I think that examining how dogmatically one holds faith is very important. This comes as a response to a statement made by Moegreche regarding faith. I think his post sums up a lot of common arguments, so let's take a look:
''We believe what is presented before us. Now, maybe later on we get evidence that is incompatible with our belief and then we can assess whether or not to abandon that belief. I think it's hard to fault someone who was raised in a religious environment and counts certain experiences as God's love for them. It's what their environment surrounds them with, so their belief is completely understandable (to me, at least).''
I was talking to my brother the other day (who is devoutly Greek Orthodox) and I stumbled on a question I htought would be interesting: ''If someone had a time machine and could take you back to 33 AD and showed you that Jesus' ressurection took place, would you stop believing in Christ?'' Keep in mind that the resurrection is the cornerstone to the salvation described in Christianity. Unsurprising to me, he replied he didn't know what he would do (he has very good reasons for believing, trust me), but for others who haven't been through the experiences he has, I'm wondering whether your response would be similar, which would make me question why exactly you believe in Christianity in the first place.
So the question I ask, is what point of logical, or objective proof must one reach to fundamentally change another's faith/belief where applicable (whether it be Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist etc.)? Or are there too many irrational emotions involved in this part of human decision making?
Other than merely answering those questions, I would like everyone to state their faith and what the threshold of it would be. I will start.
I am an agnostic atheist. It would take objective proof of the existence of a deity to convince me. Scientific inconsistencies and gaps in human knowledge about the origins of the universe really don't annoy me, as practically everything in this universe within the realm of human knowledge has been explained using scientific method, and the things which haven't been explained are being worked on.
Let's talk about Hell. Hell is not a place of burning fire and red creatures with pitchfork we are not tortured by demons or Satan and the environment it self will not be one of torture. There is suffering in Hell for one reason only; the absence of God. This would lead us to realize that God couldn't create an eternity that simply was and wasn't Heaven or Hell because God is either in the location or is not. There can be no in between, no purgatory, limbo, or first layer of Hell if you prefer . Suffering those in Hell undergo will be because of the absence of God and nothing more.
There is suffering in Hell for one reason only; the absence of God.
Considering Atheism by definition is the absence of God and while I can't speak for everyone I know it's not causing suffering for me, then there would seem to be a certain flaw in this concept. But anyway I think this could easily derail.
1. God's presence is on Earth so there is not an absolute absence. 2. In comparison to the joy of being a true Christian atheism could be related to a Hell on Earth.
1. God's presence is on Earth so there is not an absolute absence. 2. In comparison to the joy of being a true Christian atheism could be related to a Hell on Earth.
1. Then why would we have to let him in?
2. I was once a true Christian, science has given me much more.
He's just making a comparison. Maybe you feel that it feels great because you aren't a true Christian. Maybe being a true Christian is so much better than not being one that it's akin to how much better being alive is than being in Hell. Notice I'm not stating any opinions, I'm just clarifying.
He's just making a comparison. Maybe you feel that it feels great because you aren't a true Christian. Maybe being a true Christian is so much better than not being one that it's akin to how much better being alive is than being in Hell. Notice I'm not stating any opinions, I'm just clarifying.
314d1's answer seems to indicate an improvement from being a true Christian.
14d1's answer seems to indicate an improvement from being a true Christian
In some ways. I am merely stating science, one of my obsessions and famed enemy or religion, has given me much more the religion ever has.
Numbers was never a true Christian if you left you were never truly among us.
Care to give the definition of a true Christian? I accepted Jesus into my circulatory system and all that jazz. I am reminded of a video... I will link it in a second.
Numbers was never a true Christian if you left you were never truly among us.
What happened to love they brother and forgiveness, you make it sound like being part of a club, or a cult, oh wait, it is a cult.
And saying hell is the absence of god doesnt work, because by most christians standards, in fact, by most religions standards, their god is omnipitant and infallible i.e. hell IS god, he knows, is and allows everything because of his big plan. My big plan is to keep you religious peepz coming up with new and interesting reasons for your delusion (dont meen to be meen, but im not in a good mood).
Funny how now that we are in a society that has the potetial for instant evidence i.e. video, pictures, internet, TV and so on aand on... funny how there is NO documented evidence of jesus talking to someone, of god talking to a new prophet, of any miracles caught on camera etc... funny that!
Anything written from 2000 years ago doesnt count as evidence in my books... as anyone with enough power could, quite literally, write history as they want it. Its a bit more difficult now with internet etc, so yes, I would need to be taken back in a time machine and to see for myself.
And Time travel IS impossible, least of all because if it was, we would have already come back and done all this proving stuff.
Or time travel is possible and the future humans aren't retarded so they don't come back in time to interfere....
Humans are retarded.
Off topic, time travel is impossible because to do this you would need to rewind the universe, and thats not TT thats literally reversing every atom, particle and space between atoms and GOD knows what else to a previous state. Everything exists at once and it is in a constant forward motion. Time is not a line, it is mearly a measurment of point A to B, you cant go back to A because it is, in fact now point C. So even reversing everything would still only take you forward. Dont reply, I will start a new thread.
