From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[Esquilax]

Could you quote the exact text that is supposed to be an iteration of the golden rule? I would like to know exactly what you're talking about so we can examine the evidence.

I provided a link in my last post: did you not see it? In it, there was a list of several quotations of the golden rule that predate Jesus.

Also, Confucius was preceded by Moses and the Old Testament by 900 years, which is what I am claiming is the original source of the golden rule.

Right, but Christianity didn't get to China until the eighth century, after Confucius had died, which means he couldn't possibly have been inspired by the old testament when he said that, putting the lie to your claim that the teachings of christianity are so unique and wonderful as to be divinely inspired, because no mortal could have thought of them. Mortals did, and they did it without help from your god.

Okay, I accept what you're saying. Could you please give some specific examples of what you're talking about, showing how the various aspects of His story is simply patchwork from other cultures? You're making that claim so I would like to see what evidence you are using.

I did that a few posts ago too: the concept of the dying and rising god, or even just the dying and rising protagonist, is a common narrative trope that was employed by numerous old gods. Baal, Baldur, Istar, Dionysus... numerous gods go through this, though Jesus is notable as being one of the few reported to actually be extant on earth after death. Wine as a symbolic instrument is notable in Dionysus' story too, and the idea of gods coming to earth in mortal aspects can be seen at the very least in Zeus' mythology.

If they interpreted the results through Gods word they would not be confused, which is the point; God has given us instructions which allow us to correctly interpret the results. What scripture tells us is that God arranges things so that those who are following Him will see the truth whereas those who do not will be confounded.

So the christians and their unselfish prayers weren't following god correctly because they... expected to see results? Of the prayers that you have said in the past would yield a result.

Tell me, other than the fact that these prayers were conducted in such a way that their potential failure could be publicized with more weight than you christians could brush off with platitudes, what was it that these praying folks did to deserve not getting an answer?

You aren't ever going to believe God exists unless He reveals Himself to you, and you are praying to ask God to give you that revelation. You are assuming I think that God could never give you confirmation in a way that you would unmistakably recognize as being from Him.

My problem is that you then go on to say that if my prayer is unanswered, that too is god's will: you've set up a demonstration in which you believe god can be shown to exist, and then configured it so that no matter the result, or even if there's no result, the existence of your god is the only answer you'll accept.

You've proposed an unfalsifiable test, is what I'm saying.

It was suggested that what I interpreted to be reality was not sufficient, so my question was, how does anyone know it is sufficient without using circular logic? Are you saying that isn't a valid question?

It's not a valid question if you're willing to string it out to perception, because that's just a way to make your beliefs unassailable. Maybe you just fell victim to having a strikingly similar argument to the one Sye Ten Bruggencate would use, but the point is that at a certain level, what we've got to deal with is confirmation and corroboration: the commonalities between our shared perceptions, the things we both experience? Those can be said to be verified. The physical objects that look, smell, sound and feel like they should if they physically existed? Same deal. When you ask us if our perception could be faulty, we know it is, in part. That's why we don't always trust the things we experience exclusively; police continue investigating crimes beyond the testimony of their first witness, for example. But when you try to extend that out, to imply that multiple people corroborating the same events could be mistaken, simply because they're using their perception and that might be false, you enter into useless territory: we only have the sensory apparatuses of ourselves and others. There's no other method by which we can experience the world.

I think we all have to make presuppositions. I presuppose it is valid because my Creator has given me the faculties to know and recognize Him. My presupposition is that God is a rational being who wants to communicate with His creatures.

Yeah, the moment you start presupposing anything, beyond very basic axioms, you've discarded rational discourse.