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]

[Replying to post 79 by Realworldjack]

You asked for proof that the Bible and Christianity are false.

I gave you the irrefutable proof.

But instead of acknowledging this all you can do is continue to make personal accusations?

Clearly you've been defeated.

There's nothing more to see here.

Christianity has been shown to be false. And the theist remains in denial hiding behind personal accusations instead of addressing the facts.

By the way, thanks for finally confessing that you don't have facts and evidence to back up Christianity or its claims.

And again you avoid the fact that you have accused me of saying something that I have never said, which demonstrates the sort of person I am dealing with.

Next, you have given no proof at all, but have rather shared with us, your "subjective opinion".

[Divine Insight]

And again you avoid the fact that you have accused me of saying something that I have never said, which demonstrates the sort of person I am dealing with.

Are false personal accusations all you can ever post?

What did I accuse you of saying that you claim you never said.

Even if such a thing has occurred, what ever happened to the benefit of the doubt. Why not just clarify the error?

Next, you have given no proof at all, but have rather shared with us, your "subjective opinion".

Now it's you who is stating falsehoods.

It's not my opinion that humans are a late arrival on Planet Earth. I'm sorry to have to inform you that this is a well-known scientific fact.

It's not my opinion that thorns grew on plants before humans appeared on Earth. I'm sorry to have to inform you that this is a well-known scientific fact.

It's not my opinion that there was no major gap in the DNA record of the evolution of humans from primates to modern day. This has been verified by the Human Genome Project.

So the facts and evidence I've given are not opinions, they are facts.

Clearly you are either uneducated in the scientific knowledge of our planet and the history of human evolution, or you are in denial of it.

If you're going to brush these things off as merely my subjective opinions, then clearly you have no interest in any genuine facts and evidence.

These facts have nothing at all to do with me. I could have never been born and these facts would still remain true.

So sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no way that these facts are my subjective opinion. I have nothing at all to do with them. All I've done is point them out. Apparently to someone who doesn't want to know the truth or our reality.

I would think that a person who is interested in truth would already know these truths about our world.

[Bust Nak]

I think you may have misunderstood the question? You see, the question had nothing to do with, how we can know if they may have "shown intellectual integrity..."

That's not the question I was answering. That they have shown intellectual integrity, is "how can we know the thinking is any better now," i.e. the question you were asking.

So then, what is it that would indicate to us the thinking would be any better? The fact that one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate that the thinking process is any better.

Sure, showing integrity does demonstrate that the thinking process is better now.

Now, you are more than likely getting closer to the truth of the matter. Because you see, a "conversion story" is not any sort of proof, or even evidence of what the truth may be. However, if there are those who think in this way, and "conversion stories" were part of the equation that caused them to become convinced Christianity would be true, then it would not be all that shocking to find out that they are under the impression that their "experience" of having been a Christian, to rejecting Christianity, somehow would add credibility, when it does no such thing. Rather, what this tends to do, is to demonstrate that the mind has changed, but the thinking is still the same.

Why? Understanding that "conversion stories" a bad reason for being a Christian now, where as they would have be convinced before, clearly shows an improvement in the way one thinks.

[Realworldjack]

I think you may have misunderstood the question? You see, the question had nothing to do with, how we can know if they may have "shown intellectual integrity..."

That's not the question I was answering. That they have shown intellectual integrity, is "how can we know the thinking is any better now," i.e. the question you were asking.

So then, what is it that would indicate to us the thinking would be any better? The fact that one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate that the thinking process is any better.

Sure, showing integrity does demonstrate that the thinking process is better now.

Now, you are more than likely getting closer to the truth of the matter. Because you see, a "conversion story" is not any sort of proof, or even evidence of what the truth may be. However, if there are those who think in this way, and "conversion stories" were part of the equation that caused them to become convinced Christianity would be true, then it would not be all that shocking to find out that they are under the impression that their "experience" of having been a Christian, to rejecting Christianity, somehow would add credibility, when it does no such thing. Rather, what this tends to do, is to demonstrate that the mind has changed, but the thinking is still the same.

Why? Understanding that "conversion stories" a bad reason for being a Christian now, where as they would have be convinced before, clearly shows an improvement in the way one thinks.

My friend, simply because someone has the ability to admit they did not put a whole lot of thinking into what they were once convinced of, does not demonstrate they were wrong, and it certainly does not demonstrate that the thinking process is any better now, than when they were convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

In fact, admitting to not have put a whole lot of thinking into something that you were once convinced of, does not even demonstrate, that one now has "intellectual integrity" concerning what it is they now believe.

Why? Understanding that "conversion stories" a bad reason for being a Christian now, where as they would have be convinced before, clearly shows an improvement in the way one thinks.

It is the fact that they would have at one time been convinced by "conversion stories", and the fact that they now seem to be under the impression that their "experience" of having believed something to be true, to now rejecting it, would add any credibility to their thinking process, that may in fact demonstrate that the thinking process is no better now, than when they were convinced of something they now insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support?

[Realworldjack]

And again you avoid the fact that you have accused me of saying something that I have never said, which demonstrates the sort of person I am dealing with.

Are false personal accusations all you can ever post?

What did I accuse you of saying that you claim you never said.

Even if such a thing has occurred, what ever happened to the benefit of the doubt. Why not just clarify the error?

Next, you have given no proof at all, but have rather shared with us, your "subjective opinion".

Now it's you who is stating falsehoods.

It's not my opinion that humans are a late arrival on Planet Earth. I'm sorry to have to inform you that this is a well-known scientific fact.

It's not my opinion that thorns grew on plants before humans appeared on Earth. I'm sorry to have to inform you that this is a well-known scientific fact.

It's not my opinion that there was no major gap in the DNA record of the evolution of humans from primates to modern day. This has been verified by the Human Genome Project.

So the facts and evidence I've given are not opinions, they are facts.

Clearly you are either uneducated in the scientific knowledge of our planet and the history of human evolution, or you are in denial of it.

If you're going to brush these things off as merely my subjective opinions, then clearly you have no interest in any genuine facts and evidence.

These facts have nothing at all to do with me. I could have never been born and these facts would still remain true.

So sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no way that these facts are my subjective opinion. I have nothing at all to do with them. All I've done is point them out. Apparently to someone who doesn't want to know the truth or our reality.

I would think that a person who is interested in truth would already know these truths about our world.

Are false personal accusations all you can ever post?

What did I accuse you of saying that you claim you never said.

Well how about this?

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

For that matter where did I ever say that I had been convinced by evidence?

You bear false witness against them by proclaiming that they had said things they never said. And then accuse them of having been mistaken.

That's an "attempt to discredit them" by claiming that they had said things that they never even said.

You're accusations against them are false.

You are NOT just repeating what they had said for themselves. You are creating a false narrative. You are misrepresenting their position and bearing false witness against them by claiming that they said things they never said.

So there's nothing here to address. All that is required is for you to stop making false claims about what other people supposedly said when in fact they never said those things.

The point is, I have never said, that they were claiming to have been convinced by any sort of evidence. What I said, is exactly what they say, which is, "they were convinced Christianity would be true, and they go on to explain to us just how convinced they were, by sharing with us, exactly how this conviction impacted their daily lives.

So then, there is no mention on my part, that they would have been convinced by any sort of evidence? In fact, there is there is no mention on my part, as to how they would have come to be convinced at all. They, (not me) are the ones who claim to have become convinced, by taking the word of others, whether it be the parents, pastors, or other Christians?

So then, you have accused me of, "creating a false narrative". You have accused me of, "bearing false witness". You have accused me of, "making false personal accusations". You have accused me of, "attempting to discredit them". You have accused me of, " misrepresenting their position", all based upon the idea that I was insisting that they were claiming to be convinced by evidence, when I have not said such a thing?

Even if such a thing has occurred, what ever happened to the benefit of the doubt. Why not just clarify the error?

My friend, I would be more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you certainly do not seem to want to give me any sort of benefit of the doubt, because even if I would have said anything like this at all, it would have had to have been a mistake, because they have never claimed to have been convinced by evidence. Rather, most seem to claim that were convinced by the word of others, no matter whom it may have been, but have you given me any sort of, "benefit of the doubt" by accusing me of such things?

The "benefit of the doubt" you are receiving is, this may have been what you thought I had in mind? If that is the case, we have no problem, but you could at least acknowledge the correction.

[Bust Nak]

My friend, simply because someone has the ability to admit they did not put a whole lot of thinking into what they were once convinced of, does not demonstrate they were wrong...

Granted.

it certainly does not demonstrate that the thinking process is any better now, than when they were convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

They old ways of thinking is irrational, turning away from that thinking is clearly better.

In fact, admitting to not have put a whole lot of thinking into something that you were once convinced of, does not even demonstrate, that one now has "intellectual integrity" concerning what it is they now believe.

Right, so debate this instead of the above: Does admitting ones earlier mistakes, admitting to flawed thinking show intellectual integrity?

It is the fact that they would have at one time been convinced by "conversion stories", and the fact that they now seem to be under the impression that their "experience" of having believed something to be true, to now rejecting it, would add any credibility to their thinking process, that may in fact demonstrate that the thinking process is no better now, than when they were convinced of something they now insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support?

Sure, turning away from prior irrational behavior does add credibility to their thinking process.

[Realworldjack]

My friend, simply because someone has the ability to admit they did not put a whole lot of thinking into what they were once convinced of, does not demonstrate they were wrong...

Granted.

it certainly does not demonstrate that the thinking process is any better now, than when they were convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

They old ways of thinking is irrational, turning away from that thinking is clearly better.

In fact, admitting to not have put a whole lot of thinking into something that you were once convinced of, does not even demonstrate, that one now has "intellectual integrity" concerning what it is they now believe.

Right, so debate this instead of the above: Does admitting ones earlier mistakes, admitting to flawed thinking show intellectual integrity?

It is the fact that they would have at one time been convinced by "conversion stories", and the fact that they now seem to be under the impression that their "experience" of having believed something to be true, to now rejecting it, would add any credibility to their thinking process, that may in fact demonstrate that the thinking process is no better now, than when they were convinced of something they now insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support?

Sure, turning away from prior irrational behavior does add credibility to their thinking process.

They old ways of thinking is irrational, turning away from that thinking is clearly better.

My friend, if one admits to using irrational thinking to come to their conclusions, simply because they change their mind this does not in any way demonstrate that they are now thinking rationally, which is my whole point.

In other words, these folks can be using the same irrational thinking in order to change their mind. How does one changing the mind, demonstrate they are now thinking rationally?

Does admitting ones earlier mistakes, admitting to flawed thinking show intellectual integrity?

Listen! The only mistake we can know they made was not to think rationally to become a Christian. This does not in any way demonstrate that Christianity would be false, so we cannot say they were mistaken in their belief. Ergo, the only thing they are admitting to, is not thinking rationally to become a Christian, but this does not in any way demonstrate that they are now thinking rationally simply because they have changed positions.

As an example, there are many folks who were opposed to Christianity at one time, but after examining the evidence for Christianity, they have become convinced that it is true. Now would you argue their thinking is better now simply because they have admitted to being wrong, and changing their mind? If not, then why should we suppose that it is only those who were once Christians who change their mind who are the ones thinking better, and have the "intellectual integrity"?

Sure, turning away from prior irrational behavior does add credibility to their thinking process.

Again, does this go for those who were once unbelievers who change their mind to become Christians? Or, does this only apply to those who were once Christians and now reject it?

[Divine Insight]

The point is, I have never said, that they were claiming to have been convinced by any sort of evidence. What I said, is exactly what they say, which is, "they were convinced Christianity would be true, and they go on to explain to us just how convinced they were, by sharing with us, exactly how this conviction impacted their daily lives.

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I specifically stated that my family would have done precisely the same kinds of things if they had lived in a purely secular world. My family didn't need to change who they are to become Christians. To the contrary they found the religion attractive because the religion simply asked them to be themselves.

So you just continually misrepresent what I say and try to twist into something that favors your bogus arguments.

Sorry buddy, but you've already lost this debate a long time ago.

Apparently the only way you can debate is to pretend your debate opponents said things they never said. But that isn't going to fly here.

[Bust Nak]

My friend, if one admits to using irrational thinking to come to their conclusions, simply because they change their mind this does not in any way demonstrate that they are now thinking rationally, which is my whole point.

Changing their mind is one thing, moving away from irrational thinking is quite another, that demonstrate that they are better.

Listen! The only mistake we can know they made was not to think rationally to become a Christian. This does not in any way demonstrate that Christianity would be false, so we cannot say they were mistaken in their belief.

Premise already granted.

Ergo, the only thing they are admitting to, is not thinking rationally to become a Christian, but this does not in any way demonstrate that they are now thinking rationally simply because they have changed positions.

It's still not clear why though. Admitting to mistakes is a display of intellectual integrity. Why would the premise above change that?

As an example, there are many folks who were opposed to Christianity at one time, but after examining the evidence for Christianity, they have become convinced that it is true. Now would you argue their thinking is better now simply because they have admitted to being wrong, and changing their mind?

Depends what their thinking process was before hand. In cases where they were irrational, sure, examining evidence is this is an improvement.

Again, does this go for those who were once unbelievers who change their mind to become Christians? Or, does this only apply to those who were once Christians and now reject it?

It applies in the same way: It depends on what they were thinking beforehand and why they changed their minds.

[Realworldjack]

The point is, I have never said, that they were claiming to have been convinced by any sort of evidence. What I said, is exactly what they say, which is, "they were convinced Christianity would be true, and they go on to explain to us just how convinced they were, by sharing with us, exactly how this conviction impacted their daily lives.

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I specifically stated that my family would have done precisely the same kinds of things if they had lived in a purely secular world. My family didn't need to change who they are to become Christians. To the contrary they found the religion attractive because the religion simply asked them to be themselves.

So you just continually misrepresent what I say and try to twist into something that favors your bogus arguments.

Sorry buddy, but you've already lost this debate a long time ago.

Apparently the only way you can debate is to pretend your debate opponents said things they never said. But that isn't going to fly here.

I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I specifically stated that my family would have done precisely the same kinds of things if they had lived in a purely secular world. My family didn't need to change who they are to become Christians. To the contrary they found the religion attractive because the religion simply asked them to be themselves.

Hey buddy! You need to go back and read where, it has nothing to do with, "you, or your family" but has everything to do with those who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true, who now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support what it was they were convinced of, and when, and if there are Christians who attempt to claim they were never really truly believers, they go on to tell us exactly the way in which this belief impacted their life, which would include, going to church every time the doors were open, praying, Bible study, attempting to find God's perfect will for their life, making decisions based upon how they "felt" the Holy Spirit was leading, etc. etc., and the big one would be, "tithing their money" which would end up being a pretty good amount of money over the years, that would end up being a pretty good chunk of change that could have been in one's 401, that has been wasted on, something they were convinced was true, that they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

In fact, we have members from this very site, who have their own web sites, and have even written books, for the exact purpose of describing how convinced they were, and the impact it had upon their lives, with one being so convinced, he dropped out of college, to go to the mission field, only now to tell us, he has rejected what he was once convinced was true.

So then, if you want to insist that Christianity did not have this sort of impact on you, or your family's life, in that you all did not attend Church religiously, that you all did not pray, that you did not study the Bible, or attempt to determine God's perfect will for your life, or make decisions based upon how you felt the Holy Spirit was leading, and that you did not tithe your money, then this would not include you, or you family. But the fact of the matter is, all these things would be things Christians would do, that they would not do, if they were not Christians, and so it would be these things that would not simply be, "folks simply being themselves".

So again to be clear, what you, and your family may have done, does not change the fact that there are former Christians, who claim to have been convinced Christianity were true, who acknowledge the great impact upon their lives, and there are many many things they participated in as a Christian that they do not participate in now, and it would be things they would have never done, by being their natural selves.

So you just continually misrepresent what I say and try to twist into something that favors your bogus arguments.

Well no! I simply repeated what you had to say about yourself which was, 'you claim to have been convinced Christianity was true, only now to insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support'. I believe this would be a fact. When you let it be known that you were done with Christianity by the time you were twenty, I accepted this to be the case, and went on to say that, "this would not apply to you, but it does not negate the fact that there have been others who carried this belief well into their adult life, and, or, made the decision to become a Christian as an adult". You then go on to insist that Christianity did not make an enormous difference in your life, or the life of your folks, and I have accepted this, but again this would not negate the fact that there are those who admit that it did indeed have an enormous impact, and there are many things they did as a Christian, that they would never do, as unbelievers. Therefore, your argument concerning what impact it had on you, and your parents, has nothing to do with the fact that there are many others with a different story.

Sorry buddy, but you've already lost this debate a long time ago.

What argument am I losing? I have accepted your claim that Christianity did not have much of an impact on you, or the life of your folks, but it would be a fact that there are many who claim that it did indeed have such an impact. How is this losing the argument? The way in which I would lose, is if it can be demonstrated, that Christianity does not have much of an impact on the lives of those who are Christians. But the fact of the matter is, we have those who are former Christians, who insist that Christianity did in fact have an enormous impact on the way in which they lived their lives. So the only way I lose, is if this is not the case.

Apparently the only way you can debate is to pretend your debate opponents said things they never said. But that isn't going to fly here.

Are there those who claim to have been convinced Christianity would have been true? Do some of these folks claim that Christianity had an impact on their lives, to the point they were doing things they would never do as an unbeliever? Are there some of these folks who go on to insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of? Have I not accepted what you have to say concerning you, and your folks? What is it, that I am "pretending"?

What we do know is, "you have accused me of, "creating a false narrative". You have accused me of, "bearing false witness". You have accused me of, "making false personal accusations". You have accused me of, "attempting to discredit them". You have accused me of, " misrepresenting their position", all based upon the idea that I was insisting that they were claiming to be convinced by evidence, when I have not said such a thing? So then, who is it really, who is doing the "pretending"?