This goes over part of it - https://qz.com/...cas-atheism-movement

And they really liked to pile on anti-Islamic discussion that kind of bled over into anti-Arab adjacent discussions.

While I agree with a lot of what they say, they could be very difficult men to have a conversation with. Hitchens especially from my POV.

I feel like this is a great and overlooked selling point for Mormonism.

“There are four divisions in the afterlife. The Lake of Fire is reserved for the Devil, his demons, and those who commit the unpardonable sin. The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. The lukewarm-not quite good, not quite evil-go to the Terrestrial Kingdom when they die. This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. The Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous. Here God’s people live forever in God’s presence. We will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate. This is the aim and the end of Mormon salvation.”

So all the bonafide assholes go to hell, the religious zealots go to heaven, and the rest of us get our own freaking planet! Why am I just now hearing about this??

Literally had the same exact thought. I might answer the door now and have a chat.

.

I’ll give it a listen. Wasn’t Christopher Hitchens one of the primary drivers of it? I’d think his death would have a lot to do with it. It does seem like that was a brief period of pushing atheism that has faded. I listen to Sam Harris’ podcast and it hardly ever gets mentioned except in passing.

OK, I listened to the first guy. He said absolutely nothing* that would dissuade me from being an atheist, let alone think Christianity is the one true religion. You've got a guy that sounds like he was basically a nature spiritualist, a Buddhist, and even into Wiccan that then ends up a Christian, essentially because he feels it to be true, that God is talking to him, that there is magic and enchantment in nature which is evidence of the divine (I don't think he actually said that but that's the impression I got). I'm still where I was before listing to it which is that someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.

*He did make some good points about the spiritual void left by modern materialism which frankly I think should make Christianity appealing to many people, but as far as I'm aware, the trends are going in the opposite direction.

OK, listened to the second guy while at the gym. I'm not sure either of these guys were ever atheists that converted to Christianity, especially this guy. But that's neither really here nor there. This guy had a 15-20 second experience in the woods, and then started dreaming about Jesus. OK, that's great for him, but similarly as unconvincing as the first guy.

I appreciate that for you and many others this sort of testimony is evidence of the existence of the supernatural, and even the Christian God in particular. I can only think you've not listened to the arguments of people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. if you think that is the sort of evidence that would move an atheist or agnostic of that stripe in the direction of being a Christian.

I'd also add there was nothing really intellectual about their positions, basically just saying I experienced this, this is what I feel is true, etc.

What are the odds that two guys in the English Isles find Jesus and both end up in Eastern Orthodox Churches?

TL:DR, there are endless scriptures bad faith conmen can use to manipulate seekers; which scriptures protect against them?

I agree that, as you said, “someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.” When I listened to Kingsnorth’s and Shaw’s experiences, I saw cause and effect. When they prayed, they received answers. If you ask for a sign, and you get one, will you respond as Shaw or Atkins?

I agree that, as you said, “someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.” When I listened to Kingsnorth’s and Shaw’s experiences, I saw cause and effect. When they prayed, they received answers. If you ask for a sign, and you get one, will you respond as Shaw or Atkins?

Literally had the same exact thought. I might answer the door now and have a chat.

.

So far it seems the answer to that question is, it doesn’t and can’t.

This is an interesting response. Let's assume--arguendo, as we've been doing--that the Bible is true and that God is true. In that sense, like any true system, it acts (itself) on a check on itself. IOW, "it" can and "it" does. But, to inure the benefit of "it" you need to avail yourself of "it". You need to use those built-in checks; and if you don't then you can fall prey to falsities.

Let's say a 7th grade math teacher, and some nefarious 7th grader Bobby wants to sway fellow students. He goes to them in secret and persuades them of the new "Bobby" math. If/when those students just listen to Bobby and don't concur with the math teacher, read the math book or do actual math problems to see their wrong conclusions using Bobby math, then yes, they will fail the test. Yet, to state that there is no check on the system is not really true. It's true to state that they didn't properly avail themselves of the checks. If the parents of the failed students go to the math teacher and complain, then her response is rightly: the check on the system was: a) true math; and b) the math textbook; and c) the math teacher; none of which Bobby's targets bothered to avail themselves of. Instead, they went exclusively to Bobby. We have concluded multiple times together in this thread that the Bible is like many topics, to the ignorant (who don't avail themselves of the available checks) they are susceptible prey. Yet, that does not expose a problem with the subject material, but with the object prey.

Almost certainly not

Let me ask you this, if everything about these two guys' story was the same except it was Islam they had converted to, would you still see the same cause and effect?

Surely you'll concede there are conversion stories in that direction that for all intents and purposes mirror these conversion stories.

But aren’t you assuming that the checks are equally verifiable? The math checks can be proved, but the Bible “checks” are merely your interpretation (though I understand your beliefs and “superior knowledge” suggest you are 100% right).

On what basis do you lean toward that conclusion?

It has been reported for years now that Muslims are seeing visions of Jesus during the month of Ramadan that results in people converting to Christianity. YMMV

I disagree with your "(i.e., which is the real god)". I took it to mean, (i.e., which religion actually corresponds to God's word). I think my interpretation is better because Sphere set up the initial problem as cult or false religions. Normally, when people ask that question, they see people being swayed by religions that present themselves as "Christian", and use certain biblical passages to support that. But, they are just a little off. Other posts in the thread buttress this view.

In this way, the whole discussion was "Arguendo". IOW, Sphere was asking (assuming as fact, for the sake for argument, that the Bible and its God are true) how does one determine a false religion? In fact, he asks for a "scriptural firewall" or passages of Scripture to guard against this. He reinforces this "arguendo" when he asks (in Post #4), "Perfect example. Where in Scripture can followers look ..." Thus, he set up (and reinforced) the question as "I don't want to get into a discussion here about whether the Bible is true or the God of the Bible is real; let's just assume, arguendo, that they are."
Most posters got this. Slowman (in our fun back-and-forth) even expressly stated something like "for the sake of argument" a few times, for which I expressly thanked him.

Thus, when Kay or Trieatalot jump in to change the thread to an apology on whether God is true, they are changing the course of Sphere's thread. Fine, that's a common LR thing to hijack a thread. But, it does constitute a hijack, which is why I didn't respond to Kay or Trieatalot. Otherwise, normally, I love talking about apologetics.

If the thread has run its course, then OK, let's have some apologia fun. I just was taking issue with your allegation of me using circular logic. Arguendo discussions are not circular. In symbolic logic, it is setting up a premise/given, which is not later proven.

That was kind of a circular response from TriFloyd. You can't really logically answer the question "How do you know which religion is true (i.e. which is the real god)?" by answering, "I'd go to my God's word for the answer."

how it might fit the real God's written word.

Or maybe we could talk about how just because some religious traditions due to historical contingency wrote their beliefs and stories down we seem to assume that gives them some sort of weight towards being true that other oral traditions don't get.

We don't give them more weight for that reason. We give them more weight to the research that was done. That's why they document the reasons why they got to their end, and the context for which they were produced. So, if someone wants to re-raise the same issue later in history that reasoning is so documented. This is no different from how any research is done. This is how science builds onto the work of the past. Same process.

It’s possible we read the question differently. Since Sphere specifically cited non-Christian religions, such as those that preceded Christianity, I read it as broader than just determining which sects or denominations within the Christian umbrella were closest to God’s word. If he had used different language like “which church” or “which sect” I would have not had the same issue with your answer.

You know my thoughts on this generally.

At the meta analysis level, philosophies are a matter of opinion and religions are a matter of truth or fiction. In my view they’re all fiction, but some are objectively more problematic than others. So my OP question wasn’t asking how to separate truth from fiction but rather how does the Bible protect seekers from falling prey to covert malignant actors who would bend the “truth” of God’s word to their own will. So far it seems the answer to that question is, it doesn’t and can’t.