Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

[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?

[Realworldjack]

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?

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.

Before I move on, (because I have a lot of work to do here, and on another thread) I just wanted to point out the above statement is absolutely false. Because you see, I have no problem whatsoever with one claiming to have been a fully convinced Christian at one time, only to later become convinced that it is false.

At this point, let us look at exactly what I said,

It is utterly amazing to me, for there to be one who admits to being a totally convinced Christian at one point, now to only insist that it is all based upon "fables", and I don't care how you slice it?

So then the point is, one who was a fully convinced Christian at one time, who now wants to insist that it is all nonsense, there would be no evidence in support, and it is complete foolishness for anyone to believe.

Ergo, the problem would not be with those who were convinced Christians at one time, but go on to acknowledge that there is very good evidence in support, and they were convinced by this evidence, but go on to explain to us that after further investigation they came to a different conclusion, and then go on to explain how they have come to these different conclusions.

Rather, the problem is with those who admit they were at one time fully convinced Christians, who now want to explain to us that "it is complete, and utter nonsense, and this is very easy to determine, and there would be no reason in the world to believe it".

There is a tremendous difference here. On the one hand we have one who makes a major life decision by examining the evidence, becomes convinced by this evidence and later comes to a different conclusion, while continuing to acknowledge, and understand there would be reasons to believe what one use to believe, as opposed to one who makes a major life decision, only to now tell us that it is a foolish belief, with no reason, nor evidence whatsoever to support such a belief.

I'm sorry, but this would not be considered a simple mistake, but rather demonstrates one who did not put a whole lot of effort into their thinking, in order to make a major life decision.

With this being the case, what in the world would cause us to believe, the thinking has changed in any way? Because, I can assure you that simply because one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the way in which they think has changed.

As an example, if you have one who did not put a whole lot of effort into their thinking to make the major life decision to become a Christian, then it could very well be that it would not take a whole lot of thinking in order to talk them out.

[Divine Insight]

William: So the point you are attempting to make, is that people should 'be their true selves', even if that means doing all those things?

Or is it a good thing that Christianity helps them not to act out as their 'true selves'?

Would you still try and convince someone they should believe as you do, that Christianity is False, even if they told you they would commit atrocities?

That wasn't my point at all. My point is that if at their core they want to do nasty things, then choosing to become a Christian is nothing short of pretense anyway. Underneath the facade of Christianity, they would still be the person who wants to do nasty things.

The fact that they aren't being their true self because of fear of judgement from a God is pathetic.

Could this religion potentially serve as a deterrent to prevent nasty people from acting on their true nature? Sure it could.

But wouldn't that be a seriously pathetic argument for Christianity, or any religion?

Any why would decent people bother with the religion then? They would have no need for it.

Do you support teaching little children that the religion is true, just in case they might otherwise turn out to be nasty people? I don't. Lying to children is never a good thing. They'll only resent you later for not respecting them enough to tell them the truth.

[Divine Insight]

I see two things going on there. If I were no longer a Christian, then I don't think my specific moral views would change that much, if at all. But I do think that becoming an atheist would turn me from an objectivist to a subjectivist.

So? What's wrong with a subjective worldview? How would that cause you to change your life's major decisions?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 11 by Realworldjack]

I already addressed your fallacious argument in the other thread. Yet you come over here to repeat it.

I was never a "Fully Convinced" Christian based on the Christians Dogma (i.e. the Bible)

Like the vast majority of Christians I had been "Fully Convinced" that Jesus was the Son of God because I believed my parents, and pastors, etc. People who told lies for this religion.

So having been "Fully Convinced" by lying adults I decided to study the Bible and learn about "God's Word" in detail. Not as a skeptic, but as someone who was "Fully Convinced" that it was true. My purpose was to better understand exactly what God expect from us, as well as to better understand why he had to resort to such a desperate thing as having his only begotten Son crucified on our behalf.

After all, I couldn't help but notice that even the Pastors couldn't agree on the answers to these questions. So it was my mission to understand God through "His Word" (i.e. the Bible).

It was only during that study that I discovered that the entire religion is based on self-contradictory nonsense that could never possibly be true.

So your continued accusations are misguided, misinformed, and you have already been set straight on this once yet you continue to make these false accusations.

Why?

Can't you not handle the truth?

[Divine Insight]

On the one hand we have one who makes a major life decision by examining the evidence, becomes convinced by this evidence and later comes to a different conclusion.

There's your fallacy right there: "by examining the evidence, becomes convinced by this evidence".

I never claimed to have been convinced by evidence. I was convinced because I believed lying parents and pastors.

Once I actually looked at the "evidence" I could see that the entire religion is clearly false.

The other fallacy that you keep wrongfully assuming is that I had made "Major Life Decisions" base on whether or not the Biblical God is real.

That never happened. There was never a point in my life where I would have needed to change decisions I make based on whether there is or isn't a God.

According to the New Testament I'm in harmony with everything that Jesus taught in any case. So whether I believe in Jesus or not makes absolutely no difference.

This is why I started this thread. Would it make a difference to you whether or not Jesus was the Son of God?

Is so, then why? Who would you be if you didn't believe in Christianity?

And if you would be different then isn't that who you ultimately truly are?

My whole point is that it makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other. I wouldn't need to change anything to become a Christian today save for proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God, which I know for certain is a lie.

So the only way I could become a Christian today would be if I choose to become a liar. That's basically the only thing I would need to change. Nothing else would need to change.

[William]

[Replying to post 12]

Divine Insight: My point is that if at their core they want to do nasty things, then choosing to become a Christian is nothing short of pretense anyway. Underneath the facade of Christianity, they would still be the person who wants to do nasty things.

The fact that they aren't being their true self because of fear of judgement from a God is pathetic.

Could this religion potentially serve as a deterrent to prevent nasty people from acting on their true nature? Sure it could.

But wouldn't that be a seriously pathetic argument for Christianity, or any religion?

William: Isn't that simply an opinionated judgement? Your 'point' being that any religion which helps deter, is 'pathetic'?

Another thing to consider - critically - is the idea that there is indeed 'a core nature' to the individual. This infers that the individual is born with supposed 'core' or 'true' nature. Is there evidence to support this theory?

Divine Insight: Any why would decent people bother with the religion then? They would have no need for it.

William: This infers that all 'decent' people are non-religious, implying also, that all indecent people are religious. Is that a reasonable premise to make a platform to argue from?

Divine Insight: Do you support teaching little children that the religion is true, just in case they might otherwise turn out to be nasty people? I don't. Lying to children is never a good thing. They'll only resent you later for not respecting them enough to tell them the truth.

William: Is that what happened to you or are you just making a sweeping statement?

Can you give details as to what stories religion tells as truth which might possibly prevent little children from 'turning out to be' nasty people?

Obviously to make your point something worth pondering, you have to explain how someone's nasty 'true nature' is developed. If something is made, can it not be unmade? If something can be unmade, how can it be said to be 'true nature'?

Please explain this apparent contradiction.

[The Tanager]

So? What's wrong with a subjective worldview? How would that cause you to change your life's major decisions?

I did not claim that this would change my life's major decisions. You said that many Christians have told you that they would no longer have any reason to behave morally, if they were no longer Christian. People can mean at least two things by that. You shared one: that people would do some really "immoral" things. I said that my beliefs would not change in that way. I shared another way to mean/interpret that phrase: that there would be no objective reason to behave morally. Any possible problem with morality being subjective is probably for another thread.

[Divine Insight]

Isn't that simply an opinionated judgement? Your 'point' being that any religion which helps deter, is 'pathetic'?

That wasn't my point. My point is that a religion that is "needed" to deter nasty behavior is pathetic religion. Or to be more precise, people who would need a religion for that purpose are pathetic.

Please explain this apparent contradiction.

There is no contradiction. All that exists here is your misrepresentation of my position.

Why do you feel a need to always do this?

[Divine Insight]

So? What's wrong with a subjective worldview? How would that cause you to change your life's major decisions?

I did not claim that this would change my life's major decisions. You said that many Christians have told you that they would no longer have any reason to behave morally, if they were no longer Christian. People can mean at least two things by that. You shared one: that people would do some really "immoral" things. I said that my beliefs would not change in that way. I shared another way to mean/interpret that phrase: that there would be no objective reason to behave morally. Any possible problem with morality being subjective is probably for another thread.

I see, so in other words, you are addressing the concept of "absolute morality" versus "subjective morality".

But this doesn't help theologically.

Where would you get your ideas of "absolute morality"? From the Bible?

And what about your personal moral values which are necessarily subjective?

Are your personal subjective moral values in harmony with the Biblical morals you believe to be dictated by the Bible?

If so, then there is no difference between your subjective morality and objective morality.

But here's the catch:

If your own subjective views on morality aren't in harmony with the Biblical objective morality, then do you see the problem?

This would then necessarily mean that you are not in agreement with the moral values attributed to the Biblical God.

So you really can't claim to have subjective moral values that differ from the Biblical values if you are also going to claim that the Biblical moral values are absolute. Unless you also want to claim that you disagree with the absolute moral values of your God.

I disagree with a lot of the moral principles commanded by the Biblical God. Therefore my subjective moral values are far different from the Biblical morality.

Keep in mind however, that I'm not the first one to disagree with Biblical morality. Many others have disagreed with Biblical morality long before me, not the least of whom was Jesus himself. He flat our rejected Biblical morality and replaced it with his own subjective morality.

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by ]

Divine Insight: My point is that a religion that is "needed" to deter nasty behavior is pathetic religion. Or to be more precise, people who would need a religion for that purpose are pathetic.

William: The two are different. Taking your 'more precise' position, it appears to be based on a judgmental opinion rather than anything productive to debate.

So what? You think such people are 'pathetic'. That is just a sly way of breaching forum rules, as far as I can tell.

But who are you in your 'goodness', to judge others in that way, and what does such opinion hold in relation to critical thinking?


Divine Insight: There is no contradiction. All that exists here is your misrepresentation of my position.

William: I would say that since you are failing to answer my questions asked of you in order to better ascertain whether the augment you offer is legitimate, that the "misrepresentation" is actually coming from your side.

If you do not have evidence to show that people start out as a 'core self' or that religion is actually needed - or even figuratively "needed" - to "deter nasty behavior", just admit so. Otherwise, what is your point - other than to create the opportunity to ply us with your unsolicited judgmental opinion about that?