Not an atheist - convince me. Making this a coming out story depends on you.

[40974111]

I thought that this would be the most appropriate place to post this. Feel free to move it if it is not.

I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. I will endeavour to keep this thread updated with responses to challenges, and we will see where I end up.

My background (to give you a basis for what to challenge me on):

I believe in God (as depicted in the Bible).
Church and most Christian's frustrate me no end, because a significant majority can not think for themselves, and merely recite what they have been taught by others.
I think 'creation' is a what (not a how, based on a non-literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis, as suggested by the poetic literary style ).
I think 'evolution' is a how (and the best theoretical how currently available)
I do not wish for eternal life, instead I wish to cease existing when I die. Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be an option if my belief system is true.
My political orientation edges towards anarchy in ideal circumstances, however, failing these circumstance I accept socialism.
Homosexuality is no more of a sin than lying. When I stop lying, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. Until then, they should.
My interest is not as much the "hard sciences" as it is psychology.
Anyway, I look forward to updating this story.

So please challenge me!

[40974111]

There seems to be an underlying double standard.

Theists are being asked to prove that God exists.
Atheists are not being asked to prove that God does not exists.

If you can not perform a test to prove God exists, then you can not perform a test to prove that God does not exist. Is there a test for God presently available? I don't believe there is.

So, can you as an atheist prove that God does not exist?

[Fearless]

It is a shame that you have not tried to seek viewpoints on these questions on these forums already but if you wish to go down this path, so be it.

I have moved this thread (and your coming out thread) to Fantasy Island, a place where you can discuss your belief openly.

All we ask is that you show some respect and try not to preach, I only mention this because most before you, fail on this every time.

I hope you can enjoy your stay.

[Fearless]

I have moved your thread to Fantasy Island as it is quite clear what your intentions are here, and Fantasy Island is the place for it.

I hope your agenda is not that of many before you who just show contempt. If I can offer any advice it would be not to peer down your nose at us as if you can help it. We have many people here that can hold a good discussion as long as they are shown respect as you would expect for yourself.

We are even setting up a debating forum so you can discuss your beliefs one on one and who knows, you might be first cab off the rank if you so choose.

Anyway, good luck with your mission. ;)

[Fearless]

Actually, I may as well just post this quote from the FAQ on our main pages to kick things off:

Don't Atheists have to prove that a god does not exist?

Those proposing that fairies, bunyips or gods exist must produce supportive evidence. It must be acceptable to all peoples and not only to the adherents of a particular ‘faith’. Over the last six thousand years, there have been 20,000 religions.* They have all claimed, equally fervently, that theirs is the ‘true’ one, rejecting the other 19,999 as false. Atheists reject, as fabricated, 20,000.

It is the highest form of unreasonableness to expect Atheists to prove the negative of wild unsupported assumptions. Atheists demand evidence but none has been forthcoming over the history of humanity.

*A Guide to the Gods’, by Marjorie Leach.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/faq#n21

Late Add:
Basically the burden of proof is on the believer (YOU), we do not have to prove anything unless you have your own proof for us to refute.

Do consider this... If we turned around to you and said we believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you would surely expect us to provide proof of existence? Or can you prove it doesn't exist? This applies to unicorns, fairys etc.

You are already miles behind the eight ball if you did not expect this response. If I am correct I suggest you go away and think about something more challenging. If you don't feel this answer is valid then (with all due respect) you need to do some reading of your own first.

[Cosmic Teapot]

There seems to be an underlying double standard.

Theists are being asked to prove that God exists.
Atheists are not being asked to prove that God does not exists.

If you can not perform a test to prove God exists, then you can not perform a test to prove that God does not exist. Is there a test for God presently available? I don't believe there is.

So, can you as an atheist prove that God does not exist?

If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit and appeared in court, would you think it's an unfair "double standard" that the prosecution have to prove their allegations against you instead of you having to prove your innocence?

If I told you that there is a celestial teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) orbiting the sun between Mars and the Earth, it's unlikely you would believe it without me producing proof to support my claim.
The contention that the unproven teapot should be considered a fact until it's disproved, holds no logical merit.
It doesn't take an exceptional imagination to come up with a dozen very improbable but quite unfalsifiable propositions, none of which are actually true. Imagine the chaos if every unfalsifiable, unproven claim had to be accepted as the truth. How far would our civilisation get before it was crushed under the weight of it's own stupidity and ignorance?

The concept of burden of proof is quite simple and by your attempt to shift the burden, I can only assume you're new to debating religion.
I hope you can come up with an argument that isn't so intellectually barren next time, or you will just be wasting your time and ours.

[TÐöer]

I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. I will endeavour to keep this thread updated with responses to challenges, and we will see where I end up.


So please challenge me!

I'm really not sure what you are after. If you were hoping to gain attention then you are sourly in the wrong place.

We are not Christians, we do not sell you to disbelieve your god. We do not invite you for BBQ's on Christmas eve, so we could preach sweet nothings.

The reason why we disprove people, is when they make stupid comments. Atheism, is not a club you simply join, you have to figure that out yourself. And if you have sincere questions, or doubts, then we would be glad to answer them. But don't expect us to hold you by the hand.

[atheist_angel]

I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. So please challenge me!Why would you want us to challenge you? Whatever you believe is fine with us. You could believe that the earth is flat and as long as you aren't a teacher of cosmology or astrophysics, we wouldn't care. Welcome to the Forums, whoever you are. I hope you can lurk around and learn more about the fallacies of religion while you are here, but only if you're interested.

[atheist_angel]

You already have two threads? That's a lot for your first 21 minutes. You only needed one, because they are basically duplicates. Anyway, I'm sure that nobody will get confused over it.I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. So please challenge me!Why would you want us to challenge you? Whatever you believe is fine with us. You could believe that the earth is flat and as long as you aren't a teacher of cosmology or astrophysics, we wouldn't care. Welcome to the Forums, whoever you are. I hope you can lurk around and learn more about the fallacies of religion while you are here, but only if you're interested.

[atheist_angel]

You already have two threads? That's a lot for your first 21 minutes. You only needed one, because they are basically duplicates. Anyway, I'm sure that nobody will get confused over it.I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. So please challenge me!Why would you want us to challenge you? Whatever you believe is fine with us. You could believe that the earth is flat and as long as you aren't a teacher of cosmology or astrophysics, we wouldn't care. Welcome to the Forums, whoever you are. I hope you can lurk around and learn more about the fallacies of religion while you are here, but only if you're interested.

[atheist_angel]

You already have two threads? That's a lot for your first 21 minutes. You only needed one, because they are basically duplicates. Anyway, I'm sure that nobody will get confused over it.There seems to be an underlying double standard. Theists are being asked to prove that God exists. Atheists are not being asked to prove that God does not exists. If you can not perform a test to prove God exists, then you can not perform a test to prove that God does not exist. Is there a test for God presently available? I don't believe there is. So, can you as an atheist prove that God does not exist?Why would you want us to challenge you? Whatever you believe is fine with us. You could believe that the earth is flat and as long as you aren't a teacher of cosmology or astrophysics, we wouldn't care. Welcome to the Forums, whoever you are. I hope you can lurk around and learn more about the fallacies of religion while you are here, but only if you're interested.

[TÐöer]

Atheist_Angel, do you ever sleep? Lol. :D

[atheist_angel]

Sometimes I wonder the same thing about the Mods. :p

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I do have the unusual feeling - judging by the completely numerical screen name - that this is a troll and/or a spammer.

[40974111]

If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit and appeared in court, would you think it's an unfair "double standard" that the prosecution have to prove their allegations against you instead of you having to prove your innocence?

See, they key bit here is the allegations.

I do not believe that I have come on these forums and made ANY allegations that God exists (apart from within background to who I am - which was for the express purposes for people to provide me with rational logical arguments against my belief system). I have not sought to discuss these beliefs. Until I make such allegations here that God exists, I do not need to prove God exists. You will take the perspective that God doesn't exist, as soon as one makes a statement to this effect (an allegation), the burden of proof is on them.

The burden of proof shifts at different points in time. IF I bring forward an allegation on here that God exists and seek to tell others, then yes the burden of proof is on me. At this point I am unable to provide this burden of proof, and so I will NOT be here telling you all that God exists, because I can not do so within your paradigm.

However, for you to be able to make claims that God does not exist, you need to back them up. I realise that you can not prove that God does not exist, and so my 'coming out story' post was targeting rational arguments against God, and a chance to point out inconsistencies between XYZ and my beliefs.

it's unlikely you would believe it without me producing proof to support my claim. The contention that the unproven teapot should be considered a fact until it's disproved, holds no logical merit.

Not a fact, but a possibility, like absolutely everything. Maybe I'm just flexible but I'm quite happy to conceive the possibility of flying spagetti monsters, unicorns, God/s etc. [Except in the case of God] I think it is very, very unlikely that they do exist, but I have not ruled out the fact that they may. If someone comes to me and alleges that they exist, then I will ask them for their proof. I typically do this to those who come to me and tell me they believe in God, however, I also do this to those who tell me there is no God.

All we ask is that you show some respect and try not to preach, I only mention this because most before you, fail on this every time.

I have no intention of preaching - and I will only espouse my beliefs in response to questions that pose a counter position, and only to the extent that I am working through reconciling a theistic belief with the provided counter argument. I guess, the best way to explain what I have come here for is a good rational argument to walk away from God.



Further on this discussion.

Consider that I propose a theory in a paper. I then find some evidence to support this theory, and so I publish another paper saying that part of my theory is supported. Once part of this theory is supported the onus transfers, in the scientific community to both those for and against the theory. You come along and believe my theory is a load of crap. You would need to publish a paper that shows evidence that does not support this theory. However, as long as there is still some support for theory it is not disproven, it merely needs refining. As far as I see it neither side can prove God exists, or prove that he does not exist. This means we need to keep minds open to the possibility that God a) exists AND b) does not exist. I am happy to keep my mind open to the possibility that God does not exist, despite my belief in God.

What should be explored is not claims of God exists vs does not exist. I suppose I can understand you, on these forums, demanding people to justify their claim when they come here to preach, because they have made the allegation. To me, it just seems poor form, when no where in the scientific community do you ever have to prove anything, just accumulate more evidence to support your theory. I think this is what frustrated me about reading these forums.

This is why I have tried to avoid allegations based on my beliefs. Instead I have come here to obtain evidence that does not support the theory that I hold that God exists. I have not come here to argue that he does, but to obtain arguments for why he does not. That was the purpose of the 'coming out thread'.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Just a note on the following:


Church and most Christian's frustrate me no end, because a significant majority can not think for themselves, and merely recite what they have been taught by others.
I think 'creation' is a what (not a how, based on a non-literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis, as suggested by the poetic literary style ).
I think 'evolution' is a how (and the best theoretical how currently available)
I do not wish for eternal life, instead I wish to cease existing when I die. Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be an option if my belief system is true.
Homosexuality is no more of a sin than lying. When I stop lying, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. Until then, they should.
My interest is not as much the "hard sciences" as it is psychology.
Anyway, I look forward to updating this story.
You don't seem to know how to think for yourself either if you believe in something as absurd as a God without significant evidence. So what are you saying about Creationism? What are you then saying about evolution - something you should not believe in as a Christian anyway due to it not being mentioned in the bible If you don't wish for eternal life don't worry - it is not likely to happen. But your retarded belief system says so. So you must be an associate of the Phelps family who are at Westboro Baptist Church - judging by the fact that you are a little anti-gay. Have you heard about narcissistic personality disorder yet? That is what your God and Jesus suffered from. They are not perfect obviously.

[40974111]

I do have the unusual feeling - judging by the completely numerical screen name - that this is a troll and/or a spammer.

It is my student ID number. I have to use it for all the logins at university, so I have just been using it for everything the last few years. Do a search at the forums over on SPCR.com (http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/) and you will see me, with the same username (40974111) as an active member.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

It is my student ID number. I have to use it for all the logins at university, so I have just been using it for everything the last few years. Do a search at the forums over on SPCR.com (http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/) and you will see me, with the same username (40974111) as an active member.I must say it is rather a silly thing to do - using your student ID number. Think of the security implications.

[Fearless]

You said in your other thread:

My background (to give you a basis for what to challenge me on):

* I believe in God (as depicted in the Bible).

now you say:

I do not believe that I have come on these forums and made ANY allegations that God exists (apart from within background to who I am - which was for the express purposes for people to provide me with rational logical arguments against my belief system).

and

I have not sought to discuss these beliefs. Until I make such allegations here that God exists, I do not need to prove God exists. You will take the perspective that God doesn't exist, as soon as one makes a statement to this effect (an allegation), the burden of proof is on them.

and

So please challenge me!

So what's your point? What do you want to be challenged on? or are you just trying to catch the Atheist by the tail?

Stop trying to be clever and just try straight talk, or is this a personal challenge for you... another word twister?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

It's called cryptography for a reason ;)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Atheist_Angel, do you ever sleep? Lol. :DProbably gets the same 3-4 hours of sleep every night as me.

[wearestardust]

There seems to be an underlying double standard.

Theists are being asked to prove that God exists.
Atheists are not being asked to prove that God does not exists.

If you can not perform a test to prove God exists, then you can not perform a test to prove that God does not exist. Is there a test for God presently available? I don't believe there is.

So, can you as an atheist prove that God does not exist?

Theist FAIL!

This is not so much bringing a kife to a gunfight as bringing a sharpened jellybean to face off against an Apache helicopter.

There is extensive literature on this point. Don't just throw us this old chestnut. Get an understanding of why atheists don't need to disprove the existence of god, and then try to explain to us why we are wrong.

Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

I recommend the god delusion. If you don't understand at the end why we atheists think the way we do, read it again. If after the third time you still don't get it (and note: I'm not asking you to agree with Dawkins, just to understand our position), you are too stupid, obtuse or closed minded to ever get it. It's a very easy read.

For the time being, consider yourself pwned.

[40974111]

I'm really not sure what you are after. If you were hoping to gain attention then you are sourly in the wrong place.

We are not Christians, we do not sell you to disbelieve your god.

Sorry about the lack of clarity. I want a rational argument to change my beliefs from theistic to atheistic.

At present my beliefs serve me well. Even if God did not exist, I function well, and I see my beliefs as informing my coping strategies (no, not just prayer) which are what allow me to cope well with life. To change these beliefs would upset how I function. So for me to move from the state of 'ignorance' and 'stupidity' that frustrates atheists no end, to abandoning my beliefs requires, a rational argument. This is what I'm asking for.



You don't seem to know how to think for yourself either if you believe in something as absurd as a God without significant evidence.
So what are you saying about Creationism?
What are you then saying about evolution - something you should not believe in as a Christian anyway due to it not being mentioned in the bible
If you don't wish for eternal life don't worry - it is not likely to happen. But your retarded belief system says so.
So you must be an associate of the Phelps family who are at Westboro Baptist Church - judging by the fact that you are a little anti-gay.
Have you heard about narcissistic personality disorder yet? That is what your God and Jesus suffered from. They are not perfect obviously.
You believe I am a troll, and I think your post reflects this attitude.


I am going to ignore this comment.
What I am saying about creationism? Anyone that says that God created the world out of nothing to how it is/was, is completly off the mark. What evolutionary theories do not provide is an attribution of purpose. Believing that God created the world is an attribution of purpose. However, the question of how God created the world is answered best (at present) by evolutionary theories.
Television was not mentioned in the Bible, yet I think you would be hard pressed to find Christians that do not believe the Television exists (lets ignore that some of them think that it is evil). The second part of your comment is ridiculous. However, the first part I'll address. My stance on evolution, as best I reconcile the two at the moment (and yes, the reconciliation does in part represent wishful thinking): God used the Big Bang and then the process of evolution to create the world (no, not poking at the process like intelligent design theorists suggest - I'm of the opinion that if there is an all powerful God, he would have had no need to poke at the process)
If I turn out to be wrong, then I get what I want. Pretty good deal for being wrong, don't you think?
I am a little anti-gay to the extent that I am anti-lying. This is one of those things that I wish I did not feel a need to be, however, if I follow the Christian God, I feel as if there is no choice but to hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, to the same extent as telling a lie.
Yes, I'm familiar with narcissistic personality disorder, delusions of granduer, anything that you could say Jesus fits the bill for. My comment to you, seeing as you chose to be a smart arse, is, if you knew the principles of psychological diagnosis you would know that you can not diagnose someone with a psychological or personality disorder that did not exist at a point before the disorder was recognised. This does not stop you saying however that Jesus displayed characteristics that suggest, if he existed now, he would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.

[40974111]

now you say:


Quote:
I do not believe that I have come on these forums and made ANY allegations that God exists (apart from within background to who I am - which was for the express purposes for people to provide me with rational logical arguments against my belief system).
and


Quote:
I have not sought to discuss these beliefs. Until I make such allegations here that God exists, I do not need to prove God exists. You will take the perspective that God doesn't exist, as soon as one makes a statement to this effect (an allegation), the burden of proof is on them.
The comment that I believe in God was purely for background. It is not the point of me coming to these forums. The point of me coming here was to have people provide me with rational arguments against my current belief system (and as such, I thought it was necessary to state what that was).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40974111 http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=28605#post28605)
It is my student ID number. I have to use it for all the logins at university, so I have just been using it for everything the last few years. Do a search at the forums over on SPCR.com (http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/) and you will see me, with the same username (40974111) as an active member.

I must say it is rather a silly thing to do - using your student ID number. Think of the security implications.
Doesn't phase me too much... don't have much of an identity to steal, and don't have any money in the bank.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Maybe then you could answer these questions:

If God was so good then why does he let bad things happen to innocent people and animals and plants? In other words why does he allow the destruction of his creation so readily?
How come your bloody church and its members get to have money and get to evade taxes when those people starving get nothing at all?
Have you actually ever read the Bible and what sort of nonsense it promotes?
What kind of peaceful god would kill so many innocent people by plague and by flash flood?

[Fearless]

You keep contradicting yourself, in your other thread which I wish I was able to merge right now you say your aim here is to be challenged from your 'theistic' beliefs to adopt Atheism.

Do you think we were born yesterday?

Try insulting some other group or religion, you have lost your attempt to play on words here because of your transparancy.

I will give you a tip for next time... Try saying hello.

[Fearless]

Threads merged, so we keep it together

[40974111]

You keep contradicting yourself, in your other thread which I wish I was able to merge right now you say your aim here is to be challenged from your 'theistic' beliefs to adopt Atheism.

Do you think we were born yesterday?

It is a genuine request. Treat it as you will.



If God was so good then why does he let bad things happen to innocent people and animals and plants? In other words why does he allow the destruction of his creation so readily?
How come your bloody church and its members get to have money and get to evade taxes when those people starving get nothing at all?
Have you actually ever read the Bible and what sort of nonsense it promotes?
What kind of peaceful god would kill so many innocent people by plague and by flash flood?
*sigh* questions like this just make me espouse my beliefs and how I've reconciled these things in response. I'd rather people make arguments for atheism, rather than against religion.

2. This is one of the reasons I do not give to the church, but to charities (including non-religious ones).
3. Yes, the whole thing. (I think that answers your question - cite a particular example if you want elaboration on it).
1/4. These are close enough to address together. I do not view God as peaceful, I view God as angry (yet with the ability to be forgiving), and I don't think you can view him any other way after reading the Bible. Additionally, if you take the argument that sin is in the world (sin being defined as disobeying God and taking one's own path), then I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, who, after reaching a certain state of development in childhood would not be sinful (as in, if God was real, having disobeyed him). With everyone over this developmental threshold being sinful, none would be innocent. This does not account for those under that developmental threshhold who really don't have much control over their actions (babies and infants). However, with a view of God as angry, it becomes quite easy to see how punishment can extend beyond the target to those around him. If there was a God, which is the assumption you are playing with, then, based on what the bible says of his character, he'd be really angry, and as such, his behaviour (not preventing the loss of 'innocent live' )would make sense.

[40974111]

I'd rather people make arguments for atheism, rather than against religion.

My 'christian' beliefs suit my needs quite well. Even if there was no God, my beliefs that God exists serve functional purposes. To move away from these beliefs, even if I am convinced there is no God (although at this point the beliefs in God may cease to be functional), requires the mindset of atheism to be promoted.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I am going to ignore this comment.
What I am saying about creationism? Anyone that says that God created the world out of nothing to how it is/was, is completly off the mark. What evolutionary theories do not provide is an attribution of purpose. Believing that God created the world is an attribution of purpose. However, the question of how God created the world is answered best (at present) by evolutionary theories.
Television was not mentioned in the Bible, yet I think you would be hard pressed to find Christians that do not believe the Television exists (lets ignore that some of them think that it is evil). The second part of your comment is ridiculous. However, the first part I'll address. My stance on evolution, as best I reconcile the two at the moment (and yes, the reconciliation does in part represent wishful thinking): God used the Big Bang and then the process of evolution to create the world (no, not poking at the process like intelligent design theorists suggest - I'm of the opinion that if there is an all powerful God, he would have had no need to poke at the process)
If I turn out to be wrong, then I get what I want. Pretty good deal for being wrong, don't you think?
I am a little anti-gay to the extent that I am anti-lying. This is one of those things that I wish I did not feel a need to be, however, if I follow the Christian God, I feel as if there is no choice but to hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, to the same extent as telling a lie.
Yes, I'm familiar with narcissistic personality disorder, delusions of granduer, anything that you could say Jesus fits the bill for. My comment to you, seeing as you chose to be a smart arse, is, if you knew the principles of psychological diagnosis you would know that you can not diagnose someone with a psychological or personality disorder that did not exist at a point before the disorder was recognised. This does not stop you saying however that Jesus displayed characteristics that suggest, if he existed now, he would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.
So do you want a rational debate or is this going to be a "La la la la la I'm not listening I can't hear you" type thing? It's very obvious to me that you haven't read the Bible very much as "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days" and the fact that the pop up in random places - is there in the Bible. I was not talking about television. I was talking about evolution - you should learn to read posts properly. So you are then what I would call a JICT (Just In Case Theist) - but what if the Muslims are right? If all you know the almighty Allah probably exists too - you don't know that. Or even the Hindus were right and you'll have to face the wrath of their gods because you didn't believe in them. There are several choices - it's just which one you take that is important. Did you know that homosexuality is not a choice - but a genetic orientation? I am autistic. I have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. I have been to enough psychiatrists to understand how a diagnosis works. Clearly the people back in the time of Jesus should have recognized there was something wrong with him and pegged him as a retard. If I started going around Australia saying "I am your God and you have to follow me" I'm sure I would be in a mental hospital. The point I am making is not about diagnoses or things like that. The point I was making was that there is something wrong with your Jesus and he is clearly not perfect like you and other Christians claim. Before you call me a smart ass I recommend you think about what you are believing in - read the Bible and read the attrocities in it.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

*sigh* questions like this just make me espouse my beliefs and how I've reconciled these things in response. I'd rather people make arguments for atheism, rather than against religion.

2. This is one of the reasons I do not give to the church, but to charities (including non-religious ones).
3. Yes, the whole thing. (I think that answers your question - cite a particular example if you want elaboration on it).
1/4. These are close enough to address together. I do not view God as peaceful, I view God as angry (yet with the ability to be forgiving), and I don't think you can view him any other way after reading the Bible. Additionally, if you take the argument that sin is in the world (sin being defined as disobeying God and taking one's own path), then I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, who, after reaching a certain state of development in childhood would not be sinful (as in, if God was real, having disobeyed him). With everyone over this developmental threshold being sinful, none would be innocent. This does not account for those under that developmental threshhold who really don't have much control over their actions (babies and infants). However, with a view of God as angry, it becomes quite easy to see how punishment can extend beyond the target to those around him. If there was a God, which is the assumption you are playing with, then, based on what the bible says of his character, he'd be really angry, and as such, his behaviour (not preventing the loss of 'innocent live' )would make sense. You want a rational debate but you are not willing to even answer something as simple as the question about how can God be good if he allows bad things to happen. That's fine. Forgiveness and anger isn't even remotely related to the question. The question is about how God could be described as peaceful and wise and all-knowing - when even the Bible mentions that he has killed many innocent people - in fact a hell of a lot more than Hitler killed. Nothing about sin. Nothing about forgiveness. The question is about all-knowing all-powerful ever-so-perfect most-peaceful God killing billions of innocent people for no reason and your attempt to evade the question using unrelated irrelevant garbage regarding forgiveness and sins doesn't impress me.

[40974111]

So do you want a rational debate or is this going to be a "La la la la la I'm not listening I can't hear you" type thing?
It's very obvious to me that you haven't read the Bible very much as "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days" and the fact that the pop up in random places - is there in the Bible.
I was not talking about television. I was talking about evolution - you should learn to read posts properly.
So you are then what I would call a JICT (Just In Case Theist) - but what if the Muslims are right? If all you know the almighty Allah probably exists too - you don't know that. Or even the Hindus were right and you'll have to face the wrath of their gods because you didn't believe in them.
There are several choices - it's just which one you take that is important. Did you know that homosexuality is not a choice - but a genetic orientation?
I am autistic. I have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. I have been to enough psychiatrists to understand how a diagnosis works. Clearly the people back in the time of Jesus should have recognized there was something wrong with him and pegged him as a retard. If I started going around Australia saying "I am your God and you have to follow me" I'm sure I would be in a mental hospital. The point I am making is not about diagnoses or things like that. The point I was making was that there is something wrong with your Jesus and he is clearly not perfect like you and other Christians claim. Before you call me a smart ass I recommend you think about what you are believing in - read the Bible and read the attrocities in it.


1. Rational arguments for atheism, yes.

*(Sorry about caps, this is just so my intentions are clear)THIS MEANS THAT POINTS 2-6 ARE NOT THOSE I'M LOOKING TO DISCUSS, BUT WILL DISCUSS SO LONG AS OTHERS KEEP BRINGING THEM UP*

2. "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days" = non-literal. The literary style of the original was poetic, how do you interpret poems? Rarely is it literal. I don't see scientific evidence supporting a literal translation, or any reason to see it as literal.
3. Consider it a parallel example. I don't have a problem with evolution - it feels like you need me to have a problem with it. When you point out how it fails to fit with the rest of my beliefs, then this will be a rational argument.
4. I would debate that point. I believe in God because I believe he is real, not for the 'reward' of heaven. The JICT label only, I think, applies in the case of "believing in God, because you don't want to miss out on the reward if God is there"
5. "Did you know that homosexuality is not a choice - but a genetic orientation?" Diathesis-stress model: there is a genetic predisposition coupled with either the effect of environmental forces on this disposition or a choice to move towards the disposition.
6. Okay, came across like a point of diagnosis, sorry. The claims are only problematic if they are not true. I can't verify that they are true through. If they are not true, then yes, there is something wrong with Jesus.

[40974111]

Forgiveness and anger isn't even remotely related to the question. The question is about how God could be described as peaceful and wise and all-knowing - when even the Bible mentions that he has killed many innocent people - in fact a hell of a lot more than Hitler killed. Nothing about sin. Nothing about forgiveness. The question is about all-knowing all-powerful ever-so-perfect most-peaceful God killing billions of innocent people for no reason and your attempt to evade the question using unrelated irrelevant garbage regarding forgiveness and sins doesn't impress me.


And I'm disagreeing with your assumption that the Christian God is peaceful based on my reading of the Bible. I don't believe it, so why should I defend it. I believe God is angry (read: opposite of peacefuly, even though hostile is probably a more accurate opposite).

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

1. Rational arguments for atheism, yes.

*(Sorry about caps, this is just so my intentions are clear)THIS MEANS THAT POINTS 2-6 ARE NOT THOSE I'M LOOKING TO DISCUSS, BUT WILL DISCUSS SO LONG AS OTHERS KEEP BRINGING THEM UP*

2. "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days" = non-literal. The literary style of the original was poetic, how do you interpret poems? Rarely is it literal. I don't see scientific evidence supporting a literal translation, or any reason to see it as literal.
3. Consider it a parallel example. I don't have a problem with evolution - it feels like you need me to have a problem with it. When you point out how it fails to fit with the rest of my beliefs, then this will be a rational argument.
4. I would debate that point. I believe in God because I believe he is real, not for the 'reward' of heaven. The JICT label only, I think, applies in the case of "believing in God, because you don't want to miss out on the reward if God is there"
5. "Did you know that homosexuality is not a choice - but a genetic orientation?" Diathesis-stress model: there is a genetic predisposition coupled with either the effect of environmental forces on this disposition or a choice to move towards the disposition.
6. Okay, came across like a point of diagnosis, sorry. The claims are only problematic if they are not true. I can't verify that they are true through. If they are not true, then yes, there is something wrong with Jesus. That shouldn't be a problem - but both sides need to co-operate and try not to evade answering questions and/or filling in with random gibberish to attempt to try and "get away with it" - otherwise it is not a rational debate. I explained more below. If that was non-literal then why would he declare one day of the week to be Sabbath? I'm not saying that I want you to have a problem with it - the Bible implies it in the way it describes creation. So I guess you're an "agnostic theist" - or probably a deist right? In which case you say that you believe in God - as in "he's there" - but not the Bible. Just to let you know I used to be in that position too ages ago before I became atheist so I'm not going to say that you need to follow a garbage-oriented book in order to believe that God exists. You just completely missed my point - a "sin" is something that you commit as per your own will. Homosexuality is not part of one's will. Like how autism is not part of one's will. One is born autistic similar to how one is born homosexual. The difference is that autism is a disability and homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Can you prove that the claims are true?

Now for the arguments for atheism I do not have in possession any credible evidence for the existence of a god or gods. I cannot find any religious books involving a god or gods as of today without a significant amount of errors and contradictions and illogical statements and stories. I used to be a Muslim - and many atheists here used to be from a religious background. I realized that praying to an invisible sky daddy had similar results to praying to a tin can. Religions generally spread using scare tactics and fear. This is how delusions of people begin. Religions have many contradictions as well that should be obvious. For example religions claim to be peaceful - while even a glance at the history of warfare will reveal otherwise. If there were 100000 religions - each one would claim to be the only true religion and label the other 99999 as fraudulent and false. The way religions discriminate against others is just ridiculous. Using religion as a moral guide never appeals to me because of these reasons. I do not require the complications of a God or gods to manage our lives. It just makes things worse. It is a waste of time to us when there is no evidence of a god or Gods - and no evidence proving a single god or set of gods as the truthful.

[Seamus]

I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. I will endeavour to keep this thread updated with responses to challenges, and we will see where I end up.I'm an agnostic atheist.I assert "I do not believe in gods" I make no claims of any kind,and so have no burden of proof. That honour is yours 100%.


You also seem to be under some false impressions:

That I care about your personal superstitions.

That I have an interest in deconverting you.

That I care what you think of my disbelief or about me personally.

AND that I will wast my time trying to debate a presuppositional apologist.(look it up).

I do not have the need,the interest or the obligation to accept your challenge.

The information below is posted out of sympathy for your staggering ignorance of basic principles of rational argument. Go way and come back after you have learned to reason,even a little.Then perhaps you may earn some credibility.

I have nothing further to say to you .



BURDEN OF PROOF as logical fallacy


In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), the term burden of proof refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe.
All logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their conclusions to follow, and most logical arguments require a certain level of informality to be stated in a compact and comprehensible form. Therefore it is always possible to seek to discredit an idea by suggesting that the Burden of Proof should be set to an inappropriately high level. For example: when behaviourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviourism) was the dominant ideology in the study of animal behaviour, but social conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning) was dominant in human behaviour, according to Mary Midgley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley), there was a remarkable discrepancy between what was treated as a parsimonious explanation for a piece of human behaviour and what could count as such when the behaviour was of some other animal. The practice was that, in the human case, the normal, indeed practically the only, licensed form of explanation was in terms of culture or of free deliberate choice, or both. Anyone who suggested that an inborn tendency might be even a contributing factor in human choices tended to be denounced as a fascist. The burden of proof was accordingly laid entirely on this suggestion, and it was made impossibly heavy. To put it another way, any explanation that invoked culture, however vague, abstract, far-fetched, infertile and implausible, tended to be readily accepted, while any explanation in terms of innate tendencies, however careful, rigorous, well-documented, limited and specific tended to be ignored. In animal psychology, however, the opposite situation reigned. Here, what was taboo was the range of concepts that describes the conscious, cognitive side of experience. The preferred, safe kind of explanation here derived from ideas of innate programming and mechanical conditioning. If anything cognitive was mentioned, standards of rigour at once soared into a stratosphere where few arguments could hope to follow.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29#cite_note-0)
The logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.
Keith Lehrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Lehrer) suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29#cite_note-1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29


IN JURISPRUDENCE


he burden of proof (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence). The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence which underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defence might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence), meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

[Cosmic Teapot]

See, they key bit here is the allegations.

I do not believe that I have come on these forums and made ANY allegations that God exists (apart from within background to who I am - which was for the express purposes for people to provide me with rational logical arguments against my belief system). I have not sought to discuss these beliefs. Until I make such allegations here that God exists, I do not need to prove God exists. You will take the perspective that God doesn't exist, as soon as one makes a statement to this effect (an allegation), the burden of proof is on them.
WTF?!?
Did you see every member here personally declare "there is no god" before you challenged all of us to prove god doesn't exist? No, because such a position was already implied by the fact we are atheists. You have come here and declared yourself a christian, which by definition means you believe god exists, which is the claim we want you to prove.
Your entire argument reeks of intellectual failure.

The burden of proof shifts at different points in time. IF I bring forward an allegation on here that God exists and seek to tell others, then yes the burden of proof is on me.
Fail.
At this point I am unable to provide this burden of proof, and so I will NOT be here telling you all that God exists, because I can not do so within your paradigm.
Epic Fail.

However, for you to be able to make claims that God does not exist, you need to back them up.
We're not making any claims. We're simply saying that we don't believe your claims about god existing because you haven't proven it.
Again, the burden of proof is with you as a christian, not us.
I realise that you can not prove that God does not exist, and so my 'coming out story' post was targeting rational arguments against God, and a chance to point out inconsistencies between XYZ and my beliefs.
Did you bother reading this forum first? These discussions have been had before. It's a little arrogant to blow in here and think you're so special that we should have to waste our time repeating the same arguments for your benefit.
Not a fact, but a possibility, like absolutely everything. Maybe I'm just flexible but I'm quite happy to conceive the possibility of flying spagetti monsters, unicorns, God/s etc. [Except in the case of God] I think it is very, very unlikely that they do exist, but I have not ruled out the fact that they may. If someone comes to me and alleges that they exist, then I will ask them for their proof. I typically do this to those who come to me and tell me they believe in God, however, I also do this to those who tell me there is no God.

So what makes god any different from the FSM or unicorns? Without proof, you see the FSM as a remote possibility but god is seen as a fact. So what proof do you have that enables you to drag god out of the "possible but unlikely" category to become a fact?
Has anyone you asked for proof of god ever produced such proof? If not, why do you think his existence is any more probable than the possibility of unicorns?

I guess, the best way to explain what I have come here for is a good rational argument to walk away from God.
No you're not. There's a plethora of atheist material on the internet where you could find such rational arguments. They invented this wonderful thing called Google (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arguments+against+the+existence+of+god).
If you are actively seeking to become an atheist, I would suggest you don't really believe in god to begin with.

Consider that I propose a theory in a paper. I then find some evidence to support this theory, and so I publish another paper saying that part of my theory is supported. Once part of this theory is supported the onus transfers, in the scientific community to both those for and against the theory.
In our debate on god, your side is yet to provide the evidence to support their god theory, therefore the burden of proof is on you, even according to your own analogy.
Team Fail.

As far as I see it neither side can prove God exists, or prove that he does not exist. This means we need to keep minds open to the possibility that God a) exists AND b) does not exist. I am happy to keep my mind open to the possibility that God does not exist, despite my belief in God.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realise that many atheists subscribe to the notion that since we don't know everything, you have to reserve the possibility of god existing (however improbable). Science doesn't claim to have all the answers and accepts that the answers that it does have, aren't the final answers on the matter.

This is why I have tried to avoid allegations based on my beliefs. Instead I have come here to obtain evidence that does not support the theory that I hold that God exists. I have not come here to argue that he does, but to obtain arguments for why he does not. That was the purpose of the 'coming out thread'.

So in other words, you want us to prove that god doesn't exist.
Maybe if you specified why you believe god exists, we could provide an argument against it.
It's quite clear that you tend to cherry-pick the bible, so you're going to have to make a specific statement of belief for us to refute. We're not going to make arguments just so you can say "oh, I don't believe that bit of the bible". Your creation beliefs are an example of this cherry-picking.

[40974111]

Alright, so I can not prove God exists or does not exist.
So in the interests of moving forward I'm going to focus on one point that has been made that I think may move us towards my aim, even if it goes against my prefered method (conveniently its the last one)

Maybe if you specified why you believe god exists, we could provide an argument against it.
It's quite clear that you tend to cherry-pick the bible, so you're going to have to make a specific statement of belief for us to refute. We're not going to make arguments just so you can say "oh, I don't believe that bit of the bible". Your creation beliefs are an example of this cherry-picking.

Why do I believe God exists?
The main reason is that despite every single attempt I have made to move away from God, I have been drawn back.

It isn't a case of passive back-sliding, it is actively trying to move away. The main focus for this has been to try and isolate Biblical inconsistencies (working within the philosophical and theological paradigm that I know), however, the greater the study that I engage in (unfortunately this can not be from the original language as I have never managed to master any language what-so-ever), the less inconsistencies there appear to be. The Bible to me seems more inconsistent at first glance.

I am very self-aware of cognitive biases (as I'm presently doing research within psychology), and try and bring these to the forefront of my thoughts and self-reflection. Exploring what is left when I peel away these biases. I engage in a lot of self-reflection and analysis. I see cognitive biases being overly active in about 90% of the religious people I know.

I'm fairly confident, based on a great deal of painful self-reflection that me moving back towards God after actively trying to move away from belief in him, is not the result of cognitive bias. I'm also well aware of my ability (God's ability?) to have overcome serious past addictions through working through the addiction (which I have no intention of giving details about), and taking the position of my beliefs as an addicition: having an irrational belief in God that gives perceived reward to me for engaging with these beliefs, should be able to be something I can overcome, and indeed I have tried too.

My research this year has convinced me that being religious, and holding particular religious beliefs generally has no unique effect on behaviour, and sometimes being religious has a negative effect on the taught behaviours.

I have essentially moved away from organised religion over the last 2 years. I attend church because within my belief system that is something required by God. However, the people there infuriate me, and the authoritarian nature of the religious structures and systems leaves me zoning out. My relationship with God is something I have tried very hard to move away from, but feel naturally compelled to come back to (this may well be because it provides me with comfort).


I do not think that I have cherry picked the Bible. I don't ignore things that it says, I try and reconcile them into a bigger picture. As I do in any kind of investigation. I use the active process of, 'how does this this fit in with my present beliefs?', 'can a change within my beliefs allow this new information to fit?', 'if not, how do I have to change my core beliefs to include this new information?'

Core beliefs:
1. I believe in an angry God. A God who is jealous that people don't acknowledge him as God (based on the OT).
2. I believe that God is prepared to forgo the anger he feels towards us when we acknowledge that he is God, and the sign of this was Jesus death on the cross (based on the OT/NT).

Some subsidiary beliefs (those that I have developed to reconcile issues I've had)
1. I believe that God created the world using the processes outlined in evolutionary theories. I do not think Genesis is a literal account, nor do many, many theologists. The idea of resting on the 7th day was so God could model his ideal way for us to behave, however, at creation this did not represent the 'Sabbath', this was a concept revealed at a later point in time.
2. I believe that the whole world didn't flood. I think it was confined to a smaller region of the middle east, in line with historical evidence and records. However, from the perspecitve of the Jews it may well have appeared that 'their' whole world flooded. This could explain how they fitted the animals onto the Ark; smaller world = less animals (not sure about insects, etc.).
3. My belief about the presence of any freewill is currently up in the air. I'm currently trying to reconcile this concept with my belief in biological determinism. This is an issue because, the Bible states that people have freewill to choose God, and my other beliefs imply this also.


I will leave it here for now. Hopefully this is slightly more useful.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Replace God with FSM and Bible with Gospel of the FSM and you will find your own statements as ridiculous like the way I see your statements.

[40974111]

See, I'm at the point these days when I see them as ridiculous too. And so I have tried to move away from them. I have succesfully moved away from things with a more powerful hold than religious beliefs, unless there was something actually behind them, supporting them. This is what leaves me confused.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

See, I'm at the point these days when I see them as ridiculous too. And so I have tried to move away from them. I have succesfully moved away from things with a more powerful hold than religious beliefs, unless there was something actually behind them, supporting them. This is what leaves me confused.So what is holding you back? Are you trying to escape from your belief? Is that why you came here with a "challenge me and convert me" attitude?

[Unsacred Cow]

Why do I believe God exists?
The main reason is that despite every single attempt I have made to move away from God, I have been drawn back.

3. My belief about the presence of any freewill is currently up in the air. I'm currently trying to reconcile this concept with my belief in biological determinism. This is an issue because, the Bible states that people have freewill to choose God, and my other beliefs imply this also.


If you feel "god is drawing you back" despite your attempts to move away from your god then surely this negates the notion of free will that the bible talks about.

Can you describe by what means you are "drawn back"?

[40974111]

So what is holding you back?
That's just it. There is nothing percievable holding me back, I've thought about this, and tried to determine what is holding me back, and I'm left thinking nothing.

I can not find anything within the belief system that is rewarding. For instance, I disagree with most Christians on questions of politics, ethics, and the role of science, etc (those issues which I view as important). I find Christians to reason poorly, although for the most part they are relatively pleasant people. I'm also not closely connected to a church group anymore, these days I'm a sit in the back row and critique the sermon and church structure kind of person. Even the believed end state of heaven is unappealing, I'd rather cease to exist. There is little perceivable benefit to engaging with these beliefs.

So why can't I leave my beliefs in a God? I've left other more rewarding (read: addictive) activities.

Are you trying to escape from your belief?

Essentially. Trying to develop a reasoned argument against my beliefs, that genuinely convinces me.

Is that why you came here with a "challenge me and convert me" attitude?
Yeah, it was easier to deal with at a personal level than explaining what was underlying the motivation.

[Unsacred Cow]

Core beliefs:
1. I believe in an angry God. A God who is jealous that people don't acknowledge him as God (based on the OT).
2. I believe that God is prepared to forgo the anger he feels towards us when we acknowledge that he is God, and the sign of this was Jesus death on the cross (based on the OT/NT).


What is he angry about? Why does a being that is supposedly omnipotent seem so caught up with emotions (anger, jealousy)?

[Fearless]

I appreciate your change of approach to this thread, whether I believe you or not is a different issue.

With respect you are either a clever psychology student or a reluctant theist, I don't really understand how you can be in the quandry you state you are in yet still feel so 'drawn' as you put it to your faith in religion.

You have come here stating that you need to be challenged into another way of thinking. I have no doubt you could have read books or websites and found your own answers. Your approach here was more 'challenge me to change if you dare!' sort of atitude which doesn't wash with us.

One question I would like to ask is in your own words, what is your view on Atheism and Atheists, not reflecting on your time here, I am more curious for your definition.

Sorry, the jury is still out.

[two dogs]

...
1. I believe that God created the world using the processes outlined in evolutionary theories. I do not think Genesis is a literal account, nor do many, many theologists. The idea of resting on the 7th day was so God could model his ideal way for us to behave, however, at creation this did not represent the 'Sabbath', this was a concept revealed at a later point in time.

So you don't take Genesis literally.


2. I believe that the whole world didn't flood. I think it was confined to a smaller region of the middle east, in line with historical evidence and records. However, from the perspecitve of the Jews it may well have appeared that 'their' whole world flooded. This could explain how they fitted the animals onto the Ark; smaller world = less animals (not sure about insects, etc.).
...
So you do take Genesis literally.

Could you please enlighten me as to how you decide which parts of Genesis (and the entire Bible) are figurative, and which parts are literal?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

And all this time the Bible was being sarcastic ;)

[atheist_angel]

@4097etc. *Are you suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance, or something? You said, "I'd rather people make arguments for atheism, rather than against religion".

We can't make arguments for explaining why atheism is good, without explaining why religion is wrong. Atheism is not a belief system. It is strictly non-belief. No system included. Theists that became atheists, did so because they were sincere enough to want to know more about their own religion and discovered how it all unravels when you look deep enough. We don't let the so-called 'holy books' tell us where we should stand on any issue. We use our hearts and our minds.

It sounds like you are afraid that g-d will strike you down if you stop believing. I don't know if you are asking for help and looking for more information that might help you sort this all out in your head. If you have questions about atheism, ask them. If you have questions about religion, ask them too. We will be happy to provide our insights and what you do with what we give you, is up too you. :)

*Disclaimer: The above was not meant to sound impolite. I have a deficit with linguistics. Please don't hold it against me. It was meant to be an honest question, not an insult. :o
It is a genuine request. Treat it as you will.

[/list]
*sigh* questions like this just make me espouse my beliefs and how I've reconciled these things in response. I'd rather people make arguments for atheism, rather than against religion.

2. This is one of the reasons I do not give to the church, but to charities (including non-religious ones).
3. Yes, the whole thing. (I think that answers your question - cite a particular example if you want elaboration on it).
1/4. These are close enough to address together. I do not view God as peaceful, I view God as angry (yet with the ability to be forgiving), and I don't think you can view him any other way after reading the Bible. Additionally, if you take the argument that sin is in the world (sin being defined as disobeying God and taking one's own path), then I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, who, after reaching a certain state of development in childhood would not be sinful (as in, if God was real, having disobeyed him). With everyone over this developmental threshold being sinful, none would be innocent. This does not account for those under that developmental threshhold who really don't have much control over their actions (babies and infants). However, with a view of God as angry, it becomes quite easy to see how punishment can extend beyond the target to those around him. If there was a God, which is the assumption you are playing with, then, based on what the bible says of his character, he'd be really angry, and as such, his behaviour (not preventing the loss of 'innocent live' )would make sense.

My 'christian' beliefs suit my needs quite well. Even if there was no God, my beliefs that God exists serve functional purposes. To move away from these beliefs, even if I am convinced there is no God (although at this point the beliefs in God may cease to be functional), requires the mindset of atheism to be promoted.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

@atheist_angel: actually I can make arguments for why atheism rocks. In fact some of my arguments are summarized - quite bizzarrely - in the "Interests" section for the user peterthames (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/member.php?u=25) as GO ATHEISM, NO GOD, NO HEAVEN, NO HELL, NO WORRIES - now I do give him a little credit for that at least if not for his anti-abortion garbage (for which the negative credit he deserves cancels the positive credit for this thing) - but I do have a few and I think I mentioned it some time in this thread. Before he decided to go nuts and post anti-abortion crap on this forum his signature started with "Religion is the world's biggest con" or something like that. That is one of the main reasons I am atheist. I have more if you want them - so feel free to ask. Otherwise I'm probably not going to waste my time. If enough people ask I'll probably post something in the "Coming Out Stories" forum.

[wolty]

So, you're prepared to believe that god exists and will do so even if god does not exist, if I read your first sentence correctly.

I am prepared to accept that as a viable coping strategy, a way to get around in "limp" mode:

Agree about the limp strategy. Seems to me that you want us to do all the work.


You may be ready to leave the religion, and the reservations about hanging on to the familiar tenets may also show that you are at least questioning the need for same.

Seems to me the same thing. But the problem is that you need to jump in boots and all. It comes across as you trying to leave religion, but if things go pear shaped and you come before dog, you can then blame us for you being manipulated and having weak convictions.

This is not something you can be convinced of by others, and atheism is merely the act of disbelieving in god. There is no "unified theory of atheism", or "atheist's creed". We are people, a widely disparate range of people, with our own political and moral consciences, and tastes in entertainment: our common factor is godlessness, and even that varies in its form and intensity.

We probably don't need to convince you of anything, but I advise you to have a long talk with your god, and note carefully everything it says in return.


After your last post it seemed to me we were finally getting somewhere. Having the strength of ones convictions is admirable up to the point where you ask others to change your mind. If what you wrote is true, then nothing we can say will change your mind, so we can move on. However now you seem to have changed your ideas and are desperatly asking for help from others to change your mind. So I ask, why should we?

I will tell you why I have no problem believing there are no gods. Because life is much simpler that way. You are tying yourself up in knots trying to escape an absurd belief, when all you need to change is your attitude towards unbelievable things.

[Cosmic Teapot]

That's just it. There is nothing percievable holding me back, I've thought about this, and tried to determine what is holding me back, and I'm left thinking nothing.

I can not find anything within the belief system that is rewarding. For instance, I disagree with most Christians on questions of politics, ethics, and the role of science, etc (those issues which I view as important). I find Christians to reason poorly, although for the most part they are relatively pleasant people. I'm also not closely connected to a church group anymore, these days I'm a sit in the back row and critique the sermon and church structure kind of person. Even the believed end state of heaven is unappealing, I'd rather cease to exist. There is little perceivable benefit to engaging with these beliefs.

So why can't I leave my beliefs in a God? I've left other more rewarding (read: addictive) activities.



Essentially. Trying to develop a reasoned argument against my beliefs, that genuinely convinces me.


Yeah, it was easier to deal with at a personal level than explaining what was underlying the motivation.

As far as I can see (assuming what you say about your faith is true) you are pretty much an atheist already, you just can't cope without the mental safety net of belief.
You're stranded on the island of christianity. You want to build a raft and escape but the island has no material with which to build a raft. You've searched the beach for flotsam and jetsom washed up from the "sea of unknown" but none you've found is suitable for your purposes. Now you've decided to swim and that's why you're here. You want us to show you the distant silhouette of Atheist Island on the horizon so you have another safe haven to swim to. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
Atheism can't help you. You don't need the rational arguments of atheism to kill your belief in god as you seem to have already done that and atheism can't replace the direction and comfort of religious faith because atheism isn't a complete worldview.
Maybe Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=declaration&section=main) can provide the worldview you need?
Frankly, the only thing drawing you back to christianity is you and your fear of not having all the answers.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I think that you need to get over your fear. That is what I would suggest. That is the hardest part of moving out of a religion. And it is hard due to the idea of eternal damnation stuck in your head since you were a child I would imagine.

Not a bad start would be - with some assistance from a very strong atheist - wait until another religious crackpot arrives on the forum - on Fantasy Island (their status should say "Resident of Fantasy Island") - and have a debate with them and be on the atheist side.

Looks like you are an agnostic theist who wants to escape.

[TÐöer]

In future could you quote the post as well? not just the words? It's tiring to find who said what.
Like this:

At present my beliefs serve me well. Even if God did not exist, I function well, and I see my beliefs as informing my coping strategies (no, not just prayer) which are what allow me to cope well with life. To change these beliefs would upset how I function. So for me to move from the state of 'ignorance' and 'stupidity' that frustrates atheists no end, to abandoning my beliefs requires, a rational argument. This is what I'm asking for.



You are baiting us. I'm surprised that you got a response.

It would be awhole different story, if you came here, and said that religion has been troubling you. or if you came up with a statement we could rebut. Instead you just said "Challenge me"

As seamus said, we don't care about your personal believes. What do you want from us exactly?

I do not doubt that Christianity, has proved itself useful to you. In fact, I would strongly suggest that you become a real Christian and stop bothering us.

[Twizzle]

Hrrmmm Ok so I've just skimmed over this thread, so hopefully I won't be repeating anything already said (if I am, mods feel free to delete this!)

Theists and atheists approach beleif in different ways; theists seek to convert, whereas atheists just seek the truth. We wont come knocking on your door on a saturday morning to spread the word, nor hand out pamphlets in the street, nor will we be particularly upset when you don't beleive the same things as we do unlike most people of faith. Our aims are not to swell our ranks, but to seek knowlege. I won't repeat the arugments already on here, as if you wish to gain a real atheist perspecive by seeking knowlege it is not up to me, or anyone else on these forums to convince you.

You challenge us to sway you; I challenge you to do your own research. If you are willing and passionate enough to enter an extended debate, you should be just as eager to do some independant knowlege collection.

So as I said, I won't try to counter the ideas you have presented, but I will give you some ideas of where to start your search;

Go to the library/bookstore (NOT THE INTERNET!) and pick up some books on basic philosophy. The majority of these books should address themes such as religion, and will work you through the ontological, teleological, cosmological arguments, argument from design, etc. Judging by the things you've said, I think the answers you are looking for will be in these books. Someone previously suggested 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. This is a great start as he touches on these philophical subjects but also delves into more scientific theory.

A real free thinker does their research and then makes up their mind; they don't simply ask others what they think.

Good luck!

[TÐöer]

@Mr. Black: I would be honoured, I enjoy your approach especially your humour.

[c2009]

I have to second Twizzle on the encouragement to read up on the matter. You will find in the pages of books laid bare the arguments in both directions. In a book, there's time to develop that argument and expand on it, something which is hard to do on a web forum.

Even if it does result in you staying with your beliefs, I'm certain that doing so will still enlarge you and stretch you in many ways.

[SchizoDeluxe]

So, can you as an atheist prove that God does not exist?

As a believer, can you prove that fairies don't exist?

[Cosmic Teapot]

Even if it does result in you staying with your beliefs, I'm certain that doing so will still enlarge you and stretch you in many ways.

Why did I immediately think of this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_I2uQkGxIykM/SciAAbCVCnI/AAAAAAAADVk/CTk2Zah3vyk/s400/topsecret03ij3.jpg

[Caio]

You want evidence against god?? Well look around this site, actually don’t just look but read it too, that might help, then read any number of books on the subject. Then you come here and say, “Hello, I’m a believer and I want to discuss religion, not convert you or anything, just converse with people who differ in opinions”. Yea this is fine, I cant understand why you would want to do this as it seems it always end up nowhere, but hey what do I know.

Some advice, start again and make a case for your belief(s), e.g. “I believe in god because the bible says so” it’s the usual argument but maybe you have something different, I’d hope so, and then the discussion will take off from there. Also probably break down the various arguments, have one for why you’re a Christian say and not a Moslem, and others for other points you want to make, because saying “I’m not a believer I want to argue” is stupid. And before you quote me keep in mind I’m generalizing here when I put things in “”.

Other than that, welcome and remember were accepting and nice if your not obnoxious, welcome to the other side.

[wearestardust]

I had intended to make the observation that if you are wanting us to convince you, rationally, that there is no god, then we are doomed to fail. This is because, it seems to me at least, people don't drop their faith because of logical reasoning. The practice of faith equips you with all you need to avoid rational arguments against faith. The reason (from here on, continue to read it as "it seems to me") people start to lose their faith tends more to be about the church and their fellow faithful. It certainly was for me: I left the Church because of Christians; I couldn't deal with their endless lies and abuse, and general hypocricy. Not talking about the rank and file faithful, I'm talking about leaders who are happy for lies and abuse to continue if it helps the church run smoothly.

Once acceptance has come that people in the Church are full of bollox, it then can be seen that many of the teachings are bollox in terms of what happens versus what is said.

After that - whicih typically involves considerable pain if one has been a faithful believer - comes things like, rational contemplation of the bible and putting a logical framework around where one has found one's self.

And so, what I was going to say was, we are not going to convince you through debate.

But then I noted this:

See, I'm at the point these days when I see them as ridiculous too. And so I have tried to move away from them. I have succesfully moved away from things with a more powerful hold than religious beliefs, unless there was something actually behind them, supporting them. This is what leaves me confused.

I know what you mean. I went through it too. So did many other people on this site, though we - I'll just talk for myself, I - after a while forget the confusion and pain that comes from trying to deal with the contradictions of faith, and approach atheism from a logical rather than emotional perspective.

So what can I say? I sympathise. I would say to you: look up St Paul where he refers to the fruits of the spirit and the fruits of sin. What are you seeing in the behaviour of your fellow faithful? When I was in the church I found mainly the fruits of sin. Suprisingly, it was in the secular world that I found moer acceptance and tolerance. And keep asking yourself: does this all make sense to you, or is it just a bunch of arbitrary rules that cause you and others pain?

[Bruce Long]

Hi 40974111,

I'm new to this foundation and this forum. Many others with ample dialogical skills have already responded to you, but I will endeavor not to waste your time or mine.

Like Twizzle, I have admittedly only skimmed the thread. I will not try to connect with the points aready presented - that's been done some. I suspend any doubt about your intentions, take you at your word, and use this as an opportunity to try something which may help you. I'm going to put in a fat effort, but won't get involved in any theological disputes with the devout. It's pointless. I have just completed a Masters of Philosophy, and am currently doing my PhD in philosophy. My topic is complex, but a basic statement of some of it is how information theory can help us to understand how and when we really know something (the study of knowledge is called epistemology,) and how the mind represents concepts.

Twizzle suggested you read 'The God Delusion' and get some philosophy books. I second that. I also suggest you try 'The Selfish Gene', and especially the chapter on Memes (Memes: The New Replicators.) Dawkins is a popular science writer with significant philosophical acumen, and a very good place to start. I will get to why the Memes chapter is important in a minute. If you are going to read philosophy proper, start with the secondary texts like Twizzle suggested. Beware of continental (German and French: Heidegger, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Derrida etc) philosophers - not because they are not worth reading, but because their language and vocabularies are notoriously obscure and complex. Nietzsche's "The Gay Science" is more basic and to the point (if a little dated) if you are happy with a polemic. Remember when reading Nietzsche - he was not a nihilist on truth, which means he did believe that there was truth and that the truth mattered: he just knew that Christianity didn't have it. Better still, try Anglo-American analytic philosophers like Bertrand Russell ("Why I am not a Christian" is a good read, and short) and perhaps Daniel Dennett (more contemporary.)

What I am going to do is share some questions and thoughts that had always nagged me, and that I began to ask myself as I struggled painfully over the course of several years to again become the person I really was. I was a born again charismatic Christian from the age of 16 to the age of 32-3. When I finally came to the realisation that I had made a mistake - it was a gradual and recondite process. I already had a Christian marriage and three beautiful children. It is still more complicated in my situation, since I was converted following a negative life event which involved a minor head injury - but that is another story. As you read (if you are bothering) remember these points:

- The Church always targets the young. The Jesuits mad a motto: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

- This is precisely why one's religious beliefs are so difficult to shrug - the programming is in fact very powerful, and the benefits of keeping them often seem more real than the very real risks and costs.

- The younger you were when you were indoctrinated, the more difficult it will prospectively be for you to get free (this is not a hard rule, but psychology bears it out somewhat.)

On the positive:

Intelligence does help, as does emotional IQ. Some people also just seem to have more of a natural rational reflex, if I can use those terms. This is probably why you are where you are.

Now - to the questions that I asked myself 'coming out' of faith living: Remember that believers will have all kinds of answers. One must judge whether the force of such questions is truly diminished in terms of logic and rationality by such replies, or whether the replies simply involve building up more layers of doctrinally clever recursion and indirection. Theological arguments that are supposed to validate scripture come almost exclusively from - more scripture! This is rooted in what I call logocentric idealism (word centred reality.) It is written into Christian doctrine that the word was in the world before anything else, that God spoke the universe into existence (see genesis "And God said...") This is familiar to all judeo-christian doctrine, and is evidenced in Kabbalism, Freemasonry and Occult practice as well (prayers, spells and incantations etc.) Language, which is a late development in human evolutionary history, is errantly held to be primal in religious doctrine. Anyway - here goes:

Q1. Why do I always feel somehow deeply ingenuine or uncomfortable when I evangelise?

Q2. Why would a good God - who is undeniably ultimately responsible for absolutely everything - create the devil and hell, and sin, etc. If he is able to do absolutely anything - then logically speaking he should have been able to create and have free will agents some other way. If the only thing he can't possibly do is evil, then why create a bunch of people (humans and the devil etc.) whom he certainly knew were going to do it? If he didn't have any choice - then he isn't almighty at all. (The horns of this logical dilemma are very hard to overcome without recursing on scripture, and even then you usually end up with a 'mystery' - how convenient.)

Q3. This tiny little squishy baby in my arms whose brain has not even fully developed yet is a sinner and in need of redemption??? (The calvinist doctrine has it (Anglican and Baptist etc.) that the kid is hellbound without Jesus - yes?)

Q4. Why would any almighty supernatural being bother sustaining a horrible place like hell for eternity? Just to punish the fallible mortal critters whom he created in the first place - forever and ever? Is this kind of thing the act of a stable and decent person, let alone a loving god?

Q5. If though shalt not kill, why does the vengeance have to be The Lord's?

Q6. If God is never changing and always the same, and the God of the old testament is the same person as the god of the new testament, then what the hell is going on with him? (This one attracts all sorts of basic theological correctives which largely rely on - well - God's character. Hello?)

Q7. Why is it that when prayer seems to be answered with a positive or happy outcome, I can say god answered my prayer, while what seems to be about half the time, I must be asking the wrong question, or god reserves the right to remain silent - or whatever?

Q8. (For a Pentecostal only) Why have I never seen anyone genuinely healed in a visually obvious and indubuitable way, and why is that I only ever get told of miraculous healing experiences - but never see them?

Q9. The tribal aboriginal child living in what is modern day Cambodia or Zambia in the year 5 'AD' was damned without an actual Christian (missionary) witness?

Q10. Why does god seem to act like a cosmic toddler chucking a lolly in so many old testament stories?

Q11. Why is it that there always has to be a king, and a leader, and a head dude, and a head priest?

Q12. It seems a bit suspicous that I have to be a sheep.

Q13. What possible benefit could the pastor/priest/cleric/imam gain for themselves in converting me?

(continued my next post...)

[Bruce Long]

(continued from my previous post...)


A couple of questions I still ask now (with some answers/analysis):

Q1. Why is it that the most penetrating and difficult questions that skeptics can come up with all already have demonising narratives associated with them in the bible (presumably also in the Koran etc.)?

For example - say I respond to the exortation to live by faith by saying "I would never trust basic everyday survival outcomes to anything but rationality, cognition, and my senses, and if I did I would be considered dangerous, foolhardy and probably nutty - but you want me to put my life and my 'finances' in the hands of someone whom I can't verify in any normative reliable way is even real - the same putative person who only answers prayers about half the time?" Then of course the Bible already says stuff like "God's ways are foolishness to a man" and has a story all ready for me in which the chief skeptic (okay Jesus - chuck yourself off this cliff then) is a guy called the Devil who is someone no-one wants to be like - and whom God really hates. It conveniently says that "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." You're demonised as a fool and a devil before you begin. One can't help detecting some ire - some irritation - in these verses. I think the priests of the early Church and the middle ages knew very well the power of their 'dialectics' and adjusted them to answer the 'really annoying questions.' I mean - it's hard to get the guy down in the village to tithe and die for God and King, if some pesky philosopher is telling him that remaining doubtful until provided with proof would be a good idea. Damned philosophers. Bloody pests. Let's adjust the text a bit to foreclose on their disarming rational questions.

Q 1.1 Why is the human intellect denigrated as prideful and demonised? Why must one trust an invisible God and not the thing that demonstrably through experience gets one safely from breakfast to bedtime every day of one's life?

Q2. Why is it that most biblical moral imperatives seem to really benefit those with wealth, power and possessions (don't ogle my stuff, don't take it, don't say words that show my silly dogma for what it really is - a powerful tool for manipulation, the meek will inherit the earth etc.) and the others make a huge deal out of meaningless stuff (don't even think about beautiful women or men sexually like is perfectly natural and healthy to do so.)? Is it really just cynical to say that it's because it's hard for a man/woman to oppose your oppression, resist your control, or compete with your aims if they are mentally tied up and stressed avoiding all that guilt and following all those meaningless rules?

You have to start with a really BIG view of things, be real about what human beings actually are, and then ask yourself why all this kooky stuff has to happen around you, and why it is really that you have to pretzel your intellect to get it to comply fully with faith imperatives - why faith must be primary. Then you have to do something very difficult - trust your intellect and your cognitive intuition. It helps to be very dubious about any imperative that ultimately relies on you fearing something that can't be proved to be real. Interestingly - the primary motivator in all of scripture is 'fear of the lord' which is, of course 'wisdom'. (Note also that in scripture 'the heart' is deceitful above all else and not to be trusted. Why would that be - I wonder. Scribble, scribble, scribble go those doctrine spinners...)

This brings me to the big one: Hell.

Q3. What the hell is hell?

It is perhaps the most clever psycholinguistic and narrative device ever developed by men. It in fact relies on the evolved survival drive and rational capacities of advanced problem solving sentients like humans. Humans, are necessarily risk averse under most circumstances for survival purposes. They will economise and chose the least amount of work for the greatest survival outcome, unless taking a calculated risk for an even greater return. Humans will risk significant pain and suffering, and endure it if necessary, if they think that there is a potential positive return available, or if is necessary to resist oppression or avoid a large negative outcome (death, for example.) What the hell device does is up the ante so high that hardly anyone is willing to risk it. The payoff/risk ratio becomes so potentially overbalanced in favour of the hell outcome (no matter how little proof there is for it or how irrational it seems,) that it is less troubling (and in fact quite logical) to avoid risking an infinite negative outcome. Better not to think about the land-lord's niece that way, even though her ass is fantastic and she really likes you etc. She's for the young cleric anyway, in lieu of payment for his services in helping to control you.

Even though evangelists will go to great lengths to emphasise the positive aspects of the NT story, such as Jesus sacrifice and love for us, and his compassion and forgiveness (lets face it - the latter two are terrific - but one doesn't need to be a believer to have them) - one must remember that none of this would be necessary at all if not for hell. Hell is the central logical and dialectic pivot of the bible - not the Jesus character's love and sacrifice, or the God character's mercy - none of which wouldn't be necessary without said character's anger and hatred of the evil he himself created in the first place.

If one gets the alternative interpretation - that hell is eternity without God: well - so what. Eternity without a horrible fictional character from a repulsive fiction? Great.

As bizarre as it sounds, I had to come to understand what these dialectic devices and pscyholinguistic tools actually are - and then realise how powerful they really are - before I could overcome the innate logical and survival-based imperative and impulse to avoid something like hell by doing whatever the people that told me about it seemed to say was necessary. Upon conversion, one get's redirected onto Jesus' mercy and one's unnecessary new life almost immediately, and stops worrying about hell, and so it doesn't seem like it has played a big part in one's underlying ratiocination. Neat trick. Christians are fond of saying that the Devil's greatest trick was to convince us that he does not exist. The really (and real) great trick was man's - convincing his fellow man that any of this crap was even real in the first place. Not difficult to do if one only educates the priests, I guess.

It's not difficult anymore to change when you are able to see what something like the clumsy, metaphysically inelegant idea of sin is really for. It is hard to get the peasant to see the point of redemption when the guy knows he hasn't done anything seriously foul or even questionable to anyone. It's ironic that the really decent people - or people who are being really decent - are the primary thorn in the side of doctrine spinners. Everyone has the potential for good and bad in them, but you really have to work hard intellectually to come up with a valid reason to make someone think they are somehow mostly bad. The sin fiction/construct is the chosen device (ironically - it's a thorn in one's flesh.)

It becomes more obvious to me every day (and the idea is not unique to me at all) that the idea of God is simply a very useful proxy. Christianity is the ultimate passive aggression. If a Christian is angry with you, they don't take it to you forthrightly, they redirect through the narrative - God is angry with you. The Christian community will reinforce and enforce it. This is what excommunication is about in some Christian and sectarian communities. If the king wants to off his neighbours - sure - they have incurred god's wrath. If you say things to make a believer face a reality that they are angry with and want to ignore - you are guilty of offending God with blasphemy. Notice how so much of the narrative machinery is there to protect the delusion from penetration or breach?

Think really big. The 'God idea' is not big enough to fill the bill. You will see it for what it really is.

One last word to the wise: It will be uncomfortable. Neuroplasticity is real. You will literally have to reprogram your own grey matter. It's already headed in the right direction - you just need to throw off the shackles and let it have its head. Still sometimes I find my brain wandering into old habits, and I have to gently re-assert my cognitive faculty. You will probably need to drop the idea of dualism: that the mind/soul can exist without the brain. It's a kind of training wheels. This sounded terrible to me at first, but reality soon makes its own amends. (There are atheist mental dualists, but this is complex, and you can kick back into it later.) I tell my children that I think they are not less amazing and wonderful because they weren't conjured by some God - but that the fact that they exist so surprisingly, complexly and uniquely through nothing but undirected natural forces makes them astonishingly special. Young children see the logic and satisfaction in this very easily - far more easily than the need for 'redemption' from 'sin'.

My Very Best to You,

B.

[Twizzle]

Q8. (For a Pentecostal only) Why have I never seen anyone genuinely healed in a visually obvious and indubuitable way, and why is that I only ever get told of miraculous healing experiences - but never see them?




Some friends of my folks have a daughter who is born-again. The other day she tried to challenge my dad on his atheism. This was their basic exchange:

"Do you beleive in miracles?"
"Yes, of course!"
"So God can cure anyone of anything?"
"Yes!"
"Then why does he hate amputees so much? You never see a limb grow back."
"...that's not the point..."

The backflips she did to change the subject after this were worthy of olympic gold.

[Bruce Long]

@Twizzle - At least pentecostals have got the integrity to try and actually make the doctrine do what it claims. Unfortunately, they don't carry through with the rational response to its failure. Remember the character that wanted to be re-inserted into The Matrix?

Bizarrely - one risks being perceived to the bad guy - because who wants to take hope away from a suffering person? I think that fictive hope is double the insult and twice as devastating. Maybe if two thirds of the US population stopped giving ten percent or more of their income to religious organisations to be used for the purposes of evangelisation political campaigns, and put it into stem cell research and genetic science instead, then perhaps we could grow new organs and limbs and heal paraplegics.

No - better to keep the Church spire shiny - and the faithful in thrall.

B.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Some friends of my folks have a daughter who is born-again. The other day she tried to challenge my dad on his atheism. This was their basic exchange:

"Do you beleive in miracles?"
"Yes, of course!"
"So God can cure anyone of anything?"
"Yes!"
"Then why does he hate amputees so much? You never see a limb grow back."
"...that's not the point..."

The backflips she did to change the subject after this were worthy of olympic gold.That "...that's not the point..." bit after mentioning amputees etcetera seems suspiciously familiar... Must be the way most BAC act.

[Bruce Long]

The "that's not the point" is evidence of the fracture in the pscyhe which is arising because the hard to supress cognition is telling the person that what they have is only a narrative. There is an intentionally perpetuated supression of the tension between reality and the fiction sustained by the devices of only being able to please God through faith, and the demonisation of intellect.

The point is that "this delusion makes it easier for me to gain an apparent advantage in the short term, and I'm sure the pastor said there was some clever scriptural/doctrinal reason why God has an out on this one - but I don't have to remember it - do I? Anyway, you don't have the spirit, and so you are spiritually blind and wouldn't be able to understand. You are subsumed to my narrative." In reality, when one's decision criteria become such that reason plays a limited part in decision making, then that person is headed for a lot of problems in the long term...

[Seamus]

Q3. What the hell is hell?To a literalist, a real place ,with demons and REALLY burnyy fire where God maliciously sends anyone who breaks any of his rules for ever and ever and ever. Those people include gays and anyone who has an abortion. It was originally a rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem.

The concept of an eternal hell is absent in Judaism.

Some others,with the capacity for abstract thought think hell might simply be "that place where god is not". That God condemns NO ONE. The individual lands in hell by being unable or unwilling to simply accept the love of God, which is unconditional

I'm not an apologist,so not interested in arguing. I merely present two views of many. As far as a I have ever been able to find out,there is no single,universally accepted idea of either heaven or hell.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

To a literalist, a real place ,with demons and REALLY burnyy fire where God maliciously sends anyone who breaks any of his rules for ever and ever and ever. Those people include gays and anyone who has an abortion. It was originally a rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem.

The concept of an eternal hell is absent in Judaism.

Some others,with the capacity for abstract thought think hell might simply be "that place where god is not". That God condemns NO ONE. The individual lands in hell by being unable or unwilling to simply accept the love of God, which is unconditional

I'm not an apologist,so not interested in arguing. I merely present two views of many. As far as a I have ever been able to find out,there is no single,universally accepted idea of either heaven or hell.But he is merciful and he loves you...

[Bruce Long]

I had been told by a Jewish friend that there was no concept of hell for Jews, but in recently researching a little to find out more about the egyptive and greco-roman origins of the myth, I ran across the following (somewhat dated reference 1921) in Scottish journalist Lewis Spence's "Introduction to Mythology" (http://books.google.com/books?id=I5p7_RVGQ70C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Hell+myth+origins&source=bl&ots=WssF06oAnb&sig=UX44nK_DFYc3dhJym0d_Yh9m7hI&hl=en&ei=efKqSouVM4TKsAPo15GFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false):

"The Jewish place of punishment was Gehenna, where corporal as well as spiritual punishment was meted out to the wicked. In later Jewish mythology, it was the place of eternal punishment for the gentile races...Sheol, on the other hand, was perhaps a more purely Hebrew conception than Gehenna, which probably had its origin in the old Acadian Gi-umuna" (Spence, p203 : http://books.google.com/books?id=I5p7_RVGQ70C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Hell+myth+origins&source=bl&ots=WssF06oAnb&sig=UX44nK_DFYc3dhJym0d_Yh9m7hI&hl=en&ei=efKqSouVM4TKsAPo15GFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol has it that:
"By the second century BC, Jews (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Jew) who accepted the Oral Torah (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Oral_Torah) had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham)) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Jesus)' story of Lazarus and Dives (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Lazarus_and_Dives). At that time Jews who rejected the Oral Torah believed that Sheol meant simply the grave."

So it seems hell was part of old Torah teaching at one time.

Another re-write to calibrate for cultural and ideological contingencies perhaps? Re-programming the 'nam shub' - yes (In his novel Snow Crash (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Snow_Crash), Neal Stephenson (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Neal_Stephenson) uses the term Nam-shub to indicate a self-replicating meme (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wiki/Meme): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaruludu)?

I am not a Jewish scholar but I have a healthy disdain for any and every mythology that is not recognised as simply a mythology and is promoted as something else, regardless of its origin - egyptive, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Kabbalist, Masonic, Arthurian - whatever. Ultimately, aside from their value to scientific historians and anthropologists, they are to be treated with extreme dubiety.

BTW - The internet is awesome, and may be the best thing that mankind has ever developed for the promotion of freethinking and rationalism and the prevention of mass delusion by religious writ. Watch the religionists try and stop it any way they can.

B.

[Bruce Long]

@Mr Black

I covered some of Cryptonomicon in my recent Master of Philosophy thesis. I just couldn't manage to fit much Snow Crash in (I had to cover a lot of other contepmorary SF texts,) but what a read, huh! It is one of my favourites for sure.

I'm not sure about Neal Stephenson's overall ideological disposition: sometimes I get the sense, because of the way he turns his obvious burning curiosity and piercing intellect to such a wide knowledge base including mythology and egyptive occult themes, that perhaps he might be a syncretic - perhaps even a masonic Kabbalist of some stripe (I have NO real evidence whatsoever for this last speculation.) If anyone knows then I would be interested in the source...

If he is a syncretic, he sure subverts the whole idea of religion with the 'nam shub' arc in SC, but then Cryptonomicon has a very supernaturalistic character in it - of the Highlander variety, yes? (Should I bold Highlander out of general 'worshipful' respect or something?:))

The injection of the concept of the meme into SC is a stroke of genius, and makes the book go off like a bunger in a lunchbox, but I think he should grow his hair back :)

B.

[Bruce Long]

@Mr Black

TEVW is not in the member list??

The Ever Veracious Wizard?

The Enticing Virginal Woman?

The Evolving Violent Wardrobe??

I give up, and elect to look stoopid.

B.

[Bruce Long]

That's just plain very funny :D

If our friend who started the thread comes back at least he will get a laugh out of it, if nothing else.

B.

[40974111]

Hey,
I don't like OPs (in this case, me) who goes missing.
I got given a deadline on Friday for Wednesday, so I won't have time to review the thread till Wednesday night or Thursday morning (I'm looking at 3x 12 hour days to get it done.
But I am still here, and will still read it/respond when I get a chance. Just thought I should post this as a matter of courtesy.

[Bruce Long]

Hi four-O,

Not necessary, but it's nice to know you haven't been raptured or something :)

Don't let any of this stuff distract you from your deadline. I'm definitely not going to say I will pray for you, because of course that would make no real difference to your efforts whatsoever aside from any advantage you might derive from any internal psychological commitment you might have to the idea that my talking to my wall at my place will engage a supernaturally sustained cause-effect mechanism resulting in an improvement in your life. Instead I'll just say all the best, and kick its arse, and I'll probably be thinking of you occasionally when my mind is not on my own thesis or other stuff.

B.

[wolty]

Hey,
I don't like OPs (in this case, me) who goes missing.
I got given a deadline on Friday for Wednesday, so I won't have time to review the thread till Wednesday night or Thursday morning (I'm looking at 3x 12 hour days to get it done.
But I am still here, and will still read it/respond when I get a chance. Just thought I should post this as a matter of courtesy.


Courtesy it is and I thank you for it. Not everyone on the island has the same idea as you and it was nice to drop a line. Good luck with it all.

[SchizoDeluxe]

I had been told by a Jewish friend that there was no concept of hell for Jews, but in recently researching a little to find out more about the egyptive and greco-roman origins of the myth, I ran across the following (somewhat dated reference 1921) in Scottish journalist Lewis Spence's "Introduction to Mythology" (http://books.google.com/books?id=I5p7_RVGQ70C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Hell+myth+origins&source=bl&ots=WssF06oAnb&sig=UX44nK_DFYc3dhJym0d_Yh9m7hI&hl=en&ei=efKqSouVM4TKsAPo15GFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false):



Yeah we can thank the good christians for the hell concept as we know it today. Such an enlightning idea!

[Cosmic Teapot]

Yeah we can thank the good christians for the hell concept as we know it today. Such an enlightning idea!

The carrot got lonely so they invented the whip.
Maybe the next religion invented can better christianity and incorporate a three prong attack to salvation. Xtians only had the imagination for two prongs.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

http://lambiek.net/artists/c/crumb/crumb_mr_natural_3.jpg

[DavidB]

G-d is an impossibility! No question about it: no argument!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

G-d is an impossibility! No question about it: no argument!However the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a little more credibility.

[Bruce Long]

Oh the flying spaghetti monster is most definitely real. I know because when my wife and kids left and my dog died and I lost my job and I was on my knees thinking of killing my self I said "Do something spaghetti monster, or I will kill myself" I suddenly saw a white light that was reflecting of the potash in my sink onto the photo of my dead uncle Blatch who was a devout spag mon worshipper and knew the spag mon was talking to me (it had nothing to do, I assure you, with the fact that I would have seen a fart as a miraculous sign (the potash reflection had been on my uncle all week) or with my basic rational survival drive and all of my endorphines kicking in and the fact that I really want there to be a spaghetti monster because my life is miserable and I don't enjoy actually thinking about how to solve my problems much.) The spag mon proved to me he was real.

Besides - my friend's best friend has been a spag mon worshipper for years and spag mon worshippers always tell a good story - sorry - the truth - and she told me that she went to Africa on a missionary trip and saw a spag mon priest make a witchdoctor spin in the air with the power of the holy spaghetti spirit and so because of what happened to me and to the witchdoctor I know the spag mon is definitely real.

I love the spag mon and if you say anything bad about him I will tell everyone how evil you are! What I will actually say is that we all should pray for you - but they will get the message that you are a bad person. I may even send around one of the people from this dating site:

http://www.cafepress.com/datetosave

Then you'll really wish you hadn't tried to talk reason to me!

B.

[TÐöer]

Nicely summed up. ;)

[_RAAF_Stupot]

I thought that this would be the most appropriate place to post this. Feel free to move it if it is not.

I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong. I will endeavour to keep this thread updated with responses to challenges, and we will see where I end up.

My background (to give you a basis for what to challenge me on):

I believe in God (as depicted in the Bible).
Church and most Christian's frustrate me no end, because a significant majority can not think for themselves, and merely recite what they have been taught by others.
I think 'creation' is a what (not a how, based on a non-literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis, as suggested by the poetic literary style ).
I think 'evolution' is a how (and the best theoretical how currently available)
I do not wish for eternal life, instead I wish to cease existing when I die. Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be an option if my belief system is true.
My political orientation edges towards anarchy in ideal circumstances, however, failing these circumstance I accept socialism.
Homosexuality is no more of a sin than lying. When I stop lying, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. Until then, they should.
My interest is not as much the "hard sciences" as it is psychology.

Anyway, I look forward to updating this story.

So please challenge me!

Compared to the (Christian) theists I have debated, you are a raging apostate, at best - and probably not really a Christian.

Just saying.

And I'll admit that I have never 'won' any of those debates, simply because it is not possible to debate with them.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Compared to the (Christian) theists I have debated, you are a raging apostate, at best - and probably not really a Christian.

Just saying.

And I'll admit that I have never 'won' any of those debates, simply because it is not possible to debate with them.Well he is a psychology student ;)

[TÐöer]

Well he is a psychology student ;)

This is probably one of his assignments. To see how people react to certain comments.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

This is probably one of his assignments. To see how people react to certain comments.I would have thought it was about religion and psychology - maybe including chemical reactions from priests such as these:<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DIhv26Lh460&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DIhv26Lh460&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[atheist_angel]

My background (to give you a basis for what to challenge me on):

I believe in God (as depicted in the Bible).
Church and most Christian's frustrate me no end, because a significant majority can not think for themselves, and merely recite what they have been taught by others.
I think 'creation' is a what (not a how, based on a non-literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis, as suggested by the poetic literary style ).
I think 'evolution' is a how (and the best theoretical how currently available)
I do not wish for eternal life, instead I wish to cease existing when I die. Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be an option if my belief system is true.
My political orientation edges towards anarchy in ideal circumstances, however, failing these circumstance I accept socialism.
Homosexuality is no more of a sin than lying. When I stop lying, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. Until then, they should.
My interest is not as much the "hard sciences" as it is psychology.

Well, I would like to ask about this, but I will wait for you to get back. I want to make sure I wouldn't be just sitting here talking to myself.

[Cosmic Teapot]

G-d is an impossibility! No question about it: no argument!

Yahweh, the god of the bible, is a logical impossibility because he's too contradictory if the bible is inerrant as is claimed.
I do submit however, based on the scientific method and it's principles, that some form of god is possible but close to infinitely improbable. This only makes me agnostic to the same degree that I'm agnostic towards the FSM, Russell's Teapot or [insert highly improbable event/object].

[Seamus]

Those preachers should consider farting into a jar for the energy they'd save.

If they got their entire congregations to do the same, they could power their churches and run their Caddies. :p


The average human farts about 16 times a day. ME? Oh,about 127,but I always have a large bell jar handy. I also carry a cork in my pocket for emergencies.

[Bruce Long]

@Seamus: This gave me a bizarre vision of pews with tubes fitted to the seats :)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Those preachers should consider farting into a jar for the energy they'd save.

If they got their entire congregations to do the same, they could power their churches and run their Caddies. :p


The average human farts about 16 times a day. ME? Oh,about 127,but I always have a large bell jar handy. I also carry a cork in my pocket for emergencies.Now that's what I call renewable energy - and best of all they can release the power of the LORD within them ;)

[Bruce Long]

Wait brother - I think I'm having a deep revelation :)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Try one of my curries and you could evangelise a whole bus!Then everyone will start going "HARK! AN ANGEL HAS SPOKEN!" on the bus...

[Cosmic Teapot]

Then everyone will start going "HARK! AN ANGEL HAS SPOKEN!" on the bus...
A mumbling angel with halitosis; not much divine about that.

[40974111]

Alright, I'm back.

Sorry that I didn't have a chance to jump back in sooner, I had an extension on last Wednesdays' deadline (because my supervisor was off owing to the union action last Wednesday). Then my girl friend was hospitalised at the beginning of the week (but is out now). However, I've only had 4 hours of sleep, so do not think it is appropriate to even try engaging in intelligent conversation - but I will address some things.

- The posts made me laugh.
- The reason I came and asked for advice was to gain my bearings for later information gathering (e.g. like using Wikipedia to find out some basic background to something before going to academic resources). Believe me, I have intentions of doing the follow up, but I'm trying to work out its exact focus. The suggested reading has been good to give me some bearings - hopefully I can read some in the not too distant future.
- Buddles, you raised some good questions, and I will endeavour to respond to them. Some of them I've not consciously contemplated, others I've consciously been through and worked out an explanation for in an attempt to reduce my experience of cognitive dissonance.
- To atheistangel I want to make sure I wouldn't be just sitting here talking to myself. go for it. (sorry, never quite mastered the art of quoting on forums!)
- This is not an assignment. The uni's psychology department would not even hear of a course about religion and spirituality in psychology. Although, I'll be honest, I do enjoy mind games, but I'm trying to avoid playing any here.


On a side note, I thought people may be interested in 2 things that happened in the last 2 weeks.

One, I engaged the Catholics at uni because they had a sign that said "Proof that God exists through reason". Their reasoning made assumptions that I was not prepared to make, especially that something can not come out of nothing (Their argument was also self defeating, in that, something can not come out of nothing, which is why we need God to explain the world, but then, God existing out of nothing provides an exception to the rule that something can not come out of nothing, and as such it seems appropriate to assume that other things may also be able to come out of nothing). The discussion resulted in a half hour argument with the Catholic chaplain about how I was quite happy to conceive that the table in front of us may not be a table in 10 seconds time, even if no force acted upon it. On a side note, I also ran into the Mormon's (who are unfortunately aggressively targeting international students with poor english on their walk to uni) and JW's this week, didn't get to chat with the Mormons because I was in a rush, and the JW's didn't want to argue, and answered all my questions by turning to the appropriate page in their book and reading what it said.

Second, I have changed my perspective on homosexuality. Further emphasising, what others here have stated, that my beliefs are unorthodox (this is the reason I mention it). As someone who is still a Christian, I have worked from within this frame of reference. When God 'created' the world, I don't think he meant for homosexuality to exist, but this is just my perspective. I also don't think he intended for lying, adultery, or any other 'sin' to exist. But they all exist. Homosexuals within the church are usually treated as "we'll love the person but hate the sin", but liars are not treated in the same way, nor is the Church minister with his gift for offending people with his jokes. This is horrible, and totally unChristian. You marginalise a group, that is already being told that their biological disposition is not Godly, but they had no choice in the matter. From a Christian perspective, this suggests that people are focussing on sin, rather than 'the greatest commandment' which was to love, and are totally off the mark. I think the icing on the cake was when a friend came out, I already knew about the way my uncle and grandparent's were marginalised and not loved by the church when my uncle came out, but this time I saw it (my uncle died when I was 7), and actually got to talk about it. My friend was rather studious in all of this, and has been approaching leading theologists for years, including those who are anti-gay, and they all said to him that the translations emphasising homosexuality were based on culture, not the original language - I'm happy to accept this at face vale, because I can't check everything, and it wasn't the reason for my change of position.

I'll get on to the rest of it (which involves new thoughts) when I'm more awake.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'm still ever so suspicious due to the fact that you used your student number over here. I am also a university student but let me tell you that Crocodile isn't my student number.

[Mister Pervert]

I am not an atheist. However, I wish to extend an invitation to challenge me about anything in an attempt to convince me that my current beliefs are wrong.

So please challenge me!

What are you like at arm wrestling?

[Unsacred Cow]

Or Croc wrestling?

My second #100 post today - do I get a prize?

[Mister Pervert]

The carrot got lonely so they invented the whip.

"Wilburrrrrrrrr...what are you doing with that carrot...WILBURRRRR!!!!"

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Or Croc wrestling?With saltwater crocodiles.My second #100 post today - do I get a prize?You get $000000 and an action figure of God which is licensed by Him.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

"Wilburrrrrrrrr...what are you doing with that carrot...WILBURRRRR!!!!"Ehh, what's up doc?

[Unsacred Cow]

With saltwater crocodiles.You get $000000 and an action figure of God which is licensed by Him.

An action figure of God is an oxymoron I believe.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/3/36/AllahActionFigure.jpg

[davo]

I have better ones than that, but last time I posted, someone warned me that people get killed for it ;)

[Bruce Long]

@4097411

Good to have you back. I have been busy myself with work recently.

In your fatigue-laiden state, you were perspicacious enough to say the following:

"...an explanation for in an attempt to reduce my experience of cognitive dissonance." (Sorry - I haven't figured out the quoting tool yet...)

Which reminded me of another question:

Q. Since cognitive dissonance is the mental upshot (stress) of having to try and reconcile to one's rationality an obvious contradiction between more than one set of information/experiences, why does believing involve cognitiver dissonance so much if my belief involves access to the truth?

(Now that I have ceased using faith as a substitute for cognition, I hardly get this kind of cognitive dissonance anymore - except for the kind involved in basic problem solving etc. I personally find things to be clearer overall and my mind less cluttered with artificial paradoxes. To be honest, I feel happier - but of course this is an emotive statement.)

You also talk about love. That reminds me of a nother question I forgot to include:

Q. What exactly is the Christian definition of love, or, put otherwise, what is the meaning of the term 'love' for Christians (and to some extent, for Muslims)?

If religionists are wrong, and God is not even real - which is where all of the real, material and tangible evidence is pointing - then is not love (by their definition) also an illusion? If God is love, and the big G is just a proxy for a long list of human angsts and desires etc., then what does it mean when Christians talk about loving each other? I would rather trust the genuine affection and care of one real person - no matter how limited that person - than love that is defined to be bound up in a really fancy and complicated fictive character - but that's just me I guess.

On a personal note, I was brought up in a non-Christian home (my parents thought there was a god of some kind, but had no doctrinal or religious commitments beyond this.) My ex wife was raised a born again Christian. After I became an atheist, I realised that when she talked about love, she didn't really have a personal concept of it at all - it was simply a construct that she had rote learned from doctrine, or at the very least the doctrinal proxy 'love' had confused any personal notion she may have had. 'Love' for the Christian becomes, in this context, just another psycho-linguistic tool: a word with a confused and massively overloaded semantics (not that it isn't fairly intangible anyway) and questionable referent or meaning. Then I remembered thatt one of the doctrinal tenets is that one must love one's enemies. Sounds amicable and laudable - yes? Then I realised that when she said she loved me, I couldn't tell whether I was regarded as an enemy or a friend. Basically, when a believer says that they love you, the biblical definition of the word 'love' means that they could correctly be construed as saying "you are my enemy." I think that Bertrand Russell was right - God is an idea that makes crooked all that is straight.

B.

[Mentally Saturated]

Hi 409... I'm new here, and don't consider myself to be very good at debating these topics, which frustrates me no end. But I think my heart is in the right place, and thus I'd like to offer a minor comment.

I've read about 60-70% of the thread. As someone who usually writes long posts on forums, I apologise profusely for not reading everything (I know I'd feel insulted). But there's something that I don't think I picked up from anyone's posts, and I reckon it might help for U to think about it a bit.

It's what you're not saying that may be as important as what U are. Specifically, I'm wondering what you've got to lose by changing your beliefs ? What do U have invested in your faith ? Are a large portion of your friends religious ? Do U get comfort from, or just plain "thrive" on the social interaction within your church group ? Would U be "outcast" or disowned by any family ?

In my somewhat limited experience, it seems to be a factor that's ignored in so many of these discussions, but I think it's one that people of faith take very much for granted until it comes into conscious thought, at which point it becomes potent ammunition against questioning their faith. It's all a big "cost-benefit analysis", I think. Most here, I would expect, think the cost of deluding one's self is too high compared to accepting our current reality.

Perhaps ask yourself if U think there's no social support mechanism outside of organised religions ?

I'm not writing very well at the moment, so I again apologise. Merely reading the forum here has me feeling extremely stressed and, well.. saturated. But I hope U can see that where I'm going with all this is very much the questions related to "If not god, then what ?". It's perfectly reasonable to want these answers before "taking the plunge", as it were.

Good luck on your quest, anyway.

Gary

[atheist_angel]

@4097etc, For some people, the truth hits them in the head like a brick. They immediately go through a painful crisis, and can never return to their denial about the existence of bricks (truth).

Others go through an agnostic phase where they just drag it out. There is nothing wrong with that, BTW, as long as they are still asking questions. I was a believer; I became agnostic; I relapsed back into the belief again; Then I got hit with the brick...OUCH.

I have been there, but I can't give you more than you can psychologically receive and neither can anyone else. This is your journey and no one can decide for you how long it should last. To some extent, you are going to have to find the answers on your own.

Then again, you could end up finding your brick early if you were to look for it.

[Fearless]

In my somewhat limited experience, it seems to be a factor that's ignored in so many of these discussions, but I think it's one that people of faith take very much for granted until it comes into conscious thought, at which point it becomes potent ammunition against questioning their faith. It's all a big "cost-benefit analysis", I think. Most here, I would expect, think the cost of deluding one's self is too high compared to accepting our current reality.

Sorry I have read the highlighted text a few times over and I am not getting my head around it. Maybe I am the only one but if you could explain just a little for me it would be appreciated.

If you are relating 'cost' to a financial matter then no, I wouldn't worry because apparently following god will promote wealth gain anyway.

If it is more a metaphor then are you saying it is easier to be an Atheist than a theist? or it is it meaning cost to your way of life and time in learning?

Perhaps ask yourself if U think there's no social support mechanism outside of organised religions ?

I was faced with this point by an (anti atheist) funeral director last week and I was almost openly amused at how fragile his belief system was if he felt that without god, you have no support. I had to bite my tongue at the time but s**t has he not heard of 'family and friends'? Anyway, I might bring this point up in another thread some time soon.

[Bruce Long]

In response to Fearless' question, but @general

I am going to assume in the following that the atheist bods in this forum are up to a bit of wordy and slightly complex analysis (with some opinion thrown in) and so this may sound a bit like pontification. My intention is analysis and explanation, with some humour.

I think what mentally saturated is getting at (although I may be on a different page, correct me if I'm wrong etc.) is that the cost to others and oneself of pretending that faux explanations, fictive teleological narratives, and imaginary superbeing friends are real is very high. To assent to such delusive memes is to assent to allowing oneself to be separated from one's rationality. This cost alone is not one that any individual should be expected to bear.

First, however, we should remember that different people have different motivations for submitting - or appearing to submit - to religious doctrine and the delusion it cultivates. I'm not talking about people who pretend to be one of the faithful to save life and limb - agnostics in an Islamic theocracy for example. Was it Seneca that said something roughly like (my paraphrase from memory) "The common find religion to be truthful, the wise find it to be false, and politicians/monarchs find it to be useful." There is the voluntary 'true believer', and then there is what I like to refer to as the hyper-pragmatic (or even meta-pragmatic) personality (there are myriad other combinations - but these suffice to illustrate the picture.) They are pragmatic about everything in the Jamesian sense of pragmatic. Philosophical pragamatism was originally born with the American mathematician Charles Sanders Peirce. For Peirce, it was all about using only the most efficacious, powerful, practical, and rigorous scientific means of ascertaining scientific truth. Then along came Peirce's buddy James (enter the agent of the religious meme,) who was a psychologist and a Christian theist, and made the whole thing into the analogical conception that people know and love today. James' pragmatism is like the scientific term 'relativity' or the mathematical term 'undecidability' when used by postmodernists or literary theorists/critics - it is a misapplied analogy. Such theorists try and borrow the intellectual authority rightly assigned to scientists and mathematicians who do rigorous and disciplined work to determine veridical truths by appropriating the words and language from the theories of those scientists and using them for much less reliable and far more dubious applications - sociology or cultural studies for example. James' version of pragmatism is the one we all recognise popularly as "Just believe whatever works for you and makes your life easier..." etc. and it has little to do with Perce's original, and far more useful and real version.

With the distinction between the two types of paragmatism out of the way, we can return to why and how the cost of religious delusion is very high. (I don't personally like the language of "cost benefit analysis" which can be attributed to marketing and business: decision theory proper might be a better more broadly applicable way to go, but I digress.) Monarchs and theocrats love the religious meme because, lets face it, power is power and control is control. They don't care how they get it or by what means, as long as they are at the top of the pile where the cash and security is. Classic survival behaviour really.

As for the average individual, it is not difficult to see why meme based religious delusion is damaging in the end. Richard Dawkins and others have long since discovered the survival benefits that come with deception type behaviours in animals (faux predatory eyes, false warning colours etc.) It must be remembered, however, that this kind of mechanism is a natural defence evolved over long epochs for the animals benefit: the animal probably has little or no mental assent or belief that the mechanism denotes anything real. If they are even aware of their bluffing behaviour or features at all, it would only be in an instinctive sense. The difference with humans is that the mechanism is psycho-linguistic and psychological, and more often than not can and will affect the individual's decision making. If the bluffing ploy of the stick insect fails, the critter doesn't wonder why it isn't really a stick.

In some contemporary charmismatic chruches, the members are taught that if they give their material goods, time, and money to the building of "God's Church on earth" then blessing will come to them through supernatural means an manifest potentially as material wealth. Now - there is all sorts of dialectic dancing around the presentation of these "promises of God" to "prosper" the believer. The hyperpragmatist has to be able to sell the meme to the flock, and yet appear responsible and forthright to anyone else watching.

Simply put, if you really think that there is an all powerful God watching over you and that you are protected by angels, then you are likely to take risks that more rational persons would not. This is where the hyper-pragmatic person does better than the average 'true believer': the hyper-pragmatic doesn't really mentally yield to these doctrinal 'promises', they just see them as a means to an end in the Jamesian pragmatic sense. When the pragmatic pharaoh/monarch/despot/politician goes to the pragmatic priest/imam/pastor to determine how best to improve the power base and profits being generated for him - for instance how to get the average Joe to leave his family and go and get murdered in some shit-filled mudhole on the other side of the world for "King and country" for profit and power that he will never see or benefit from personally - then the formula devised is the delusive one. The Christian for example must love God before all others, and must respect the law of the land (even though every other tenet of the 'Jesus the rebel' doctrine is antinomian.) I personally find any doctrine that calls upon one to love an imaginary being more than their own children completely offensive and transparently rotten. However, it's easy to make a soldier out of those saps if you can convince them that there really is a god - yes. It's a more complex version of some more primitive examples. How did the Viking king or chieftan get warriors to submit to being murdered by him in muddy shitholes? Promise them a hall full of beer and sex (valhalla) if they die in battle (but only if they die bravely mind you - we have to get our money's worth out of them before they go - none of this naughty falling on their swords to get to the wine and women.) How does the Muslim theocrat still get the poor starving peasant to blow himself all over a bus load of school children? Promise him - let me see - a bunch of virgins, surety providde by almighty Lahlah. What - the latter being is a fictive construct - never! You must be put to death! How, incidentally, does the zionist order get the best out of it's talmudian hordes? Tell them that they are some mono-god's chosen people and that they are basically duty bound to ensure their own survival. If the mentality is right, clumsy unsophisticated promises of the afterlife are unecessary, but of course these still hold sway too, in other poetic guises. The Christian doctrine also trades heavily on this setting apart of the believer from 'the world' and 'the worldly'. This does double duty as a way of getting the believer's head off reality and focussed on the supernaturalist heaven narrative so that they are more mentally malleable and practically manipulable (think the metaphor of The Matrix here,) and as a demonisation of everyone else which makes the believer think they are special according to an imaginary god. Note, however, that again it requires the believer to be separated from that pesky rationality. In fact the irony is that the religious institution is the epitome of a worldy institution. They are a problem pretending to be a solution. Such things are always going to cost people - individuals and societies - dearly in the end.

Continued next post...

[Bruce Long]

continued from previous post ...

We must ask ourselves this: What would happen if all of the assets of all of the religious institutions, and all of the tithes and profits bound up in them, all of the influence they have over government and other spending, were released to the scientific community to research genetics and a cure for AIDS, cancer and kidney disease. With the advances that genetic science is making now, is it not possible that we might actually see someone grow a new limb or organ - or at least have it grown for them in a special medical organ chamber? No - the religionists are right - it's far more important to push dubious moral doctrine based on fictions to the population. After all, its much easier to make a profit by making up a fiction story and starting a religion than by doing recondite scientific research into what is actually real and finding real solutions to recondite problems.

How did the little Madeleine Neumann die from diabetes in Wisconsin recently (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html))? The non-existant almighty God that was supposed to heal her did his usual trick - nothing at all. Was the cost to her worth her parent's faith? It's simple maths that gets these people in. On average, most prayers for banal stuff will appear to be answered 50% of the time with no effort by the believer: it's a coin toss. Otherwise, the believer (often the pragmatic meme pusher) will attribute an outcome wrought more or less by their own efforts to "the big guy". When the "true believer" prays and it all goes to hell anyway, then there are lots of yummy excuses written into the dogma for the god-proxy: you weren't asking for the right thing in the first place (really - gee - it sounded like what you said I could ask for - exactly in fact,) or your father/nation/church has pissed god off, or you have some demon of failure upon you because nana/grandad/great uncle George practiced the occult or Freemasonry or some such crap, or in fact that the big guy's ways aren't the ways of humans and he is mysterious so just get lost and stop asking logical questions. Then of course there is the classic "We never told you not to get medical attention - that's just stupid. We did tell you that God definitely could heal your daughter supernaturally and last weekend we had a healing convention where brother Halfyourmoney claimed to have raised the dead and healed five cripples on stage which we still maintain was definitely real and not fake and was the work of almighty God but you idiot why didn't you get a doctor..." Never mind that your daughter is dead, or your house is gone, or you can't even afford a house because you wasted all of your money and time and mental effort on a systematically propogated delusive religious falsehood when you could have been out there using your rational mind to actually materially benefit yourself and your children somehow. By the way - Brother Theotherhalfyourmoney will help you with a cheap lone for a house. Don't say god never benefits you. Be thankful, sheep.

Our response at this point may be to blame the individual. Serves them right for believing such nonsense - right? Well - I'm sure that's what the hyperpragmatists that run the whole show think in their quiet moments of reflection between rolling in other people's money and exerting power and influence over venal politicians. Life is hard. If one doesn't have much money, and a limited education, and is even just a generally trusting and unsuspecting person (credulous would be the hyper-pragmatist's word) on the basis of being taught the kind of platitudinal attitudes that religious doctrine spinners had already injected into the culture one was born into - then why wouldn't one gravitate towards what one's valued friends and family seem to think is important. This is the weakness of rationality - it is a hard sell when delusion has taken hold en masse and systematically - which is exactly the environment the believer is saturated in from young. Secularists can't claim innocence overall, since delusive secular marketing and spin is often just as bad, and deservedly easy for religionists to demonise.

Then the 'established' religionists ride in and say: "Yes - that's all very irresponsible and a terrible abuse of our delusive doctrine - which must be used far more subtly and insidiously." Okay - well they don't say the second part. Then they start with the moral edifices and objective moral pontifications (look up G.E Moore's open question argument for more about how this is a problem) and you end up with Calvinism or some other equally despicable medieval witch/heretic-burning baby-damning sin-invoking doctrinal meme.

But of course, it's arrogant and offensive to question a person's dearly held and deeply programmed beliefs - isn't it? So begins the demonisation of rationality and the human intellect. Count the number of statements about true wisdom being "the fear of the Lord", and which denigrate the human intellect as prideful and arrogant. Moreover, the wisom of the lord is folly to man. How convenient for 'him' - or rather them. How damaging for us. Moreover, philosophy is simply foolish and empty. Well there goes the only systematised and effective defence against the delusive religious meme. That was easy.

Arrogant is what the believer and pretender call the uncompliant rationalist. Rationality and reason are the first things to be demonised and denigrated by religious dogma. Sometimes the doctrines will be duplicitous. The same doctrine that denigrates human intellect and philosophy lauds wisdom as more "precious than gold". This is an interesting statement for a doctrine whose definition of wisdom is rooted in a fictive character sold to the masses for indulgences or other coin.

To finalise my quasi-analysis and rave, here is the first question of a multiple choice questionaire I used recently on another site:

Multiple Choice Test

Q1. It is more honest, less arrogant, and less harmful to others and oneself to:

A) Pretend that imaginary characters/friends and fictive teleological narratives are real and then expect others to do the same and affirm said delusion on pain of being accused of 'offensiveness' (or worse) if they don't.
B) Just be real about what's real, and retain a sense of dignity, compassion, kindness and decency regardless
C) It doesn't matter, we're all going to die anyway
D) Stop it, you're confusing me and I don't like big words


B.

[Fearless]

Thanks for the very comprehensive reply Buddles... I'm going to have to read it over a few times but I got it ;)

[Bruce Long]

@Mr Black and Fearless

Thanks for the encouragement. It is nice to know one's quasi-analytic but grammatically slightly-wobbly contributions (raves) are appreciated.

I am more than honoured to make the SIG file. The next step is probably a fatwah or something :)

I'm going to get some real, tangible sunshine.

Have a happy and rational afternoon.

B.

[Mentally Saturated]

Sorry I have read the highlighted text a few times over and I am not getting my head around it. Maybe I am the only one but if you could explain just a little for me it would be appreciated.

Again, I apologise for my poor writing. I can't help but ask myself what the point of posting is if others can't understand what you're writing... but I battle on anyway.. ;)

It's all a big "cost-benefit analysis", I think. Most here, I would expect, think the cost of deluding one's self is too high compared to accepting our current reality.

I was using the term "cost" in two different contexts, which doesn't help, I guess.

To generalise, I was remarking that many folks of faith aren't acutely aware of how much of their lives they have invested in that faith. Some may have ALL their friends at their church, much of their family, and many of their social and sporting activities, for example, may either be conducted with other folks from the church, or may actually be church-related functions. Some may even have their employment based in their religious organisations.

There's also the "support" considerations, both personal and service-based. When U might normally turn to a church leader or some other fellow religious mentor for guidance when faced with challenges/difficulties, who would U turn to if these PPL weren't a part of your life ? What about losing access to the various services or welfare programs offered by these organisations ?

I suggested that the OP (409..) think about how much of his life he (or she!) has got "invested" in his faith, as it may be this that is sub-consciously resisting any thoughts of moving away from it. It's only in this context that I was referring to the personal "cost-benefit analysis"... I wasn't really thinking about financial concerns, specific or otherwise, altho I guess I'd agree they're also part of what would be considered by someone in this position.

Put simply, if your whole life is touched by your religion, you're probably not going to be too willing to give that up for "something" (that U don't view as a really tangible "something".. just a concept) about which U have little understanding, and few answers... if U like. I reckon it could be a rather frightening proposition, and I guess I'm therefore saying that we should perhaps keep this in mind whenever our thoughts turn to "converting" PPL.

The other context I intended was the cost of such delusion to society, and even humanity, overall. I assumed most PPL here would consider the cost of "unreason" and unsubstantiated belief to be far too high.

My apologies for being so "murky".. and hope this clears things up... ;)

Gary

[atheist_angel]

We haven't heard from our partially religious friend in a little while.
The Thread has gotten so long, I wondered if 4097etc. hasn't become a bit overwhelmed by it.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

If his psychology experiment (this thread) was to see if "the atheists on the forum would respond in a way that the thread would exceed 100 posts" then he succeeded spectacularly.

[Bruce Long]

@Crocodile. Here are some reasons why I don't mind persisting regardless:

It's a calculation we have all factored in (that our friend 'four-0' is just mucking about, or will 'pop' (in reference to the metaphor in The Matrix.)) Sometime's it is worth it to keep one's mental reflexes limber for this kind of thing. Every exchange of veridical information, regardless of the original intention, stands to provide an opportunity for the dissemblage of someone's delusion. Sometimes the best response to a loaded or faux question or faux debate is to just walk away - other times it can provide an opportunity to make a positive difference anyway.

In any case, if he/she (four-0) is being deceptive and ingenuine about his/her intentions in the way that is being suggested - then that rather helps to further validate our various arguments about the deceptive and manipulative nature of religious thinking. The kind of mindset required to effect such a ruse in the context of a forum such as this where rational people are offering real dialog and reasoned argument is stereotypical of that which would seek to further themselves by pushing a delusive religious meme onto others. It's called Fantasy Island, yes - but it's here.

If four-0 is just some silly sap Jesuit in training, or an Anglican bible college student or some such nonsense, then I think we were able to talk enough reason to get them thinking - if they really want to think. I'm a philosopher, so this kind of thing just provides me with an opportunity to strengthen my dialectic(al) and argumentative capabilities.

One of the benefits of using a good argument in a post is that you can make it into something of a 'viral argument': cut and paste it about the forums and hone it to make it very effective. I guess atheist propoganda would be a fair label in some ways, but propoganda that relies on some hard intellectual, analytical and logical chops - not on whimsy. Veridical information is very powerful stuff. I think that the human organism has evolved some very strong mental features to be able to identify it. These mental 'radar' can be subdued or confused, but they are probably impossible to eliminate. The trick is to cut through all of the linguistically programmed narrative false-information that clogs up the works.

After what I went through with the wackiness of weligious delusion and finally coming out of it, one thing is clear to me: these rational and logical arguments and questions come to the fore in one's mind when wacky weligiun doesn't seem to make sense. At some point the religious or faith-'thinking' person who has these questions available to them will realise that things aren't working the way that they should, and that their faith isn't making sense nor having a positive effect on their lives. Even for the hyper-pragmatic who hasn't really given full mental assent to the delusion - but is doing a Jamesian means-to-an-end trick - the right veridical information is going to make them think twice about the putative benefits of faith-'thinking' (or faux faith-'thinking'.)

I think a single thought based on veridical information can make a vast difference - otherwise why is it so necessary for doctrine spinners to demonise rationality and human intelligence so thoroughly in order to push people into substituting faith for cognition? It was Russell that said "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." He was right, there isn't, in fact it's the opposite. Xian believers will lay claim to the OT tenet that "wisdom is more precious than gold" etc. But then what is the biblical definition of wisdom? Fear of the Lord. Hello? Someone has to provide the veridical information in the face of such systematic suppression of people's rational thought: it has to be there somewhere for them to draw on. It helps psychologically to know one is not alone in puzzling one's cognitive dissonance and distress. Who is that someone? Us. Why? Because we're here and we can, and we would all prefer not to live in a world where the rest of the humans are in a faith-'thinking' coma.

If four-0 is a student doing a technical degree, or a worker in IT or something, he/she probably has a lot of work to do (they have indicated as much once - and subsequently come back to us.) Moreover, if they are in a real transition stage cognitively, they are probably dealing with a lot (and have already mentioned cognitive dissonance) and need significant time to deal with it. I myself have taken the approach I have because I think (like some others in this thread) that four-0 is probably real and on their own way out of the mess already, and is just beginning to de-program himself/herself. He/she may be having trouble deciding how committed to their current thinking they really are. Costs can be high for such a person. What if they have a beautiful boyfriend/girlfriend who is an ardent faith thinker, or their parents will disown them if they leave the faith? Some of us can assert our rational convictions easily in such circumstances because we never had any programming, or because we have overcome it already. Four-0 is probably having a lot more trouble.

Clearly it could be the case that four-0 is some bible college student's construct (I have no veridical evidence to suggest this is actual) - because we are relying on the information that they have given about their intention to be truthful, knowing that it is very depleted. If so, there is no joke on us, because of the reason's given above. Moreover, as we all know, four-0 may not be keeping our thread to him/her self. There are quite possibly 'agents of delusion' :) sitting with them to pick through our arguments and blanket them with more doctrinal narrative. (Four-0, if you are reading this, and that is the case, then may I openly suggest that you ask yourself why they can't just leave you alone to make up your own mind. Perhaps also perhaps ask yourself why they don't enter the discussion in a forthright way, if it is so important to you as their friend? Anyway, enough guessing on my part.)

De-programming oneself can be hard, but I think it is the only way. Others can only offer empathy and veridical information, and the encouragement that one does not have to give any mental assent to anything which makes no rational sense, regardless of the benefits being pedalled. Religious institutions have had thousands of years to hone their delusive mechanisms, most of which are psycho-linguistic, and which are applied to a person from a young age (I was about 15.) Getting the psychological states and cognitive structures sorted out and re-arranged is not straightforward. This is also why I think that there is a very strong argument for religion being a mental illness: any other time we had something inside us which negatively affected our life outcomes so greatly on the whole, we would call it a disease. (Of course, some people are just carriers: the hyer-pragmatists.)

Regardless of what four-0 is up to, I am gradually getting my arguments and my information and empathy giving game perfected, and am happy to admit the same to them because it is important and right: so no loss.

None of us wants to proselytise anyone - for obvious reasons - but there is nothing stopping us being helpful to those trying to de-program themselves. It has to be better and more productive than just stereotyping them as idiots. None of this makes us defective, or suckers, in any way.

B.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

You gotta admit though he/she seems kind of desparate. I picked this up from the first post and the title of this thread.

Also he/she doesn't respond for long periods of time and usually averages approximately 1 response per 10 posts or so.

[Mentally Saturated]

You gotta admit though he/she seems kind of desparate. I picked this up from the first post and the title of this thread.

Do U mean the modern, social, derogatory connotation of "desperate" ?

This being the case, isn't it nice to be able to help if at all possible ?

Seems "humanist" to me.

Gary

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'm not sure. Look at the title of the thread and the first post you should be able to tell he is trolling.

Of course he could be a bit of a mischievous elf too - or rather he doesn't intend to troll but it sounds like trolling.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Trollring Test: if you cannot tell it from a troll, it may as well be a troll.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...Then it must be a freshwater crocodile...Teq_N-fDwcw&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

[Cosmic Teapot]

Then it must be a freshwater crocodile...Teq_N-fDwcw&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000

Well, that was half of the equation.

[Bruce Long]

@Mr Black and Crocodile

The title of the original post is clearly intended to be hookish, as is the last line of the post. The mention of interest in psychology is interesting, confirmed later by mention of such things as cognitive dissonance (psych. term.) If the bullet points relating to homosexuality and socialism are anything to go by, then it is hard to see four-0 as a believer at all, ergo some of us responding with doubts.

I agree. Quite possibly a troll, but a non-normative one.

We may all be part of four-0's undergrad psych assignment or masters.

Good thing we all make a lot of rational sense. :)

B.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Well, that was half of the equation.So what was the other half I missed?

[Cosmic Teapot]

So what was the other half I missed?

It most certainly didn't walk like a duck.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I thought it walked a little like a duck. Especially the second time it quacked the foot made similar movements to a duck...

[atheist_angel]

Hey,
I don't like OPs (in this case, me) who goes missing.

But I am still here, and will still read it/respond when I get a chance. Just thought I should post this as a matter of courtesy.I really hope I wasn't talking to myself, 4097etc.

[robertkd]

Alright, I'm back.

One, I engaged the Catholics at uni because they had a sign that said "Proof that God exists through reason". Their reasoning made assumptions that I was not prepared to make, especially that something can not come out of nothing (Their argument was also self defeating, in that, something can not come out of nothing, which is why we need God to explain the world, but then, God existing out of nothing provides an exception to the rule that something can not come out of nothing,.

there have been many fine responses in this thread,

However I do have to ask about this chestnut, it's only the sky fairies that claim the universe magically appeared, this is not the view of science.

[Digitalos]

What exactly is your question/issue 409?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

What exactly is your question/issue 409?From his first post and the title of this thread it seems to be a pathetic bait attempt.

[Digitalos]

From his first post and the title of this thread it seems to be a pathetic bait attempt.
Yes but everything to you seems like that - you have so many presuppositions and bias, that you cannot deal with anyone as a unique individual case with unique views, questions and motivations.

[Fearless]

Yes but everything to you seems like that - you have so many presuppositions and bias, that you cannot deal with anyone as a unique individual case with unique views, questions and motivations.

Pot calling the kettle black much?

[Bruce Long]

Leaving aside the question of whether our buddy four-0 is genuine, a troll, or some other species, I have a suggestion. I am relatively new here, so it may be an old suggestion, or tried already, but here goes:

We need to deploy an anti-troll package. The package should involve some logical constructs and tests to measure the worthiness of any given post/thread contributor. I can discuss this here because the logic of the package can be such that even if potential trolls know about it, they won't be able to slip by. When a prospective troll comes along, we need to deploy the package, and only when they have responded correctly do we bother with them. This need not make us inflexible if the package is designed correctly. There are some neat tricks we can learn from security agencies for this kind of thing, but we can start small. For example, we will need multiple variants for different troll types, but only a few. I can help design and build the Christian variant. We'll probably want one for Jewish, Islamic, New Age and Occult, but they probably won't be much different.

Some initial functions of the Package:


Demand a certain level of engagement. Most trolls won't commit much time to their posts after the first one or two. If they want a commitment from us, they have to respond regularly (every three-five days at least) and meaningfully. Else the thread is abandoned.
Formally assess the propositional content of the initial post: anything logically contradictory or wildly innacurate/inconsistent raises a flag and moves the post closer to abandonment unless explained adequately and to the moderator's satisfaction
Anonymity must be preserved, but not at the cost of a cogent context. If what they say about themselves is contradictory or inconsistent, it must be explained by them satisfactorily, else dead thread.
Dialectic ethics and honesty test: Each contributor must be warned that deceptive and manipulative behaviour even in a forum is not good for their case - whatever that case may be - and in fact trolling this forum establishes the point about how religious meme-pushers think and behave: badly. This point must be agreed with by the thread poster, else dead thread.
Acknowledgement by the thread poster must be given that the above components will be complied with, else dead thread.
I can produce a working package pretty quickly, but it will need some honing. Anyone interested?

[Digitalos]

Leaving aside the question of whether our buddy four-0 is genuine, a troll, or some other species, I have a suggestion. I am relatively new here, so it may be an old suggestion, or tried already, but here goes:

We need to deploy an anti-troll package. The package should involve some logical constructs and tests to measure the worthiness of any given post/thread contributor. I can discuss this here because the logic of the package can be such that even if potential trolls know about it, they won't be able to slip by. When a prospective troll comes along, we need to deploy the package, and only when they have responded correctly do we bother with them. This need not make us inflexible if the package is designed correctly. There are some neat tricks we can learn from security agencies for this kind of thing, but we can start small. For example, we will need multiple variants for different troll types, but only a few. I can help design and build the Christian variant. We'll probably want one for Jewish, Islamic, New Age and Occult, but they probably won't be much different.

Some initial functions of the Package:


Demand a certain level of engagement. Most trolls won't commit much time to their posts after the first one or two. If they want a commitment from us, they have to respond regularly (every three-five days at least) and meaningfully. Else the thread is abandoned.
Formally assess the propositional content of the initial post: anything logically contradictory or wildly innacurate/inconsistent raises a flag and moves the post closer to abandonment unless explained adequately and to the moderator's satisfaction
Anonymity must be preserved, but not at the cost of a cogent context. If what they say about themselves is contradictory or inconsistent, it must be explained by them satisfactorily, else dead thread.
Dialectic ethics and honesty test: Each contributor must be warned that deceptive and manipulative behaviour even in a forum is not good for their case - whatever that case may be - and in fact trolling this forum establishes the point about how religious meme-pushers think and behave: badly. This point must be agreed with by the thread poster, else dead thread.
Acknowledgement by the thread poster must be given that the above components will be complied with, else dead thread.
I can produce a working package pretty quickly, but it will need some honing. Anyone interested?
Sounds good, I hope you apply it to everyone unilaterally and not just those you discriminate against based on beliefs. That way we can get rid of those of you who have zero interest in anything other than substantiating your current worldview and create an area just for the exchange of ideas and respectable conversation. Win.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Sounds good, I hope you apply it to everyone unilaterally and not just those you discriminate against based on beliefs. That way we can get rid of those of you who have zero interest in anything other than substantiating your current worldview and create an area just for the exchange of ideas and respectable conversation. Win.Actually things like that has been done in the past with some atheist trolls too.

[Bruce Long]

@Digitalos

Forgive me if I have this all backwards and upside down, but I take it you are a theist (by your comments and the murder device depicted in your icon.) I was confused about this for a while, as you are a senior member...


Glad you like the idea
I do not feel, nor should I, the least bit compelled by your comment not to be assertively and determinedly discriminating when it comes to religiously inspired irrationality and doctrinally driven delusiveness (there's an alliteration that an Old Testament writer would be proud of:) ) In a very typical example of the equivocal and slippery use of language that theists are really good at, you attempt to imply/infer that I/we discriminate against religious persons. I have numerously stated in this forum that I regard said persons as victims of a terrible, sophisticated and abusive narrative and psycholingistic machinery propogated by religious or para-religious institutions: The Christian Church, Islam, Judaism, The New Age, Scientology, Mormonism, Evangelicalism, The Occult, Freemasonry or whatever. Christians like to say that they hate the sin and not the sinner. Well – I hate the delusion and not the deluded. If you are offended by my ascription of delusion (which is on pretty strong foundations psychologically and logically speaking,) then I could say that I am doubly offended by your ascription to me of the fictional sin construct, which is on much shakier ground altogether. However – I won’t – because I don’t bother to get offended by deluded people pedalling nonsense fictional metaphysical devices.
Thankyou for reminding me of how manipulative doctrine spinners and dogmatists can be, by trying to – in one sentence (almost very clever) – subsume and conform this entire forum to a dialectic principle which, although it would suit theists down to the ground by foreclosing on any really effective criticism of their delusive narratives, dogmatic adherence and faux explanations, it is not incumbent upon any atheist or realist here to comply with in any way shape or form. We can have a perfectly respectful – and respectable – conversation, without my having to surrender my rational thought to the transparently manipulative offense response.
Substantiating their worldview, and doing so without reference to any real demonstrable material evidence whatsoever, is exactly what theist doctrine spinners and evangelists spend their entire time doing, so I’m not even going to credit this comment with analysis. I have every right to assert my worldview, and if you can’t rationally and logically dispute it, then all the worse for your worldview: but don’t try and gag me with your pretense to offense over an artificial and invalid right not to have someone criticise your religious beliefs, or the propensity of religious people to subsume cognition to faith.
If you really want a respectable conversation and exchange of ideas, I suggest you begin to acknowledge the validity and respectability of some really solid and acute criticism. If you want to criticise atheism and everything about it – and even my own position: go ahead and let me have it. I love a good argument, and see them as conducive to the betterment of each interlocutor. I do not see arguments as fights or as warlike. You have to be able to criticise me and my position, and I have to be able to criticise you and your position, provided it is not simply an ad hominem attack. Let us sharpen each other. However, do not start throwing demonising (and false) accusations against me about my discriminating against anyone, or you will find I will exercise my right to criticise your attitude and your approach in spades.
If I ever meet you I will endeavour to treat you with the utmost decency and friendliness (genuine – not passive aggressive) but if you start trying to bully me with indignant religious presumptions of your right to have me not say anything negative about religion or religious doctrine and faith thinking, or to keep quiet and comply with your blasphemy construct, then you are in for a double-rude shock. I am not about to argue with you on your psycholinguistically controlling terms, and if you don’t like that, then best you go and find a genuine sucker somewhere: they’ll be easier for you, and easier on your religious convictions. As for me – have atcha!

[Bruce Long]

I thought of another basic function of the anti-troll response package:


Hook language flag: any statements which imply a challenge or a carrot of some other kind, which we already treat with caution and dubeity, will add weight to sinking the thread. Carrot statements are not hard to spot - our members spotted all such statement types from four-0 in the first few posts. (This goes to Mr Pervert's perspicacious Charlotte's Web quote)
I think that a quasi-rigid point system should do the trick. We start each new potential troll on a five or ten point credit. If they don't blow their credit in the first couple of posts, we give them creedence. A contradiction or obvious flamer loses two points. A too short post with no effort demonstrated looses some points (initial posts may need to be treated differently - we don't want to deter any poor sod who is desperately trying to deprogram themselves.) And so on. This will force them to work at it. Anyone with genuine concerns will stick it out with polite encouragement. We simply need to explain what the package is and what we are doing and why (part of the package) and if they are genuine and reasonable they will have no problem with it. There can be an appeal process in case the system fails somehow - half points back or something if they answer moderator concerns adequately and with dedicated effort.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

How about advanced heuristics while we are at it?

[Bruce Long]

@Croc: Are you chiding me for going overboard (I'm feeling all insecure:)) - cause advanced heuristics is a really good idea... Although, we need the package to be manageable. But I guess some solid heuristic analysis would make it effective and compact.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Don't forget to regularly update the definitions...

[Bruce Long]

Oh Croc - are you thinking software plugin/package? (which is a very cool idea) I was just using 'package' as a figurative term. I just meant a package of text and pre-fab responses to be dished up to newcomers. When I said flag - I didn't mean semaphore - I just meant 'flag it'. I'm a trained Web software engineer and programmer, but I don't think I could do heuristics in this particular system. Bloody good idea though.

[robertkd]

Think of decoding the language syntax, the English language isn't exactly terse decoding posts sounds pretty interesting mmm

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Indeed. Why not let God do it. After all if he exists and if he is almighty he can prove his worth.

[Seamus]

Ehh, what's up doc?

The carrot

(sorry,a bit obvious)

[Bruce Long]

@Croc and @Robertkd

Okay - I think we can all agree that the ghosts of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead would have more success at developing software to do this than His Worshipful and Holy Nonexistence, but that it would give any of them the shits. Developing an AI based semantically capable mind-reading delusion-decoding bullshit-detecting syntax and text parser is more than any human currently has time for. If we had one of those, we could let it loose on the internet and get rid of all of the 'dimformation' clogging it up. Come to think of it, we could let it loose on the text of the Bible and solve one big problem really fast (except the ecumenicals would want to use some 'spiritual' heurisitic definitions, or something equally 'ingenious')

But what about just putting together a smart set of conditions and questions for newcomers. We could even use multiple choice. What about this for starters:

I am:
A. A Troll
B. A Meat popsicle
C. About five foot nine
D. Looking for the atheist crucifixion Web site

or perhaps

I am interested in
A. Intelligent discourse and deprogramming myself
B. Beating my head against the wall
C. Having you beat your head against the wall
D. Beating off - this isn't nunsinbikinis.com ?

How am I doing so far?

[Unsacred Cow]

I am interested in
A. Intelligent discourse and deprogramming myself
B. Beating my head against the wall
C. Having you beat your head against the wall
D. Beating off - this isn't nunsinbikinis.com ?

How am I doing so far?

I personally like this one. :D

Of course, it does rely on the honesty and self-awareness of the newcomer.

[Bruce Long]

@Unsacred Cow:

Well - penetrating apperception is a big demand, especially if one has declared oneself dead to oneself so that imaginary beings can own one.

On a more serious note, I am beginning to determine a couple of strategies for a short questionaire with some logical and psychological content that should sort the sheep out from the trolls, as it were.

I will try and finish it by the end of next week, but to begin with:

1. We need to establish that the person is genuinely interested in an intelligent and bilateral multifaceted dialogue. Not easy to do, but not impossible. They will have to:


Be Prepared to demonstrate this with some work and commitment, or else with some veridical information. A sign of good faith, in the general sense. This need not breach confidentiality. (They will need to be reminded that the site is, however, public.)
Carrot language will be treated as highly suspicious. The genuine are unlikely to come at us like four-0 did (It's up to you, brave atheist... and ... convince me and I'll 'come out' etc. These assertoric-propositions and open challenges are suspect.) We will begin a catalog of carrot/bait language. I think we can avoid confusing it with genuine challenges on the basis of context, participation, and using a points system. Open Challenges should be treated as suspect. Contradiction must be cleared up or points removed.
I think a multiple choice questionaire will be less confronting and more difficult to goose than a straight up challenge:

Q. I am here because

I think that I can get at least one atheist to see what I know to be the objective or spiritual truth.
My spiritual leader/pastor/priest/imam/reverend/bagwan set this as an assignment in my spiritual quest/bible college course
I'm just wondering about what atheism really entails/I wanted to talk online with some real atheists
I think you are all lost and spiritually blind, and have to warn you about hell and a bunch of other stuff

Q. I am (after all - you know what we are. Failure to state this up front will get your thread ended. If you are from a smaller group and concerned for anonimity, contact member/moderator via private message.)

New age
Islamic
Christian
Aquarian
Masonic/syncretic
Hindu
Occult
Jewish
Kabbalist
Catholic
Pentecostal
Charismatic
Baptist
Lutheran
Suni Muslim
Sufi Muslim
Sharia/Shi'ite Muslim
Lapsed catholic
Backslidden
Born again
Christian Scientist
Scientologist
Backslidden born again
Zoarastrian
Rosicrucian
Jehovah's Witness
Mormon
Moonie
Protestant
Quaker (religious)
Luciferian
Satanist
Jedi
Pastafarian
Other - specify

Q. (Y/N) I am interested in/a proponent of Intelligent Design
Q. (Y/N) I am a young-Earth Creationist
Q. (Y/N) I am an old Earth Creationist
Q. (Y/N) I am an evolutionary theist/theistic evolutionist
Q. (Y/N) I think that knowledge can be based on faith
Q. (Y/N) I would consider dropping my faith if given strong enough rational evidence to demonstrate its invalidity and falsehood.
Q. (Y/N) Faith and religious belief are pscyhologically healthy for individuals and societies, regardless of whether the beliefs are based on anything real or true.
Q. (Y/N) I have been trying to/ feeling a rational compulsion to abandon my faith/religious thinking (Note: Trolls often use this approach to grandstand) and so I would prefer private messaging with members of this forum. I understand this would take place on a strictly email for email basis. If I fail to respond, the other party/parties will desist communication. if I resume, the member will resume correspondence if able.

For those that pass initial muster, they will be required to agree with some stipulations. Honesty and forthrightness foregrounded as important in this forum. Visitors will read and understand the following (I don't think its too long. If they couldn't be bothered to read it, that is part of the test. It will be obvious if they don't read it.)
(Adapted from my exchange with Digitalos) In this forum we seek to be helpful and supportive of all genuine attempts at dialog and especially requests for information about how to exit religions, or for friendship. However, it is important that those here to debate us understand and agree to the following:
Aggressively/Assertively Atheist: This is a forum run by atheists, for atheists. You are a guest. Atheists, rationalists, secularists, freethinkers and realists are not, nor should they be, the least bit compelled by your presence or beliefs not to be assertively and determinedly discriminating and oppositional when it comes to what we see as religiously inspired irrationality and doctrinally driven delusiveness. Atheists in this forum generally do not seek to discriminate against religious persons (although we reserve the right to criticise their actions.) Many of us regard such persons as victims of a terrible, sophisticated and abusive psycho-social and psycholingistic mechanism developed and operated by religious or para-religious institutions: The Christian Church, Islam, Judaism, The New Age, Scientology, Mormonism, Evangelicalism, The Occult, Freemasonry or whatever. Christians like to say that they hate the sin and not the sinner. Well – we tend to despise the delusion and not the deluded: to hate religion and not the religious. If you are offended by ascriptions ascriptions of delusion (which is on pretty strong foundations psychologically and logically speaking,) then we could say that we are doubly offended by your ascription of the fictional sin construct, which is on much shakier ground altogether. However – we probably won’t – because we usually don’t bother to get offended by deluded people pedalling nonsense fictional metaphysical devices. This does not mean, however, that we do not find religious doctrine and dogma, and texts like the Koran and the Bible, to be offensive to the intelligence, individual agency, and decency of every human being, and even ethically and thematically repulsive, nor that we will not say as much. We do, and we will.
'Blasphemy', 'Offense', indignance, and speaking on the terms of your doctrine or beliefs. You cannot expect to subsume and conform this entire forum to a dialectic principle which, although it would suit theists down to the ground by foreclosing on any really effective criticism of their delusive narratives, dogmatic adherence and faux explanations, it is not incumbent upon any atheist or realist here to comply with in any way shape or form. We don't expect you not to argue with us, or not to criticise our worldview. We expect the same courtesy and reasonability in return. We can have a perfectly respectful – and respectable – conversation, without having to surrender rational thought to the transparently manipulative offense response. We do not regard that there is any such (valid) thing as blasphemy. We will criticise your beliefs, your faith, 'faith-thinking', deities and/or God (which we see to be fictions,) your doctrine and dogma (which we regard as a fictional or quasi-fictional narrative cooked up by men,) and pretty much anything else we like, but we will do our best to refrain from personal and ad-hominem attacks. Warning: Don’t try and gag us with your pretense to offense over an artificial and invalid right not to have someone criticise your religious beliefs, or the propensity of religious people to subsume cognition to faith. Accusations of so called 'blasphemy' will see your thread ended.
Attacking your Worldview: We probably will, and reserve the right to do so articulately and intelligently (this includes parody, humour and general wit.) Promoting their worldview without reference to any real demonstrable material evidence, defeasible science, or solid logic whatsoever, is exactly what theist doctrine spinners, prostelyisers, clergy and evangelists spend their entire time doing. We have every right to assert our worldview, and if you can’t rationally and logically dispute it, then all the worse for your worldview.
Criticism (There will be lots of it) If you really want an intellectually respectable conversation and exchange of ideas, I suggest you begin to acknowledge the validity and respectability of some really solid and acute criticism. If you want to criticise atheism: go ahead and do so. You will not be accused of 'blasphemy' and threatened with damnation or a fatwah. Many atheists love a good rational argument, and see them as conducive to the intellectual and personal betterment of each interlocutor. We do not see intelligent arguments or criticism as taboo, as conflagratory, or as warlike. You have to be able to criticise us and our position, and we have to be able to criticise you and your position, provided it does not simply involve name calling or ad hominem attacks. Do not start throwing demonising accusations about us discriminating against anyone - criticism is not discrimination, it is free speech. Demonisation language and associated profiling language will get your thread dropped.





I agree with all of this - let me proceed (Y/N)


Continued next post...

[Bruce Long]

...from previous post:

2. Priority one is helping persons who are genuinely converging on what I will refer to as deprogramming themselves. I think such bods are in fact going to be pretty rare. When I was coming out of my faith thinking, it never occured to me to go and ask a bunch of prospectively militant atheists for help (I went and studied philosophy.) I think this would be unusual - not impossible - but unusual. Second priority is the normative task of repelling religious irrationality, and debunking faith-thinking, dogma, and other nonsense. Priorities one and two will often go hand in hand, but if there is a choice between slugging it out with a drone and helping somebody get their own head clear of crap, I think we should favour the latter.


It's a bit untidy, but I think a start that is worthwhile. It will take me a while to work out some of the logic based challenges... Any contributions are welcome. Open process...

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

You must be a lawyer.

[Bruce Long]

@Crocodile: That hurt :)

Okay - it's a bit long then, and too pedantic?

I guess it would potentially block just about everyone. Thought it might save us some trouble though...

Preparing to abandon open project...

[robertkd]

I can see a lot of instring searching and building of linked lists and scanning through them to determine the intended meaning :eek:

You might even hash table but trying to to get the construct or meaning wont be easy,..

Many years ago there was a program 'Elisa' or something similar that responded to user input to determine indeed analyse the users psychological state, this seems similar,..

I speak of the dark ages of things like the "sorcerer computer"
yes we would often stop off and pick up some dino ribs on the way home and then glare endlessly at the 'Ok" on the screen,...

http://oldcomputers.net/sorcerer.html

[robertkd]

Indeed the marvels of modern technology, mind you it would have kept the average theist going for ages,.. :D

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

@Robertkd: there was one annoying theist who posted to this forum, although he has now been sent on a long fishing trip.They all seem the same to me for some reason...

At one stage, I was using his posts to feed an Eliza-style bot, and reposting the output to AFA as if it was my replies.

(And if the above seems trollish, I offer in my defence only this: we Billygoats Gruff get a lot of exposure to troll-culture in the job.)Is that what they mean when they mention dynamic recompilation now?

[wardsie]

40974111. About the proof thing. Consider this.

Every morning I go down to the bottom of my garden to talk to the Leprechauns. They give me my instructions for the day. Without these instructions I wouldn't have any idea how to behave. I could become a rapist or a murderer. Who knows?

Do you believe me? If not, why not?
Well, it's because you see no evidence to justify my claims. If my claims are true, it's up to me to provide that evidence. That's why it is up to the believers to demonstrate that there is evidence to support their claims.

By the way. The word proof really should have its use confined to mathematics.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I get my instructions from Godzilla's Ghost instead...

[Unsacred Cow]

I get my instructions from my kids....well atleast they try it on sometimes. :D

[hooa]

It’s not hard to be convinced that there is no bible creator god ... You don’t need to read big words and enter into long winded debates ... if you were really honest with yourself ... you would see that it doesn’t take a lot of debate to see that the Bible God notion is all crap ....

Go back to basics if you need convincing...

Think about this ridiculous story ...

God authored the 10 commandments and inscribed them on stone tablets with his own finger ... But the stones broke when Moses became angry at the golden calf etc etc blardy blahh ... ...

HUH? Hang On ... Moses broke The Stone Tablets that God personally wrote on ... These very important laws written for all of humanity ... BROKE?

Do you really believe this story ... Why?

If just that story doesn’t convince you that things are just not right about the bible ... Then you are deluded and you are doomed to live in la la land forever and ever ... Amen

You might be a good talker but you aint thinkin very much ...