The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity
- Thread starter JayHoover
- Start date
Honestly, it bothers me that people have answered that they would leave Christianity if it were proven false. PureX is partially right. It's a matter of faith. Of course, as we all know, he has no clue what faith really is. I understand that most of you didn't want to give pat answers, epsecially since it was obvious that Jay wasn't looking for, "it's true, so your scenario is pointless." The real question is, would you have faith to begin with, if it weren't true?
If it were false, I wouldn't believe in the first place, dumbass. Learn to read.
1Corinthians 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up — if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
Brandon, here's a lesson in basic psychology: the mediocre, the uncertain, and the weak are easily intimidated, and get hostile extremely easily. So the more you stamp your foot and get vulgar, the better I feel and the more ridiculous you get.
You said:
"Honestly, it bothers me that people have answered that they would leave Christianity if it were proven false."
Why would it bother you? Would you prefer they stay in a faith that's been proven false?
And that's why I asked: "If Christianity were somehow proven completely false, you'd still buy it?"
Anyone who geniuinely believes, yet will not humble before God is a real idiot.
Belief is not a choice. However, having belief, subsequently and conciously acting in a manner that is so obviously at odds with your well being is simply stupid.
If I was in your scenario, Knight, and the events depicted in the gospel were proven to me in that I could witness with my own eyes the life of Jesus, his miracles, ministry, death and resurrection, I would believe and humble myself before him (god) without hesistation.
What rational person wouldn't?
Idiots are plentiful.
Many rational people reject things they know to be true.
It isn't always a matter of accepting things you know to be true yet it is a matter of deciding if you want to align yourself with it.
Rational people believe that the US Army exists. But not all rational people want to join and or support the US Army. Get the point?
This response is for Turbo as well.
Did you read my entire post? I know why you said what you said. My problem lies in the fact that you do not apparently see that you wouldn't have any faith in the first place. You would not leave Christianity behind, because you wouldn't be a Christian anyway. Right? If Christ had not risen, you would never have become a Christian. It's the same thing Sozo said. And no I didn't say what I said to agree with him. I said it before he did. I know you guys are Christians. I'm just trying to point something out to you.
Who's stamping theior feet? I'm not intimidated by you. You aren't anything to be afraid of. And I'm not being hostile either.
You still can't read can you? Did you stop at that, and not read the rest of my post? Did you skip my other posts?
Let me reiterate:
:sozo:IF CHRIST HAD NOT RISEN I WOULD NOT HAVE BECOME A CHRISTIAN!
I get what you are saying, but still:
Let's say person A truly believes the central tenets of Christianity - that Jesus is God and that he died to save mankind from sin, and eternal separation from God. Obviously simplified, but bear with me -
Person A also believes that those who accept Christ's sacrifice will spend eternity in heaven in bliss, whereas those who do not will spend eternity in hell, in torment.
What possible motive would person A have to choose to thumb his nose at God, fully believing his actions would result in his own eternal torment and perish? I have difficulty imagining even the most hardcore masochist choosing hell over heaven, after being made aware of the contents of both destinations...
Basically, the is response a.) we KNOW our faith is true; hence this scenario is an absurdity
From Granite's second post.
Dude, I'm sure all the other Christians in here agree with you. Yet, they answered the hypothetical question clearly. Just answer the question. Hypothetically, if tomorrow you got in a time machine and went back to the original Easter only to see Jesus die, and not rise from the dead, what would you do?
We already know you think the situation is absurd.
What you say is logical.
However, time and time again, the human creation has proved itself to be illogical, and to make decisions based upon emotions, such as spite, lust, anger, that are self destructive to the "nth" degree.
Cutting one's nose off to spite one's face is a fairly consistant behavior for our species.
It isn't because I think the situation is absurd. It isn't because I "know my faith is true." It is because I would not have faith if there was nothing to have faith in. I couldn't leave something that I never had.
Yes. I followed it back when it was happening, and I also followed Hilston's critique of it.
Frankly, though the debate covered quite a lot of ground, I think ultimately it missed the core concerns about both the theistic and rationalistic worldviews.
Far too much to go into here, and honestly, it would take a book to rebuttal each point made.
That being said: despite Zakath's forfeiting, the argument wasn't won by either side: In fact, it pretty much devolved into a pissing match over who misquoted or dismissed or ignored who's arguments.
Well, the challenge inherent in the scenario is -- for all intents and purposes, you live your life believing it is true, but then new events (an opportunity to ride a Time Machine, in this case) brings you to a confrontation wherein what you believe in turns out to be completely different from what you were led to believe.
To be honest, I expected the "the scenario is absurd" response more often than not, so I was pleasantly surprised that, given evidence, both the theist and the atheist would adapt to reality. I think too often both sides (myself included) become entrenched in the belief that their opponents are purposely blinding themselves to reality. Certainly some do -- and because I'm on the atheist side of the fence, I conclude in favor of atheism- - though of course I can recognize sloppy thinking and fallacious logic on the atheist side just as much as on the theists' side. In my once-upon-a-time debates with Hilston, we both often noted we were more critical of our peers debating techniques than we were with each others'.
In any event, I think this sheds light on both sides of this question that may not often be noted or embraced: Both sides have come to conclusions based upon what they believe to be truthful evidence. Neither side, it turns out -- seems to believe or disbelieve for any other reason than that evidence, and the argument between the two groups boils down to what efficacy the stated evidence displays.
Of course, the thread is still pretty young so this may resolve otherwise, should others jump into the fray.
Last edited:
Most of the time, those who make such decisions do not think it's going to lead to their destruction. In fact, for whatever reason, they actually believe quite the opposite. Using (once again!) the Hitler example, the man -- deluded and wrong as he was, thought himself earneslty right. It's only from an external perspective people categorize human behavior as cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.
An example: My niece is a troubled 18 year old young lady. She visited me this year, and confided in me she was only with a loser boyfriend because the real guy she wanted to be with no longer wanted to be with her. In our conversation, I could see the "Stupid 18 Year Old" wheels turning at full steam. So I made sure she understood that the very worst thing she could do would be to get pregnant. That doing so would be an incredible burden, and the key point was: you don't even love this guy you are with!" Okay, so what did she do? She got knocked up so fast I figured she had somehow gotten impregnated on the flight home (he didn't join her on the visit, so he wasn't on the plane).
The point is, from her perspective -- this insane, stupid, self-destructive, moronic decision must make SOME sense, even though to you and I and anyone else with something larger than a grain of sand for a brain -- it makes no sense at all.
At the same time, issues of haven and hell are eternal in nature. One of the problems with analogizing the natural world with the supernatural is.. they aren't even remotely analogous.
This issue suffers the same inherent weakness: Even Hitler's incredibly insane agenda is nothing compared to an eternity in Hell. If given the choice, I'd elect to suffer the worst torment Hitler's regime could evise, if I knew Heaven was on the other side. Nothing Hitler could devise could even compare to the eternal aspects of the threat of Hell, so it would be a simple choice.
What is not simple for the atheists is the utter lack of evidence supporting the contention that there is a choice at all. All there is is logic and natural cause and effect (and yes, there are a lot of mysteries inherent in those deceptively simple words); but if there were incontrovertible evidence, one would be a fool to choose Hell over Heaven.