Your religious beliefs are false, now what?

[Jesse]

Oh, I gave up awhile ago on trying to keep my thread from having troll posts and going off topic. Maybe I should've asked in the beginning for some of you to stay on topic and just answer the thread question. My problem is, I didn't think I had to. I thought I was dealing mostly with adults that should know better.

Now follow along as best you can, lad, and see what "essentially the same" looks like.

There is nothing to follow along. Boxing Pythagoras first gave a outline then an answer to the question. You did neither of those things. Saying "Most of the atheists I know have addressed this dilemma with their faith by abandoning it." is not an answer at all since I was pretty clear on what the question was. But you know that, and trying to walk it back isn't going to help you.

You don't "get" atheism. In this, you have plenty of company, so it bears repeating: Atheism is a lack of belief, and for many if not most of us who became atheists after abandoning another faith, it's a lack of belief that followed a course of years of soul-searching inquiry. At the end of that process, we found that "our religious beliefs were false."

Again, there is nothing here to "get". This also didn't answer the question that was asked so it's useless.

More directly, I have a "pat" answer...

You said a lot without actually saying anything or answering the question. I guess I will have to ask directly again since you are either purposefully ignoring the question, or it isn't registering.

What say the rest of you? If your faith was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt, how would you go from there? I would like to ask this of atheists/agnostics as well. If there was proven to be a God (or any general higher power that rules reality), how would you respond as well?

You seem to be making this question harder to answer than it needs to be. It's not that difficult, give it a try.

[37818]

What say the rest of you? If your faith was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt, how would you go from there? I would like to ask this of atheists/agnostics as well. If there was proven to be a God (or any general higher power that rules reality), how would you respond as well?

It would depend on what was proven false. And what I then, as a result, came to understand was to be true. What ever the truth is, that is what I want to believe.

[Jesse]

It would depend on what was proven false. And what I then, as a result, came to understand was to be true. What ever the truth is, that is what I want to believe.

Well, your tag says that you are a Christian. So if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ did not rise from the dead and was not the Son of God, what then would you do? Would you put your faith in another religion? Would you become an atheist/agnostic? Or would nothing change for you?

[Juvenal]

There is nothing to follow along. [...] Again, there is nothing here to "get".

And this is why you can't follow along, and why can't get it. Because you refuse to try.

Oh, I gave up awhile ago on trying to keep my thread from having troll posts and going off topic. Maybe I should've asked in the beginning for some of you to stay on topic and just answer the thread question. My problem is, I didn't think I had to. I thought I was dealing mostly with adults that should know better.

If trolling and off topic posts were your concerns, your problem is you didn't exclude yourself. That, and hypocrisy, but mostly, that.

Totally serious here. Back at The Other Location, we had a "pinko commie," as CP would coin it, who regularly posted thought-provoking threads that invariably had their best interactions after he left the thread. I pointed this out a few times, and eventually everyone took it up, shooing him out so we could have a decent conversation.

You ask good questions, which is why I respond, despite the many-times confirmed observation that you're not quite sharp enough to engage with the answers.

There is nothing to follow along. Boxing Pythagoras first gave a outline then an answer to the question. You did neither of those things. Saying "Most of the atheists I know have addressed this dilemma with their faith by abandoning it." is not an answer at all since I was pretty clear on what the question was. But you know that, and trying to walk it back isn't going to help you.

*sigh*

Those atheists were Christians, by and large. As Christians, they found their faith was false. As Christians, they responded by abandoning it. That's why they're atheists now.

That's a direct response to "If your faith was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt, how would you go from there?" While the question was asked as a hypothetical, as an "if" ... for most of the atheists I know, and most of the atheists here on the site for that matter ... it is not a hypothetical. It's something we've actually lived, as Christians.

Do you get it now?

Moreover, as written, the question was incoherent. It should have been either "How would you react?" or "Where would you go from there?" "How would you go" begs for the answer, "I dunno, maybe by bus." But, ya know, we looked past that, and other things less easily corrected, to try to find a way to engage honestly with the overall thrust: Losing one's faith has consequences. What would they be?

Experience is the best teacher, and Christian apostates — atheists for short — have that experience.

At one time I was a regular poster on IIDB, the "Internet Infidels," a board that, before its self-immolation, managed to attract the largest gathering of English-speaking atheists on the web. For the most part, folks gathered there because it was a wide-ranging informal "experts" forum ... name the subject — from the Devonian emergence of quadrupeds on land to galactic lensing — and there was someone with a dozen journal articles on the topic answering you back inside an hour, and someone who'd published a rebuttal counter-pointing the original soon after. It was "kick back in the comfy chair and enjoy" stuff. I've still got a number of Per Ahlberg's pre-prints.

That was, not at all predictably, a positive consequence of apostasy. Conformity to revealed truths is a strait-jacket that can't be felt without removing it. Traveling backwards from the Enlightenment through the Islamic Golden Age, whenever and wherever we've seen a dominant religion loosen its grip, there's been an explosion of suppressed thought that can be seen at the level of the individual scholar. It's no coincidence that Averroes' Incoherence of the Incoherence (PDF, beginning on page 33) was written far out of the reach of the supporters of Al Ghazali's Incoherence of the Philosophers (PDF).

But there were also less positive consequences. On IIDB, you'd see those consequences, too, over and over again, as newly-apostatized Christians would join and share the horror stories running the full gamut when it got out that "They're an atheist now." We all went through this. It cost me a job, a marriage, and contact with most of my family, but that's pale grief in comparison to COAS' story (PDF) I posted earlier. It's all water under the bridge now. Better jobs and better relationships followed, and if it took fifteen years to be allowed to speak to my niece again, those years are over. Of course, for the sake of comity, there are subjects I don't bring up ...


It would be good to understand that hand-waving fantasies of a walk-back don't and can't magically trump the direct quotes I posted earlier. But, ya know, experience says that's a bit too high in the cupboard for you to reach. I know. I'm saying things you don't understand again. Sorry about that. Seriously. I'd be just as okay with your understanding as I am with your incomprehension. I don't need you to be right or wrong, or dull or sharp-witted.

Again, there is nothing here to "get". This also didn't answer the question that was asked so it's useless.

Bonus points for not chopping it off before the answer, unlike ...

You said a lot without actually saying anything or answering the question.

"I'd take up my old beliefs again."

Now here's one I think you actually can understand. Chopping off a post in your response doesn't make the original post go away.

I guess I will have to ask directly again since you are either purposefully ignoring the question, or it isn't registering.

There's an industrial scale smithy behind that irony.

You seem to be making this question harder to answer than it needs to be. It's not that difficult, give it a try.

Shoo.

[37818]

Well, your tag says that you are a Christian. So if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ did not rise from the dead and was not the Son of God, what then would you do? Would you put your faith in another religion? Would you become an atheist/agnostic? Or would nothing change for you?

I believe in Christ on the premise that I do know for sure. If perchance I come to find what I have believed is not the truth. Why should I continue to believe what I then know to be a lie? What ever the truth is, is what I will choose to believe. The whole reason for a belief is to believe what is true.

[pancreasman]

I believe in Christ on the premise that I do know for sure. If perchance I come to find what I have believed is not the truth. Why should I continue to believe what I then know to be a lie? What ever the truth is, is what I will choose to believe. The whole reason for a belief is to believe what is true.

Are there other things you believe you know with absolute certainty?

[shunyadragon]

What say the rest of you? If your faith was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt, how would you go from there? I would like to ask this of atheists/agnostics as well. If there was proven to be a God (or any general higher power that rules reality), how would you respond as well?

I still believe you have set the bar too high to determine how you would prove a belief false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, this would be very difficult to respond to but nonetheless here goes . . .

Give the limits human judgment to 'prove' a belief false beyond a shadow of a doubt, I consider ancient world views such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam proven false. My belief is still on the table, and not proven false. If it were I would go for strong agnosticism and UU.

[Jesse]

Totally serious here. Back at The Other Location, we had a "pinko commie," as CP would coin it, who regularly posted thought-provoking threads that invariably had their best interactions after he left the thread. I pointed this out a few times, and eventually everyone took it up, shooing him out so we could have a decent conversation.

You ask good questions, which is why I respond, despite the many-times confirmed observation that you're not quite sharp enough to engage with the answers.

I understand that your schtick of being a pompous tool is how you post, but thinking that your lone voice can shoo me out of my own thread is a bit much, even for you.

Those atheists were Christians, by and large. As Christians, they found their faith was false. As Christians, they responded by abandoning it. That's why they're atheists now.

That's a direct response to "If your faith was proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt, how would you go from there?" While the question was asked as a hypothetical, as an "if" ... for most of the atheists I know, and most of the atheists here on the site for that matter ... it is not a hypothetical. It's something we've actually lived, as Christians.

Do you get it now?

I guess I was wrong, it seems to be very difficult for you to understand the meaning of simple concepts. Those atheists didn't find their faith proven false concretely or by a shadow of a doubt. A personal (dis)belief is not proof. The fact that you seem incapable of understanding that is troublesome. But I don't think that is true of you. I think you know full well what is being asked, but you refuse to answer it, as it gives you an excuse to write dissertations no one cares about.

So I am going to let go of thinking anything productive is going to come from you. You keep reminding me that you are either unwilling or incapable of tackling the question directly.

[Jesse]

I still believe you have set the bar too high to determine how you would prove a belief false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, this would be very difficult to respond to but nonetheless here goes . . .

Give the limits human judgment to 'prove' a belief false beyond a shadow of a doubt, I consider ancient world views such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam proven false. My belief is still on the table, and not proven false. If it were I would go for strong agnosticism and UU.

You've already answered the question once. So obviously the bar wasn't that high. If you thought it was truly that difficult for you, you weren't forced to post an answer to the hypothetical.

[Jesse]

I believe in Christ on the premise that I do know for sure. If perchance I come to find what I have believed is not the truth. Why should I continue to believe what I then know to be a lie? What ever the truth is, is what I will choose to believe. The whole reason for a belief is to believe what is true.

That really didn't answer the question. What if your "I know for sure" was proven to be a lie? You said that whatever the truth is, that is what you will believe. Well, if the truth is that Christ was not the Son of God and was not risen from the dead, where would your faith lead you? Would you stick with being a Christian? Or would it be something else?

[Cow Poke]

Well, your tag says that you are a Christian. So if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ did not rise from the dead and was not the Son of God, what then would you do? Would you put your faith in another religion? Would you become an atheist/agnostic? Or would nothing change for you?

I think one of the difficulties with this hypothetical is the fact that the premise is so.... how would one prove that Christ did not rise from the dead, beyond a shadow of a doubt? I mean, yeah, it's a hypothetical, but usually hypotheticals have at least some basis in fact or possibility.

[pancreasman]

I take it to mean 'proven' = 'convinced to a high level'. I was an atheist, then I was convinced to a high level I was wrong so I became a Christian. Years later I became convinced Christianity was wrong so I became vague. I'm vague and getting vaguer.

[Cow Poke]

I take it to mean 'proven' = 'convinced to a high level'. I was an atheist, then I was convinced to a high level I was wrong so I became a Christian. Years later I became convinced Christianity was wrong so I became vague. I'm vague and getting vaguer.

Are you absolutely certain about that?

[pancreasman]

Are you absolutely certain about that?

Absolutely not. I'm not even sure I have free will to make any decisions.

[Yttrium]

I take it to mean 'proven' = 'convinced to a high level'. I was an atheist, then I was convinced to a high level I was wrong so I became a Christian. Years later I became convinced Christianity was wrong so I became vague. I'm vague and getting vaguer.

Personally, I've never been reluctant to say "I don't know." I don't like to jump to conclusions.