Athiests, What would it take for you to be a Christian??

I am very interested in seeing the answers to this queston.

But, before you answer please be advised that I personally feel that the following excuses are illegitimate:

1. Christians have done stupid things, crusades, fanatics, bill o'riely, etc. These stupid acts/actions/people do not represent the heart of Christianity just like I'm sure you would agree that the actions of such Athiests as Stalin, Polpot, & Mao don't represent the heart of Athiesm.

2. Zetgeist Documentary comparing Jesus to dozen's of others of mythical characters. Again illegitimate because this film isn't considered by any serious scholar as factual.

3. Jesus doesn't exist. Again illegitimate because the majority of historians and scholars agree that he did exist.

4. Arguing Science vs. Thiesm is also illegitimate because these are 2 different topics altogether (even though I myself believe they go hand in hand), for now let us not use science as a reason why God does/doesn't exist. Just like in the same way why we wouldn't use science to describe whether a painting or musical piece is beautiful or not. At least let us limit this section to what we already know.

5. I'm sure I may be missing a few other illegitimate arguments such as Christians are egoistic (Athiests can be too, many believe Dawkins is so), all the organizations want is your money(also illigitimate, that's all our govt's want from us too, + Jesus himself didn't ask for money) and so on. I'm sure we can all come to a philosphical and agreeable consensus on what is an illegitimate argument.

Well, sorry to tell you, but you can't ask us what it would take to be a Christian then throw out all the answers you know you're going to get.

I would never be Christian. Or Hindu. Or Muslim. Or anything else. Because there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a god.

Bring me some evidence. REAL evidence. Then I'll re-examine my stance.

But until that time, I am a de facto atheist which means that until I see some evidence, I will live my life as if there is no such thing as god.

There is no proof that Jesus existed. Just because "4 out of 5 dentists agree" doesn't make it real. Ad populum fallacies don't sway me.

Even if there was a real guy named Jesus and you could come up with historical proof thereof, it doesn't make him anything other than a man with delusions of grandeur that thought he was the son of god. We even have that kind of madman/prophet today. Doesn't make their fantasies real.

If you say I can't use science to argue against god, then you don't understand science. Science shows that the existence of a god is highly improbable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see your extraordinary evidence.

So, to recap. you can't ask people what it would take to believe in your sky fairy and then say we can't use our reason and logic to say why not.

Nice try, but your god doesn't exist in my world.

shy of seeing the sky open and a big ass pair of sandals step out, nothing will sway me

I am not an athiest nor am I a Christian but I have to say that I think your list of "Illigitimate" answers is completly unfair.

Science may be able to prove that Jesus existed, but they can't prove that he was the begotten son of God. Many people believe that Jesus existed...as a human being no different than you or me.

MajorMalfunction,

There is no proof that Jesus existed. Just because "4 out of 5 dentists agree" doesn't make it real. Ad populum fallacies don't sway me.

So just because "4 out of 5 dentists agree" that big bang, evolution or anything in science is so, doesn't make it real. That means there is no way to know truth because there will always be a minority on every subject including scientific facts, which doesn't make the facts real.

Ad populum science can't sway anything or anybody either. You've simply unraveled everything with this statement.
____
As far as science, I'm saying perhaps science is the wrong function to prove God. We don't use science to prove that a painting or song is beautiful, but we all agree that beauty exists. You can use that same argument with God, except that not everyone agrees.

3. Jesus doesn't exist. Again illegitimate because the majority of historians and scholars agree that he did exist.

Well that about raps it up! Since historians and scholars agree that he did exist I guess im not entitled to think for myself.

Science isn't just about agreement, it's about evidence. The scientists agree because of the evidence.

Religion has no evidence. See the difference?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Science isn't just about agreement, it's about evidence. The scientists agree because of the evidence.

Religion has no evidence. See the difference?

Exactly my point!

But who is to say the evidence they had was not questionable? And if it was why should I believe them?

reply to post by dominicus1


My beliefs are just that; my beliefs.
For you to ask the question you have but then deny the validity of certain answers displays the arrogance and control that all organised religions have.
I want nothing to do with it.

what would it take me to be a Christian?

i guess a direct message from god would work.. like him calling my cell phone or something..

or if that one guy comes back like hes supposed to.. i guess i would pretty much have to be a Christian if that ever happened, right?

I think there is a thread concerning "hubris" that is active on this forum right now. I would suggest that the OP may want to review it...

Ambient soul,
Hubris or not accroding to your opinion, I believe this thread is relevant to this particular forum.
_____
Freeborn,
Arrogance falls under the category of egotism, so that won't work, because it was one of the illegitimate arguments. Besides, can you define for me how anyone can say anything with out sounding arrogant in your view??? As much as I Love science, there is more than enough arrogance in the field of science so to speak. With out arrogance, and unified, we would be further along than we are now.
_____

Science isn't just about agreement, it's about evidence. The scientists agree because of the evidence.

Well 1st let me attack the limits of science here, because while I adore the subject, the standards with which the community operates on and the level of arrogance is a whole other matter. "Scientists," have a specific monopoly on their methods and control of knowledge. So if some-one is experiencing absolute truth subjectively, it isn't measureable by the current instruments and methods that we use, but that doesn't discredit or falsify that some-one who is experiencing God is false or that it isn't proof. The argument comes down to the completeness of standards.

What I'm saying is that I, along with quite possibly millions of other Christians, am experiencing a profoundly expanded state of consciousness that allows me to experience God. Athiests (majority of scientists included aren't experiencing this).

It's lack of proof for you, but more than enough proof for me and millions of others and when athiests can expand their concsiousness, then the proof lays there, just beyong logic and reason.

But, perhaps there is a conspiracy that there is proof already and it is being supressed. If that isn't so, if there ever did come a time when proof is acknowledgable, then I can easily see why such a cover-up would insue since nothing hurts more to a scientist than to say that their theory, or the foundations of science, were wrong all along. It would crush so many ego's.

Anyway that's where the proof is, in the study of consciousness and how to be able to artifically expand this state in such a way that Spiritual realms, God, paradoxes that makes sense, and all the other things that go on in this expanded state can finally be experienced by skeptics.

Just because proof isn't accepted by the current version of science, doesn't mean it isn't proof.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by dominicus1]

Or better you can one can make the argument that:

A scientist uses their own consciousness to view and make sense of measurable evidence, yet they cannot explain consciousness completely.

A true Christian uses their own consciousness to view and make sense of theological subjects, prayer, meditation and consciousness itself directly based on philosophical argumentive proof. So since these practices have scientifically measurable changes in the brain: www.npr.org... , then there is at least something for you guys to go on that supports what I'm saying here. It's these changes that allow one to experience spiritual realities that are as real as the physical realities and, as the link provided shows, the physical changes that take place to allow one to experience these realities, is itself measurable.

Of course within context of everything I just posted, we are touching on subjects that fall in line with Quantum Physics (a scientific subject), and in this subject there is enough room for God to exist in.

Kinda like what that guy said up there....I've read the Bible and it's amazing what these people saw in those days...I suppose if I saw any of these numerous things it would convince me...till then it's all part of the human imagination.

The only 2 absolutes in this life are numbers and your someday going to die. Aside from those two things everything else is based on assumptions and can not be proven 100%.

Originally posted by dominicus1

Of course within context of everything I just posted, we are touching on subjects that fall in line with Quantum Physics (a scientific subject), and in this subject there is enough room for God to exist in.

Actually, no. They work with Quantum Physics through math, it's all very hypothetical right now.

But even math can't prove there's a god. So I can't agree with you there.

Science deals with the natural world and its laws.

God and other such topics are supernatural in nature.

Therefore, science does not deal in god.

Back to OP:
Nothing.

But if god himself shows himself and answer some questions (not going to happen) and not only me wittnessing it (could be trick of the mind) then i might consider believing in a god.

Organised religion just has too many flaws and lies to it...

[edit on 4-10-2007 by AncientVoid]

Nothing can make me convert back to Christianity. I've freed myself from that lie. I'm not using science as an excuse either. Truth is an inner ringing of the soul that cannot be faked, whenever the concept of a god is discussed that feeling of truth is not there. So here I am denying lies aka Christianity.

Originally posted by dominicus1
What I'm saying is that I, along with quite possibly millions of other Christians, am experiencing a profoundly expanded state of consciousness that allows me to experience God. Athiests (majority of scientists included aren't experiencing this).

Anyway that's where the proof is, in the study of consciousness and how to be able to artifically expand this state in such a way that Spiritual realms, God, paradoxes that makes sense, and all the other things that go on in this expanded state can finally be experienced by skeptics

[edit on 4-10-2007 by dominicus1]

we don't need a god to experience an expanded state of consciousness. Extensive meditation can result in expanding consciousness a person just has to rely on themselves. The strength is there.

Why do you assume I haven't felt this "extended consciousness" you speak about? I have, many times, in many different settings.

The difference is, I don't assume it's from outside me, from some supernatural source. I understand (though only as a layperson) how the brain, hormones and the body can affect one another to make things SEEM otherworldly.

A hallucination does not a deity make. The brain is the power behind consciousness, and nothing more.

I second Ambient Sound's motion that you read the Hubris thread.