If the Christian God really did prove himself would that really make some atheist start following him?

[Gaming_Groove]

If God reveals itself and is or claims to be all powerful, there would not be a being in existence I'd hate more for the endless suffering it is personally responsible for. If it is not all powerful, I'd listen to what it has to say for itself.

I'm agnostic though. Take that as you will. I'd need to see some pretty convincing evidence.

 

[PancakeFlip]

Reading up on a lot of things concerning this subject, it sounds more like he's strictly light, he isn't darkness, darkness exists as the absense of him. So acts of evil would be due to an absense of his spirit or the qualities that make up his character.

A lot of the elements have to deal with fairness, so its not so much things just being "rainbows and sunshine" but being just. Like the more responsibility someone has, the more severe the punishment would be if they screw up in those positions. So for example if his spirit was really behind America, corrupt police and politicians would be completely wiped clean with harsh sentences rather than them getting lighter sentences for their screw ups compared to that of lower people.

 

[hibikase]

So what kind of proof would he provide in your hypothetical scenario?

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

No they aren't. I am surprised anyone would argue that all religion is created equal in this day and age.

Click to shrink...

Eh, Buddhism makes some sense and could fit with what we know about the universe. So, I wouldn't say they're equally illogical. In fact I'd say Christianity is particularly illogical among religions.

Click to shrink...

I don't think the same rules and expectations apply to animism or hinduism or buddhism or shintoism that apply to Christianty.

Click to shrink...

They might all have better qualities or be closer to reality than others but they are all based on faith and guesses that aren't based on empirical evidence. Buddhism posits reincarnation till you reach a state of enlightment. There's zero evidence for any of this and so it's just as illogical as any abrahamic religion.

Just because some of their ideas mesh with what we've learned doesn't mean they arrived to their conclusions in a logical, fact based way.

 

[Rosebud]

I would acknowledge his existence but not start to adore him or follow the Bible. Why should I?

 

[Steel]

They might all have better qualities or be closer to reality than others but they are all based on faith and guesses that aren't based on empirical evidence. Buddhism posits reincarnation till you reach a state of enlightment. There's zero evidence for any of this and so it's just as illogical as any abrahamic religion.

Just because some of their ideas mesh with what we've learned doesn't mean they arrived to their conclusions in a logical, fact based way.

Click to shrink...

So, Buddhist reincarnation makes sense in the sense that the matter, energy, and information that makes you you never disappears. Pieces of you will end up in the soil, rocks, insects that eat you and make its way up the food chain. You become something else. It's basically why you could technically be a Buddhist atheist. It's not JUST as illogical as Abrahamic religion. Abrahamic religions are particularly illogical.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

So, Buddhist reincarnation makes sense in the sense that the matter, energy, and information that makes you you never disappears. Pieces of you will end up in the soil, rocks, insects that eat you and make its way up the food chain. You become something else. It's basically why you could technically be a Buddhist atheist.

Click to shrink...

But that's not what it was meant at all. It's like when Christians changed things to better suit them from the Bible. It was meant that you are this new entity but when your matter becomes something else, there's nothing left of "you" in it but the material.

That's why faith doesn't work. You can believe in anything when you use faith. I already said just because it meshes with our understanding of reality nowadays doesn't mean it got there on good terms.

 

[HardTimesFamilyPride]

I saw this lovely quote from the Dalai Lama in a documentary about the Buddha that might be relevant right now:
"The Buddha said 'My followers should not accept my teaching out of devotion but, rather, their own experiment.' Even Buddha himself, in order to attain enlightenment, needed hard work. So investigate based on reason, through logical investigation. If something contradicts, in the Buddha's own words, then we have the right to reject that."

(Emphasis is mine, based on the Dalai Lama's inflections in the documentary. This quote is also posted on this page, at the bottom, just to make sure y'all know I'm not making it up)

 

[Steel]

But that's not what it was meant at all. It's like when Christians changed things to better suit them from the Bible. It was meant that you are this new entity but when your matter becomes something else, there's nothing left of "you" in it but the material.

That's why faith doesn't work. You can believe in anything when you use faith. I already said just because it meshes with our understanding of reality nowadays doesn't mean it got there on good terms.

Click to shrink...

You're not getting my point. Bhuddism doesn't require a belief in a god(In fact, at its base it rejects belief in personal gods). You cannot be an atheistic Christian. Which makes Bhuddism closer to a logical philosophy than a religion.

It was meant that you are this new entity but when your matter becomes something else, there's nothing left of "you" in it but the material.

Click to shrink...

So, just to be clear, you realize that Bhuddists(except for some sects formed later) literally believe that there is no such thing as a soul, right? Like that's a literal tenant of Bhuddism. Sense of self isn't required for the bhuddist idea of reincarnation.

I'm not saying that the Bhuddhist idea of reincarnation is completely logical, but it requires less leaps of faith to make logical than anything in Christianity.

 

[MrMephistoX]

God is by definition extra terrestrial man...think about it it's all in the number stations. Heaven means sky in ancient Aramaic.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

You're not getting my point. Bhuddism doesn't require a belief in a god(In fact, at its base it rejects belief in personal gods). You cannot be an atheistic Christian. Which makes Bhuddism closer to a logical philosophy than a religion.


So, just to be clear, you realize that Bhuddists(except for some sects formed later) literally believe that there is no such thing as a soul, right? Like that's a literal tenant of Bhuddism. Sense of self isn't required for the bhuddist idea of reincarnation.

I'm not saying that the Bhuddhist idea of reincarnation is completely logical, but it requires less leaps of faith to make logical than anything in Christianity.

Click to shrink...

Less leaps of faith still means you have to have leaps of faith. It's still an illogical ideology. It might be more logical than others but that doesn't mean it's worth belief.

 

[danm999]

...

Wha?

Click to shrink...

It's a TV show where the after life is determined by points you get in your life for doing good or bad things. But if you do good things with a motive to benefit yourself it doesn't count.

 

[Rinse Bassfunk]

I don't know how to answer it because it's kind of a trick question

There is only one way to look at it and that's literally .

Click to shrink...

That's all you have?

Deepthought indeed