Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Post #1

Post by Divine Insight »

In another thread a Christian attempted to belittle me for having once believed in the religion only to discover later than the religion is false. His implication was that if I would change my mind concerning major life decisions like this then I can't be very credible. (the old: Discredit your debate opponent tactic)

So I've decided to put the question to Christians:

1. Does Christianity dictate your major life decisions?

2. And if so, how would you choose to live differently if you weren't a Christian?

Debate Questions:

If a Christian claims that they would live their life differently if they weren't a Christian, doesn't this imply that they aren't being true to themselves when living life as a Christian?

Also, wouldn't the manner they would choose to live their lives, if not a Christian, reveal who they truly are at the core of their character?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Post #91

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 89 by Bust Nak]

Changing their mind is one thing, moving away from irrational thinking is quite another, that demonstrate that they are better.
What I am attempting to get across to you is, simply because they have changed their mind, does not mean they have, "moved away from "irrational thinking", and the question would be, how can we know they have indeed moved away from irrational thinking? Lets look at an analogy.

Let us suppose one becomes convinced Christianity is true, but not by examining the facts, and evidence, but rather by some sort of emotional response. Now let us suppose this person begins to read their Bible, and begins to have doubts, and questions. Let us go on to say, this person begins to share their concerns with other Christians, including the pastor, who themselves became convinced Christianity would be true on emotions, and they never get any answers, but are shunned, with folks talking behind their back, with those claiming they are not true Christians if they have any sort of doubts.

You see, it would be very possible for this person to become very angry with the Christians in their Church, and decide to reject Christianity based upon this anger, which would be just as irrational as to accept Christianity to be true, based upon emotion. This person may be convinced they rejected Christianity based of the evidence, but their questions were never answered, and it could very well be the case that it is the anger the decision is based upon, and not rational thinking.

I am not saying this would be the case for anyone at all, but am rather simply giving an example of how the mind can change, but the thinking is still not rational thinking. So again the point is, insisting that your thinking is rational now, does not demonstrate this to be the case.
It's still not clear why though. Admitting to mistakes is a display of intellectual integrity.
I don't know how to better explain this? The only mistake you can be admitting to, is to have become a Christian, without a whole lot of thinking involved. To admit this mistake, may indeed demonstrate some sort of, "intellectual integrity", but "intellectual integrity" does not in any way demonstrate, that what you have changed your mind to would be correct, and it does not demonstrate that you are thinking rationally now? In other words, one can admit they did not think rationally to make a decision, but this would not in any way demonstrate they used rational thinking to change the mind.
Depends what their thinking process was before hand. In cases where they were irrational, sure, examining evidence is this is an improvement.
I am at a loss here? Simply because one insists they are now examining evidence, does not mean they are thinking rationally. Allow me to give you a real live example.

If one is a Christian, and decides to drop out of college to go to the mission field based upon the passage which says, "go into all the world, and preach the gospel", and when things do not work out like they had thought, they reject Christianity upon this "evidence", then they demonstrate irrational thinking both ways.

First, this passage was never intended to be a command for all Christians, and so it would be irrational thinking to decide to drop out of school in order to go to the mission field based upon a passage that was never intended for you. When things do not work out as you thought they should, it would be irrational thinking to come to the conclusion that Christianity would be false, based upon this.
It applies in the same way: It depends on what they were thinking beforehand and why they changed their minds.
EXACTLY! If you have one who is a former Christian, who became a Christian by examining the facts, and evidence, and then later on changes the mind, and goes on to explain why they have changed the mind based upon the facts, and evidence, but goes on to acknowledge that there would indeed be facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims, which is how they became convinced in the first place, then I have no problem with that in the least.

The problem comes in when you have those who claim to have been convinced Christianity would be true, who now go on to insist, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of, because they demonstrate that they can become convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support, which goes on to demonstrate they could not have put a whole lot of thinking into the process to become convinced.

The question that would naturally arise would be, what would cause us to believe the thinking is any better now, and simply insisting that one is now using facts, and evidence, does not demonstrate rational thinking, as demonstrated above.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Post #92

Post by Bust Nak »

Realworldjack wrote: Let us suppose one becomes convinced Christianity is true, but not by examining the facts, and evidence, but rather by some sort of emotional response. Now let us suppose this person begins to read their Bible, and begins to have doubts, and questions. Let us go on to say, this person begins to share their concerns with other Christians, including the pastor, who themselves became convinced Christianity would be true on emotions, and they never get any answers, but are shunned, with folks talking behind their back, with those claiming they are not true Christians if they have any sort of doubts.

You see, it would be very possible for this person to become very angry with the Christians in their Church, and decide to reject Christianity based upon this anger, which would be just as irrational as to accept Christianity to be true, based upon emotion. This person may be convinced they rejected Christianity based of the evidence, but their questions were never answered, and it could very well be the case that it is the anger the decision is based upon, and not rational thinking.
Okay, but it sounds like this is a question of whether this person's claims are true, as opposed to whether it is an improvement or not, given that this person's claims are true.
I don't know how to better explain this? The only mistake you can be admitting to, is to have become a Christian, without a whole lot of thinking involved. To admit this mistake, may indeed demonstrate some sort of, "intellectual integrity", but "intellectual integrity" does not in any way demonstrate, that what you have changed your mind to would be correct, and it does not demonstrate that you are thinking rationally now?
Sure, but it does demonstrate an improvement, which was what you were asking beforehand. Have we been talking past each other?
If one is a Christian, and decides to drop out of college to go to the mission field based upon the passage which says, "go into all the world, and preach the gospel", and when things do not work out like they had thought, they reject Christianity upon this "evidence", then they demonstrate irrational thinking both ways.

First, this passage was never intended to be a command for all Christians, and so it would be irrational thinking to decide to drop out of school in order to go to the mission field based upon a passage that was never intended for you. When things do not work out as you thought they should, it would be irrational thinking to come to the conclusion that Christianity would be false, based upon this.
Similar to the above, here you are debating the validity of the evidence, instead of whether examining evidence is an improvement over blind faith.
The problem comes in when you have those who claim to have been convinced Christianity would be true, who now go on to insist, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of, because they demonstrate that they can become convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support, which goes on to demonstrate they could not have put a whole lot of thinking into the process to become convinced.
Right, the weren't before, and now that they are, how is that not an improvement?
The question that would naturally arise would be, what would cause us to believe the thinking is any better now, and simply insisting that one is now using facts, and evidence, does not demonstrate rational thinking, as demonstrated above.
Again, this is about not believing them when they say they are now moved away from irrational thinking, as opposed to whether moving away from irrational thinking is better or not.
Last edited by Bust Nak on Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Post #93

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 92 by Bust Nak]

You may be right that, "we are talking past each other", and it may be my fault? When I say, "how do we know the thinking is any better now", I am not really asking whether they may have shown any sort of improvement at all in their thinking?Rather, this was just a way of saying something, that I might should have said differently?

It is a fact, that these folks admit to not doing a whole lot of thinking to become convinced Christianity was true, but simply accepted what they were told by others. This would have to mean, they really did not understand what they believed, or why they believed it to be true.

Ergo, since they did not do a whole lot of thinking in order to become convinced Christianity was true, it may not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them that what they once accepted to be true, would be false. Let's look at an analogy I used on another thread,
realworldjack wrote:It would be sort of like one who sits in a class at school, who simply accepted the idea that the sun is stationary, without really knowing why this would be the case, which means they really have no idea why they believe as they do, and when they express what they have accepted to be true, and another were to say, "well it is crazy talk to believe the sun is stationary. All one has to do is to go outside, and watch as the sun moves across the sky, and they can clearly see that the sun is indeed moving."

You see, because this person does not understand exactly what they believe, and why they believe it, because they did not do a whole lot of thinking in order to simply accept what they were taught, it may not take a whole lot of thinking, in order to convince them, the sun is indeed moving.
You see, your argument would seem to be that the thinking would be better now, because they are actually using evidence. However, they are simply accepting that this would be evidence, without a whole lot of thinking involved. Therefore, it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to convince them the sun was stationary, which means it may not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them that what they once accepted to be true, is really false.

The whole point here is, when one admits to being convinced something would be true, without a whole lot of thinking involved, in order to become a Christian, how can we determine there would have been a whole lot of thinking involved in order to reject it, and if this thinking would have been sound thinking?

Keep in mind, the problem is not with former Christians who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true, by the facts, and evidence, who as they continued to think through the facts, and evidence, come to a different conclusion, who now acknowledge that there would be facts, and evidence in support, and understand that there are reasons for folks to be convinced Christianity would be true based upon the facts, and evidence.

Rather, we are talking about those who admit they did not do a whole lot of thinking to make the decision to remain to be a Christian well into their adulthood, and, or made the decision to become a Christian, as an adult, who now want to insist that there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of.

These folks demonstrate they are the type of folks who can become convinced of something, they did not put a whole lot of thinking into, and for us to believe that they are now thinking, we would simply have to accept what they have to say. However, simply because they claim to be thinking rationally now, does not in any way demonstrate that they are indeed thinking rationally.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Post #94

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 93 by Realworldjack]

I agree that if you can be easily tricked into religion, you can also be easily tricked into abandoning religion.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

Post #95

Post by Realworldjack »

Bust Nak wrote: [Replying to post 93 by Realworldjack]

I agree that if you can be easily tricked into religion, you can also be easily tricked into abandoning religion.

That is a way of saying it. Now let us continue to talk about this.

First, if one is "tricked" into believing something to be true, this would not in any way mean, that what they were tricked into believing would be false. As an example, let us suppose that I do not believe in evolution, and somehow someone tricks me into believing that evolution would be true. In other words, lets say a scientists I know very well, assures me that evolution is indeed true, and I simply take him at his word, that evolution would be a fact.

At this point, I have not done a whole lot of thinking to become convinced of evolution, but this would not mean that what I was tricked into believing, (evolution) would be false.

Now let us imagine, that I begin to actually think, and consider the evidence for evolution on my own, and I come to realize that I did not do a whole lot of thinking in order to become convinced evolution would be true, because I simply took the word of another. This would not in any demonstrate that what I did not put a whole lot of thinking into, would be false.

Now let us go on to compare this to someone who may have been convinced Christianity was true, simply by taking the word of their parents, and or other adults such as pastors. This person may as well come to the realization, that they did not put a whole lot of thinking into the process, in order to be convinced that it was true.

However, unlike evolution, Christianity can have a tremendous impact on ones life, and even their pocket books, and when, and if there are those who begin to realize they never really thought about this major decision, but simply took the word of those they trusted, this can have a devastating impact.

In other words, it could cause them to become angry with those who they trusted, to understand they were talked into believing something to be true, which has so greatly impacted their life, that they really never thought about themselves. The point is, none of any of this would have a thing to do with whether what they were tricked into believing would be true, or false.

However, the question then becomes, would it be possible that these folks are so blinded by their anger toward the ones who tricked them into believing something without thinking for themselves, that they equate this to being evidence against what they were once convinced of? In other words, could their thinking now be, I did not put a whole lot of thinking into what I was once convinced of, because I took the word of others whom I trusted, and therefore, what I was convinced of must be false?

Post Reply