. If there is a god, I find it unlikely that any human religion has described it as it is. To be quite blunt, I just don't think we're as important as we think we are in the grand scheme of things - whether in a deity-induced universe or one created by natural processes.
That doesn't depress you?
The reasons for believing in the supernatural are the same reasons for believing in the religion that describes them. So I do think there are reasons to believe in the supernatural - I just question those reasons.
Yet the reason can be because the person simply believes it to be true without any ulterior motive.
Hell is described as a much more hellish experience than the simple absence of God. It involves torture at the hands of Satan, a lake of fire, gnashing of teeth, and so forth... if you are to believe Jesus was telling the truth about it. Eternal suffering IS punishment for failure to believe, even if not stated in exactly those terms. The impossibility of reconciliation just makes it worse. Apparently, there's no learning from your mistakes going on here.
He mentioned the fires once that I recall. But most of His teachings were about how to find God and how to live life. More positive than not. I suppose it matters which denomination one ascribes to as some are a bit more hell and brimstone.
It is important, because God is also supernatural. But don't mistake me - I'm not claiming that God definitely doesn't exist because the supernatural cause of disease was disproven. What I'm claiming is that it's entirely possible that God doesn't exist, and that anything that has an inexplicable cause that is attributed to the supernatural may not be supernatural.
Which means that one can neither say factually that prayer does or does not work. We have no proof and with all things faith...none forthcoming.
This is a supplement to the previous point. If we accept that we were wrong about the supernatural cause of illness, then we may also be wrong about the supernatural claims regarding God and the divinity of Jesus. And it will remain that way until we find conclusive proof to support God or the divinity of Jesus. So it does back up my claim... which is that you do not know if the supernatural aspect of Christianity is true or not.
Well in all the so called religion debates I've posted in...I've never presented an absolute/factual argument. I'm not that dense.
And what do these people do? They ignore the lack of evidence for Christianity, they ignore the countless other equally unprovable possibilities in favour of Christianity, and they develop a Christian outlook on the world. As for the reason, that we've addressed earlier in this post. As you said, people will do it for themselves. So they must believe that the unproven beliefs to which they're migrating have more truth to them than the ones from which they're coming. Just keep this in mind - just because a person thinks something is more valid does not make it so. What one person sees as evidence may well be nothing more than coincidence or nature at work.
They came to a conclusion different than yours is what I think they did.....you know...contrary to popular OT opinion....Christians do debate within themselves about their beleifs. They either accept them and become stronger Christians...or reject them. But they do not take the decision lightly.
I'm not sure how conversions disprove what I wrote there. This was about my apparently unfounded assumption that the three things I listed above need to happen for a person to become Christian... does it really matter where the person's coming from? They still need to do those three things to become 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!
Personal incidents which would impress no one else. And not because I wanted to believe it so.
Skeptical agnosticsm. :P And yes, I feel it's the only logical position to take in this debate until we have conclusive proof that a certain religion is true. Simply put, if you can't prove either side of an argument, you shouldn't take a side. But because the burden of proof is on the claimant, you will be more in line with the person who denies the claim than the one who makes the claim until he can offer evidence to support the claim. Thus, skepticism.
As long as one isn't trying to make factual arguments I have no problem with their belief set.
And I'm saying that if it were really easier, far more people would believe in it. Clearly, it's not easier to believe in nothingness than it is to believe in eternal life, regardless of what hoops you may have to jump through to achieve eternal life. It's been that way probably almost as long as humans have had religion. Understandably, we're not big fans of our mortality. For the record, people who believe in nothingness don't necessarily enjoy it. I don't like the idea of not existing - but without sufficient evidence to support any other theory about what happens to me when I die, I suspect that's what's going to happen. And people who believe in nothingness don't necessarily do it just to escape consequences for their actions. I consider myself a moral individual. I don't believe in nothingness simply so that I can kill someone I don't like without eternal consequneces.
Well I believe the opposite. Not having to exist would be easier than wondering if you did it right.
Haha... yes, but WHY do they believe it is correct, or that God exists? Does a person have an instinct to believe in God? If not, he must actively choose to believe in God, and there has to be a reason for him to believe God is real. Are you going to believe in a God that promises you death and slavery? Or do you choose the God that promises you eternal life if you follow certain guidelines, and which has a plan for and an active interest in your destiny and well-being? Simply put, if a religion or a god does not offer something to a person, he's likely not going to believe in it. But ironically, that may very well be what our god is if it exists - something that is completely disinterested in us and offers us nothing other than existence.
Perhaps...but ascribing to Christianity gives some insight. Of course if you choose not to believe then it does nothing for you.
You've subtly passed over all the questions I posed in that block of text. I think they're extremely important questions to answer when addressing the issue of religion, particularly why people become religious. And it's awfully important to note that many religions that had no contact with each other ended up serving the same common purposes when it came to facing death, explaining disasters, providing security, and so forth. Saying people just believe in God is indeed simple and accurate, but it misses the point... unless you think people develop random beliefs for no good reason.
Yes...well the block of text is huge and I may have missed some things. I have a habit of answering too quickly. I believe that at the root all religions somewhat are on the right path. IE....a Force not of this world.
Yes... but it's not death people fear so much as what happens after that. Religion has the answer... and it just happens to be the one that most people want to hear. Religion addresses our deepest fears, and even if it's untrue, it addresses them far better than the rather cruel natural world does. It's no wonder it's such a popular concept for humanity. And again... how many religions do you know of that advocate a depressed, gloomy outlook on life and suggest you have nothing to look forward to but nothingness when you die? Certainly this does not describe the majority of religions, and most certainly doesn't describe the ones that have become most popular. Religions that do nothing to quell our fears have little to offer.
Nothing is nothing. You won't know.....is that harder to fear than the fact that you may have displeased a powerful Entity?
Hmm... actually I think it's plainly obvious that many people put a great deal of thought into their faith. How else do you defend it against attacks from those who don't share your beliefs? I don't understand how a person can develop any world view without thought... I'm not even sure it's possible. This doesn't discount what I have observed, though. People are predisposed to see what they want to see when it comes to inconclusive evidence. If it supports their world view, they'll accept it. If it doesn't, they'll label it inconclusive. Sometimes, so much evidence piles up against your position that you can't cling to it any longer, but by and large, people like to stick with their current beliefs and search for evidence already knowing what their answer is, rather than searching for evidence to develop an answer.
pianist
You know I tried to stack the evidence against my beliefs to see what I thought about the what if I was wrong. Came to the conclusion I wasn't.
Log in to comment