Testimonies - believe or not?

[Aibao]

Thanks for any tips and tricks. Unfortunately, I am still stuck at one point ... sometimes I stop searching for the truth of Christianity, because it just exhausts me mentally and emotionally - physically, too, because for the first time in my life I started to suffer from insomnia, there are also fears ...

I am writing because I was surprised by what I heard here (the video lasts 2 minutes, but if someone does not want to watch this, I will summarize it - an atheist converts to Christianity, asks God as a proof for specific numbers to appear, he starts work somewhere and gets a cup with these numbers, then he asks for God to get him out of a difficult situation - and so it happens).

 

 

 

Isn't that good evidence to make you believe? It shocked and scared me, because I do not know if I am still able to return to this religion, to God, I am struggling with it all the time ... and such videos only embarrass me and show that there is no other way - or I will convert again or die in Hell ....

Similarly, with the testimony of Paul Washer (anyone knows him? I think he probably does), he mentioned that he was asking God to reveal himself to him or something like that. he prayed and fasted quite a long time, then he saw a fire, he got scared, he fell to the ground, he only heard the guards and the ambulance (I think an ambulance, I don't remember the details anymore) in the background.

Why does it seem to me that he is telling the truth? Because he is convincing in his sermons (by the way, his sermons partly contributed to my deconversion because they terrified me).

How about George Muller? Apparently his every prayer was answered, he was praying for milk for the orphans he was taking care of, suddenly the milkman appeared and said that he must give this milk to them or something ... (I think I came across this somewhere in the comments on Bruce Gerencser's blog ).

The last thing - the book "The Heavenly Man" by brother Yun, who was imprisoned for his faith in China and miraculously got out of prison by God's power, also got something similar to poison, but he did not poison himself unlike other atheist prisoners - it fits perfectly what Jesus said that if anyone believes in him, he will not be poisoned by poison.

Sorry - the last thing will be something mine: a few months ago, as a sign from God, I asked someone to suddenly give me a dress or something that I had always dreamed of, but I could never afford it. Recently I got a great job (maybe temporarily, I am making some extra money, but still), I have earned enough to buy all these things ... and again .... does it mean that God gave me a sign?

I read about synchronicity, which has already been mentioned here, but I also found the opposite view that synchronicity can prove the existence of God, because He supposedly uses it ....

I am tired of all of this .... I am asking for some good arguments from someone who has a lot of experience, more than me in these matters, because unfortunately, the longer I study religious topics, the more lost and confused I get ....   

I want to ask you how are you doing when you hear these things?

[Astreja]

26 minutes ago, Aibao said:

Isn't that good evidence to make you believe?

 

No, it isn't good enough.  It will never be good enough.  The testimonies of believers are utterly worthless to me, and are discarded without further consideration.  It's easy for people to lie about their experiences, or to reframe them in a way that agrees with their religious beliefs, and they could be mistaken, deluded, or suffering from a mental illness that causes them to see or hear things that aren't there.  Simply put, I have no reason to believe them.

 

My gold standard for believing in a god, any god:  I require an in-person encounter with the god itself, in the physical world (not in a dream or in a hallucination - it must be a physical encounter).  If a god cannot or will not fulfil that requirement, then I proceed on the assumption that the god is fictional.

 

This requirement is not negotiable.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

There are many in this world who are delusional and "dream up" these stories and believe them to be true.  And others who play act these testimonies.    

7 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

My gold standard for believing in a god, any god:  I require an in-person encounter with the god itself, in the physical world (not in a dream or in a hallucination - it must be a physical encounter).  If a god cannot or will not fulfil that requirement, then I proceed on the assumption that the god is fictional.

 

If god were all powerful, he could work miracles and appear to the whole world at once and tell all of us together what it is he wants of us.  But he has NEVER done so.  Why?  Why is it that he only appears to one man at a time, never with a group, and gives him a message??  And the messages are not consistant.  WHY??  

 

If I had a huge family and wanted to give them all a message, and didn't want it misunderstood, I would gather them all together, or sent them a group text, or identical emails, or identical letters in the mail.  

 

The whole idea of gods, and different messages is illogical.

 

 Perhaps you need to contact recoveringfromreligion.org  if you are losing sleep, etc.

[TABA]

13 hours ago, Aibao said:

. . . got something similar to poison, but he did not poison himself unlike other atheist prisoners - it fits perfectly what Jesus said that if anyone believes in him, he will not be poisoned by poison.

What would fit perfectly is if believers were consistently immune to poison as promised, but this is not so.  ‘Anyone’, not just the occasional one. The promises of the Bible would be borne out if believers could consistently pick up poisonous snakes and not be killed by the venom, but sadly there are plenty of reports of such deaths.  The Bible might be believable if the petitions of believers were consistently granted as clearly promised.  The fact that such things occasionally happen falls far short of what was promised.  
 

Plenty of members here have begged god for some word of reassurance, and none was heard.  People who want Christianity to be true, and people who fear that it may be true, due to fear of Hell perhaps, are inclined to latch on to the occasional incident that could possibly, maybe match some biblical promise.  

 

In biblical times, clearly miraculous events supposedly happened: the parting of the sea, the resurrection of people who had been dead for days.  In historical times, no such indisputable miracles occur, and we’re left with much less impressive stories that can be explained by science or coincidence. 

 

The Bible would have been vindicated if Jesus had in fact returned in power and glory in the lifetime of the apostles and established a perfect kingdom on earth, as promised.   I’m sorry, but it’s going to take a whole lot more than an occasional believer surviving poison or some guy seeing numbers to vindicate Christianity.  

[midniterider]

If the only thing that God is going to give us is a vague sign for proof of his existence then I will expend a similar amount of time and energy on him. 

[florduh]

Get back to me when a prayer to clear out the children's cancer wards finally gets answered.

 

Meanwhile, I couldn't be less impressed by you getting a new job, a bigger house, a parking space or any of those endless, unverifiable anecdotes from remote areas.

[TABA]

@Aibao, you mentioned these things as possible evidences for Christianity being true.  As you have seem in the responses above, we apostates are not impressed by any of those.  But let me ask you, what are the things that suggest to you that Christianity is not true?  What are the issues that have brought you this far and make you inclined to deconvert?  I think it would be helpful to summarize these at this point.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For every prayer jesus has answered, there is a prayer answered by Allah, Vishnu, or Quan Am.  For every one person jesus has healed, there are hundreds who have suffered and died.  For every testimony about the glory and wonder of jesus, there are thousands of testimonies about the horror and brutality of human trafficking.  Why would you believe in a god who only works for a few people and leaves everyone else in squalor, indignity, and tribulation?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To add to my previous post, I agree with @Astreja to a certain extent.  The only way I would even consider the existence of a god would be for a god to show up in physical form, interact with me on my level, and make itself seen, heard, felt, and testable with repeatable results.  But that is only the beginning.  That is only enough to get me to concede that a god is real.  After that, then god's coming with me to the women's shelter, the cancer ward, the addiction rehab.  Because it ain't enough to just show up.  There are a lot of broken people who need healing.  And if a god wants to prove that it really is a god, every last suffering person on earth needs to be alleviated.  Otherwise, it ain't no kind of god whatsoever; it's just another charlatan like jesus, Benny Henn, and the clown in your video.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To add to my previous post, I agree with @Astreja to a certain extent.  The only way I would even consider the existence of a god would be for a god to show up in physical form, interact with me on my level, and make itself seen, heard, felt, and testable with repeatable results.  But that is only the beginning.  That is only enough to get me to concede that a god is real.  After that, then god's coming with me to the women's shelter, the cancer ward, the addiction rehab.  Because it ain't enough to just show up.  There are a lot of broken people who need healing.  And if a god wants to prove that it really is a god, every last suffering person on earth needs to be alleviated.  Otherwise, it ain't no kind of god whatsoever; it's just another charlatan like jesus, Benny Henn, and the clown in your video.

 

It's possible that I may be  the most committed atheist in this forum. If the God of the Bible showed up and talked to me about whatever, I would try to be sure it 's not a human I'm talking to. Next I would listen to what he was saying and see if there was any logic to it. If I would think there was logic to it, no matter what he said or did, I expect that I would lastly check myself into a psych ward after he left and explain that I have been having hallucinations and explain them. This is because to me, all Earthly religions are as ridiculous as Greek mythology.  It would be impossible for any of them or their gods to be real IMHO.

[Narrator]

When a prayer works, it's "proof". When it doesn't, it's one of God's mysteries. They got him covered both ways.

 

When I was a Christian, I used to convince myself about such proofs, because I wanted it to be true. It's called cognitive bias. We all have them. With such proof there are at least 3 biases involved, not the least of which is my favorite one, Confirmation Bias.

 

When people write about these events, they often don't recognize that their bias is doing much of the talking, shaping the story, often to convince themselves as much as the listener/reader.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

It's possible that I may be  the most committed atheist in this forum. If the God of the Bible showed up and talked to me about whatever, I would try to be sure it 's not a human I'm talking to. Next I would listen to what he was saying and see if there was any logic to it. 

 

I thought I had covered all of that when I said:

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 The only way I would even consider the existence of a god would be for a god to show up in physical form, interact with me on my level, and make itself seen, heard, felt, and testable with repeatable results.  

 

But maybe I didn't.  

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I thought I had covered all of that when I said:

 

 

But maybe I didn't.  

 

That's cool !! But even if God could show up somehow, I wouldn't believe it no matter what he did or said. I would likely check myself into a psych ward since such an event would be impossible IMO. I would think that it was an hallucination. A similar thing would happen if God presented himself to me and said he would put a million dollars in my bank account for no particular reason.  If the million showed up  I still wouldn't believe and would  keep the event quite, but would hope that he showed up again some time.  But  I can be bought and say I believe if I don't have to do anything illegal. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Don't get me wrong, @pantheory.  I still wouldn't worship a god or follow any religion or teachings.  But if a god presented itself in such a way as to be testable with repeatable results, I'd have little option but to accept its existence.  

[Myrkhoos]

Sorry in advance if I am just being mistrusting, to Alibao and others, but does anyone get the eery feeling that Alibao is...trying to convince us to believe? Some sort of hidden evangelist? I het this frlm his very very specific and multiple layers of "evidence" presented? I mean I actually read a book by a priest who advised young girls with boyfriends that were not believers or lackluster believers to tell them they had dreams ( to lie ) that without fasting something bad will happen to them or smth like that. To convince them to be more religious so I'm a little skeptical.

     About miracles. In the Gospels, Jesus does not bring a series of random numbers, or help someone escape prison, etc. He ressurects people in front of many witnesses, instantly heals blindness, paralysis, brings food from nothing for thousands, walks on water, calms storms with a word. Repeated, extraordinary, powers, in front of many, many people. 

    Have you ever, EVER, seen someone do that? 

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

That's cool !! But even if God could show up somehow, I wouldn't believe it no matter what he did or said. I would likely check myself into a psych ward since such an event would be impossible IMO. I would think that it was an hallucination. A similar thing would happen if God presented himself to me and said he would put a million dollars in my bank account for no particular reason.  If the million showed up  I still wouldn't believe and would  keep the event quite, but would hope that he showed up again some time.  But  I can be bought and say I believe if I don't have to do anything illegal. 

 

I view this as rigid, unfalsifiable position. An irrational commitment. Why? You basically refuse to consider reviewing your model of the world if new evidence arises. My advice to you would to change this position to a more flexibile one. Otherwise your physicalist position is just as fundamentalist and irrational as any other religious fundamentalist.

    How is this any different from anyone starting with fhe assumption that the Bible is literally true and anything that contradicts is false?

 

[TABA]

5 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Sorry in advance if I am just being mistrusting, to Alibao and others, but does anyone get the eery feeling that Alibao is...trying to convince us to believe? Some sort of hidden evangelist?

I know it kind of looks that way, but I don’t think so.  I’ve seen this before: people in the earlier stages of deconversion sometimes go through this anxious “what if I’m wrong?” phase.  It can cause them to latch on to supposed evidences for the truth of Christianity.  It’s often the case that they lose sight of the bigger reasons why they rejected Christianity in the first place and joined this community.   That’s why I suggested to Alibao that she revisit her objections to Christianity.  She will likely find that they are still sound, regardless of anecdotes about the occasional scriptural promise that was supposedly fulfilled on some occasion, in spite of the much more common failure of those promises. 
 

To somebody in this situation, I would recommend Richard Carrier’s rather short but fine book “Why I am Not a Christian”.  It presents a handful of basic arguments that are far more impressive than the underwhelming little stories Alibao came across.  

 

I’ve often said that a person should know what they believe, and why they believe it.  That’s true for non-belief too.  I’d suggest to anybody going through the decoversion process that they develop their personal statement of non-belief, something like a list of bullet-points stating why they no longer believe Christianity.  A simple, personal version of Carrier’s book.  Short and in their own words, something like this:

 

> Jesus said he would return to establish his new kingdom on earth in the lifetimes of his disciples, but it didn’t happen. 
 

> We have learned that animals ate each other and suffered violent deaths long before humans were around, so how can the Fall explain the existence of suffering?

 

And so on…. The list only gets longer as time goes by, in my experience.  Revisiting that list can provide reassurance that you’re on the right path. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I view this as rigid, unfalsifiable position. An irrational commitment. Why? You basically refuse to consider reviewing your model of the world if new evidence arises.

I agree.  It's a weird stance for a self-proclaimed scientist to take.

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I view this as rigid, unfalsifiable position. An irrational commitment. Why? You basically refuse to consider reviewing your model of the world if new evidence arises. My advice to you would to change this position to a more flexibile one. Otherwise your physicalist position is just as fundamentalist and irrational as any other religious fundamentalist.

    How is this any different from anyone starting with fhe assumption that the Bible is literally true and anything that contradicts is false?

 

My quote: .....even if God could show up somehow, I wouldn't believe it no matter what he did or said. I would likely check myself into a psych ward since such an event would be impossible IMO. I would think that it was an hallucination. A similar thing would happen if God presented himself to me and said he would put a million dollars in my bank account for no particular reason.  If the million showed up  I still wouldn't believe and would  keep the event quite, but would hope that he showed up again some time. 

 

My answer:

 

The disbelief in something for lack of evidence and because of its illogical claims, like God, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, is very different from believing in such obviously ridiculous things.

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, @pantheory, because disbelief is different from belief, you'd be okay with dismissing evidence in order to cling to your preconceived conclusions?  I'm not trying to argue.  I'm just not following your logic.  

[midniterider]

Put some of that 'hallucination cash' in my account. While you're busy pondering its reality I'll be buying some toys with it. lol

 

 

[pantheory]

16 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, @pantheory, because disbelief is different from belief, you'd be okay with dismissing evidence in order to cling to your preconceived conclusions?  I'm not trying to argue.  I'm just not following your logic.  

 

Belief requires evidence. Let me exaggerate a little to make a point. Let's say Santa appeared to me somehow, in the flesh, at least it looked and sounded like him -- a jolly old elf in his suit with white hare, beard,  etc.

 

He said he was the real Santa Clause and pretty much said that he did all the things of legend. I would likely give him a smile and a cordial greeting and afterwards ask if I could ask him a few questions. If he put some effort in trying to convince me that he was the real Santa and did some totally unbelievable magic, I'm sure I would be impressed. I would tell him that it was a real pleasure meeting him but that  I must be on my way.

 

Although I stopped believing in Santa about age 4, I was still interested in what this new Santa had to say and do. But if his magic would have been too fantastic beyond belief I would not have believed or trusted my own eyes and ears.. My preconceived conclusions about Santa would relate to the stories I have heard about him. But my conclusions about this new Santa would relate to what he said and presented as "evidence" for his reality as the one-and-only Santa. Afterwards would I now believe in Santa?

I expect not --  ....and I probably wouldn't even tell of my experience with Santa to family and friends because of the failings of logic involved,  and  of  course I wouldn't want my sanity or judgement ability questioned more than usual

                                                           

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Afterwards would I now believe in Santa?

I expect not

I'm with you to a point.  But if this Santa's evidence was testable, and the results of each test were similar across different testers at different times using randomized samples, however far-fetched his claims, or even existence might seem, would you not have to accept it as credible?  

[pantheory]

19 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm with you to a point.  But if this Santa's evidence was testable, and the results of each test were similar across different testers at different times using randomized samples, however far-fetched his claims, or even existence might seem, would you not have to accept it as credible?  

 

The claims of the existence of Santa is not science, neither are the claims of the existence of God. The teachings of God seem so ridiculous to me that it would seem impossible for me to believe in such a being. If there was an apocalypse and God appeared in the clouds, and if the Earth ran nee-high in the blood of the wicked, I expect that  I would pay attention

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

The claims of the existence of Santa is not science, neither are the claims of the existence of God. The teachings of God seem so ridiculous to me that it would seem impossible for me to believe in such a being. If there was an apocalypse and God appeared in the clouds, and if the Earth ran nee-high in the blood of the wicked, I expect that  I would pay attention

Okay.  But I'm not asking you about claims.  I'm asking about testable evidence.  Granted, said evidence for god and Santa is purely theoretical and hypothetical at this point.  There was a time when the claims of Galileo were not science; but testable evidence became available to support his claims.  I'll grant that, if there is a god, higher power, supreme being, it cannot possibly be the god of the bible; but to state emphatically that there is no god whatsoever is a bridge too far for me.  And it seems to me that you've drawn that conclusion already and are ardently opposed to considering any evidence (not claims) that might someday present itself to the contrary. 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Okay.  But I'm not asking you about claims.  I'm asking about testable evidence.  Granted, said evidence for god and Santa is purely theoretical and hypothetical at this point.  There was a time when the claims of Galileo were not science; but testable evidence became available to support his claims.  I'll grant that, if there is a god, higher power, supreme being, it cannot possibly be the god of the bible; but to state emphatically that there is no god whatsoever is a bridge too far for me.  And it seems to me that you've drawn that conclusion already and are ardently opposed to considering any evidence (not claims) that might someday present itself to the contrary. 

 

Testable evidence is science. God and Santa are not science. God's supposed miracles could never be tested in any way that I could image concerning whether it was real of not. The claims of Galileo and other prior scientists could be tested.

 

I didn't say that any kind of god was impossible, even though the idea of it seems ridiculous to me. I'm only saying that the gods of all present day religions that I know of, I believe are impossible according to their bibles or the religious teachings of their followers. Some related philosophies of religion may have merit, however, IMO.  

 

It might be noted that I am not opposed to religion in general. Aside from all the harm done in the name of religion over the millennia, I believe many charitable and good endeavors have also come about in the name of religion. When they try to proselytize to me, I accept their rants and thank them -- and try not to laugh, smile, or argue  concerning what is being said. I do not believe that atheism or agnosticism are the best beliefs for everyone in today's world. But I expect that the beliefs of the future will progressively wane from religion toward total non-belief.