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
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #101Yes, I am addressing your response in post #81.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:57 am No one has presented any so far. The question was "what would it take for you to disavow your religion and religious belief?"
I've pointed out one way. So far, no one's presented any of that.
I know. That was the question in the OP. For some reason, you didn't want to talk about that one.
That article is dated Dec 17, 2019. Unless your faith is very new, I can't imagine this is what it is based on.
Which is O.K. We'll go off-topic and address your question.
https://overviewbible.com/how-did-the-apostles-die/
Additionally, very early in that article it states, "Let’s begin with a quick look at all the ways the apostles may have died according to Scripture, tradition, and legend." This clearly isn't a claim of verifiable evidence and rightfully so. In the text we find for example these comments:
"According to church tradition..."
"...the origin of this tradition isn’t as reliable."
"Unfortunately, the origin of this narrative isn’t exactly trustworthy."
"And while there are plenty of legends surrounding famous Christians, it’s not hard to imagine this being true."
"Some accounts suggest a couple others died of natural causes as well, but John’s tradition is the most firmly established."
"Basically, we don’t know how Philip died. But there are plenty of possibilities."
"Bartholomew was probably martyred—but like many of the apostles, there are several ways it may have happened."
"There are several conflicting accounts about Matthew’s death."
"How James son of Alphaeus died depends on whether or not you assume he’s the same person as James the Just (the brother of Jesus)."
"It’s traditionally believed..."
"Like many of the apostles, it’s hard to conclude exactly which tradition (if any) can be trusted:"
"Matthias is the most obscure apostle, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that we can’t be very sure what he did or how he died."
All of this is related to the OP in that you've stated in post 81: "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." I'm simply trying to understand what you base your faith that the apostles died for their faith on. If it is something other than verifiable evidence, one has to wonder why it would take verifiable evidence to shake 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
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #102JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:47 pmnobspeople wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:10 pm
Can you provide examples of science agreeing with scripture?THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE
THE BIBLE : “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.FURTHER READINGTo learn more please go to other posts related to...
EVOLUTION, BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS
Does this provided example all you to thus believe in things like a talking burning bush that's not consumed? Casting of demons into pigs? Throwing a staff on the ground and it turning in to a snake?Reasons to Trust the Bible #4 Scientific Accuracy
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines ... -accuracy/
Does Science Agree With the Bible?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... the-bible/
Is the Bible Outdated? Or Ahead of Its Time?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/
Surely the bible will speak to things of a natural setting that agrees with science, as the bible is mostly observational dictation, but what about the things science hasn't yet described, yet are listed in the bible. How does your 'faith' work these items?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #103[Replying to Goose in post #78]
Thanks for the reply
Does this mean your belief in your religion isn't as strong as your belief in anything else you may have (or as strong as, is it the case may be)?
For example:
If you (term used generally) believe in political party XYZ, that belief isn't as strong (or is as strong as) your belief in your religion? And thusly, either could be broken or changed by the same level of convincing?
Thanks for the reply
Interesting.The same as any other belief I currently hold to be true, prove it false (in reference to the question of what would it take, for you, to disavow your religion and religious belief?).
Does this mean your belief in your religion isn't as strong as your belief in anything else you may have (or as strong as, is it the case may be)?
For example:
If you (term used generally) believe in political party XYZ, that belief isn't as strong (or is as strong as) your belief in your religion? And thusly, either could be broken or changed by the same level of convincing?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #104Do you fully and correctly understand every single word, thought and meaning in the bible?1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:30 amFor me Bible is mainly about what is good/right and righteousness. If someone would say he found an old scripture that tells, “no murder is not wrong, you can kill as much as you want, don’t care what Jesus says”, I think it would be wrong. In my opinion it is not a matter of belief, but about right understanding. So, to counter my “belief”, one should be able to reason why it is not wrong to murder for example.nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:45 pm ...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?
...
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- 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 #105No one has presented any so far. The question was "what would it take for you to disavow your religion and religious belief?"
I've pointed out one way. So far, no one's presented any of that.
You wanted to talk about something else, which is O.K. We'll go off-topic and address your question.
https://overviewbible.com/how-did-the-apostles-die/
My experience is that few people who reject the testimony of those who were there, will accept logic as it pertains to the question of God.
It seems consistent to believe in God on faith, but I'm puzzled as to how one might disbelieve in Him on faith. But then, I'm not an atheist. As Richard Dawkins points out, a reasonable position for one who does not believe is agnosticism.
I've pointed out one way. So far, no one's presented any of that.
You wanted to talk about something else, which is O.K. We'll go off-topic and address your question.
https://overviewbible.com/how-did-the-apostles-die/
The historical accounts at the link. Those historians, at least two who knew the Apostles, wrote those things long before 2019. Thought you knew.
Yes. What have you got?All of this is related to the OP in that you've stated in post 81: "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."
Faith and those accounts from the people who lived in those times. There are also logical arguments for God. You might consider St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae.I'm simply trying to understand what you base your faith that the apostles died for their faith on.
My experience is that few people who reject the testimony of those who were there, will accept logic as it pertains to the question of God.
One conducts one's life almost exclusively on trust in evidence that fails to meet the standard of proof. I assume that the Earth will continue to rotate and the laws of physics will continue as they have been for a long time, even if I have evidence that they have changed since the beginning, and no proof that they won't change anytime soon. Simply put, truth is a stronger thing than proof.If it is something other than verifiable evidence, one has to wonder why it would take verifiable evidence to shake it.
It seems consistent to believe in God on faith, but I'm puzzled as to how one might disbelieve in Him on faith. But then, I'm not an atheist. As Richard Dawkins points out, a reasonable position for one who does not believe is agnosticism.
Last edited by The Barbarian on Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #106Now we're getting somewhere. All that is left is for you to provide verifiable evidence that, "at least two who knew the Apostles, wrote those things long before 2019." Oh, and to explain just what the "those things" refers to.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:51 am
The historical accounts at the link. Those historians, at least two who knew the Apostles, wrote those things long before 2019. Thought you knew.
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
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #107At the moment I don’t remember anything that I don't understand.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:32 am Do you fully and correctly understand every single word, thought and meaning in the bible?
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #108You said you understand, not fully and correctly understand. That's a big difference. Kudos for answering honestly! I can now read and understand your posts and POV a lot better now.1213 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:43 pmAt the moment I don’t remember anything that I don't understand.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:32 am Do you fully and correctly understand every single word, thought and meaning in the bible?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1140 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #109You presented the Bible saying the sun rises as an exception where the Bible disagrees with science. To be valid, that requires such a hyper-literal interpretation that you're also saying NASA disagrees with science.
I seriously doubt anyone understands Revelations. The bit with the seven-headed monsters and the red dragon waiting to devour a baby... I believe that's Revelations.1213 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:43 pmAt the moment I don’t remember anything that I don't understand.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:32 am Do you fully and correctly understand every single word, thought and meaning in the bible?
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: What would it take for you?
Post #110Actually I presented this verse:Purple Knight wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:59 pmYou presented the Bible saying the sun rises as an exception where the Bible disagrees with science. To be valid, that requires such a hyper-literal interpretation that you're also saying NASA disagrees with science.
Note the phrase, "and hurries back to where it rises." The verse is a complete package that indicates the belief that the Sun moves around the earth. Nowhere have I accused NASA of this mistake.Ecclesiastes 1:
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries 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