that is clearly a different topic from that of the OP. The OP is asking that assuming Christianity is proven to be correct, do you think that you, as an atheist, missed something that thus prevented you from being a Christian, or do you think that the Christians had the same information as you, but just made a lucky guess?

To answer the question myself, I think that the Christians just made a lucky guess based on the same information I had at my disposal. I was a genuine Christian for the first 19 years of my life and felt that I had a true connection with God, etc etc. But I sort of just came to an understanding that I deluded myself into believing that I had this connection that I just simply did not have.



Your question, while interesting, is a completely different subject for a completely different thread (feel free to create it though, I bet it would generate some good discussion).

To come into a thread, say you don't like the OP, and make up a new OP and answer that is just a major dick move and could result in derailing a perfectly good thread.

If Christianity is true then it is true that there is evidence for God in nature. So as an atheist, if you did not believe it is more likely that you chose not to believe. So it would not be that the believer saw something you didn't, but that the believer saw the same as you and chose to accept that evidence.

The topic I proposed is exactly the same as the OP, I just changed the timing. And it's got nothing to do with being a so called 'dick move'; topics change and mutate as they move along. Or they whither and die. I suppose we can let this wither and die, because at the moment all we have is athiests saying they wouldn't want to hang around with Christians for eternity anyway, and theists saying they know jesus. And I dread to think how cluttered the forum would be if every time a new topic came up we had to make a seperate thread for it.

If the original poster is an athiest as another poster claimed, then this thread just seems to me to be a ham-fisted attempted at trying to get Christians to justify what they know, which interestingly enough no one has taken him up on yet.

It's easy to look at things after the fact and see how it all fits in. Obviously if you find out Christianity is true, it's very easy to point to all the things that are in alignment with Christianity. Doing this without that knowledge is still speculative however.

Of course, this is all irrelevant because Christianity isn't true.

I would see it as the believer saw the same thing as me a decided to take a leap of faith and believe it rather than accept that it is not compelling evidence for Christianity being true.

But there doesn't necessarily have to be evidence for God in nature. That's whats so neat about faith and religions. You don't need there to be evidence, it just helps if you perceive that there is evidence.

If nature is the evidence, it can only be proof of a god, not a specific one.

the topic is not the same. The OP is "after you die, and are shown that Christianity is true, would you think that you still made the correct decision based on the information that you had?" The decision being, to not commit to a religion that there is not enough evidence for. It is a discussion about whether the evidence presented to humankind is enough to commit to the religion, and if atheism is still a viable choice even if it ends up not being the correct one. It has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting God after He reveals himself to you (probably because rejecting God after he reveals himself would just be ******ed).

Your topic you proposed is "if the Christian God revealed himself to you, would you knowingly choose to reject him?" From what I can tell it basically means if God is real, would you still tell him to **** off because he's a bastard?

They goy lucky out of fear (fear of being alone, fear of being wrong, fear of the unknown...fill in the other 1000's fears). Religion generally revolves around answers about the unknown (to attempt to alleviate....fear). And "die and face judgement" was designed to keep the "have nots" from murdering the "haves". Basically the gist was that you won't get anything here on earth but if you are good (and don't kill the "haves") you will be rewarded later.

Fear has always been a geat tool for the "haves" to get the "Have Nots" to do their bidding. Even today the Koch brothers do a great job funding the tea party movement (hopefully you didn't "believe" this was a grass roots movement).

Then again maybe they saw something I missed...

If Scientology is true then it is true that there is evidence of thetans in people. So as a Christian, if you did not believe it is more likely that you chose not to believe. So it would not be that the believer saw something you didn't, but that the believer saw the same as you and chose to accept that evidence.

Feel free to retune for Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, those alien cults, Mormons, Ancient Egyptians worshipping Ra, Vikings worshipping Thor etc etc etc

100% luck and its not even close.

There isnt a single religion in existence that thinks another religion has better evidence of being true. So with thousands of different religions out there all assuming they see what others do not see it is clearly pure chance that you end up in the "right" one.

I reckon a malevolent dictatorship might be a tiny bit worse.

You've never come close to putting together an argument that shows we have the ability to choose our beliefs.

Which Christianity? The Concerto/Jib version which involves just dying and going into a nothingness state, or the eternal hell version? You could make the argument that the nothingness could be better.

I reckon an eternity in a malevolent dictatorship would be worse than eternity in a benign one. It was a comment on hyperbole. Perhaps I should have said a malevolent totalitarian regime.

No, at least with a malevolent one you know where you stand. With a benign one they're doing it to you for your own good. You actually have to enjoy the process.

My theory was not if he reveals himself just to you, but to the whole world. But anyway, I don't think that rejecting God after he reveals himself to be ******ed at all. It would probably be the height of originality and free thought. If God did reveal himself I would tell him how ******ed he has been to let all of this go on for so long as it has. What were you doing up there? Too busy to be bothered?

Yes because if its a version of Christianity where the saved are predestine then luck and missing things got noting to do with it, they were chosen i was not.



I would figure they all got lucky in one way or another. Either by being born into it. Or i was wrong and God does communicate with some so they got lucky because God chose them to communicate with. Or they got lucky because they were born with a mind that was able to communicate with God. Or they got lucky to come across the right knowledge to find God.

Let me rephrase so that some of you can understand what I am saying.

1. The bible states that there is evidence for the Christian God in nature.
2. If Christianity is true, then what the bible states is true.
3. Christianity is true.
4. Therefore there is evidence for the Christian God in nature.

This is not hard people.

yes I have.

Its hard if you dont come across the evidence.

Also just because Christianity would be true that doesn't mean everything in the bible has to be. So that part of the bible could be wrong and Christianity could still be true.

Most Christians believe that everything in the Bible is true, this is part of being a Christian.

I say MOST now because ever since joining this forum I learned I can't say 'all Christians' for any reason whatsover, like 'all Christians believe Jesus is God'.

I dont think you can even say most would say every single detail is true...but alright.


Edit: And even if you're right and most do think that. There is still the problem of a lot of believers having different truths. Like what if the predestination peoples Truth is real? Then this thread is dead on arrival.

You are right, there's so many definitions of Christianity and some of them would preclude people from ever entering heaven even if they tried their hardest.

OP should pick one denomination and go with that.

Apparently it is, because that is very flawed.

You have tried before. You then conceded that beliefs are influenced by a series of choices leading you down a path of either an atheist or a theist. The way you like to use "chose not to believe" is incorrect. It is never one decision, to either believe or to reject. It is a long long series of decisions regarding evidence.

We have the ability to make smaller decisions based on evidence which lead us to a greater belief, not one big decision as it comes across when you say it.

nope.