[umvi]

I actually doubt it in those two cases. Most religious people believe only because of tradition; they haven't confirmed it for themselves. Many religions convert people with fellowship (i.e. they are converted because they like the new friends they have made) or by using confidence tricks on vulnerable people to tell them what to believe. I doubt there are many that tell prospective converts to go out on their own and ask God and decide for themselves.

At any rate, I believe it worked for me and I believe anyone would come to the same conclusion given enough earnest searching.

[mikeash]

There aren’t many Christians who tell prospective converts to go out on their own and ask God either. That sort of thing is in a minority everywhere.

Of course you believe anyone would come to the same conclusion. And the fervent Hindu/Buddhist/Scientologist/Sikh/Zoroastrian who went through the same process believes the same thing about their religion.

I imagine you’ll say that such people didn’t do it right... because they didn’t reach the conclusion you did?

[umvi]

> And the fervent Hindu/Buddhist/Scientologist/Sikh/Zoroastrian who went through the same process believes the same thing about their religion.

You are just assuming here. Like I said before, I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find a Scientologist who was converted by praying to the Eighth Dynamic, studying it out, and then receiving an answer that they recognized, confirmed Scientology is true. As long as we are throwing out assumptions, I would assume nearly 100% of Scientologists are converted by: birth (tradition of parents), peer pressure/fellowship (esp. in celebrity circles), or confidence tricks ("auditing").

> I imagine you’ll say that such people didn’t do it right... because they didn’t reach the conclusion you did?

Well that's the thing about religion. People can say anything they want. They might even tell a little lie and say "yes" if you asked them if they received an answer from God that their religion is true, hoping it will convince you to join. There's no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not. More generally, there is no empirical evidence someone else can present to prove their religion is correct. The only evidence to be had is anecdotal, and thus religion is a very personal and individual journey. You have to actually go through the process yourself if you want your own anecdotal evidence that God exists, etc.

[Bakary]

Every personal journey takes place in a world that already influences your thoughts. Every person has their own set of past experiences that continually color their present experiences.

Do you think that if you were born in a region where Christianity is non-existent, you'd somehow come to it on your own?

[umvi]

> Do you think that if you were born in a region where Christianity is non-existent, you'd somehow come to it on your own?

If I were earnestly searching for religious truth, I think God would lead me to it eventually, yes. It might take many years.

More likely, though, I would live and die without discovering Christianity because I'm too busy just trying to survive, (like if I were born in poverty in some remote location in China).

[mikeash]

So, I’m just assuming, people can say anything they want, and you can’t trust them when they tell you how they decided to convert. But I’m supposed to believe you?

I’m not just assuming, here. For example, there’s the fact that nobody anywhere at any time in history is known to have independently discovered any religion. If it’s really possible to discover the truth through the process you describe, you’d think someone would have done it at some point and come up with the One True Religion despite never having been exposed to it.

[umvi]

> So, I’m just assuming, people can say anything they want, and you can’t trust them when they tell you how they decided to convert. But I’m supposed to believe you?

Not at all. I'm saying don't take my word for it. Try it out for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

> For example, there’s the fact that nobody anywhere at any time in history is known to have independently discovered any religion.

I don't see how you can assert this as a fact. What counts as "discovering a religion"? There are so many huge holes in history across all the continents over thousands of years.

> If it’s really possible to discover the truth through the process you describe, you’d think someone would have done it at some point and come up with the One True Religion despite never having been exposed to it.

I think this has happened - many times. God's true church isn't omnipresent throughout history. It's there sometimes, and missing other times. It gets established, and then goes off the rails due to corruption. I actually believe Judaism used to be God's true religion a long time ago, but has since gone off the rails and is no longer God's true religion.

[mikeash]

How do you know I haven’t tried it for myself and come to my own conclusion?

When talking about the rediscovery of religion, I included the word “known.” This fact can be asserted quite easily.

It’s possible that it happened and was lost to history. But really, every time? It must be exceedingly rare. And they must have all failed to survive in the long term, which is odd if it really is the One True Religion.

You say you think this has happened. Doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that every time it happened it was in a place that was exposed to the corrupted version? Why wasn’t the pure church reborn in China or India? Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

Everything is consistent with it all being made up, and not at all what you’d expect to see if it could actually be discovered with the right sort of personal search.

[umvi]

> How do you know I haven’t tried it for myself and come to my own conclusion?

I don't. I can only speak for myself.

> When talking about the rediscovery of religion, I included the word “known.” This fact can be asserted quite easily.

Really. How do you know Mohammed didn't restore God's true church? Or Joseph Smith? In those cases they claimed to be prophets who God revealed new scripture to. Or do they "not count" because their religions were similar to existing ones?

> You say you think this has happened. Doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that every time it happened it was in a place that was exposed to the corrupted version? Why wasn’t the pure church reborn in China or India? Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

Like I said, the church goes off the rails a lot. Even in the Bible, the church is constantly falling apart because the people are wicked. The pure church may have been reborn in China/India/Americas but went completely off the rails and thousands of years later it is unrecognizable. How do you know ancient indigenous diety legends aren't referring to the same God/Jesus that we refer to?

> Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

There very well may have been evidence of an ancient American judeo-christian church, but the conquistadors burned so many historical records in the 1500s because they were "of the devil" we have very little to go on.

> Everything is consistent with it all being made up

Well yeah, how can mortal life be an unbiased, faith-based experience if one could simply prove the existence of God empirically?

Consider a group of monkeys that act differently when they have evidence that they are being observed.

I believe one purpose of life is to prove to God and ourselves what kind of person we are. We will act differently if we know we are being observed vs. if there is uncertainty.