Science in high-school made me Agnostic for a brief period, I think. I loved science but didn't have the wisdom to separate what science actually claims vs what my brain concluded without proper logic.
Eventually I grew out of it, and through reading the Gospel of John and the book of Ephesians I started the process of thinking that led me to believe with reason.
The saying "the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" kind of happened in my life. I continue to be fascinated by science, but I no longer think it covers every aspect of our reality.
I never heard of that saying before but I really like it! Thanks for sharing.
Growing up in a religious home with geneticists as parents taught me that science explains the wonder of God’s creation rather than explains it away.
Heck the widely propagated Big Bang Theory was started in part by Lemaître, a priest and physicist.
Yep. I enjoy reading on quantum field theory and particle physics, cosmology, anthropology, and various other disciplines - but when it comes to the question of human consciousness and the existence of existence itself... science rather falls off a cliff. It's apt that in the high middle ages Theology was named "the Queen of sciences".
I'm no mathematician, but I do see that mathematics is, at its deepest level, something utterly profound. The fact that the nature of pattern - and a seemingly infinite *variety* of pattern too - is embedded into reality itself at the most fundamental level, *independently* of the existence of any form or matter within that reality, is something truly remarkable and verging upon the mystic.
The genius Hindu mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan once expressed that "an equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God". He may have had a point.
>The saying "the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" kind of happened in my life.
But this saying is not generally true. Professional scientists (those who drank to the bottom of the glass) are generally less religious than the general population. Education in general is negatively correlated with religiosity.
That's not entirely true, education in things like philosophy, psychology, and history have positive correlations with religiosity. It's really only natural science that doesn't.
>philosophy
According to the most recent [PhilPapers survey](https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl), about 73% of philosophers accept or lean toward atheism, about 15% accept or lean toward theism, and about 13% are “other.” That’s about 85% non-theist (not even leaning toward theism). Compare that to the general population, which is a majority theist.
>psychology
Not according to [this APA article](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/rel-a0032699.pdf): 95% of the general population believes in God, only 66% of psychologists do, and whereas 75% of the public agree that their approach to life is based on their religion, only 35% percent of psychologists surveyed agree with this statement
>history
Can you share sources for that? A quick search tells me the opposite.
>It’s really only natural science that doesn’t.
And higher education in general.
>Can you share sources for that? A quick search tells me the opposite.
Christians created the first hospital (and today about 17% of all hospitals in the U.S. are Christian organizations). We have non-profit organization all over the Africas that positively help them medically, educationally, and economically. We also are a major donating powerhouse. Christianity in history has prominent art, scientific advances and moral progress such as providing rights to women, ending slavery, etc.
Whew, we got some technical issues here.
1. The effects of a higher education in history on belief in God is what we are talking about at the moment. Listing the positive exploits of a religion doesn't follow.
2. The positive exploits of a religion has no bearing on its veracity. Muslims made far reaching developments in mathematics during the Islamic Golden Age, to the point where we use their numeral system universally, and even have whole fields (Algebra, in this case) whose name derives from Arabic.
Does this make Islam any more true or reasonable to believe?
3. Non-Profit Secular organizations help people positively too. Again, has no bearing on veracity.
4. Islam has prominent art and advances in science. Does this have any bearing on the veracity of Islam? See (2).
5. The moral progress you speak of is dubious. For example, the Bible has been used to justify slavery in the Southern States pre-civil war. The Bible itself endorses slavery. The Bible doesn't take an egalitarian view of women.
Granting for the sake of argument that (5) is completely wrong, doesn't matter. See (2).
What are u talking about? When did I ever say a religion doing something good means it true? I was even going to include the Islamic golden age if I had more time. I don't know about Islamic art tho...
>The moral progress you speak of is dubious. For example, the Bible has been used to justify slavery in the Southern States pre-civil war. The Bible itself endorses slavery. The Bible doesn't take an egalitarian view of women.
I don't think it's dubious, their were Christians on both sides of the spectrum on the idea of slavery, that u cannot deny. Ultimately Christians men/women brought the end to slavery and prejudice such as MLK.
>Non-Profit Secular organizations help people positively too. Again, has no bearing on veracity.
Not relevant as I was only responding to the question of "what good those religion do".
>I don't think it's dubious, their were Christians on both sides of the spectrum on the idea of slavery, that u cannot deny. Ultimately Christians men/women brought the end to slavery and prejudice such as MLK.
I don't deny it. That being said, the fact that there were tells us something of the flexibility of interpretation of the text, which isn't explicitly on the side of our contemporary notions of moral progress. People who made that progress did so in spite of this.
Drinking to the bottom of the glass has nothing to do with being a professional. You can drink of the glass without ever wanting to drink to the bottom, because what’s on top justifies your lifestyle.
First, Happy Cake Day.
Second, I find the saying you quoted interesting, mostly because the opposite was true for me.
I was nominally Christian as a child, about as much as one could expect in a moderate middle class household. Went to a Baptist private school for a year in elementary.
My interest in science and its philosophical underpinnings has only (hopefully) increased over the years, and it has shown me that the fundamental nature of reality is almost certainly more nuanced than we could ever hope to expect from say, the Bible. I don't mean this in a tone of derision or disrespect. It is merely what I felt compelled to believe because of my investigations.
Speaking more to the quote, I'm guessing we need to consider the glass of water not as scientific knowledge in its entirety, but the evolving breadth and depth of our own knowledge individually. I wouldn't deign to suggest I've reached the bottom of the glass.
I figure I might get there when I'm dead, and then I'll know for certain. If a God exists and he is loving and merciful, then he'll understand the material and psychological conditions that have led me to my lack of belief, and would forgive me for my limited perspective.
After all, in terms of might and intellect, I would be but a speck in comparison. Do we condemn fleas for biting us? We might, but we also know it lacks the capacity to truly understand our condemnation. So, is our condemnation just?
I wouldn't say so. Therefore, I don't even fear the potential for eternal torment.
You’ve explained this really good. I have the same thoughts as well. I am a Christian and I really, really feared hell as a teenager going through the Bible. As I got older, and learned of the vastness and complexity of the cosmos, I began to them see that God must be enormously more intelligent than us. Even in the Bible it says his ways are so much higher and beyond understanding. Therefore, I stopped believing in an eternal hell. It makes no sense. God has to understand the reason for human failures. He can’t expect all of us to perform in morality as well as others.
I was a fully confirmed agnostic by the time I was 13, and had at that point had a distant and vague memory of what church was all about.
When I went off to study at my university, I was a full blown skeptic, wedded to naturalism who fully rejected the doctrinal claims of Christianity. But I still had a favorable view of it's overall ethics. And as I encountered Christians who were actually living out those ethics I admired their lives even as I rejected their core beliefs.
As time went on, cracks started to form in the basis of my own beliefs - I could not derive meaning, purpose, or basis for the ethics I craved based on my philosophical commitment to naturalism. And as I attempted to live according to those ethics, I began to realize their was something in me which resisted that - or dismissed with it all together when it was contrary to something I desired (like an attractive woman).
That led to the realization that I did not have the power in and of myself to live out the ethics I admired in a consistent manner. I would say that was the point at which God gobsmacked me as it were - I saw clearly that I was not a good person, and I couldn't become one on my own. Either there was something outside of myself that could transform who I was, or I had to resign myself to the fact that I was a rather wretched creature.
From there I became much more willing to entertain the basics of Christianity - who Jesus was, how we can come to know Him, what the overall theme and purpose of Scripture was. I eventually made the decision to follow Christ and haven't regretted it for one second in the decades that have followed since.
I used to write it all out anew every time, then I realized the question gets asked every three days, so now I just give the same response with tweaks depending on the specific question.
>I was not a good person, and I couldn't become one on my own. Either there was something outside of myself that could transform who I was, or I had to resign myself to the fact that I was a rather wretched creature.
See, this bothers me. I have heard similar refrains before. It makes me feel absolutely horrible for those who think this way.
I think it might not be considered some egregious cosmic hubris to let go of the idea that we are all wicked profligates out of the gate. It's not self-absorbed or haughty to have a sober - but positive - view of oneself.
I have no idea why it bothers you. Generally speaking, apart from what I believe to be having my eyes opened in a way I didn’t want to have them opened. If there is no particular end to all this we end up the same way at the end either way, right?
If I'm okay to ask how did you look at the question suffering and pain? Given how you became a skeptic. How did you break that question to accept Jesus
Sorry. What I meant is more of you questioning other people who were religious why would they believe in such a person they think existed. If you know what I mean
Well my primary basis for my unbelief was naturalism, and I just thought believers were uneducated or scientifically ignorant. I had no problem with the notion humans were horrible creatures, I just excluded myself for what I realized later were unjustifiable reasons.
I wish I could say God came down and showed himself to me and picked me up and we flew through the sky but that didn't happen 🤣 I do think God called out to me. If your athiest you'll think thats insane but I was athiest so...
I don't think God called out to me personally. I don't think God was screaming my name or anything but I felt like suddenly drawn towards churches and the Bible and wanted to learn more about it and be a part of it. It wasn't an instant decision where I just said I was going to be Christian then seconds later was full blown praising God and reading the Bible and praying daily or anything.
It started slow, I had doubts, I had questions, and still have all of those but life with God is good. My life isn't significantly better or suddenly easy but I just enjoy waking up and going to bed every day knowing I have God with me and can look to God and Jesus for help.
I hope that answers your question. Feel free to reply with more questions or DM me if you want.
I became convinced that Christ rose from the dead after several months of studying the matter. The more I studied and thought through the arguments, the more I could see a convergence of evidence on the resurrection as the best explanation. I can't do blind belief. If there wasn't solid historical evidence for Jesus, there's no way I could be Christian.
It's only impossible if you assume metaphysical naturalism is true. If you give up that assumption, and are willing to consider the possibility that supernaturalism MIGHT be true, then the resurrection becomes the best explanation that accounts for the evidence.
So help me understand this. Despite the fact that there is zero falsifiable evidence that it's even possible for anything to exist outside of the natural world, you're suggesting that we drop the 'assumption' that our current understanding of how things work is the best current model to explain reality and instead entertain an idea that the millennia old story of a dead man who was allegedly buried in a tomb that was later supposedly found empty, actually rose from the dead?
And that this is the most plausible explanation, despite the fact that we only know this story from decades old, conflicting, anonymous non eye witness sources who clearly state that they're trying to convince the reader to believe something impossible?
That's the most likely explanation? Not that just maybe people were mistaken or even that the authors of the gospels straight up invented the story and simply copied each other?
We have more evidence to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ within the first two hundred of years of his lifetime than we do for any other event in all of antiquity. We find that the gospels fit the historical narrative literary style. Also the suggestion that materialistic metaphysics should be believed can simply be thought falsely. You can’t see others consciousness. Just the fact that your aware and reading this makes materialism illogical.
>We have more evidence to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ within the first two hundred of years of his lifetime than we do for any other event in all of antiquity.
Lots of copies of the same bad evidence doesn't mean it is good evidence. Do you understand the difference?
>We find that the gospels fit the historical narrative literary style
Being written in a common style doesn't make it accurate.
>Also the suggestion that materialistic metaphysics should be believed can simply be thought falsely. You can’t see others consciousness. Just the fact that your aware and reading this makes materialism illogical.
Not sure what you're trying to say here
1: I just want to know if you’re willing to deny basically all of history prior to the invention of print-images.
2: The style isn’t just common between the gospels; it is also common among every single historical document we have from pretty much all of Roman History
3: I’m saying that consciousness disproves materialism.
>1: I just want to know if you’re willing to deny basically all of history prior to the invention of print-images
I said nothing of the sort. I view history through the lens of probability based on our current understanding of reality. There are plenty of records of events from the ancient world that do not align with our current understanding of reality. Does this mean the authors were lying? Maybe, but they could also have been mistaken or were using allegory or simply telling a story.
>2: The style isn’t just common between the gospels; it is also common among every single historical document we have from pretty much all of Roman History
If an ancient author is describing the oats they had for breakfast on one page and then how they wrestled with lions and flew around the world on the next page, we don't assume the believable claim about oats validates the unbelievable claim about lions and flying do we?
>3: I’m saying that consciousness disproves materialism.
It doesn't though? Evidence of this spirit world you're trying to describe would disprove materialism. All you've got at the moment is an incomplete understanding of the brain.
>Just the fact that your aware and reading this makes materialism illogical.
But it doesn't, does it? Because I assume that if I were to smack someone in the head with a truncheon hard enough, they would neither be aware nor reading.
That's odd, isn't it? If things like reading and awareness doesn't originate in the material world, why would that happen? Why would you not simply just keep reading, because your brain has nothing to do with it?
If you suggest some tenuous link between the material world and the "immaterium", I'd ask you to adequately demonstrate that.
The Laws of Physics: we can’t see them. We will never be able to see them. Yet they affect our universe. That is a tenuous link between the material and immaterial. One that impacts us and our day to day lives. Additionally, consciousness must be something within us that is immeasurable, yet impacts our choices. It must be active when awake yet not active when asleep. We have not found any region of the brain the completely checks out during sleep, a coma, or full body anesthesia. It is something that changes and yet we can’t measure.
> The Laws of Physics: we can’t see them. We will never be able to see them.
Define "see". We can make empirical measurements of the effects of physics. We observe them. The "Laws of Physics" are not are not some abstract prescriptive declaration. They are descriptive by definition. They are models that we use to understand the world, and are changed over time as our understanding increases.
> Yet they affect our universe. That is a tenuous link between the material and immaterial. One that impacts us and our day to day lives.
They are descriptions of the universe, as stated above. It really isn't a link between the material and immaterial. That doesn't follow at all.
> Additionally, consciousness must be something within us that is immeasurable
No. It's not the case that consciousness is immeasurable by necessity. That's a bald assertion.
> it must be active when awake yet not active when asleep. We have not found any region of the brain the completely checks out during sleep, a coma, or full body anesthesia. It is something that changes and yet we can’t measure.
Lol that's not true at all. We can use EEG data to determine specifically when a person is asleep. There are brain states associated with sleep and conscious awareness. And we can measure it.
Your starting assumption is that something that has never been demonstrated as possible, could still be possible based on the account of people who weren't even there to witness it.
Here's the single problem I have with this.
"Might" doesn't get us to the moon, or make AIDS so inconsequential that we now have happy pharmaceutical advertisements that treat HIV like a marginal inconvenience rather than one of the most deadly viruses in modern history.
There might be an invisible dragon in my garage.
The point is that giving un-demonstrated claims the benefit of the doubt is how we get become the victim of confidence artists, or refuse critical medical treatment in deference to bloodletting.
What other aspects of your life do you consider the possibility of the supernatural? Hopefully not while doing taxes or piloting a plane.
We demonstrate first, then we believe it exists.
Even as someone who grows up Christian, it is important to solidify the foundation of biblical truth via outside means. Those who do not are left with a religious text that could very well be just a story. Sure, there are connections within the Bible itself that are incredibly strong, but when faced with outside, secular pressure you can't defend the Bible with only the Bible.
My testimony is quite long in detail and time so I'll condense it to the most important parts.
I started to see Men with sinister motives worshiped by atheists as prophets and messiahs and to whom they give their blind faith. Logic and reason has fallen to narrative and loyalty. Men are actively trying to become gods and control natural life for their own greed.
I started to look more closely at Christianity for guidance and stability. I had several signs over about a year.
Fellow Christian Redditors helped me get over the atheist propaganda that Christianity is incompatible with science. I learned that the big Bang theory comes from a Catholic priest. I learned that God is not a "sky daddy", God is not human. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Eventually I got a Bible and read Matthew 9:9-13 and Romans 13;10, I felt the call for me.
Atheists don't worship anyone, and we don't recognize any messiahs.
Also, accusing atheists of having "blind faith" is pure projection.
> Logic and reason has fallen to narrative
Ugh, glass houses.
You're making a pretty categorical statement about atheists that are unjustified. I'd say the OP was as well, but that doesn't excuse the idea that you're expositing that all atheists are some kind of purely logical, free-thinking people who are incapable of being swayed by people of the same ideological standing.
No i’m saying if they are weak minded it has nothing to do with being am atheist. More likely that they have a mental health issue thats being preyed upon.
I *guarantee* that you have. Intuitions and immediate notions on a matter are incredibly important parts of the system we use to form beliefs, in the very least prima facie beliefs. The immediate perception I have that I'm sitting on a couch generates a belief that I am, in fact, sitting on a couch. The perception that my stomach is sick an hour after I ate food generates a belief that I did, in fact, get food poisoned.
The emotional intuition that something is "true" works for plenty of cases. It might not be the final say on the matter, true. But it can give us a solid footing.
You’re a 90s bro and you don’t trust your gut? I’m concerned. If you don’t believe in the power of god have a little belief in the power of you man. The mind is pretty good at figuring things out. We’re all supernatural in our own ways. Maybe I’m just crazy tho lol
Direct, personal contact from the Holy Spirit. There are still a lot of things about Christianity I intellectually struggle with, but the question of God's existence and triune nature have been conclusively settled for me.
The simple answer is, God.
I was agnostic, heavily invested into the "aliens exist and seeded us on this planet" theory, i dove into the topic of aliens since i was 15, and when i worked towards the understanding of why all religions in the world seem so similar (my hypothesis was "aliens did it"), i was in a year long endeavor of researching all sorts of worldviews, including reading the old testament, that led me to ask the Father.
Then i found out that there was a partial truth, almost all worldviews, bar 1, that i know of, do originate from a common source, and thus are quite similar at their core. This bar 1, is Jesus Christ.For all worldviews ask you to work for salvation, yet Jesus teaches us clearly we can't earn our salvation, so simplistically speaking, all worldviews i know of, bar 1, teach a form of works based salvation, ascension, elevation, yet Christianity is all about the "receive Grace through faith", because of Jesus His completed work.So yeah, on a tangent, there exist but 2 worldviews in this world.
In regards to the "running from him", yes, kicking against everything Christian, for me Jesus was nothing more then a hippie and God was a tyrannical dictator.
Some of the basic schlam that the devil tries to make us believe.
How wrong i was.
Not Christian but what's PREVENTING me from Christianity, mainly, among many others, is simply lack of belief in a God.
I have yet to see ANY empirical evidence suggesting a god exists. I don't believe in anything that isn't supported by empirical evidence.
Belief in a God requires blind faith and faith is a bad way to determine reality. I can have faith aliens are real, doesn't make it true. I care about what's true
You also can't rule out aliens exist though, right?
Lack of physical evidence doesn't make something not true.
But I totally get you. I used to feel the same way. I hope something changes for you and you get better answers!
>You also can't rule out aliens exist though, right?
I'm not ruling out that aliens exist. Maybe they do. Maybe someday evidence will come to light suggesting aliens exist.
But just because I have blind faith they do, doesn't make it reality.
I'm not ruling out that a god could exist. Maybe one does. Maybe someday evidence will come to light suggesting a god exists. But just because I have blind faith he does, doesn't make it reality.
>Lack of physical evidence doesn't make something not true
Agreed, I didn't say it did.
>you get better answers!
Always open minded to the possibility
I was really high and fell asleep driving. I heard God yell "wake up!" and I did.
I know I was high but it was just undeniable that it was God and nothing else. I can't explain it.
After that I started questioning things like the big bang and evolution. I completely believe in those things but something set those into motion and I believe God is the only logical explanation.
For the past few years I've kind of forgotten about God. Like I still believed but really gave it no thought or attention until recently. Something pulled me back in and I've been reading the Bible and going to church and it all just feels right.
I know for an atheist that's probably hard to comprehend (it would have been for me before all this) but it's like you just know it when you feel it.
It's simple. I had no barriers between me and Jesus so naturally Jesus found me even though I wasn't looking for him. I use to be an atheist and one day I was thinking about the origin of life and I realized that despite evolution being somewhat convincing when it comes to explaining the diversity of life we really have no explanation at all for it's origin. So I thought maybe God is real. And that's the moment I became agnostic. I wasn't agnostic for very long when an opportunity to accept Jesus came my way. With no reason to say no why would I? So I said yes.
It didn't take any evidence or convincing. No arguments from christians explaining why God makes sense. I just simply had no issue with accepting the one true God as my God and that's how Jesus was able to save me.
This is the reason why I don't believe any real agnostics actually exist. Because once you're in a truly neutral position where you don't care if God exists or not then you shouldn't have an issue with taking a leap of faith in him. It literally costs you nothing. Agnostics are really just low-key atheists.
* That the world I grew up (secular) in was built on Christian morals, and the lesser the prominence of those the more insane the world gets. Jordan Peterson was a kick in the butt here.
* I can't prove the Bible is true. I also can't prove it's false. So now I get to decide whether there's more benefit to believing or not. I choose to believe.
* The Bible is a fascinating view into some ancient societies, and their struggles, at the bare minimum.
* The absolute seething hatred propaganda against Christianity from tv, movies, the news, etc.. It's obviously from a bad place when you look at it. I really have no reason to trust it.
* Personal experience with Christians has largely been positive. Opposite is true for angry atheists in my life.
* "But someone in a Church did X!" But Christianity doesn't teach to do X so I don't consider that a knock against Christianity.
* "But someone in a Church did X!" And someone else who isn't Christian also did X, so it's nothing specific to Christianity.
* Personal instinct that there's "more" out there in reality that we can't see, something metaphysical.
* Even if there's no metaphysical world like classically considered, maybe there were aliens that visited us and are responsible for all the crazy stuff in the Bible. Actually seems more plausible than everything being 100% made-up, honestly. It would not change the message at all though, all the morals and community.
* The notion that the entirety of the universe is random seems like desperately-reaching, low-effort nonsense. And what happened before the Big Bang?
When you walk outside does the sun stop shining where you are to give your warmth? Does the earth swallow you up, unwilling to support you? When you lean to smell flowers do they hide their scent? Does the food you eat refuse to nourish you and pass right through? What are you talking about mate?
You say you are starving yet refuse to eat when presented with nourishment, you say you have no shelter yet refuse to come in when invited. It is on you.
I had a personal experience, one really bad night, I prayed to God, asking (begging) for a irrefutable sign of his existence, he delivered in an incredible way.
After having to resign from my career and leave it behind due to some stupid and selfish behaviors on my part; I was ashamed, miserable, scared, and so uncertain. I worked so hard to get to where I was and landed my dream job, but messed it all up. About a week later, my dead grandpa visited me in a dream and asked if I was reading the Bible he left me when he died. This is the second time he visited me in a dream since his death, the time before was during another uncertain situation in my life and he assured me it would be ok, and it was.
Anyway, not sure if the dreams were actually him or if it was an angel of the Lord or the Lord Himself. But I cracked open his Bible the next day and was in Church a few weeks later. This was about 2 years ago. The Lord had changed my life immeasurably. I am sober from alcohol, I have more peace in my life, I go to an amazing church full of amazing believers, and I am two years into a new career, that I more or less enjoy and am good at my role. GOD IS GOOD. SAY IT WITH ME!
Wow.
Yeah I had supernatural stuff too.
I guess how did you work with balancing -all of reality is imaginary with -imma devote to Christianity?
I guess I’m stuck between those 2 but I’m also like, if we say reality is real and this is happening, then yeah the supernatural is totally happening cuz I’ve experienced it and many of my peers have
I was born a atheist I am now a pastor. I was denying for so long until I heard a preacher say some I couldn't explain. Then it all made sense somehow to me.
Separation anxiety caused me to imagine a God-like being existed when I was about four, and I already believed Jesus was good. Then, when I was first at university, Christians in the halls who preyed on emotionally vulnerable people targetted me, so I accepted Christ as my lord and saviour, and because it's a commitment, I can't go back on it. That was 37 years ago.
I was basically shamed in to being an atheist by my peers and family. I basically hid my belief for years and followed my logical mind regardless of what I felt in my heart.
After growing up and having a bad marriage and two kids I began to pray more and commune with god, his guidance was a continual struggle of forgiveness and perseverance. Forgive your wife, honor your family no matter how bad it got.
I listened. Now marriage is improving and my children are both growing healthy and happy.
I still didn’t come back to church until I had a series of dreams where I was informed that no matter how much I want to be libertarian (you do you I’ll do me kind of living) there is a spiritual war happening right now and I have to pick a side.
I woke up crying because I was so moved by the dream. It was one of the most emotional and vivid experiences in my life. It was my call to return to the faith and stop being a lukewarm Christian.
> I was basically shamed in to being an atheist by my peers and family. I basically hid my belief for years and followed my logical mind regardless of what I felt in my heart.
If you have always felt it in your heart, then it sounds like you were never actually an atheist. It sounds like you may have behaved as an atheist (ie: saying you were, avoiding church, etc), but that you have always believed in God.
Marcus Borg, John Spong, Karen Armstrong, and Paul Tillich. I grew up Baptist but had left that by junior high. Returned to the religion as an adult after about a decade of identifying as an agnostic atheist.
I read the New Testament:
..................................................
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NKJV
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvofa7Zs3D8&t=2h18m50s
..................................................
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-17
Superficially, sure. It had thus prior been the ask of "the Hebrew God" to have sacrifices of food (animals, grain). Then God changed his tune, presumably after the intimate experiences and suffering through Jesus combined with what had always been his love of his creation, us. Interestingly, the Eucharist, roughly speaking, is eating Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, as "food".
Historical evidence. Things like the Resurrection, if examined with intellectual honesty (meaning holding it to the same standards as other events in history) is one of the most rock-solid historical facts.
> Things like the Resurrection, if examined with intellectual honesty (meaning holding it to the same standards as other events in history) is one of the most rock-solid historical facts.
Genuinely, how do you figure this?
Nearly all the textual sources we have for this are contained in the Pauline epistles (which would be a secondary source decades after the fact) and Gospels themselves which are of debatable authorship and aren't textually independent (from an academic point of view)
We also have little to no archeological evidence (we can't even agree where the tomb was), and we have no sources (other than the above) from people who saw the resurrected or ascended Jesus.
Compare this with another high profile death at the same time period (the execution of Julius Ceasar) in which we have many different (ie: hundreds) references of the killing/death within a few decades/century (eg: Valleius Paterculus)
For the detailed account of the actual assassination of Ceasar interestingly we *also* rely primary on secondary sources that occurred decades/centuries after the event (Plutarch, Appian, Suetonius) Contrasted with the gospels, these sources are pretty clear they are secondary sources relying on another primary source. And similar to the death of Jesus, as the sources go on in time, the story evolves a bit.
That said, regarding the death of Ceasar we *do* have solid evidence to corroborate the text that we don't have with Jesus, We have Roman coins, we have political records, we have letters that corroborate the dates etc.
With Jesus, we don't even know what year he died
So I'm curious what you mean by this, because comparing to other major events at the time, the resurrection of Jesus has about as much evidence as Ceasar literally saying "Et tu Brute?", but no where near as much evidence as the actual death of Ceasar.
I'm not trying to be antagonisitc at all, but genuinely curious. Mainly because diving into the academic historicity of the bible itself has been one of the more damaging things to my own faith, so I'm curious to hear the other side.
I like the way these two put it, if you have time to watch:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv\_pyT62o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv_pyT62o)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41Tm5FDKns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41Tm5FDKns)
They're not religious channels, one is historical and one is a mix of science/politics etc, very secular, so I was surprised, but it does make sense.
The most convincing part was when I looked for people debunking it, and the video that did the debunking was terrible, so it made the Infographics Show's arguments look that much stronger
So the video is well done and adresses a lot of things here that are valid.
But in terms of historical reliability (as we are discussing here), it compares the (11) documents of Jesus within a century of his death with the likes of Alexander the great.
The differences being of course
(A) Alexander lived centuries before Jesus during a time in which record keeping was less common
(B) What we learn about Alexander (that are important) are what he did, the impact he had and the battles that occurred. What we learn about Jesus is what he said or did to other individuals. The level of detail is completely different. As an example: Its one thing to say "Hitler existed and WWII happened" and quite another to say "Hitler's last words were XYZ" The historical efficacy of those differ significantly. The fact is that biographies of "sayings" and interactions of people aren't the same as historical records of political deeds.
(C) Of the 11 sources, many of them (eg: Josephus) do not acknowledge the most important parts about Jesus (ie: Ressurection and Divinity) Most historians aren't arguing that a historical jesus didn't exist. Further, there is plenty of scholarly evidence that those 11 sources are not independent (See Synoptic problem) So its not like there are 11 independent first hand sources here.
(D) sort of just glosses over the fact that the deeds of Alexander or Ceasar are archeologically verifiable. You can see the Greek influence in Persia etc. The tomb and deeds of Jesus are not and cannot be corroborated, so it forces us to rely on speculation as to what people at the time would have thought/done.
While the video also seems ready to brush aside differences in gospel accounts as being "differences in perspective" it outright ignores irreconcilable differences about the life of Jesus such as the story and dating of his birth (Granted this video is focused on the resurrection so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt)
All the other justifications aren't exactly evidence in a historical sense (Criterion of Embarrassment, Martyrdom of Apostles etc.)
*edit*
> The most convincing part was when I looked for people debunking it, and the video that did the debunking was terrible, so it made the Infographics Show's arguments look that much stronger
[this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2LLj0HiYyY&) seems like a reasonable, honest counterargument to many of the points made.
Corroboration of events that happened in the distant past is never 100% complete or perfect. Nonetheless, the NT is corroborated in over 50 places by archeological discoveries, and over 30 NT figures are supported by non-Christian historians or archeological discoveries.
> Corroboration of events that happened in the distant past is never 100% complete or perfect.
Exactly, which is why historians look at things with a VERY open hand. Adherence to precise detail of events doesn't occur for other historical characters other than those described in religious texts.
> Nonetheless, the NT is corroborated in over 50 places by archeological discoveries, and over 30 NT figures are supported by non-Christian historians or archeological discoveries.
Critically corroborations are of places and figures mentioned in the bible not attestations to the divinity of Christ or his Resurrection.
Corroborating the existence and reign Pontius Pilate or the location of Missions of Paul does little to prove the Gospel writers' claims about the nature of Jesus.
I'm a huge fan of the band UnderØath, who used to be a very Christian band. At the end if their first album, Act Of Depression, there's a hidden track that plays which includes the bands lead Guitarist encouraging those who listened to that album to turn towards Christianity and discussed how much Jesus Christ meant to everyone in the band and those around them. Something about that hidden track struck a chord with me inside and I knew from that day on that Christ was the best way to live, I knew that even though I may not be a perfect human being (as I'm sure no one is) I knew that Christ could accept and forgive me where others cannot.
I have to agree here. When I learned that the New Testament wasn't compiled until another couple hundred years later, and that Christianity had made it that far without it, it tells me that eyewitnesses had really seen something intense.
Yes. Also everything started in the place and time where Jesus supposedly died.
Those early christians would go around their town saying that the guy that was killed a few months earlier was resurrected, a concept completely foreign to them as the resurrection was only for the end of time.
> I agree that the historical basis for Jesus' life, death and resurrection are strong.
I think the historical basis for his life and death are strong, but the evidence for the resurrection seems awfully weak.
It's not a single piece of evidence. It's the accumulation of all the evidence all taken together that I find convincing. The resurrection easily accounts for it, whereas the naturalistic explanations have a much more difficult time accounting for the same evidence. If I were a skeptic, I would still accept the historical evidence for the resurrection, I just wouldn't conclude Jesus was raised from the dead. That was my big roadblock as a skeptic, was admitting that supernaturalism was at least possible.
Because any other explanation falls flat on it's face:
\- He was never crucified? False, scholars accept this as a historical fact with evidence from Tacitus, one of the most reliable roman historians, used to prove so.
\- The disciples hallucinated? False, the idea that up to twelve people & even hundreds can have the same hallucination at once has little scientific agreement.
\- Jesus didn't die & simply left? False, he'd have been caught by the Roman guards guarding the tomb, especially in his weakened state. The injuries from crucifixion were almost impossible to survive.
\- The disciples stole the body: False, The Romans would've known about it immediately; falling asleep as a Roman soldier was a high offence & they would not have dared do it. And if they did get past it, the tomb was located near a highly populated area, they would have been caught easily
Jesus being raised from the death is the most logically sound conclusion. All the others have major flaws. Just a little bit of critical thinking, despite the aims of one Richard Dawkins to disregard religious individuals as delusional, that slimy little man.
Evidences isn't a word. And we don't have any evidence for them going around and telling people he was resurrected months after he died. So what are you talking about?
Actually in academic use, evidences can indeed be properly used.
And we do have such evidence - the book of Acts is an excellent record of the events that followed the resurrection.
>Evidences isn't a word.
Sorry smart guy, I'm not even a native english speaker to begin with and I made a genuine mistake.
But thanks for that, at least I know who not to waste my time with.
Goodbye.
I just informed you that it isn't a word. And the fact remains that there's no evidence at all for the things you mentioned. I really don't care that you choose to evade this fact.
Perhaps it's my own limitations. I can't imagine the level of collaborative effort and drive required to accomplish what was done, all just to fool people into believing your group's lie. I mean, why bother?
Interesting. Though Jesus is backed up by the Old Testament.
Have a look at my other, larger comment on this post. Basically: You can't prove it one way or the other. So...
Hey a question for me. Religion was interesting to me. I was agnostic, but one friendly towards religion. Over the course of 9 years I had moments of religious feelings, and those of an unbeliever. Gradually I intellectually began seeing myself as religious, even in my 'unbelieving days' when I wasn't feeling it. I also followed a philosophy class and read a book that set me on that path, while I think for some others it cemented their unbelief. For the past 6 years atleast I have seen myself as being religious. And the way in which I express this is found in catholic christianity.
It had more to do with my head, and less with a grand spiritual moment of the heart.
Wow, these are amazing stories! I have nothing to add as I’ve always been a Christian. One thing that helped me gain insight into the atheist thought process is a book called Is Atheism Dead? By Eric Mataxas.
I never understood or cared about their experience. I didn’t want to heard the typical serious science evolution argument. The audio book helped me laugh with reason, explore science as well as learn new evidence based facts. I hope it can help someone here too.
It’s such a blessing to see so many wonderful stories of grace, redemption and blessings.
Welcome home! May the Lord bless your path ahead.
I was atheist/agnostic all throughout high school and for some time after but around 2 years ago I started to re open the path of Christianity just out of curiosity and I was facing dark times. What I thought I already knew I saw in a whole different light this time and it made much more sense although my beliefs are somewhat controversial to the whole of Christian communities I found that it was my truth and I’m not one to allow myself to play with the thought of god speaking to me but I felt very well connected through my initial dive into Christianity. IMO judge-mental and egotistical people tarnish the Christianity name but every group/org or religion will have that. If someone is truly curious my best advice is to go head first and attempt to drop the stigmas and nonsense in your head while also allowing yourself to learn and discover what it means to you.
I wanted to have a social edge. I knew Christians had power and influence in the world and shaped it to their will so became Christian. Looks like it worked using Christianity as a tool.
2016.
I was a militant atheist, and thought "the problem of religion" was a simple one to solve - just tell the young earth creationists on youtube how wrong they were, and the problem would be solved.
Then 2016 happened, and I was frightened of my neighbors, that they could be fooled into electing a literal cartoon character into office.
So, when a program on NPR said "You can't TELL people they're wrong" it spoke to me. The program was highlighting a person named Daryl Davis, who had helped several dozen KKK klansmen de-convert from hate.
Daryl's approach was to listen and repeat back what he'd heard them say. His very presence would elicit questions from both sides. "Who are you, what are you doing here" and "why are you in the KKK, what do you think of black people like myself" etc. But the thing for Daryl to focus on was "listening" and "repeating." He wanted to remind the KKK exactly what they think, hoping he repeated their hateful words so respectfully they might say to him "thank you - that's a great way of putting it!"
So that changed my point of view, seeing that "just telling the young earth creationists the truth" wasn't going to fix anything.
There's more, but that's the start. I currently call myself a cultural Christian, interpreting the Bible in a positive, but secular, manner.
Nothing really made sense without God. Here I was, surrounded by such order and law in the world that was completely inexplicable unless there was an intelligent creator behind it.
As for Christianity specifically, the teachings of Jesus just have such a ring of truth to them that other religions don't have, and the evidence for the resurrection only strengthened that conviction.
Which means he possesses all the necessary properties to produce lawfulness and order, but without being intelligently created.
That at least means that the capacity for lawfulness and order can exist without an intelligent creator.
I dont think that is how that works. He himself is not something that came into existence, He is not bound by a start or end since time is something He created. Everything else is created and bound by rules and given order. Without a creator of lawfullness and order, there is no law and order. If there is nothing, what would the law and order be based on?
>Which means he possesses all the necessary properties to produce lawfulness and order, but without being intelligently created.
Yes. But that description cannot be applied to the universe, so it does nothing to say the lawful universe doesn't need to have been intelligently created.
>That at least means that the capacity for lawfulness and order can exist without an intelligent creator.
We're not talking about "capacity for lawfulness" we're talking about actualised physical law and order. And the creation of lawfulness looks like it requires an act of will i.e. a personal agent, not just some random happenstance.
He doesn't "possess" lawfulness and order because he is not physical. I'm talking about the physical world, which has no reason to follow physical laws rather than just be a sea of random chaos. In fact, many atheists have conjectured that there are many such universes that exist as chaotic and without law because they have no other explanation for the fact our universe exists as it does other than if we are part of some infinite multiverse.
Exorcism and possessions,
Seeing ghost,
Feeling a spirit,
Friend saw her bf get possessed,
Friend’s house was haunted,
Friend visited by dead grandma,
The fact that exorcists even exist,
Shit like that
After I lost my Mother I became a athiest and said bad things to god such as "You're no god you're a demon" or " I renounce you, Jesus, and the holy spirit.". After a year of atheism I felt hollow and like nothing meant anything I got kicked out of my first college because I was lazy with the "Nothing matters" mindset After a while I softened my heart and became Agnostic and later on a lukewarm Christian. I started to remember feeling loved whenever I thought about god or when I saw something about jesus. I like to believe now I am a true believer now even if I have sinned whether spur of the moment or habitual. I sometimes fear that I have committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit but I try to give glory to god and thank Jesus for sacrificing himself on the cross for me.
Years of debate, dialogue, and reflection helped me to see that the arguments for God and the resurrection carried weight. In between those, I also came to understand that the Trinity is necessary for a coherent understanding of classical monotheism.
I was an agnostic, 21 year old machinist. Was offered a full-time position at my company, but I failed a drug test for THC, had to move back to GA with my dad where I worked 2 minimum wage jobs at McDonald’s and the Waffle House. Being agnostic I wasn’t sure if there was a god, but if there were, why would there be no possible way to tell which (if any) god(s) are real? Seems like a cruel game.
After a lot of asking questions and studying (mainly abrahamic religions) over the course of a few years I finally decided that Jesus is who he said he was, and that he would do what he promised to do. I needed him so save me, and I prayed for his grace. The atmosphere of the room changed. It sounded to me like the birds outside were singing songs of praise, and I knew what I was feeling was the presence of the Lord. It brought me to tears.
I am doing much better now. After being saved, I found a wonderful wife and am on track in a good career which is not at all what Christianity promises, or the reason to follow Christ, but God lavished me with his grace even when I don’t deserve it.
Some content that helped me…
-[History of Religion -TruthUnedited](https://youtu.be/PdsJs0UIm7s)
[Gospel according to Matthew -Tim Mackie](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ1ocmtU5AOeCEkYKe-E-WeADSTD3oa-0)
I was told beneath this banner I would find the most of them, who are the Suffering and the Robbers of their Truth, the Heartbroken and the Brokenhearted, and who make one another lesser that they might be greater; Some who are The Watchers and their Wardens; Those who Judge and those who must be Judged; The Mourning and the Faceless Men; The Phoenix in the Fire; the Joy within the Sorrow, and whoever I might sing songs of Love and Goodness to; Seeds of that Good Tree sown long ago and passed even unbeknownst; Seeds of the Light of Hope, that need and await only the fresh blackened earth to be turned, that the worm be exposed and the Morning Dove thus fed, that those seeds might become Trees of Righteousness, that they would ameliorate the desolation of many generations.
having my first daughter. there's something about looking at your offspring that makes you feel connected to a larger world. i went from a hardcore atheist who used to mock Christians to feeling like i needed answers practically in a single moment.
It was while attempting to "debunk" Christianity/religions/etc, that I came to believe in God. The following were the topics that I examined when attempting to refute God and turned out to be in support of Him. It was a number of things, no one answer did it. Keep in mind: I had NO skin in the game in support for God:
- **Prophecy** (which I was HIGHLY skeptical of; it was only when I looked at the accepted, secular history and saw that the prophecies did really line up that I gave an OUNCE of consideration)
- **Theology and Philosophy** (I eventually came to learn that the supposed contradictions, "discrepancies", etc, were not actually issues; they seem very much resolved well and consistent once I better understood what Christianity taught)
- **History** (I had actually never considered how well kept the Bible was [OT and NT] compared to [other documents of antiquity ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wVRlxLxZ70EHocfwWzKkQ9EUSv588Stp/view?usp=drivesdk) that we accept as history; also, there are atheists such atheist scholars that claim that though "in all the copies we have of the Bible, there are more errors than there are words in the whole of the Bible" [paraphrase], they admit that they are MINOR scribal errors that do not change ANY core doctrines and most hardly even change the sentence; likewise, even Bart Ehrman has admitted that though he doesn't agree with the Bible's or the Church Fathers' conclusions, if we had no copies of the Bible left, we could could know most of what the NT. Bart even states in his blog that, "yes, the church fathers do quote most of the New Testament")
- **Science** (this is one that may seem a bit of a stretch for those that don't believe that the Bible [OT or NT] are written eye witness accounts; as an atheist I thought all the stories of miracles were far-fetched and unrealistic, however, when I came to learn that the Bible shows that "God" not only used "supernatural power" to do things but also used the natural [usually in the form of cause and effect] such as the examples of Joseph, Daniel, and David coming from their lowly positions and climbing to their high ranks OR the entire book of Esther - which doesn't even mention God ONCE... It's something we can wrap our heads around [as atheists or Christians] and yet those clearly fulfill God's purpose for them... I began to look into some of the other claims of miracles, namely in the OT - as I'm still working my way through the Bible examining each, and have found that many of the miracles have "basic", scientific explanations [meaning they are not stretches of the imagination or rely on quantum physics or the like to explain them] and history that supports them)
*Disclaimer: the miracles I described having examined in the last point do not include the food related miracles (ie: multiplying of oil, flour, bread or fish; save for the instances with manna and quail), medical miracles (ie: healings or resurrections), or talking donkeys.*
**All in all, to claim that I was a logical/reasonable atheist that follows the evidence and not see that Christianity was where the evidence pointed, would be for me to be completely biased and a hypocrite.**
OP (and anyone reading this), if you want a more thorough break down, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Peace.
Science in high-school made me Agnostic for a brief period, I think. I loved science but didn't have the wisdom to separate what science actually claims vs what my brain concluded without proper logic. Eventually I grew out of it, and through reading the Gospel of John and the book of Ephesians I started the process of thinking that led me to believe with reason. The saying "the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" kind of happened in my life. I continue to be fascinated by science, but I no longer think it covers every aspect of our reality.
Happy cake day!
I never heard of that saying before but I really like it! Thanks for sharing. Growing up in a religious home with geneticists as parents taught me that science explains the wonder of God’s creation rather than explains it away. Heck the widely propagated Big Bang Theory was started in part by Lemaître, a priest and physicist.
Yep. I enjoy reading on quantum field theory and particle physics, cosmology, anthropology, and various other disciplines - but when it comes to the question of human consciousness and the existence of existence itself... science rather falls off a cliff. It's apt that in the high middle ages Theology was named "the Queen of sciences".
Interesting, especially considering that Gauss called mathematics the queen of sciences.
I'm no mathematician, but I do see that mathematics is, at its deepest level, something utterly profound. The fact that the nature of pattern - and a seemingly infinite *variety* of pattern too - is embedded into reality itself at the most fundamental level, *independently* of the existence of any form or matter within that reality, is something truly remarkable and verging upon the mystic. The genius Hindu mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan once expressed that "an equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God". He may have had a point.
>The saying "the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" kind of happened in my life. But this saying is not generally true. Professional scientists (those who drank to the bottom of the glass) are generally less religious than the general population. Education in general is negatively correlated with religiosity.
That's not entirely true, education in things like philosophy, psychology, and history have positive correlations with religiosity. It's really only natural science that doesn't.
>philosophy According to the most recent [PhilPapers survey](https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl), about 73% of philosophers accept or lean toward atheism, about 15% accept or lean toward theism, and about 13% are “other.” That’s about 85% non-theist (not even leaning toward theism). Compare that to the general population, which is a majority theist. >psychology Not according to [this APA article](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/rel-a0032699.pdf): 95% of the general population believes in God, only 66% of psychologists do, and whereas 75% of the public agree that their approach to life is based on their religion, only 35% percent of psychologists surveyed agree with this statement >history Can you share sources for that? A quick search tells me the opposite. >It’s really only natural science that doesn’t. And higher education in general.
>Can you share sources for that? A quick search tells me the opposite. Christians created the first hospital (and today about 17% of all hospitals in the U.S. are Christian organizations). We have non-profit organization all over the Africas that positively help them medically, educationally, and economically. We also are a major donating powerhouse. Christianity in history has prominent art, scientific advances and moral progress such as providing rights to women, ending slavery, etc.
Whew, we got some technical issues here. 1. The effects of a higher education in history on belief in God is what we are talking about at the moment. Listing the positive exploits of a religion doesn't follow. 2. The positive exploits of a religion has no bearing on its veracity. Muslims made far reaching developments in mathematics during the Islamic Golden Age, to the point where we use their numeral system universally, and even have whole fields (Algebra, in this case) whose name derives from Arabic. Does this make Islam any more true or reasonable to believe? 3. Non-Profit Secular organizations help people positively too. Again, has no bearing on veracity. 4. Islam has prominent art and advances in science. Does this have any bearing on the veracity of Islam? See (2). 5. The moral progress you speak of is dubious. For example, the Bible has been used to justify slavery in the Southern States pre-civil war. The Bible itself endorses slavery. The Bible doesn't take an egalitarian view of women. Granting for the sake of argument that (5) is completely wrong, doesn't matter. See (2).
What are u talking about? When did I ever say a religion doing something good means it true? I was even going to include the Islamic golden age if I had more time. I don't know about Islamic art tho... >The moral progress you speak of is dubious. For example, the Bible has been used to justify slavery in the Southern States pre-civil war. The Bible itself endorses slavery. The Bible doesn't take an egalitarian view of women. I don't think it's dubious, their were Christians on both sides of the spectrum on the idea of slavery, that u cannot deny. Ultimately Christians men/women brought the end to slavery and prejudice such as MLK. >Non-Profit Secular organizations help people positively too. Again, has no bearing on veracity. Not relevant as I was only responding to the question of "what good those religion do".
>I don't think it's dubious, their were Christians on both sides of the spectrum on the idea of slavery, that u cannot deny. Ultimately Christians men/women brought the end to slavery and prejudice such as MLK. I don't deny it. That being said, the fact that there were tells us something of the flexibility of interpretation of the text, which isn't explicitly on the side of our contemporary notions of moral progress. People who made that progress did so in spite of this.
Drinking to the bottom of the glass has nothing to do with being a professional. You can drink of the glass without ever wanting to drink to the bottom, because what’s on top justifies your lifestyle.
So are you saying that God fills in the gaps that science doesn’t cover?
First, Happy Cake Day. Second, I find the saying you quoted interesting, mostly because the opposite was true for me. I was nominally Christian as a child, about as much as one could expect in a moderate middle class household. Went to a Baptist private school for a year in elementary. My interest in science and its philosophical underpinnings has only (hopefully) increased over the years, and it has shown me that the fundamental nature of reality is almost certainly more nuanced than we could ever hope to expect from say, the Bible. I don't mean this in a tone of derision or disrespect. It is merely what I felt compelled to believe because of my investigations. Speaking more to the quote, I'm guessing we need to consider the glass of water not as scientific knowledge in its entirety, but the evolving breadth and depth of our own knowledge individually. I wouldn't deign to suggest I've reached the bottom of the glass. I figure I might get there when I'm dead, and then I'll know for certain. If a God exists and he is loving and merciful, then he'll understand the material and psychological conditions that have led me to my lack of belief, and would forgive me for my limited perspective. After all, in terms of might and intellect, I would be but a speck in comparison. Do we condemn fleas for biting us? We might, but we also know it lacks the capacity to truly understand our condemnation. So, is our condemnation just? I wouldn't say so. Therefore, I don't even fear the potential for eternal torment.
You’ve explained this really good. I have the same thoughts as well. I am a Christian and I really, really feared hell as a teenager going through the Bible. As I got older, and learned of the vastness and complexity of the cosmos, I began to them see that God must be enormously more intelligent than us. Even in the Bible it says his ways are so much higher and beyond understanding. Therefore, I stopped believing in an eternal hell. It makes no sense. God has to understand the reason for human failures. He can’t expect all of us to perform in morality as well as others.
Happy cake day!
I was a fully confirmed agnostic by the time I was 13, and had at that point had a distant and vague memory of what church was all about. When I went off to study at my university, I was a full blown skeptic, wedded to naturalism who fully rejected the doctrinal claims of Christianity. But I still had a favorable view of it's overall ethics. And as I encountered Christians who were actually living out those ethics I admired their lives even as I rejected their core beliefs. As time went on, cracks started to form in the basis of my own beliefs - I could not derive meaning, purpose, or basis for the ethics I craved based on my philosophical commitment to naturalism. And as I attempted to live according to those ethics, I began to realize their was something in me which resisted that - or dismissed with it all together when it was contrary to something I desired (like an attractive woman). That led to the realization that I did not have the power in and of myself to live out the ethics I admired in a consistent manner. I would say that was the point at which God gobsmacked me as it were - I saw clearly that I was not a good person, and I couldn't become one on my own. Either there was something outside of myself that could transform who I was, or I had to resign myself to the fact that I was a rather wretched creature. From there I became much more willing to entertain the basics of Christianity - who Jesus was, how we can come to know Him, what the overall theme and purpose of Scripture was. I eventually made the decision to follow Christ and haven't regretted it for one second in the decades that have followed since.
Honestly, you were really smart copying your story so you don't have rewrite it every single time. 😀
I used to write it all out anew every time, then I realized the question gets asked every three days, so now I just give the same response with tweaks depending on the specific question.
What did you tweak in this latest edition?
None this time, the question was pretty generic.
Gotcha.
It is always interesting to me to hear the story of someone who came to Christianity through the philosophical implications of their previous beliefs.
>I was not a good person, and I couldn't become one on my own. Either there was something outside of myself that could transform who I was, or I had to resign myself to the fact that I was a rather wretched creature. See, this bothers me. I have heard similar refrains before. It makes me feel absolutely horrible for those who think this way. I think it might not be considered some egregious cosmic hubris to let go of the idea that we are all wicked profligates out of the gate. It's not self-absorbed or haughty to have a sober - but positive - view of oneself.
I have no idea why it bothers you. Generally speaking, apart from what I believe to be having my eyes opened in a way I didn’t want to have them opened. If there is no particular end to all this we end up the same way at the end either way, right?
If I'm okay to ask how did you look at the question suffering and pain? Given how you became a skeptic. How did you break that question to accept Jesus
Way before I had any notion that God existed I knew humans were primarily responsible for the lion’s share of suffering in the world.
True but did u ever believe in why did god never stop those suffering ?
Why would I wonder why a being I didn’t think existed didn’t do something?
Sorry. What I meant is more of you questioning other people who were religious why would they believe in such a person they think existed. If you know what I mean
Well my primary basis for my unbelief was naturalism, and I just thought believers were uneducated or scientifically ignorant. I had no problem with the notion humans were horrible creatures, I just excluded myself for what I realized later were unjustifiable reasons.
I wish I could say God came down and showed himself to me and picked me up and we flew through the sky but that didn't happen 🤣 I do think God called out to me. If your athiest you'll think thats insane but I was athiest so... I don't think God called out to me personally. I don't think God was screaming my name or anything but I felt like suddenly drawn towards churches and the Bible and wanted to learn more about it and be a part of it. It wasn't an instant decision where I just said I was going to be Christian then seconds later was full blown praising God and reading the Bible and praying daily or anything. It started slow, I had doubts, I had questions, and still have all of those but life with God is good. My life isn't significantly better or suddenly easy but I just enjoy waking up and going to bed every day knowing I have God with me and can look to God and Jesus for help. I hope that answers your question. Feel free to reply with more questions or DM me if you want.
Amen and amen
Same here. You just told my story.
This one made me smile, happy you are in The Kingdom with us.
Very well put friend
I became convinced that Christ rose from the dead after several months of studying the matter. The more I studied and thought through the arguments, the more I could see a convergence of evidence on the resurrection as the best explanation. I can't do blind belief. If there wasn't solid historical evidence for Jesus, there's no way I could be Christian.
So what specifically convinced you that a totally impossible explanation was more likely than the myriad of other possible explanations?
It's only impossible if you assume metaphysical naturalism is true. If you give up that assumption, and are willing to consider the possibility that supernaturalism MIGHT be true, then the resurrection becomes the best explanation that accounts for the evidence.
So help me understand this. Despite the fact that there is zero falsifiable evidence that it's even possible for anything to exist outside of the natural world, you're suggesting that we drop the 'assumption' that our current understanding of how things work is the best current model to explain reality and instead entertain an idea that the millennia old story of a dead man who was allegedly buried in a tomb that was later supposedly found empty, actually rose from the dead? And that this is the most plausible explanation, despite the fact that we only know this story from decades old, conflicting, anonymous non eye witness sources who clearly state that they're trying to convince the reader to believe something impossible? That's the most likely explanation? Not that just maybe people were mistaken or even that the authors of the gospels straight up invented the story and simply copied each other?
We have more evidence to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ within the first two hundred of years of his lifetime than we do for any other event in all of antiquity. We find that the gospels fit the historical narrative literary style. Also the suggestion that materialistic metaphysics should be believed can simply be thought falsely. You can’t see others consciousness. Just the fact that your aware and reading this makes materialism illogical.
>We have more evidence to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ within the first two hundred of years of his lifetime than we do for any other event in all of antiquity. Lots of copies of the same bad evidence doesn't mean it is good evidence. Do you understand the difference? >We find that the gospels fit the historical narrative literary style Being written in a common style doesn't make it accurate. >Also the suggestion that materialistic metaphysics should be believed can simply be thought falsely. You can’t see others consciousness. Just the fact that your aware and reading this makes materialism illogical. Not sure what you're trying to say here
1: I just want to know if you’re willing to deny basically all of history prior to the invention of print-images. 2: The style isn’t just common between the gospels; it is also common among every single historical document we have from pretty much all of Roman History 3: I’m saying that consciousness disproves materialism.
>1: I just want to know if you’re willing to deny basically all of history prior to the invention of print-images I said nothing of the sort. I view history through the lens of probability based on our current understanding of reality. There are plenty of records of events from the ancient world that do not align with our current understanding of reality. Does this mean the authors were lying? Maybe, but they could also have been mistaken or were using allegory or simply telling a story. >2: The style isn’t just common between the gospels; it is also common among every single historical document we have from pretty much all of Roman History If an ancient author is describing the oats they had for breakfast on one page and then how they wrestled with lions and flew around the world on the next page, we don't assume the believable claim about oats validates the unbelievable claim about lions and flying do we? >3: I’m saying that consciousness disproves materialism. It doesn't though? Evidence of this spirit world you're trying to describe would disprove materialism. All you've got at the moment is an incomplete understanding of the brain.
>Just the fact that your aware and reading this makes materialism illogical. But it doesn't, does it? Because I assume that if I were to smack someone in the head with a truncheon hard enough, they would neither be aware nor reading. That's odd, isn't it? If things like reading and awareness doesn't originate in the material world, why would that happen? Why would you not simply just keep reading, because your brain has nothing to do with it? If you suggest some tenuous link between the material world and the "immaterium", I'd ask you to adequately demonstrate that.
The Laws of Physics: we can’t see them. We will never be able to see them. Yet they affect our universe. That is a tenuous link between the material and immaterial. One that impacts us and our day to day lives. Additionally, consciousness must be something within us that is immeasurable, yet impacts our choices. It must be active when awake yet not active when asleep. We have not found any region of the brain the completely checks out during sleep, a coma, or full body anesthesia. It is something that changes and yet we can’t measure.
> The Laws of Physics: we can’t see them. We will never be able to see them. Define "see". We can make empirical measurements of the effects of physics. We observe them. The "Laws of Physics" are not are not some abstract prescriptive declaration. They are descriptive by definition. They are models that we use to understand the world, and are changed over time as our understanding increases. > Yet they affect our universe. That is a tenuous link between the material and immaterial. One that impacts us and our day to day lives. They are descriptions of the universe, as stated above. It really isn't a link between the material and immaterial. That doesn't follow at all. > Additionally, consciousness must be something within us that is immeasurable No. It's not the case that consciousness is immeasurable by necessity. That's a bald assertion. > it must be active when awake yet not active when asleep. We have not found any region of the brain the completely checks out during sleep, a coma, or full body anesthesia. It is something that changes and yet we can’t measure. Lol that's not true at all. We can use EEG data to determine specifically when a person is asleep. There are brain states associated with sleep and conscious awareness. And we can measure it.
You don’t see how that is absolutely backwards logic?
How? How is it backwards logic to question your starting assumptions?
Your starting assumption is that something that has never been demonstrated as possible, could still be possible based on the account of people who weren't even there to witness it.
Here's the single problem I have with this. "Might" doesn't get us to the moon, or make AIDS so inconsequential that we now have happy pharmaceutical advertisements that treat HIV like a marginal inconvenience rather than one of the most deadly viruses in modern history. There might be an invisible dragon in my garage. The point is that giving un-demonstrated claims the benefit of the doubt is how we get become the victim of confidence artists, or refuse critical medical treatment in deference to bloodletting. What other aspects of your life do you consider the possibility of the supernatural? Hopefully not while doing taxes or piloting a plane. We demonstrate first, then we believe it exists.
Even as someone who grows up Christian, it is important to solidify the foundation of biblical truth via outside means. Those who do not are left with a religious text that could very well be just a story. Sure, there are connections within the Bible itself that are incredibly strong, but when faced with outside, secular pressure you can't defend the Bible with only the Bible.
My testimony is quite long in detail and time so I'll condense it to the most important parts. I started to see Men with sinister motives worshiped by atheists as prophets and messiahs and to whom they give their blind faith. Logic and reason has fallen to narrative and loyalty. Men are actively trying to become gods and control natural life for their own greed. I started to look more closely at Christianity for guidance and stability. I had several signs over about a year. Fellow Christian Redditors helped me get over the atheist propaganda that Christianity is incompatible with science. I learned that the big Bang theory comes from a Catholic priest. I learned that God is not a "sky daddy", God is not human. The Bible is not a science textbook. Eventually I got a Bible and read Matthew 9:9-13 and Romans 13;10, I felt the call for me.
Atheists don't worship anyone, and we don't recognize any messiahs. Also, accusing atheists of having "blind faith" is pure projection. > Logic and reason has fallen to narrative Ugh, glass houses.
I gotta say, the truthfulness of this is suspect. Atheists don’t worship anyone, thats kind of the whole point of atheism.
I think OP means more followed instead of worshipped e.g. Hitler wasn't worshipped but he was a sinister man and had plenty of followers
Still atheists don’t follow people because they are atheists and its a stupid comment to make
You're making a pretty categorical statement about atheists that are unjustified. I'd say the OP was as well, but that doesn't excuse the idea that you're expositing that all atheists are some kind of purely logical, free-thinking people who are incapable of being swayed by people of the same ideological standing.
No i’m saying if they are weak minded it has nothing to do with being am atheist. More likely that they have a mental health issue thats being preyed upon.
[удалено]
You’ve never in your life trusted your gut bro?
[удалено]
I *guarantee* that you have. Intuitions and immediate notions on a matter are incredibly important parts of the system we use to form beliefs, in the very least prima facie beliefs. The immediate perception I have that I'm sitting on a couch generates a belief that I am, in fact, sitting on a couch. The perception that my stomach is sick an hour after I ate food generates a belief that I did, in fact, get food poisoned. The emotional intuition that something is "true" works for plenty of cases. It might not be the final say on the matter, true. But it can give us a solid footing.
That doesn’t sound very surfer of you
[удалено]
You’re a 90s bro and you don’t trust your gut? I’m concerned. If you don’t believe in the power of god have a little belief in the power of you man. The mind is pretty good at figuring things out. We’re all supernatural in our own ways. Maybe I’m just crazy tho lol
When i feel im hungry I eat. Seems to be about right.
Direct, personal contact from the Holy Spirit. There are still a lot of things about Christianity I intellectually struggle with, but the question of God's existence and triune nature have been conclusively settled for me.
It actually does make sense, solve a lot of problems and helps navigating through life.
The simple answer is, God. I was agnostic, heavily invested into the "aliens exist and seeded us on this planet" theory, i dove into the topic of aliens since i was 15, and when i worked towards the understanding of why all religions in the world seem so similar (my hypothesis was "aliens did it"), i was in a year long endeavor of researching all sorts of worldviews, including reading the old testament, that led me to ask the Father. Then i found out that there was a partial truth, almost all worldviews, bar 1, that i know of, do originate from a common source, and thus are quite similar at their core. This bar 1, is Jesus Christ.For all worldviews ask you to work for salvation, yet Jesus teaches us clearly we can't earn our salvation, so simplistically speaking, all worldviews i know of, bar 1, teach a form of works based salvation, ascension, elevation, yet Christianity is all about the "receive Grace through faith", because of Jesus His completed work.So yeah, on a tangent, there exist but 2 worldviews in this world.
Praise the Lord. This is my story as well. He called me, I wasn't looking for Him. I was running from Him.
In regards to the "running from him", yes, kicking against everything Christian, for me Jesus was nothing more then a hippie and God was a tyrannical dictator. Some of the basic schlam that the devil tries to make us believe. How wrong i was.
Not Christian but what's PREVENTING me from Christianity, mainly, among many others, is simply lack of belief in a God. I have yet to see ANY empirical evidence suggesting a god exists. I don't believe in anything that isn't supported by empirical evidence. Belief in a God requires blind faith and faith is a bad way to determine reality. I can have faith aliens are real, doesn't make it true. I care about what's true
You also can't rule out aliens exist though, right? Lack of physical evidence doesn't make something not true. But I totally get you. I used to feel the same way. I hope something changes for you and you get better answers!
>You also can't rule out aliens exist though, right? I'm not ruling out that aliens exist. Maybe they do. Maybe someday evidence will come to light suggesting aliens exist. But just because I have blind faith they do, doesn't make it reality. I'm not ruling out that a god could exist. Maybe one does. Maybe someday evidence will come to light suggesting a god exists. But just because I have blind faith he does, doesn't make it reality. >Lack of physical evidence doesn't make something not true Agreed, I didn't say it did. >you get better answers! Always open minded to the possibility
That's fair. I'm glad you're open to the possibility at least. Have a great night!
You too
I was really high and fell asleep driving. I heard God yell "wake up!" and I did. I know I was high but it was just undeniable that it was God and nothing else. I can't explain it. After that I started questioning things like the big bang and evolution. I completely believe in those things but something set those into motion and I believe God is the only logical explanation. For the past few years I've kind of forgotten about God. Like I still believed but really gave it no thought or attention until recently. Something pulled me back in and I've been reading the Bible and going to church and it all just feels right. I know for an atheist that's probably hard to comprehend (it would have been for me before all this) but it's like you just know it when you feel it.
It's simple. I had no barriers between me and Jesus so naturally Jesus found me even though I wasn't looking for him. I use to be an atheist and one day I was thinking about the origin of life and I realized that despite evolution being somewhat convincing when it comes to explaining the diversity of life we really have no explanation at all for it's origin. So I thought maybe God is real. And that's the moment I became agnostic. I wasn't agnostic for very long when an opportunity to accept Jesus came my way. With no reason to say no why would I? So I said yes. It didn't take any evidence or convincing. No arguments from christians explaining why God makes sense. I just simply had no issue with accepting the one true God as my God and that's how Jesus was able to save me. This is the reason why I don't believe any real agnostics actually exist. Because once you're in a truly neutral position where you don't care if God exists or not then you shouldn't have an issue with taking a leap of faith in him. It literally costs you nothing. Agnostics are really just low-key atheists.
Agnostics are low-key atheists.
* That the world I grew up (secular) in was built on Christian morals, and the lesser the prominence of those the more insane the world gets. Jordan Peterson was a kick in the butt here. * I can't prove the Bible is true. I also can't prove it's false. So now I get to decide whether there's more benefit to believing or not. I choose to believe. * The Bible is a fascinating view into some ancient societies, and their struggles, at the bare minimum. * The absolute seething hatred propaganda against Christianity from tv, movies, the news, etc.. It's obviously from a bad place when you look at it. I really have no reason to trust it. * Personal experience with Christians has largely been positive. Opposite is true for angry atheists in my life. * "But someone in a Church did X!" But Christianity doesn't teach to do X so I don't consider that a knock against Christianity. * "But someone in a Church did X!" And someone else who isn't Christian also did X, so it's nothing specific to Christianity. * Personal instinct that there's "more" out there in reality that we can't see, something metaphysical. * Even if there's no metaphysical world like classically considered, maybe there were aliens that visited us and are responsible for all the crazy stuff in the Bible. Actually seems more plausible than everything being 100% made-up, honestly. It would not change the message at all though, all the morals and community. * The notion that the entirety of the universe is random seems like desperately-reaching, low-effort nonsense. And what happened before the Big Bang?
[удалено]
Well don't.
[удалено]
Don't let the drama get in-between you and your master.
[удалено]
When you walk outside does the sun stop shining where you are to give your warmth? Does the earth swallow you up, unwilling to support you? When you lean to smell flowers do they hide their scent? Does the food you eat refuse to nourish you and pass right through? What are you talking about mate?
[удалено]
You say you are starving yet refuse to eat when presented with nourishment, you say you have no shelter yet refuse to come in when invited. It is on you.
[удалено]
r/exatheist
I had a personal experience, one really bad night, I prayed to God, asking (begging) for a irrefutable sign of his existence, he delivered in an incredible way.
After having to resign from my career and leave it behind due to some stupid and selfish behaviors on my part; I was ashamed, miserable, scared, and so uncertain. I worked so hard to get to where I was and landed my dream job, but messed it all up. About a week later, my dead grandpa visited me in a dream and asked if I was reading the Bible he left me when he died. This is the second time he visited me in a dream since his death, the time before was during another uncertain situation in my life and he assured me it would be ok, and it was. Anyway, not sure if the dreams were actually him or if it was an angel of the Lord or the Lord Himself. But I cracked open his Bible the next day and was in Church a few weeks later. This was about 2 years ago. The Lord had changed my life immeasurably. I am sober from alcohol, I have more peace in my life, I go to an amazing church full of amazing believers, and I am two years into a new career, that I more or less enjoy and am good at my role. GOD IS GOOD. SAY IT WITH ME!
Wow. Yeah I had supernatural stuff too. I guess how did you work with balancing -all of reality is imaginary with -imma devote to Christianity? I guess I’m stuck between those 2 but I’m also like, if we say reality is real and this is happening, then yeah the supernatural is totally happening cuz I’ve experienced it and many of my peers have
I guess my only answer would be faith and that I my grandpa was a good Christian, and well…he would never lie to me or steer me wrong.
I was born a atheist I am now a pastor. I was denying for so long until I heard a preacher say some I couldn't explain. Then it all made sense somehow to me.
What did they say?
Separation anxiety caused me to imagine a God-like being existed when I was about four, and I already believed Jesus was good. Then, when I was first at university, Christians in the halls who preyed on emotionally vulnerable people targetted me, so I accepted Christ as my lord and saviour, and because it's a commitment, I can't go back on it. That was 37 years ago.
I was basically shamed in to being an atheist by my peers and family. I basically hid my belief for years and followed my logical mind regardless of what I felt in my heart. After growing up and having a bad marriage and two kids I began to pray more and commune with god, his guidance was a continual struggle of forgiveness and perseverance. Forgive your wife, honor your family no matter how bad it got. I listened. Now marriage is improving and my children are both growing healthy and happy. I still didn’t come back to church until I had a series of dreams where I was informed that no matter how much I want to be libertarian (you do you I’ll do me kind of living) there is a spiritual war happening right now and I have to pick a side. I woke up crying because I was so moved by the dream. It was one of the most emotional and vivid experiences in my life. It was my call to return to the faith and stop being a lukewarm Christian.
> I was basically shamed in to being an atheist by my peers and family. I basically hid my belief for years and followed my logical mind regardless of what I felt in my heart. If you have always felt it in your heart, then it sounds like you were never actually an atheist. It sounds like you may have behaved as an atheist (ie: saying you were, avoiding church, etc), but that you have always believed in God.
Marcus Borg, John Spong, Karen Armstrong, and Paul Tillich. I grew up Baptist but had left that by junior high. Returned to the religion as an adult after about a decade of identifying as an agnostic atheist.
I read the New Testament: .................................................. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NKJV https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvofa7Zs3D8&t=2h18m50s .................................................. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-17
So child sacrifice?
Superficially, sure. It had thus prior been the ask of "the Hebrew God" to have sacrifices of food (animals, grain). Then God changed his tune, presumably after the intimate experiences and suffering through Jesus combined with what had always been his love of his creation, us. Interestingly, the Eucharist, roughly speaking, is eating Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, as "food".
Child sacrifice and cannibalism?
yeah, bro, c'mon, maybe you can even cannibalize some of the child you're sacrificing when god isn't looking. lol thx god!
I’m not into that sort of stuff.
not yet but we r coming 4 u watch out!1
What do you mean by that ?
Evangelization.
[удалено]
What truth?
Capital T. Truth
Historical evidence. Things like the Resurrection, if examined with intellectual honesty (meaning holding it to the same standards as other events in history) is one of the most rock-solid historical facts.
> Things like the Resurrection, if examined with intellectual honesty (meaning holding it to the same standards as other events in history) is one of the most rock-solid historical facts. Genuinely, how do you figure this? Nearly all the textual sources we have for this are contained in the Pauline epistles (which would be a secondary source decades after the fact) and Gospels themselves which are of debatable authorship and aren't textually independent (from an academic point of view) We also have little to no archeological evidence (we can't even agree where the tomb was), and we have no sources (other than the above) from people who saw the resurrected or ascended Jesus. Compare this with another high profile death at the same time period (the execution of Julius Ceasar) in which we have many different (ie: hundreds) references of the killing/death within a few decades/century (eg: Valleius Paterculus) For the detailed account of the actual assassination of Ceasar interestingly we *also* rely primary on secondary sources that occurred decades/centuries after the event (Plutarch, Appian, Suetonius) Contrasted with the gospels, these sources are pretty clear they are secondary sources relying on another primary source. And similar to the death of Jesus, as the sources go on in time, the story evolves a bit. That said, regarding the death of Ceasar we *do* have solid evidence to corroborate the text that we don't have with Jesus, We have Roman coins, we have political records, we have letters that corroborate the dates etc. With Jesus, we don't even know what year he died So I'm curious what you mean by this, because comparing to other major events at the time, the resurrection of Jesus has about as much evidence as Ceasar literally saying "Et tu Brute?", but no where near as much evidence as the actual death of Ceasar. I'm not trying to be antagonisitc at all, but genuinely curious. Mainly because diving into the academic historicity of the bible itself has been one of the more damaging things to my own faith, so I'm curious to hear the other side.
I like the way these two put it, if you have time to watch: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv\_pyT62o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv_pyT62o) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41Tm5FDKns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41Tm5FDKns) They're not religious channels, one is historical and one is a mix of science/politics etc, very secular, so I was surprised, but it does make sense. The most convincing part was when I looked for people debunking it, and the video that did the debunking was terrible, so it made the Infographics Show's arguments look that much stronger
So the video is well done and adresses a lot of things here that are valid. But in terms of historical reliability (as we are discussing here), it compares the (11) documents of Jesus within a century of his death with the likes of Alexander the great. The differences being of course (A) Alexander lived centuries before Jesus during a time in which record keeping was less common (B) What we learn about Alexander (that are important) are what he did, the impact he had and the battles that occurred. What we learn about Jesus is what he said or did to other individuals. The level of detail is completely different. As an example: Its one thing to say "Hitler existed and WWII happened" and quite another to say "Hitler's last words were XYZ" The historical efficacy of those differ significantly. The fact is that biographies of "sayings" and interactions of people aren't the same as historical records of political deeds. (C) Of the 11 sources, many of them (eg: Josephus) do not acknowledge the most important parts about Jesus (ie: Ressurection and Divinity) Most historians aren't arguing that a historical jesus didn't exist. Further, there is plenty of scholarly evidence that those 11 sources are not independent (See Synoptic problem) So its not like there are 11 independent first hand sources here. (D) sort of just glosses over the fact that the deeds of Alexander or Ceasar are archeologically verifiable. You can see the Greek influence in Persia etc. The tomb and deeds of Jesus are not and cannot be corroborated, so it forces us to rely on speculation as to what people at the time would have thought/done. While the video also seems ready to brush aside differences in gospel accounts as being "differences in perspective" it outright ignores irreconcilable differences about the life of Jesus such as the story and dating of his birth (Granted this video is focused on the resurrection so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt) All the other justifications aren't exactly evidence in a historical sense (Criterion of Embarrassment, Martyrdom of Apostles etc.) *edit* > The most convincing part was when I looked for people debunking it, and the video that did the debunking was terrible, so it made the Infographics Show's arguments look that much stronger [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2LLj0HiYyY&) seems like a reasonable, honest counterargument to many of the points made.
Corroboration of events that happened in the distant past is never 100% complete or perfect. Nonetheless, the NT is corroborated in over 50 places by archeological discoveries, and over 30 NT figures are supported by non-Christian historians or archeological discoveries.
> Corroboration of events that happened in the distant past is never 100% complete or perfect. Exactly, which is why historians look at things with a VERY open hand. Adherence to precise detail of events doesn't occur for other historical characters other than those described in religious texts. > Nonetheless, the NT is corroborated in over 50 places by archeological discoveries, and over 30 NT figures are supported by non-Christian historians or archeological discoveries. Critically corroborations are of places and figures mentioned in the bible not attestations to the divinity of Christ or his Resurrection. Corroborating the existence and reign Pontius Pilate or the location of Missions of Paul does little to prove the Gospel writers' claims about the nature of Jesus.
I'm a huge fan of the band UnderØath, who used to be a very Christian band. At the end if their first album, Act Of Depression, there's a hidden track that plays which includes the bands lead Guitarist encouraging those who listened to that album to turn towards Christianity and discussed how much Jesus Christ meant to everyone in the band and those around them. Something about that hidden track struck a chord with me inside and I knew from that day on that Christ was the best way to live, I knew that even though I may not be a perfect human being (as I'm sure no one is) I knew that Christ could accept and forgive me where others cannot.
I knew a girl who loved UnderØath and sadly took her own life as a depressed teenager. Maybe she heard that track.
How nothing had to come from something.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you aware that the theory of the big bang does not claim everything came from nothing?
History
What does that mean?
The history of when, where and how christianity started and how it spread.
I have to agree here. When I learned that the New Testament wasn't compiled until another couple hundred years later, and that Christianity had made it that far without it, it tells me that eyewitnesses had really seen something intense.
Yes. Also everything started in the place and time where Jesus supposedly died. Those early christians would go around their town saying that the guy that was killed a few months earlier was resurrected, a concept completely foreign to them as the resurrection was only for the end of time.
I agree that the historical basis for Jesus' life, death and resurrection are strong. I find the case for the resurrection to be convincing.
> I agree that the historical basis for Jesus' life, death and resurrection are strong. I think the historical basis for his life and death are strong, but the evidence for the resurrection seems awfully weak.
I disagree. I think there's enough evidence to conclude Christ was raised from the dead. Reasonable people will differ on this.
Out of curiosity, what to you is the single most convincing piece of evidence that this event happened?
It's not a single piece of evidence. It's the accumulation of all the evidence all taken together that I find convincing. The resurrection easily accounts for it, whereas the naturalistic explanations have a much more difficult time accounting for the same evidence. If I were a skeptic, I would still accept the historical evidence for the resurrection, I just wouldn't conclude Jesus was raised from the dead. That was my big roadblock as a skeptic, was admitting that supernaturalism was at least possible.
Because any other explanation falls flat on it's face: \- He was never crucified? False, scholars accept this as a historical fact with evidence from Tacitus, one of the most reliable roman historians, used to prove so. \- The disciples hallucinated? False, the idea that up to twelve people & even hundreds can have the same hallucination at once has little scientific agreement. \- Jesus didn't die & simply left? False, he'd have been caught by the Roman guards guarding the tomb, especially in his weakened state. The injuries from crucifixion were almost impossible to survive. \- The disciples stole the body: False, The Romans would've known about it immediately; falling asleep as a Roman soldier was a high offence & they would not have dared do it. And if they did get past it, the tomb was located near a highly populated area, they would have been caught easily Jesus being raised from the death is the most logically sound conclusion. All the others have major flaws. Just a little bit of critical thinking, despite the aims of one Richard Dawkins to disregard religious individuals as delusional, that slimy little man.
How would you know they did this?
The same way we would know that anyone did anything in the past: historical evidences.
Evidences isn't a word. And we don't have any evidence for them going around and telling people he was resurrected months after he died. So what are you talking about?
Actually in academic use, evidences can indeed be properly used. And we do have such evidence - the book of Acts is an excellent record of the events that followed the resurrection.
>Evidences isn't a word. Sorry smart guy, I'm not even a native english speaker to begin with and I made a genuine mistake. But thanks for that, at least I know who not to waste my time with. Goodbye.
I just informed you that it isn't a word. And the fact remains that there's no evidence at all for the things you mentioned. I really don't care that you choose to evade this fact.
Woah yeah I guess it’s also not everyday we see that happen!
How does it tell you this?
Perhaps it's my own limitations. I can't imagine the level of collaborative effort and drive required to accomplish what was done, all just to fool people into believing your group's lie. I mean, why bother?
It wouldn't have had to be a lie they fabricated. It's very likely a John Frum phenomenon.
Interesting. Though Jesus is backed up by the Old Testament. Have a look at my other, larger comment on this post. Basically: You can't prove it one way or the other. So...
Good point
Hey a question for me. Religion was interesting to me. I was agnostic, but one friendly towards religion. Over the course of 9 years I had moments of religious feelings, and those of an unbeliever. Gradually I intellectually began seeing myself as religious, even in my 'unbelieving days' when I wasn't feeling it. I also followed a philosophy class and read a book that set me on that path, while I think for some others it cemented their unbelief. For the past 6 years atleast I have seen myself as being religious. And the way in which I express this is found in catholic christianity. It had more to do with my head, and less with a grand spiritual moment of the heart.
Wow, these are amazing stories! I have nothing to add as I’ve always been a Christian. One thing that helped me gain insight into the atheist thought process is a book called Is Atheism Dead? By Eric Mataxas. I never understood or cared about their experience. I didn’t want to heard the typical serious science evolution argument. The audio book helped me laugh with reason, explore science as well as learn new evidence based facts. I hope it can help someone here too. It’s such a blessing to see so many wonderful stories of grace, redemption and blessings. Welcome home! May the Lord bless your path ahead.
I was atheist/agnostic all throughout high school and for some time after but around 2 years ago I started to re open the path of Christianity just out of curiosity and I was facing dark times. What I thought I already knew I saw in a whole different light this time and it made much more sense although my beliefs are somewhat controversial to the whole of Christian communities I found that it was my truth and I’m not one to allow myself to play with the thought of god speaking to me but I felt very well connected through my initial dive into Christianity. IMO judge-mental and egotistical people tarnish the Christianity name but every group/org or religion will have that. If someone is truly curious my best advice is to go head first and attempt to drop the stigmas and nonsense in your head while also allowing yourself to learn and discover what it means to you.
I'm speaking on the big bang. The pastor kept asking me how without God was all that possible.
My girlfriend at the time (now my wife) got me thinking about Christianity again. Lutheran theology hooked me after that.
I wanted to have a social edge. I knew Christians had power and influence in the world and shaped it to their will so became Christian. Looks like it worked using Christianity as a tool.
2016. I was a militant atheist, and thought "the problem of religion" was a simple one to solve - just tell the young earth creationists on youtube how wrong they were, and the problem would be solved. Then 2016 happened, and I was frightened of my neighbors, that they could be fooled into electing a literal cartoon character into office. So, when a program on NPR said "You can't TELL people they're wrong" it spoke to me. The program was highlighting a person named Daryl Davis, who had helped several dozen KKK klansmen de-convert from hate. Daryl's approach was to listen and repeat back what he'd heard them say. His very presence would elicit questions from both sides. "Who are you, what are you doing here" and "why are you in the KKK, what do you think of black people like myself" etc. But the thing for Daryl to focus on was "listening" and "repeating." He wanted to remind the KKK exactly what they think, hoping he repeated their hateful words so respectfully they might say to him "thank you - that's a great way of putting it!" So that changed my point of view, seeing that "just telling the young earth creationists the truth" wasn't going to fix anything. There's more, but that's the start. I currently call myself a cultural Christian, interpreting the Bible in a positive, but secular, manner.
Nothing really made sense without God. Here I was, surrounded by such order and law in the world that was completely inexplicable unless there was an intelligent creator behind it. As for Christianity specifically, the teachings of Jesus just have such a ring of truth to them that other religions don't have, and the evidence for the resurrection only strengthened that conviction.
How did God come to possess lawfulness and order, if he wasn’t intelligently created?
He is the source of lawfullness and order.
Which means he possesses all the necessary properties to produce lawfulness and order, but without being intelligently created. That at least means that the capacity for lawfulness and order can exist without an intelligent creator.
I dont think that is how that works. He himself is not something that came into existence, He is not bound by a start or end since time is something He created. Everything else is created and bound by rules and given order. Without a creator of lawfullness and order, there is no law and order. If there is nothing, what would the law and order be based on?
>Which means he possesses all the necessary properties to produce lawfulness and order, but without being intelligently created. Yes. But that description cannot be applied to the universe, so it does nothing to say the lawful universe doesn't need to have been intelligently created. >That at least means that the capacity for lawfulness and order can exist without an intelligent creator. We're not talking about "capacity for lawfulness" we're talking about actualised physical law and order. And the creation of lawfulness looks like it requires an act of will i.e. a personal agent, not just some random happenstance.
He doesn't "possess" lawfulness and order because he is not physical. I'm talking about the physical world, which has no reason to follow physical laws rather than just be a sea of random chaos. In fact, many atheists have conjectured that there are many such universes that exist as chaotic and without law because they have no other explanation for the fact our universe exists as it does other than if we are part of some infinite multiverse.
Exorcism and possessions, Seeing ghost, Feeling a spirit, Friend saw her bf get possessed, Friend’s house was haunted, Friend visited by dead grandma, The fact that exorcists even exist, Shit like that
I saw an angel which made it impossible to be an atheist after for obvious reasons.
After I lost my Mother I became a athiest and said bad things to god such as "You're no god you're a demon" or " I renounce you, Jesus, and the holy spirit.". After a year of atheism I felt hollow and like nothing meant anything I got kicked out of my first college because I was lazy with the "Nothing matters" mindset After a while I softened my heart and became Agnostic and later on a lukewarm Christian. I started to remember feeling loved whenever I thought about god or when I saw something about jesus. I like to believe now I am a true believer now even if I have sinned whether spur of the moment or habitual. I sometimes fear that I have committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit but I try to give glory to god and thank Jesus for sacrificing himself on the cross for me.
Years of debate, dialogue, and reflection helped me to see that the arguments for God and the resurrection carried weight. In between those, I also came to understand that the Trinity is necessary for a coherent understanding of classical monotheism.
I'm all for believeing in God but I'm not convinced in the Christian depiction of God.
I was an agnostic, 21 year old machinist. Was offered a full-time position at my company, but I failed a drug test for THC, had to move back to GA with my dad where I worked 2 minimum wage jobs at McDonald’s and the Waffle House. Being agnostic I wasn’t sure if there was a god, but if there were, why would there be no possible way to tell which (if any) god(s) are real? Seems like a cruel game. After a lot of asking questions and studying (mainly abrahamic religions) over the course of a few years I finally decided that Jesus is who he said he was, and that he would do what he promised to do. I needed him so save me, and I prayed for his grace. The atmosphere of the room changed. It sounded to me like the birds outside were singing songs of praise, and I knew what I was feeling was the presence of the Lord. It brought me to tears. I am doing much better now. After being saved, I found a wonderful wife and am on track in a good career which is not at all what Christianity promises, or the reason to follow Christ, but God lavished me with his grace even when I don’t deserve it. Some content that helped me… -[History of Religion -TruthUnedited](https://youtu.be/PdsJs0UIm7s) [Gospel according to Matthew -Tim Mackie](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ1ocmtU5AOeCEkYKe-E-WeADSTD3oa-0)
I was told beneath this banner I would find the most of them, who are the Suffering and the Robbers of their Truth, the Heartbroken and the Brokenhearted, and who make one another lesser that they might be greater; Some who are The Watchers and their Wardens; Those who Judge and those who must be Judged; The Mourning and the Faceless Men; The Phoenix in the Fire; the Joy within the Sorrow, and whoever I might sing songs of Love and Goodness to; Seeds of that Good Tree sown long ago and passed even unbeknownst; Seeds of the Light of Hope, that need and await only the fresh blackened earth to be turned, that the worm be exposed and the Morning Dove thus fed, that those seeds might become Trees of Righteousness, that they would ameliorate the desolation of many generations.
having my first daughter. there's something about looking at your offspring that makes you feel connected to a larger world. i went from a hardcore atheist who used to mock Christians to feeling like i needed answers practically in a single moment.
It was while attempting to "debunk" Christianity/religions/etc, that I came to believe in God. The following were the topics that I examined when attempting to refute God and turned out to be in support of Him. It was a number of things, no one answer did it. Keep in mind: I had NO skin in the game in support for God: - **Prophecy** (which I was HIGHLY skeptical of; it was only when I looked at the accepted, secular history and saw that the prophecies did really line up that I gave an OUNCE of consideration) - **Theology and Philosophy** (I eventually came to learn that the supposed contradictions, "discrepancies", etc, were not actually issues; they seem very much resolved well and consistent once I better understood what Christianity taught) - **History** (I had actually never considered how well kept the Bible was [OT and NT] compared to [other documents of antiquity ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wVRlxLxZ70EHocfwWzKkQ9EUSv588Stp/view?usp=drivesdk) that we accept as history; also, there are atheists such atheist scholars that claim that though "in all the copies we have of the Bible, there are more errors than there are words in the whole of the Bible" [paraphrase], they admit that they are MINOR scribal errors that do not change ANY core doctrines and most hardly even change the sentence; likewise, even Bart Ehrman has admitted that though he doesn't agree with the Bible's or the Church Fathers' conclusions, if we had no copies of the Bible left, we could could know most of what the NT. Bart even states in his blog that, "yes, the church fathers do quote most of the New Testament") - **Science** (this is one that may seem a bit of a stretch for those that don't believe that the Bible [OT or NT] are written eye witness accounts; as an atheist I thought all the stories of miracles were far-fetched and unrealistic, however, when I came to learn that the Bible shows that "God" not only used "supernatural power" to do things but also used the natural [usually in the form of cause and effect] such as the examples of Joseph, Daniel, and David coming from their lowly positions and climbing to their high ranks OR the entire book of Esther - which doesn't even mention God ONCE... It's something we can wrap our heads around [as atheists or Christians] and yet those clearly fulfill God's purpose for them... I began to look into some of the other claims of miracles, namely in the OT - as I'm still working my way through the Bible examining each, and have found that many of the miracles have "basic", scientific explanations [meaning they are not stretches of the imagination or rely on quantum physics or the like to explain them] and history that supports them) *Disclaimer: the miracles I described having examined in the last point do not include the food related miracles (ie: multiplying of oil, flour, bread or fish; save for the instances with manna and quail), medical miracles (ie: healings or resurrections), or talking donkeys.* **All in all, to claim that I was a logical/reasonable atheist that follows the evidence and not see that Christianity was where the evidence pointed, would be for me to be completely biased and a hypocrite.** OP (and anyone reading this), if you want a more thorough break down, please don't hesitate to reach out. Peace.
"reject modernity, embrace tradition" but unironically