Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[rogue06]

Yes, I could be convinced that Christianity is false. If someone can show convincing evidence against the Resurrection, then I'd have to reconsider.

That is the position that I, following Paul's lead, take but shuny, in his infinite wisdom, finds bogus.

[Kbertsche]

In the same manner as Leonhard's thread from 2014 on if one can be convinced of the existence of God, I'm curious as to what it would take for the theists on here to be convinced of the wrongness of their religion or the nonexistence of God. I eventually decided Christianity was false, and I'm sure others on here have changed their views as well, so I'm curious of your opinions.

My answer depends on what you mean by "change your mind about your religion" or "believe that your current religions is wrong". The question is much too vague and unclear (like everything else that I've seen so far from stfoskey15).

Can I change my mind about specific details of my religious beliefs? Certainly! I've done it numerous times, and I will again.

Can I change my mind about the basic foundations of my religious beliefs? In principle, yes. But in practice, I don't see how this could ever happen. It's like asking if I could ever change my mind about the notion that electrons repel one another. In principle, with enough evidence, yes. But in practice, with all the experimental and theoretical evidence that says that they really DO repel one another through the electromagnetic force, I don't see how this could ever happen. There is simply too much evidence that would need to be reinterpreted and re-explained; I can't imagine how this could be done.

I've met Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and have a personal relationship with Him. I don't see what could ever cause me to deny the existence or character of someone who I know personally. I suppose it's possible in theory, but I don't see how it could ever happen in practice.

[psstein]

But I think it impossible to prove such a claim to be false, so I think the answer to the question in your case is a definite no!

I disagree. If you were able to produce Jesus' body or to explain the evidence on an entirely naturalistic basis, I think there would be reason for doubt.

[Scrawly]

...I've met Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and have a personal relationship with Him. I don't see what could ever cause me to deny the existence or character of someone who I know personally...

KB, can you please describe in detail how you know you have a personal relationship with Jesus? What does your personal relationship consist of? Please be as detailed as possible.

[JimL]

I disagree. If you were able to produce Jesus' body or to explain the evidence on an entirely naturalistic basis, I think there would be reason for doubt.

First off, assuming there was a body, it no longer exists, and second, there is no evidence, naturalistic or otherwise, other than a book which you "believe" to be evidence. But the bible is no more evidence of a resurrection than the Koran is evidence of Allah. So, there is really no way to prove the resurrection false, unless you happen to believe in science that is.

[Adrift]

I disagree. If you were able to produce Jesus' body or to explain the evidence on an entirely naturalistic basis, I think there would be reason for doubt.

I think the efforts by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici are interesting in this. If their methodology, assertions, and wishful thinking were not found to be so flawed (as they are by even secular experts), I think this would be an interesting avenue in disproving the resurrection.

[Jedidiah]

Moderator Notice

Derail on shuny's faith moved to Padded Room. If you wish to continue in that discussion take it there please.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[stfoskey15]

The natural answer is if I became persuaded that Jesus did not exist or did not rise from the dead but I do not know what would convince me of these things beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not as if we could unearth video footage of the apostles discussing having made the whole thing up, or unearth the bones of Jesus or anything like that.

Miracles in the context of the Christian religion that we even see today give me reason to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt even when new theories come along.

How do you determine a miracle from a highly unlikely event? Or what about supposed miracle healings that could be due to psychological effects? For example, there are stories of people being prayed for and then being healed. But maybe they were physically sort of okay, they just didn't believe it.

Paul stated in I Corinthians 15:13-14 that

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, athen not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

He reiterated that a couple verses later at 15:17

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile

I tend to agree with him here.

It is also the reason that Gary and Rinestone Cowboy fitfully flailed like they did at this.

When I read that passage, I finally decided there was no point in trying to pretend to myself that I was still Christian.

No.


I know that I know that my God is real. I can't convince anyone of that fact, because it is the Holy Spirit's job to do so, but He has made Himself known to me in a very real personal way, so there is no way I would change my mind. Sorry if you don't understand that, but blessed assurance is a wonderful thing in my mind.

That's nice, but good luck convincing others. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, unless you have other reasons for believing.

Possible but highly unlikely. I am more than willing to change my mind on something given further evidence, and have done so in the past. Between having examined the underpinnings of my faith on multiple occasions and only come away stronger and experienced the miraculous (as well as having heard multiple independent attestations of other miracles), there's just not much chance of it occurring. And having seen the lives of others who deconverted, I really don't want to go there either.

Huh. The more I think about religion, the less I believe. I'll ask you the same miracle questions I asked KG. Also did those you know who deconverted pursue hedonism? I do think people can run into problems when leaving religion, especially if their ethical framework is entirely based on obeying God's commands.

My answer depends on what you mean by "change your mind about your religion" or "believe that your current religions is wrong". The question is much too vague and unclear (like everything else that I've seen so far from stfoskey15).

Can I change my mind about specific details of my religious beliefs? Certainly! I've done it numerous times, and I will again.

Can I change my mind about the basic foundations of my religious beliefs? In principle, yes. But in practice, I don't see how this could ever happen. It's like asking if I could ever change my mind about the notion that electrons repel one another. In principle, with enough evidence, yes. But in practice, with all the experimental and theoretical evidence that says that they really DO repel one another through the electromagnetic force, I don't see how this could ever happen. There is simply too much evidence that would need to be reinterpreted and re-explained; I can't imagine how this could be done.

I've met Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and have a personal relationship with Him. I don't see what could ever cause me to deny the existence or character of someone who I know personally. I suppose it's possible in theory, but I don't see how it could ever happen in practice.

I meant can you change your mind about the basic foundations of your religious beliefs.

[Mountain Man]

But I think it impossible to prove such a claim to be false, so I think the answer to the question in your case is a definite no!

Why do you think it's impossible to disprove the resurrection? And don't give me any nonsense about it being impossible to prove a negative. I can prove to you that there are no tigers in my bedroom, or that Abraham Lincoln wasn't the first president of the United States, so proving a negative is certainly possible.

But let's make it even easier for the skeptic: instead of asking you to disprove the resurrection, how about just introducing reasonable doubt? And when I say "reasonable doubt", I don't mean idle speculation or appeals to incredulity.

[Mountain Man]

...there is no evidence, naturalistic or otherwise, other than a book which you "believe" to be evidence.

With that so-called "logic", history itself is wholly unknowable.

[One Bad Pig]

Huh. The more I think about religion, the less I believe. I'll ask you the same miracle questions I asked KG.
How do you determine a miracle from a highly unlikely event? Or what about supposed miracle healings that could be due to psychological effects? For example, there are stories of people being prayed for and then being healed. But maybe they were physically sort of okay, they just didn't believe it.

A painted panel of wood is highly unlikely to exude myrrh for years on end in such quantities that is sometimes streams off in rivulets, both in its case and while being carried around. And countless miracles have been ascribed to the myrrh. People with stage 4 cancer are not "physically sort of okay". Someone in a post-stroke coma is not "physically sort of okay". I'm also referring to multiple, independent attestations of people being able to read minds; I'm not inclined to take one person's word for it, but multiple attestations of completely unrelated cirmumstances make it more difficult to wave away.

Also did those you know who deconverted pursue hedonism? I do think people can run into problems when leaving religion, especially if their ethical framework is entirely based on obeying God's commands.

The ones I know of are mostly from here, e.g., Gary, FormerFundy, John Loftus. I don't think any of them are hedonists, though the last-named appears to have a drinking problem.

[stfoskey15]

Why do you think it's impossible to disprove the resurrection? And don't give me any nonsense about it being impossible to prove a negative. I can prove to you that there are no tigers in my bedroom, or that Abraham Lincoln wasn't the first president of the United States, so proving a negative is certainly possible.

But let's make it even easier for the skeptic: instead of asking you to disprove the resurrection, how about just introducing reasonable doubt? And when I say "reasonable doubt", I don't mean idle speculation or appeals to incredulity.

The resurrection supposedly happened 40+ years before any of the accounts of it were written down, and some of the accounts are contradictory. Was there one man, two men, or an angel at the tomb? Was the tomb already rolled away when they arrived? Was there an earthquake? Did the women tell the disciples afterward? Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to disagree. And none of the accounts were written by eyewitnesses.

A painted panel of wood is highly unlikely to exude myrrh for years on end in such quantities that is sometimes streams off in rivulets, both in its case and while being carried around. And countless miracles have been ascribed to the myrrh. People with stage 4 cancer are not "physically sort of okay". Someone in a post-stroke coma is not "physically sort of okay". I'm also referring to multiple, independent attestations of people being able to read minds; I'm not inclined to take one person's word for it, but multiple attestations of completely unrelated cirmumstances make it more difficult to wave away.

Maybe someone adds myrrh from time to time in a secret compartment.
Fine, my psychological claim won't work for all healing miracles. But I the human body is complex, and we don't know everything about how it works, so just because something bizarre happens, doesn't necessarily mean God was the cause. What exactly caused these people do be healed, according to your accounts or those of others you know?

The ones I know of are mostly from here, e.g., Gary, FormerFundy, John Loftus. I don't think any of them are hedonists, though the last-named appears to have a drinking problem.

I've never seen FormerFundy and John Loftus. Were they just on the old TWeb? Gary does seem a little strange, but I'm not sure his deconversion is the cause. Also I don't think an Internet forum provides an unbiased sample of people who deconverted.

[rogue06]

I think the efforts by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici are interesting in this. If their methodology, assertions, and wishful thinking were not found to be so flawed (as they are by even secular experts), I think this would be an interesting avenue in disproving the resurrection.

But you got to admit that Simcha Jacobovici is very entertaining to watch. His enthusiasm is contagious even when he goes far off the deep end. Have you ever seen his show The Naked Archaeologist?

[Adrift]

But you got to admit that Simcha Jacobovici is very entertaining to watch. His enthusiasm is contagious even when he goes far off the deep end. Have you ever seen his show The Naked Archaeologist?

Yeah I have. He's a nut, but yes, his enthusiasm does make for some good television watching. Just don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[Mountain Man]

The resurrection supposedly happened 40+ years before any of the accounts of it were written down, and some of the accounts are contradictory. Was there one man, two men, or an angel at the tomb? Was the tomb already rolled away when they arrived? Was there an earthquake? Did the women tell the disciples afterward? Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to disagree. And none of the accounts were written by eyewitnesses.

Within 40-years of an event is extremely close in time for an ancient writing, significant because many eyewitnesses who could have disputed the accounts were still alive, yet we don't see any push-back against the gospels from other sources. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the oral tradition on which the gospels are based was begun within a few years of the resurrection which is hardly sufficient time for an historical event to gain mythical elements. Most myths develop over centuries and not within a few years. As for being written by eyewitnesses? It's pretty widely accepted that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, being part of Jesus' inner circle, and there are scraps of genuine eyewitness testimony contained in the other gospels (Mark, for instance, being based on the teachings of Peter).

Regarding the supposed "contradictions", suppose you have three witnesses to a robbery. One eyewitness says the suspect was a thin man wearing a ball cap and light colored jeans and that he was working alone. Another eyewitness says that he was of average build and wearing a hoodie and slacks but can't remember what color his pants were. A third eyewitness says that the suspect had an accomplice. Is it reasonable to look at these apparent (but reconcilable) contradictions and conclude that the robbery must have never happened?

Point is, each gospel account is written from the unique perspective of its author, and nobody will see the same event the exact same way. We sometimes notice different things, or we understand things differently, or what is significant to us won't be significant to others, or our memories can become distorted as we try and reconcile what we've heard from others with what we witnessed ourselves. But that doesn't mean we can't truthfully report an event with reasonable accuracy even if our testimony ostensibly contradicts another.

I just find it odd that skeptics demand absolute agreement among the gospel writers, but when it's pointed out that they unanimously agree on the most critical point of the narrative -- that the tomb was found empty -- they idly dismiss it.