In scrolling back through some of the exchanges here with Mystic and others, I wonder why we find this overwhelming need to judge people who don't believe as we do. I remember arguing with theists when I first came to this site, and thinking back...why did I do that? In some ways, I justified it all by saying I was trying to 'help' them, but was I? Maybe. Same can be said about theists. I merely share experiences that I've had that led me back to faith, nothing more or less. Not my place to tell someone...'you haven't sought the truth hard enough.' Truth is, I wasn't seeking anything when this experience happened, which I why I feel it actually happened. As far fetched as it rationally sounds, I was very indifferent to the idea of Jesus, Christianity, religion, spirituality. Perhaps, I was agnostic, more than anything when this experience happened, but just the same...I certainly wasn't seeking anything. About six months ago, I remember talking with a friend and said ''why can't God just reveal Himself to us?'' She's an atheist, and said...''yea, why can't God do that?'' We laughed, and went on with our day...

To me, there needn't be this tension that exists between theists and atheists...only in so much, as both sides are amicable. I do think that there are religious zealots in the world who are out to hurt others, using their religion as their excuses to do so. Of course, that is a dangerous side to religion, but in all honesty, psychopaths don't need a religion to carry out their deeds, I happen to think that if ISIS weren't trying to get people to see that their version of Islam is the right one, they'd be carrying out a different quest, perhaps in the name of something else entirely. Psychopaths are gonna psychopath.

Anyway, just wanted to insert these thoughts, here.

Sure

I'm not upset or agitated that people believe differently to me. All I try to do is encourage people to think. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, or to change their beliefs to suit me.

I'm anti-harm, not anti-religion.

(January 2, 2016 at 2:56 pm)robvalue Wrote: Sure

I'm not upset or agitated that people believe differently to me. All I try to do is encourage people to think. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, or to change their beliefs to suit me.

I'm anti-harm, not anti-religion.

Amen to this.

(January 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: The difference is that MK keeps trying to make out there is something wrong with us for not believing what he says. You're happy to accept sceptics simply need their own evidence to examine.

Just saw this post lol Okay, I see. In all honesty, many theists/believers need evidence too, but perhaps with faith, we are willing to accept that not all things have a scientific or objectively logical reason behind them. I'd imagine if a deity could be proven, it would need to be able to fit into a very small controlled environment in order to be tested. Which isn't entirely logical, either lol 

(January 1, 2016 at 9:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(January 1, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: With family for the evening and haven't had a chance to read all the posts, so sorry if this has already been addressed - just curious to know, what made you want to come back to Christianity?

Welcome back to the dark side, btw. ;-)

but even if I apply Occam's Razor to it, I believe it was spiritual as to what happened.

I know I'm kind of butting in, but this sentence fragment baffles me absolutely. Pretty much every other possible explanation for an event has less causes that the supernatural explanation. Supernatural fails Ockham's Razor every single time, simply because you are positing things from outside nature for the causes of natural events.

Now I can't give you specific examples because I don't know what changed your mind, but I can be quite certain that whatever you experienced, you haven't examined critically.

I don't know why, but I think "you gotta have faith" is super creepy. It's intellectual death. God damn, if I'm going to believe in something I do so because I think have strong enough evidence. I'd honestly would prefer people arguing god exists because they saw Jesus in their swimming pool, over people believing just cuz faith. I'm sorry if this comes out harsher than I mean it to.

(January 2, 2016 at 3:46 pm)Pizza Wrote: I don't know why, but I think "you gotta have faith" is super creepy. It's intellectual death. God damn, if I'm going to believe in something I do so because I think have strong enough evidence. I'd honestly would prefer people arguing god exists because they saw Jesus in their swimming pool, over people believing just cuz faith. I'm sorry if this comes out harsher than I mean it to.

I used to be a 'just cuz faith' person, then deconverted, then had a faith experience, and now...I'm not a 'just cuz faith' person. I'm more of a believer now, because I've had an experience. In all things, it's not just enough to take other people's words for it, which religion is often proposing. All religions rest on people having faith that the stories they are reading really happened once upon a time. But, to experience something, and to have it change your outlook and life, and so on...that compels me more to view it as not mere coincidence, and shake it off. But, to each their own. lol

(January 2, 2016 at 3:43 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(January 1, 2016 at 9:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: but even if I apply Occam's Razor to it, I believe it was spiritual as to what happened.

I know I'm kind of butting in, but this sentence fragment baffles me absolutely. Pretty much every other possible explanation for an event has less causes that the supernatural explanation. Supernatural fails Ockham's Razor every single time, simply because you are positing things from outside nature for the causes of natural events.

Now I can't give you specific examples because I don't know what changed your mind, but I can be quite certain that whatever you experienced, you haven't examined critically.

Understandable. lol I will say, with one of the experiences that happened after the initial one, there was a coworker who was present when it happened. He tried to explain it away, but he too was dumbfounded. It seemed real to me.

I'll say though, I'm grateful that I migrated away from religion for a few years, and identified as an atheist, because it helped me to think more critically, and not to say that cradle theists don't think critically, but when you have been taught since childhood to view life as 'this,' and to view God as 'this,' you have a hard time thinking for yourself, outside of those parameters. Being an atheist for a time helped me develop a more critical thinking nature. This doesn't mean that cradle theists are not capable of thinking critically or they are 'stupid,' etc...but it means that indoctrination can cause a person to be fearful to question.

The real problems with supernatural proof are as follows:

-People from different religions have all claimed supernatural proof of their deity. In this topic we have a Muslim and a Christian both claiming supernatural evidence. Both can't be right. And then we have people who've experienced supernatural proof of Hinduism. And then several other religions too. This is a major problem because religion requires you to live your life a certain way for god. And these religions (no matter how much they share in common, or how little) have major differences in what they allow and what they do not allow.

-The holy texts from these gods are all full of nonsense. And they all have one thing in common: Their gods were very similar to the people who wrote them.

Deists would have a better time arguing supernatural proof than Christians/Muslims/Hindu/Etc... because they don't also have to defend any ancient text that was apparently written by god, but reads like it was written by primitive people (or in the case of Happyology, a science fiction writer)

(January 2, 2016 at 3:24 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(January 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: The difference is that MK keeps trying to make out there is something wrong with us for not believing what he says. You're happy to accept sceptics simply need their own evidence to examine.

Just saw this post lol Okay, I see. In all honesty, many theists/believers need evidence too, but perhaps with faith, we are willing to accept that not all things have a scientific or objectively logical reason behind them. I'd imagine if a deity could be proven, it would need to be able to fit into a very small controlled environment in order to be tested. Which isn't entirely logical, either lol 

Well, I think theists generally have a very different idea of what "evidence" is to sceptics. But it's not for me to tell people what is and isn't good enough evidence for them to believe something. It only irks me when someone tells me I should accept their conclusions are definitely true, based on their experiences, which I cannot examine for myself in any shape or form. You don't strike me as someone who would do that.

If I don't agree with MK's conclusions, then I'm told I'm being affected by a demon or dark forces.