A question to former Christians.

[Realworldjack]

I would simply like to ask any former Christians, (especially those who may have truly embraced Christianity) what was it that caused you to believe Christianity to be true?

[Realworldjack]

However, the fact of the matter is, there are millions, upon millions, who hold a different opinion.

Even if a million people believe a false thing, it is still a false thing.

You are correct. There are millions, of people who believe, and have believed Christianity to be true, and there are millions of folks who believe Christianity to be false. Your problem is the fact that you have not demonstrated which of the millions "believe a false thing", which would remain to be false, even though these millions continue to believe as they do.

[Realworldjack]

There are those who like to make such comparisons as beliefs such as Santa, and the Easter Bunny to Christianity, because it does not take much thinking to simply make such comparisons.

My comparison was not between the beliefs themselves but how they were acquired. Please read what I actually said, not what others may have said.

So then, are you admitting there would be no comparison between the beliefs? In other words, are you giving more credence to the belief in Christianity, as opposed to belief in Santa, or the Eater Bunny? But the fact of the matter is, it does not matter either way. Because you see, in the end it really does not matter as to how one arrives to what they believe as far as the truth is concerned, because what they believe would be true, or false, no matter how they have arrived to what they believe. You know like, "Even if a million people believe a false thing, it is still a false thing", in the same way, if something is true, it is still true no matter how many millions of people have used faulty reasoning to arrive to the conclusion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #22]

And yet you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true. If you absolve yourself of the burden of proof then what is the purpose of your arguments?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #22]

And yet you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true. If you absolve yourself of the burden of proof then what is the purpose of your arguments?

The purpose of my arguments is to demonstrate that there are very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe as I do. Of course there are many of these facts, evidence, and reasons which support what it is I happen to believe, but we do not have the time, or the space to address all of them, because it is a fact that there have been book volumes devoted to such things. Therefore, allow us to just take the simplest of the facts, evidence, and reasons.

It is a fact which cannot be denied that, we have the reports of a resurrection by not one, but five different authors. Now, you have a number of different options here which I can think of, and there could possibly be more that I have not thought of, and you feel free to add these other options if you have them. You can suggest all these reports would be lies. You can suggest all these authors were mistaken. You can suggest they all may have been deceived in some sort of way. However, whatever option you take, even if you add one of your own, you cannot deny the fact that we have the reports, and I highly doubt, and in fact am extremely certain that you cannot "demonstrate" what it is you happen to believe concerning these reports.

So then, unless you can "demonstrate" where I am in error here, then it seems we are in the same boat in that we both have certain beliefs concerning these claims, which neither of us can "demonstrate". If you are not going to make absolute claims about what the truth would be concerning these claims, then are you "absolving yourself of the burden of proof"? Or, are you simply facing the facts as they are, which is the fact that you have no way to demonstrate what it is you happened to believe concerning these claims?

[Tcg]

The purpose of my arguments is to demonstrate that there are very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe as I do.

None of this is presented in your O.P. This appears to be more of a bait and switch kind of a thread. Odd that you'd need to take that approach given your above claim.


Tcg

[Realworldjack]

The purpose of my arguments is to demonstrate that there are very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe as I do.

None of this is presented in your O.P. This appears to be more of a bait and switch kind of a thread. Odd that you'd need to take that approach given your above claim.


Tcg

The OP simply asked former Christians the question, "what was it that caused you to believe Christianity to be true"? So then, how would this be a "bait and switch" of the OP, when I was simply attempting to respond to the objection of another poster? In other words this response to the poster I am responding to, had nothing to do with the OP. Should I ignore anything that is not dealing with the OP?

Next, there is indeed facts, evidence, and reasons to support the belief I happen to hold. It is a fact which cannot be denied that, we have the reports of a resurrection by not one, but five different authors. Now, you have a number of different options here which I can think of, and there could possibly be more that I have not thought of, and you feel free to add these other options if you have them. You can suggest all these reports would be lies. You can suggest all these authors were mistaken. You can suggest they all may have been deceived in some sort of way. However, whatever option you take, even if you add one of your own, you cannot deny the fact that we have the reports, and I highly doubt, and in fact am extremely certain that you cannot "demonstrate" what it is you happen to believe concerning these reports.

So then, unless you can "demonstrate" where I am in error here, then it seems we are in the same boat in that we both have certain beliefs concerning these claims, which neither of us can "demonstrate". If you are not going to make absolute claims about what the truth would be concerning these claims, then are you "absolving yourself of the burden of proof"? Or, are you simply facing the facts as they are, which is the fact that you have no way to demonstrate what it is you happened to believe concerning these claims?

[brunumb]

The purpose of my arguments is to demonstrate that there are very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe as I do.

Let's just pause there. If facts and evidence are your thing, then consider the mountains of it that leads inexorably to the following conclusions:
Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago from stellar debris.
All life evolved from ancient ancestors over billions of years.
Modern humans go back about 200 000 years and did not co-exist with dinosaurs.
There was no original couple, Adam and Eve, from which all humans descended.
There was no biblical global flood.
Etc.

If you find the facts and evidence in support of all that uncompelling, then you should understand how non-believers regard the facts and evidence you claim support the truth of Christianity. If you don't, then perhaps it is confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance that is standing in the way. By the way, all the facts and evidence supporting the above are readily accessible and available for scrutiny and testing. Sadly, biblical claims are not. We don't even have any of the original manuscripts.

[Realworldjack]

The purpose of my arguments is to demonstrate that there are very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe as I do.

Let's just pause there. If facts and evidence are your thing, then consider the mountains of it that leads inexorably to the following conclusions:
Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago from stellar debris.
All life evolved from ancient ancestors over billions of years.
Modern humans go back about 200 000 years and did not co-exist with dinosaurs.
There was no original couple, Adam and Eve, from which all humans descended.
There was no biblical global flood.
Etc.

If you find the facts and evidence in support of all that uncompelling, then you should understand how non-believers regard the facts and evidence you claim support the truth of Christianity. If you don't, then perhaps it is confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance that is standing in the way. By the way, all the facts and evidence supporting the above are readily accessible and available for scrutiny and testing. Sadly, biblical claims are not. We don't even have any of the original manuscripts.

Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago from stellar debris.
All life evolved from ancient ancestors over billions of years.
Modern humans go back about 200 000 years and did not co-exist with dinosaurs.
There was no original couple, Adam and Eve, from which all humans descended.
There was no biblical global flood.
Etc.

My friend, none of the above has, or can be demonstrated, because no one was there to observe these things. Next, I have never made the case that there would not be no reason for others to hold an opposing view. In fact my stance has been that there very well may be reason involved in an opposing view, but this does not negate the fact that there is reason involved concerning what it is I believe. However, with all the things you list not being demonstrated, because they cannot be, it is me who has to be influenced by "confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance" and this would be impossible for the opposing side? Sort of funny how that works isn't it?

But, the most important thing involved here is, I have never mentioned any of the things you list above, and have never attempted to refute them, and none of these things would have anything to do with, whether Jesus rose from the dead? In other words, I have never suggested how old the Earth would be, when life would have formed, nor have I attempted to refute any of the other things on your list. Rather, I have demonstrated that there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

So then, I understand that neither side has, nor can demonstrate their case, but can only look at the facts, and evidence involved to arrive to their conclusions, and we can all look at the facts, and evidence and come to different conclusions both using facts, evidence, and reasons to arrive at those conclusions, and it must be me who is influenced by "confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance" while those who seem to be insisting they must, and have to be correct, and there would be no reason to believe otherwise, could not possibly be influenced by, "confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance"? I will never understand those who bring in the idea of "confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance" into a debate, since it is a possibility on both sides of the debate, but for some reason there are those who can only see it on the other side?

[Goose]

Let's just pause there. If facts and evidence are your thing, then consider the mountains of it that leads inexorably to the following conclusions:
...

All life evolved from ancient ancestors over billions of years.

....

Let's take this for example. Don't you mean there are facts and evidence that support the above? If you really mean that conclusion follows inexorably can you make the argument that gets you there, inexorably?

[Realworldjack]

I would simply like to ask any former Christians, (especially those who may have truly embraced Christianity) what was it that caused you to believe Christianity to be true?

As you can see above, the OP began by asking former Christians a question, and we have had very few folks attempt to give an answer to this question, and we are now derailed into all sorts of other debates which I do not mind, but it seems sort of strange how no one really seems to wants to address the actual subject of the OP?