Recently started watching a Netflix documentary about Mormonism and how (at least up to this point) the church seemed to be going to any and all means to stop documentation from getting out that, they think, would totally uproot their belief system (though I haven't finished it yet).
So, what would it take, for you, to disavow your religion and religious belief?
Documentation from writers of that time period?
Documentation from current high up leaders?
Testimony of how it's a farce from those who spent the majority of their lives in it, finally seeing their own light?
Science?
Data?
Another, more believable religion?
For those of us who are in the 'been-there-done-that-bought-the-t-shirt' crowd, what was it that caused you to change?
What would it take for you?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #81Coming at it from the other way, the single most compelling fact for me, is that Jesus' apostles, teaching that He rose from the grave, walked and ate with them for a time, were willing to suffer torture and death, rather than recant their beliefs.
Evidence that these men didn't exist, or that none of them were willing to suffer martyrdom would go a long way toward shaking my faith in Christianity.
Edit: Now, in the case of Muhammad, this applies. But of course, he was never tested the way the Apostles were. He certainly did risk his life to spread the message, but he was not put to the ultimate test. He could be a fraud, but on the balance I think he was not. Did he, an imperfect human, fail to understand everything that the Angel Gabriel was said to have told him? Maybe so. There is much that is good and holy in what Muhammad had to say. But the notion of a militarily victorious human theocracy seems at odds with an ethical religion. In all fairness, it seems that was not an initial teaching of Muhammad, and came about later. And it fit the early ideas of the Hebrews as they violently seized the land they were promised by Moses. We all have access to God, if we seek it, but we might not get it right in places. But by Jesus' time, most of them seemed to have figured it was best to leave that kind of thing to God. Hence His reception among the poor and powerless, to whom He directed his ministry.
Evidence that these men didn't exist, or that none of them were willing to suffer martyrdom would go a long way toward shaking my faith in Christianity.
No. There's a huge difference between believing and witnessing. Lots of people are willing to die for things they don't know, but believe. On the other hand, there are only two possibilities for the Apostles. They either saw Jesus die on the cross, and later return from the dead to walk with them, eat with them, and talk with them, or they didn't. The fact that they were willing to face torture and death rather than recant, is very strong evidence that they did see Him return from death to be with them again.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:02 pm Yet we have Islamists who are not only willing to die for their beliefs, but do so without being tortured. Supposedly, they choose death to further their cause, rather than simply just be willing to die if they don't recant their beliefs.
This seems to point to Islam as the stronger choice doesn't it?
Edit: Now, in the case of Muhammad, this applies. But of course, he was never tested the way the Apostles were. He certainly did risk his life to spread the message, but he was not put to the ultimate test. He could be a fraud, but on the balance I think he was not. Did he, an imperfect human, fail to understand everything that the Angel Gabriel was said to have told him? Maybe so. There is much that is good and holy in what Muhammad had to say. But the notion of a militarily victorious human theocracy seems at odds with an ethical religion. In all fairness, it seems that was not an initial teaching of Muhammad, and came about later. And it fit the early ideas of the Hebrews as they violently seized the land they were promised by Moses. We all have access to God, if we seek it, but we might not get it right in places. But by Jesus' time, most of them seemed to have figured it was best to leave that kind of thing to God. Hence His reception among the poor and powerless, to whom He directed his ministry.
Belief is one thing. Witness is quite another. If the Apostles were perpetrating a fraud concerning His resurrection, I doubt very much that they'd be willing to die for it.I personally find this completely uncompelling simply due to the fact that we have evidence that more than one faith has martyrs.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #82Precisely. The words "sunrise" and "sunset" could be explained as describing how the sun appears to be moving to those on planet earth, but the phrase "hurry back to where it rises" reveals a clear belief on the author's part that the sun revolves around the earth.brunumb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:58 amThe words do not scientifically describe the mechanism behind the observations we make.JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:43 am You can pretend that planetary science does not recognise the existence of sunsets/sunrises ... but it does.
And the sun does not "hurry back to where it rises"!
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #83If the apostles, or other devotees of Christianity, perpetrated a fraud concerning the resurrection, it wouldn't be hard to perpetrate a further fraud concerning the deaths of the apostles.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:16 pm If the Apostles were perpetrating a fraud concerning His resurrection, I doubt very much that they'd be willing to die for it.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #84And that, if confirmed, would shake my confidence in Christianity.Tcg wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:22 pmIf the apostles, or other devotees of Christianity, perpetrated a fraud concerning the resurrection, it wouldn't be hard to perpetrate a further fraud concerning the deaths of the apostles.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:16 pm If the Apostles were perpetrating a fraud concerning His resurrection, I doubt very much that they'd be willing to die for it.
Tcg
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #85Yes, let's check what NASA says on the subject at hand:JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:43 amSo does NASA ....
source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... her-worlds
You can pretend that planetary science does not recognise the existence of sunsets/sunrises ... but it does.
JW
What a strange series of events if the Bible teaches heliocentricity. Additionally, you failed to point out where NASA uses the phrase, "and hurries back to where it rises" in reference to the sun.
Planetary Motion: The History of an Idea That Launched the Scientific Revolution
For nearly 1,000 years, Aristotle’s view of a stationary Earth at the center of a revolving universe dominated natural philosophy, the name that scholars of the time used for studies of the physical world. A geocentric worldview became engrained in Christian theology, making it a doctrine of religion as much as natural philosophy. Despite that, it was a priest who brought back the idea that the Earth moves around the Sun.
In 1515, a Polish priest named Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the Earth was a planet like Venus or Saturn, and that all planets circled the Sun. Afraid of criticism (some scholars think Copernicus was more concerned about scientific shortcomings of his theories than he was about the Church’s disapproval), he did not publish his theory until 1543, shortly before his death. The theory gathered few followers, and for a time, some of those who did give credence to the idea faced charges of heresy. Italian scientist Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching, among other heretical ideas, Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the Universe.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu ... itsHistory
<bolding mine>
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #86Just remember, this is an example of me being 100% on your side... precisely because language is so imprecise. I'm also giving the Bible credit for a hit rather than a miss on "The Waters Above" even if this still intends to describe part of our plane of existence, because what on earth (lol) would you call space if you didn't have a word for space? Stuff floats around in it, so maybe you'd call it water. Yeah, that's a hit.
We say things are moving when they move relative to us, and that's not even technically incorrect.
A lot of people on this forum are well above average. We have a collection of agnostics and atheists (which correlates with intelligence) and a few religious people smart enough to rise to meet that challenge. We also have the nigh-universal (at least in the Western world) benefit of a good education, and we're armed with knowledge of the thermodynamic impossibility of water simply disappearing, or, lacking the sort of thing that goes on in the centre of a star, its basic elements of hydrogen and oxygen changing into something else entirely. For all they knew water was created in the clouds and some of it somehow changed into sand, keeping the water level consistent.brunumb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:21 amThe science is not in the observation but in the explanation. It's not hard for people to observe that rivers run into the sea and the sea level doesn't rise. Contemplation of this observation can easily lead to the conclusion that the water somehow is removed and must go back to where it started.
We take the knowledge we have for granted. Lacking our knowledge and ability, I call that hit a fairly neatly-pinned donkey tail.
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #87Emphasis MINE
Exactly. Now if you apply this SAME the basic common sense linguistic principle that you have just verbalised without discrimination, to the second part of the scripture, you will, I suspect see that there is nothing problematic in Ecclesiastes 1:5b.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #88This is clearly CGI. Look at the hand. LOOK AT IT. It's not even holding the bun, because the bun's position had to be changed to accommodate the extra patty. THE HAND IS HOLDING THE REAL BUN, WHICH HOLDS ONE PATTY, NOT TWO! You call yourself a sceptic, really?! And you post such an obviously fake, impossible image of a Filet of Fish with TWO fish patties, when most of them don't even have ONE?! What's next, oreos with DOUBLE THE FILLING????!!!! What sorts of fools and credulous babes do you take us for? Such things exist only in the hottest fever-dreams of the maddest madmen.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
I just don't see where you have any grounds left to doubt that Moses parted the sea or that Jesus walked on water or that you can walk into Heaven at the Utter East where the waves grow sweet out near the Rim of the World.
When you want to get this technical and nitpicky...
...you've got to apply it universally.
...Which leads to chaos because when we hold each other to a greater precision than exists in our language, nobody can communicate with one another.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #89The claim however is that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. Pretending for a moment that God actually existed, it would certainly have a perspective that would be drastically different than someone living in the Ancient Near East. Instead when we read the Bible, we find that this God has the same drastically limited outlook as one living in the Ancient Near East. That God has the same perspective and therefore also believes that the sun revolves around the earth.Purple Knight wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:32 pm
We say things are moving when they move relative to us, and that's not even technically incorrect.
It took humans many centuries to rid themselves of this false view. Sadly, God still hasn't caught on.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #90The claim is that the Bible was divinely inspired, not that it wasn't written by people who have many of the same linguistic limitations as we do, which is why it's tough to be fair and expect more of them than we do of NASA.Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:41 amThe claim however is that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. Pretending for a moment that God actually existed, it would certainly have a perspective that would be drastically different than someone living in the Ancient Near East. Instead when we read the Bible, we find that this God has the same drastically limited outlook as one living in the Ancient Near East.