Leaving christianity, a bit of my story

[SteveII]

---

We are talking about your beliefs and your claim that "rationality won out". So you are making the claim that there is no evidence for God, not the much weaker position "I don't know". I am still curious how someone who was a Christian came to the conclusion that the NT was not evidence for God. I promise, I will not turn it into a 10 page debate on the NT.

Yes, but my point is that I don't see any evidence for christianity, which makes it irrational. That is simply my point, and answering it could be as simple as presenting some evidence to me.

You mention the New Testament. What specifically in those books would you present as evidence?

Jesus, miracles, rising from the dead...you know, the core of the NT. 

The reason I ask is that to deny the content of the NT is evidence for God, you have to have, at least, good reason to think the writers were mistaken or lying. There is no where near evidence for this especially for someone who already was a Christian and, by definition, did not have a bias against the existence of God. Are you simply dismissing the NT because it contained miracles and you think miracles in general don't happen?

[RozKek]

2. Why do you deny the NT is evidence for the existence of God? 

Why do you accept the NT as evidence for the existence of God? Your claim, you prove it. Why not accept the Qur'an? Surely you can present us with that unique thing the NT has that we can debunk together :>

[purplepurpose]

---

Yes, but my point is that I don't see any evidence for christianity, which makes it irrational. That is simply my point, and answering it could be as simple as presenting some evidence to me.

You mention the New Testament. What specifically in those books would you present as evidence?

Jesus, miracles, rising from the dead...you know, the core of the NT. 

The reason I ask is that to deny the content of the NT is evidence for God, you have to have, at least, good reason to think the writers were mistaken or lying. There is no where near evidence for this especially for someone who already was a Christian and, by definition, did not have a bias against the existence of God. Are you simply dismissing the NT because it contained miracles and you think miracles in general don't happen?

In my opinion each person accumulates different amount of faith. Maybe his faith evaporated completely by now.

I for example at the moment cannot not believe in Gods existence, even after abandoning my attempts to practice religion. 

I have met very nice religious people, which gave me faith that there gotta be something more than dead matter behind this world. Although now it doesnt matter, because Gods will has so much pain involved behind it, that it isnt worth it, in my opinion.

[Simon Moon]

---

Yes, but my point is that I don't see any evidence for christianity, which makes it irrational. That is simply my point, and answering it could be as simple as presenting some evidence to me.

You mention the New Testament. What specifically in those books would you present as evidence?

Jesus, miracles, rising from the dead...you know, the core of the NT. 

The reason I ask is that to deny the content of the NT is evidence for God, you have to have, at least, good reason to think the writers were mistaken or lying. There is no where near evidence for this especially for someone who already was a Christian and, by definition, did not have a bias against the existence of God. Are you simply dismissing the NT because it contained miracles and you think miracles in general don't happen?

The NT is the claim, not evidence.

Kind of curious why you don't understand that.

[Godscreated]

  I'm not playing your game, I asked an honest question and would like a honest answer.

GC

Well, alright, you can get one, but please don't disappoint my trust. Here are some of the reasons that I was a Christian:

1. I repented from my sins, very often, very sincerely.
2. I did my best to live a good life, to get rid of my sins and live according to gods will.
3. I actually believed in Jesus and that he had died for me sins, and I have accepted that.
4. I was baptized when I was 12, this was a very sincere choice at the time.
5. I dedicated my life to living for God, often requiring personal sacrifices. I was not ashamed of the gospel and spread it actively and I gave away my time and my money for his purpose.

I could give more, but I think this is enough for now.

 
 Okay I will accept those answers, I believe you thought you were sincere in what you believed. Now what you believed may have some serious problems.
1) If your belief was real then how is it you can deny God, if you truly believed and knew Him you couldn't deny His existence now could you?

2) If you were a Christian then according to scripture you would have known God is real, yes the Bible teaches one can know God because God promises to reveal himself to those who have a real belief in Him. Drich asked you if you ever asked God to reveal himself to you?

3) I do agree with Drich that you have used 'I' often in you belief. Were you not taught Biblical doctrine? First no one seeks God until He calls you. This calling is through the Holy Spirit, He convicts you of your sinful life and then gives you a understanding that you need God's forgiveness through Jesus and what He has done for your redemption. Then you will seek God and then decide to either accept or reject the gift offered to you by God through Jesus, you see you do not choose to find God, He invites you to be a part of His family, the only thing you do is accept the gift. Look at it this way, you were born of your parents, not a choice you made, then on your birthdays you are offered gifts for something you did not seek nor choose. You accept those gifts or you could reject them but then who does that, I openly accept gifts for my birthday even though I did nothing to come into this world. Same with salvation, you do not earn it because you can't. If God did not offer it you would not have the opportunity to accept the undeserved gift, same as the gifts for your birthday you did not do anything to deserve them. The great thing about salvation God gives you the gift at the same time you are reborn, no waiting for this one and it last forever. 

4) Some believe baptism is required to be saved, it's not, the thief on the cross that accepted Jesus while hanging there didn't get baptized. It is something the Holy Spirit will convict you to do, so you can through a physical representation show that you have accepted Christ, died to sin and are reborn (raised) into eternal life.

5) How did you know what God's will for you was? All Christians are called to live a life according to Christ teachings but there is a personal will God has for your life, Paul teaches us this using the physical body as an illustration. Do you have an idea what body part you would have been, careful how you answer tis question. 

6) You said you made personal sacrifice for God were they what you chose, because in all my experiences God chooses what you will give up in this life. If you decide to follow His will you will accept what He ask you to give up, again not your choice it's God's because He knows what's best for you, you accept what He knows is good for you and do God's personal will in your life and watch his choice come to pass as a good thing in your life.

7) Now if you were a Christian you would have had a personal relationship with God, He would have revealed himself to you as a real being interested in your life and because of this revelation you would not be able to deny God's reality. Once you are a Christian you will seek out more and more about who God is, if you do not then you should ask yourself did I really accept Christ as God's eternal gift.

GC

[Simon Moon]

Well, alright, you can get one, but please don't disappoint my trust. Here are some of the reasons that I was a Christian:

1. I repented from my sins, very often, very sincerely.
2. I did my best to live a good life, to get rid of my sins and live according to gods will.
3. I actually believed in Jesus and that he had died for me sins, and I have accepted that.
4. I was baptized when I was 12, this was a very sincere choice at the time.
5. I dedicated my life to living for God, often requiring personal sacrifices. I was not ashamed of the gospel and spread it actively and I gave away my time and my money for his purpose.

I could give more, but I think this is enough for now.

 
 Okay I will accept those answers, I believe you thought you were sincere in what you believed. Now what you believed may have some serious problems.
1) If your belief was real then how is it you can deny God, if you truly believed and knew Him you couldn't deny His existence now could you?

Because people can really believe in untrue things.

Having a real, sincere belief, does not say anything about whether what is believed in is true. 

2) If you were a Christian then according to scripture you would have known God is real, yes the Bible teaches one can know God because God promises to reveal himself to those who have a real belief in Him. Drich asked you if you ever asked God to reveal himself to you?

And Muslims believe the same thing about their god.

Yet, you believe they are mistaking. 

And here we are, as nonbelievers, looking at both your claims with no way to tell who is right. Or more likely, you are both wrong.

4) Some believe baptism is required to be saved, it's not, the thief on the cross that accepted Jesus while hanging there didn't get baptized. It is something the Holy Spirit will convict you to do, so you can through a physical representation show that you have accepted Christ, died to sin and are reborn (raised) into eternal life.


5) How did you know what God's will for you was? All Christians are called to live a life according to Christ teachings but there is a personal will God has for your life, Paul teaches us this using the physical body as an illustration. Do you have an idea what body part you would have been, careful how you answer tis question. 

6) You said you made personal sacrifice for God were they what you chose, because in all my experiences God chooses what you will give up in this life. If you decide to follow His will you will accept what He ask you to give up, again not your choice it's God's because He knows what's best for you, you accept what He knows is good for you and do God's personal will in your life and watch his choice come to pass as a good thing in your life.

Those are some great examples of unsupported claims. 

What do you have besides ancient texts to support them?

7) Now if you were a Christian you would have had a personal relationship with God, He would have revealed himself to you as a real being interested in your life and because of this revelation you would not be able to deny God's reality. Once you are a Christian you will seek out more and more about who God is, if you do not then you should ask yourself did I really accept Christ as God's eternal gift.

Or those that claim to have had experiences of their god "revealing himself" to them are misinterpreting some, other than normal, brain state as being a god.

Again, remember, many theists other than Christians claim to have had their gods reveal themselves.

[SteveII]

The NT is the claim, not evidence.

Kind of curious why you don't understand that.

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

[Simon Moon]

The NT is the claim, not evidence.

Kind of curious why you don't understand that.

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

I am fine with accepting descriptions of historical events in the NT that can also be verified from other sources. The NT does contain many such descriptions of historical events. 

It is the supernatural god claims that I am referring to as being the claim, not evidence, in the NT.

The fact that there are 27 documents is meaningless. I can point out hundreds of documents written by sincere honest people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does the number of books and articles written by "abductees" lend any credibility to their claims?

Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works.

And their were churches already in existence that believed the entire resurrection story did not occur on earth, but in a supernatural realm.

Your fallacious thinking is not doing you any favors.

[Lucifer]

The NT is the claim, not evidence.

Kind of curious why you don't understand that.

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

Well, you are on to something: using just historic texts is not enough to confirm whether something really happened, especially if they come from a source that can be expected to be biased (those in favour). If you would have a lot more texts about the same topic from people from different backgrounds, especially those who are not in favour of the religion, then you would have something a bit more interesting.


A lot of things in history are uncertain, because we only have a few texts on the topic. In general, it's: the further you go back in time, the more uncertain it becomes, and the fewer sources, and the less diverse the sources (the more they are likely to be biased), the more uncertainty.

[robvalue]

If you're going to be making actual life decisions based on the truth of a historical event, I'd have thought you'd want some pretty compelling evidence.

What difference it makes if a dude came back from the dead or not though, I don't know. Good for him I guess. It's a pretty meek claim compared with the rest of the bible.