Who has changed their minds about religion on this forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.

The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.

Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.

Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.

Way to underscore PP’s point

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.

Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?

PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.

Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.

Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.

What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?

Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.

The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.

How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.

DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.

Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.

I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".

Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.

Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)
- past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.

I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.

Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.

This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.

LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.

I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.

Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.

Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.

My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.

You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.

I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"

If souls are real, there are two outcomes:

1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.

2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.

Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.

The entire thought exercise is nutters and your physics reasoning is trash.

Souls don’t exist. No need to play circle jerk games about it.

You make a claim that the thought exercise is trash but then offer no support for that claim. Elucidate why.

The poster is not trying to claim that souls are real. It's the opposite showing the fallacy.

No. It's a dumb exercise and the PP should go re-take physics before attempting again.

You still won't back it up.

Correct. Because it's dumb and not worth my time...

Stonewalling is what one does when one doesn't have a response.

Please feel free to continue your inane logic and physics "discussion" when neither side understands either. It'll be good for some laughs.

NP. I don't get what's funny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.

The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.

Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.

Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.

Way to underscore PP’s point

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.

Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?

PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.

Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.

Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.

What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?

Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.

The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.

How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.

DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.

Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.

I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".

Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.

Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)
- past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.

I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.

Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.

This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.

LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.

I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.

Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.

Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.

My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.

You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.

I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"

If souls are real, there are two outcomes:

1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.

2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.

Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.

Your entire lengthy and silly post is based on a prepositional logical fallacy

“ if souls exist”

You don’t get to use that sentence in logic until you prove they do. That’s how logic works.That’s why PP is calling it nuttery.

Exactly.

You seem incapable of understanding the difference between a logic exercise and a thought experiment.

I think that poster doesn't understand this thread, you know, to get people actually thinking...

There is no amount of weak logic and bad physics that will "get [irrational] people actually thinking". Duh.

If something as extraordinary as spirits were possible, they would likely follow some consistent set of patterns that could be empirically measured and verified. The fact that spiritual experiences vary so widely calls into question their existence as objective phenomena, especially as it relates to NDEs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

Yes, I have always been agnostic; however this forum has really confirmed my beliefs that atheists are among the most insufferable of all beliefs.

The only more insufferable group I have come across are fundamentalist Muslims; who are truly brain dead.

Previously I considered switching from agnostic to atheist but both IRL and on the internet these people are so tedious and lack any understanding of evolution and history. No thanks.

Any believers are braindead, hence why they still believe in myths and fairy tales.

Way to underscore PP’s point

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” - Voltaire.

Aren't religious people certain that there is a God?

PP is agnostic, so probably takes issue with certainty about God just as much as certainty about no God.

Athiests are not people who are certain that there is no God. They are people who do not believe in God. They are a-thiests, that is, Not theists.

Also, adult believers only believe in God and not any other supernatural beings, like fairies or Santa Claus. Fairies and Santa are considered childish, but God is not.

What's the difference between atheist and agnostic then?

Merriam Webster has this useful context under its definition of atheist:
"How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god."
I get the impression that a lot of atheists on this forum are actually agnostic.

The fact of the matter is that "agnostic" sounds softer than "atheist" and thus is easier to call yourself publicly. People often feel sorry for agnostics - assuming they are trying to believe, or want to believe, while the term atheist seems harsher.

How do I know? Just a guess. I've noticed that people are put off by atheists. Agnostics get pity and atheists get anger. I don't like either reaction.

DP -
I don’t think that is the reason from my experience with agnostics. It seems to be that for some people, intellectual honesty is better expressed through agnosticism - metaphysical beliefs cannot be proven or disproven through science. Certitude is foolish without evidence.

Very little in life is black and white. There are always different viewing lenses for understanding reality. Agnosticism more fully allows for lack of certitude in which to explore different aspects of reality.

I don’t feel pity for agnostics or atheists - everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

Yet I wager that all the believers here would say with certitude and intellectual honesty that they do not believe in fairies and goblins, who are supernatural beings, like God in the sense that you can't see them. Also, some people (adults, in the case of fairies and goblins) don't believe in them. Thus, agnosticism is not good if it, as pp suggests, allows for exploring "different aspects of reality".

Not sure I follow your reasoning but agree that most religious people are unlikely to also believe in leprechauns/ fairies/ goblins etc.

Examples of Areas where I thought agnostics may be open to alternative metaphysical explanations are:
- seemingly Miraculous recoveries (many medical doctors and nurses have experienced inexplicable recoveries of patients with extremely poor prognoses following their families or faith communities praying for them).
- near death experiences where people who do technically die physically for some period of time. They often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)
- past life memories usually by children who remember details Of lives from historical periods where they could not have possibly
Known about.

I don’t know but that is my impression - not knowing opening up different possibilities.

Interestingly, Buddhists often recommend a mental state of not knowing as being essential to developing mindfulness. My art teacher recommends it for creating meaningful art.

This is just an effect of the lack of oxygen on the brain. If souls existed and were even temporarily "outside" of the body, they wouldn't just hover in place. They would go zooming off at over 60,000 mph as the earth continued in its orbit around the sun as souls would no longer be bound to the physical laws of the universe.

LOL. So by your reckoning, a soul has no mass and is therefore not affected by gravity. But it is affected by the other physical laws of motion? Pick a lane.

I understand complex thought may be difficult for some. The soul inside a body is affected by the laws of physics, the moment it leaves the body, it is no longer bound. Therefore, the physical body would continue on while the soul would be left behind at a little over 60,000 mph.

Thanks for demonstrating why science and religion shouldn’t mix.

Thanks for demonstrating your lack of complex thought.

My complex thought is just fine, thanks. As is my grasp on reality and physics.

You are confusing “complex thought” with all-out nuttery.

I'm the PP. Not nutty. I'll try to keep it simple for you to understand. This is in reference to the claim that NDEs are an example of, "they often report similar experiences of observing their bodies from somewhere else and realizing they are dead. Many describe a deep peace and deep desire to not return to their physical bodies. They often describe being informed that it is not their time to leave their embodied human lives yet)"

If souls are real, there are two outcomes:

1) - souls exist beyond the physical laws of the universe. They are not tied to the same rules that govern things like gravity, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. If the soul isn’t affected by these laws, it wouldn’t stay hovering around because the Earth itself is constantly moving through space. As the Earth continues its orbit and travels through space, the soul wouldn't be confined to the Earth's position or motion. So, if the soul isn't bound by physics, it wouldn't remain in place. Since the Earth moves around 67,000 mph through space, it would continue on.

2) - souls are bound to the physical laws of the universe. That is how they are able to move around like Patrick Swayze in Ghost and the typical Hollywood viewpoint. However, if they are bound to natural laws of the universe, that would be measurable or detectable. No credible study has ever found evidence. Personally, if I were a ghost, and I had been around for a couple thousand years stuck in limbo, I would make my way to a particle accelerator and impact the results in a way to encode a message indicating that I still existed. Given the billions of people that have lived since the dawn of humanity (even if limited to the shortened biblical timeline), and the potential for "ghosts" to be lingering around, somewhere someplace one of them would have found a way to communicate their existence.

Thus, claims by those who have an NDE that they observed their bodies are more likely an artifact of the brain responding to lack of oxygen than an awe inspiring inferential piece of evidence that souls are real.

Your entire lengthy and silly post is based on a prepositional logical fallacy

“ if souls exist”

You don’t get to use that sentence in logic until you prove they do. That’s how logic works.That’s why PP is calling it nuttery.

Exactly.

You seem incapable of understanding the difference between a logic exercise and a thought experiment.

I think that poster doesn't understand this thread, you know, to get people actually thinking...

There is no amount of weak logic and bad physics that will "get [irrational] people actually thinking". Duh.

If something as extraordinary as spirits were possible, they would likely follow some consistent set of patterns that could be empirically measured and verified. The fact that spiritual experiences vary so widely calls into question their existence as objective phenomena, especially as it relates to NDEs.

If there is a spirt that can exist outside the body but still interact with the world, it raises challenges to our understanding of the natural laws of physics. NDEs are nothing more than complex brain responses as oxygen is depleted, rather than evidence of a non-material soul or life after death. While NDEs are intriguing, they are not proof of a disembodied spirit.

[Anonymous]

Dear "sky daddy" poster,
Tablet Studios (a Jewish podcast) mentioned the idea of "sky daddy" in their most recent episode, "Are Science and Religion Mutually Exclusive?" I thought you might be interested in listening to it. The "sky daddy" commentary was mentioned within the first 10 minutes of the episode.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/are-science-and-religion-mutually-exclusive-with/id1020815439?i=1000687019622

[Anonymous]

Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

It being true is what would make it true.

Evidence that it is true is what we would use to make that determination. But there isn't any, so there is little reason to believe it, if any.

-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

It being true is what would make it true.

Evidence that it is true is what we would use to make that determination. But there isn't any, so there is little reason to believe it, if any.

-DP

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

It being true is what would make it true.

Evidence that it is true is what we would use to make that determination. But there isn't any, so there is little reason to believe it, if any.

-DP

I've asked this question before, but I'm a masochist so here I go again: What evidence would convince you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

Actual scientific proof that Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead, then ascended into heaven. There is none, because there is no scientific proof of God and no proof of the ability to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven - and there's no proof that heaven exists. In fact, there's now proof that as far as we have traveled into the heavens (space), it's impossible to breathe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

It being true is what would make it true.

Evidence that it is true is what we would use to make that determination. But there isn't any, so there is little reason to believe it, if any.

-DP

I've asked this question before, but I'm a masochist so here I go again: What evidence would convince you?

No idea. Not really my task to say.

But if it is true, the god should know what would convince me. And then it should be easy and obvious.

ps if you have asked before, you likely have been given this answer before. Why won't you accept it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

Actual scientific proof that Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead, then ascended into heaven. There is none, because there is no scientific proof of God and no proof of the ability to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven - and there's no proof that heaven exists. In fact, there's now proof that as far as we have traveled into the heavens (space), it's impossible to breathe.

The short answer is you're seeking a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural entity. Saying that, I would posit that you probably believe many things that can't be scientifically proven: The mind. Ethics and morality. Love. Science itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

Actual scientific proof that Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead, then ascended into heaven. There is none, because there is no scientific proof of God and no proof of the ability to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven - and there's no proof that heaven exists. In fact, there's now proof that as far as we have traveled into the heavens (space), it's impossible to breathe.

The short answer is you're seeking a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural entity. Saying that, I would posit that you probably believe many things that can't be scientifically proven: The mind. Ethics and morality. Love. Science itself.

DP. Your response is illogical. Here are some reasons why:

1. If supernatural entities exist as defined, they interact with our natural world in some way. If they don't, then we need not care about them except for analytical ways - like the multiverse. Certainly few of the thousands of god definitions there are fit that definition (maybe some forms of deism?) All of the Abrahamic religions tout constant interaction with our natural world, so you response cannot be applied to them.

2. The mind exists and we can demonstrate that. Love, ethics and morality obviously exist as defined, and can also be demonstrated. So this point is demonstrably illogical.

3. "Science itself"? Not sure what that means but it makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though

What would make Christianity true?

It being true is what would make it true.

Evidence that it is true is what we would use to make that determination. But there isn't any, so there is little reason to believe it, if any.

-DP

I've asked this question before, but I'm a masochist so here I go again: What evidence would convince you?

Don't be obscure. No interpreting burning bushes and smoke signals. Have a meteorite crash down to earth with the ten commandments written in some indestructible alloy or element with clear writing that can be understood. Probably in English or Mandarin (or both) since they are the most spoken languages.

Separately, there is more evidence for the existence of Muhammed or Buddha than for Jesus. If you were defending those religions, you would at least have stronger standing than being a christian.