Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah that's one thing I like better about living in the North. The Protestants here are mostly like Methodists and they're either indifferent or just mildly disdainful about Catholicism. A few are even quite positive as I know one who had a son who became Catholic and he's pretty cool with that. My Aunt does inter-faith events and most everyone gets along at them. However the Baptists never show up at them. We're still close enough to the "Bible Belt" that the Baptists have a bit of a "everyone else is just totally wrong" mindset.
Which is kind of off-topic. On the original topic, Hitchens, I don't know that I've ever thought or said he'd convert due to illness. From what I can tell he has both a strong emotional and intellectual disdain for the idea of God and religion. The first probably matters more because I think most people's beliefs and attitudes are based more on emotions than anything. I seem to recall that Hitchens finds the idea of God emotionally unappealing as he sees it as reducing human privacy or freedom or something. Whether he would or wouldn't convert is probably not my business anyway.
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I have to say that I agree with both of you: Given that for the past 100 years, more and more evidence has been building up that strongly questions the rationale behind religion, people are simply not listening.
We see this repeatedly on the boards. We come up with some damn' good arguments and they are arguments which are not refuted, but they are not taken on board.
Thom
Quote:
Why should someone change their entire belief system because they were unable to refute an argument on a message board in a timely fashion? People's way of looking at the world is, generally speaking, just not that unstable. Maybe you value instability but it's rather presumptuous to think everyone will want an unstable outlook on life that can change based on whoever is great at debate.
They won't. Although I must say on my previous board, the Boss, Jake, had a magic spell that decoverted believers within a week, but he never taught it to me.
It is, as you say, a worldview and it has to be done by countering bit by bit the false (or at least illogical) arguments put about by theist apologetics. This won't dispose of theism, but it will get rid of particular personal gods and the various sects will be just personal preferences - as I prefer Hindu - Buddhism, but don't see it as any more true than the others. That, in itself, removes a lot of the friction. That is less 'unstable', as you put it, than a lot of conflicting beliefs. Note that there there are no rival sciences, only evidence - based, relatively 'stable', science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The theists retreat behind faith and 'How do you know, that's only your opinion, millions disagree with you, we will have to agree to differ..'
Thom
Quote:
People often do feel an emotion connection to things. You likely see this as a weakness. Having a belief system that's both emotionally and intellectually satisfying has generally struck me as a strength.
You are right, it is a strength. It can give people a sense of purpose and conviction that is, as I once put it, like taking spiritual steroids. On the other hand, rationally, it is a weakness. I have also said that Theist scientists are always at the risk of putting their faith ahead of their results.
We have a choice; to accept the rules of critical thinking in processing evidence or not. But even if we put Faith ahead of (sound) reasoning, we have to choose which faith out of many religions, superstitions and cults. The choice (unless based on sheer habit) is based on making an evaluation. So if one is to make evaluations, surely it's better to do it properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It's also painfully clear that people love their myths, superstitions, alternative medicines, conspiracy theories, Gods from outer space and the like rather than dull ol' plain fact.
Thom
Quote:
A "just the facts" approach is almost inevitably reductionist and insufficient for a society. Any society, even a highly secular one, needs to have faith in things besides "just the facts." Those things might include free-will, justice, loyalty, equality, and so forth.
But those things are also best approached on a logical basis. In the mess of alternative medicine, there might be some signal amongst the noise, but we are only going to discover it by demonstrating it and that won't be done by cherry picking a particular fad to espouse.
Plain ol' facts is misunderstood and people need to learn that facts have shown us the universe, microbiology, sub - atomic particles which are more amazing than anything that believing in a geocentric system, spontaneous generation or the four humours could ever have done. Dull ol' facts are not dull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The truth in the end will come out and be accepted because the evidence will support it, even despite refusal to listen, even by authority figures.
Thom
Quote:
From a Catholic perspective I once felt the same thing, the Catholic faith will win out because it will become clear it's correct, but now I think that's probably naive.
People are not obliged to believe in things that are obvious even by the meanest of intelligence. Indeed many people are naturally contrarian and will reject something so long as they have that right. And if "the Truth", which in its entirely you don't have and are never going to have because getting that is not what science even does, seems to imply something they find unpleasant they'll just choose to ignore or reject it.
If Catholicism were proven a 100% correct, let's say every amputee regrew limbs after having a vision of Mother Mary, some would still not believe it because they are attached to their other traditions or because they don't want to obey the moral rules of Catholicism.Rome.
As I said at the beginning, people love their myths. And they go to great lengths to try to fit them to science, whether it's morphing Genesis to fit the Cosmological view or Mystic trying to paste 'god' onto quantum mechanics.
The thing is that, if it was factually demonstrated to the requirements of science that people could could regrow their arms by praying to the saints, we'd not disbelive it, because (contrary to popular belief) that's not what science does. We'd be asking, like Newton, who believed in God, how does it work? However, those of other faiths might still reject it, because it did not fit their faith. (see the video on open - mindedness)
You have to ask yourself how you'd react if it was Hinduism or Mormonism which could show that their prayers could result in regrowing limbs. Would you reject it as a fraud because it was not your favoured religion, or would you convert because the evidence was clear that their religion was right?
Of course, that may not be a problem for you as you might say that, if anyone is going to grow arms back, it's going to be Catholics because that is the right religion.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-21-2010 at 06:18 AM..
Its very hard to denounce something you have been taught as "truth" ever since you were a child.(I would say most of the religious have been taught what they believe since they were a children) Its as if your whole life instantly becomes a lie if you were to immediately deny god. I dont know about anyone else , but my process from christianity to agnosticism was slow and somewhat painful. It was not like this: here are the facts god is not real I believe it ... done. I had no one to tell me anything , I came to realize my beliefs to be false myself.
I know. I never forget how hard it is to change one's mind about beliefs one had held for a long time. It is a pang for me to change some idea I particularly like, and I'm better trained in reviewing ideas now than ever I was.
So I don't expect people to look at agument from nativity dichotomy or First cause a priori assumption fallacy and say 'Wow! That's me an unbeliever.' I do try to persuade people that rational thinking is better than irrational and evidence - based conclusions are better that Faith -based ones. That in itself is dreadfully hard, but once you start doing that all the rest has to follow.
Quote:
When people say christians are dillusional , I look back at myself and realize how true that statement is. You couldnt have told me anything to make me see the world in any other way. I wish some of my family and friends would come out of their state of dillusion , so they wouldnt treat me like a disease when the discussion comes about. It also angers me that they worry about my soul burning in a nonexistant hell and it makes them sad . They also believe if they dont convert me back my blood will be on their hands. Its very frustrating.( if im angry at christians on the forum thats the main reason why , because you brainwashed my friends and family and tried to brainwash me.)
I have to deal with the evangelical fundamentalist hellfire christians everyday and it gets old just hearing your going to hell and the only reasoning they give is that some old rewritten text says I am. sorry that im angry.
It is probably impossible for believers, who see their Faith as uplifting, improving, loving, empowering and uniting, to understand how or why we Satanspuming God - mockers are fuming at religions (in inverse proportion to the less we see of them). Reason is that we clearly see them as based on absolutely nothing evidentially valid, and we get especially steamed (or I do) when they dismiss as limited human conventions if not a self - delusion, the massive of corpus of evidence - based science - but ONLY in those areas which are percieved as conflicting with their faith. They unquestioningly accept the rest.
This is theism at is best and most tolerant, of course. Sorry; it's still what we would regard as not soundly based. When it isn't so tolerant, it scares the pant (or skirts) ..sorry PANTS..(my gender - bias was showing ) off us. We can laugh if they are a small bunch of nuts like Phelps, but when they have power, money and TV shows and a voice in the White House, we stop laughing right quick.
Thanks, Thomas. Yesterday I reached saturation point and realised I had my fill of trying to dialogue respectfully with various people here who were in the main either uncivil or, at a minimum, ungracious. The "Jack Chick" type post from Sanspeur was the straw that broke the camel's back and I just needed a break.
Sometimes I wonder what some people are trying to accomplish on this forum. I think sometimes they take these forums too seriously and read into a lack of response by a Theist as either a sign of defeat, intimidiation, inability to counter, etc. Sometimes people just get busy with other things, are tired and need time to regroup, or whatever.
Yep, I do that too. I just wanted to say that I now see why you posted that 'conversion story' - because someone suggested that they'd never heard of an athest who converted, so you provided an example. I have satisfied myself on that score.
Reading this post causes me to wonder whether some of the Atheists and Agnostics who post here, OP included, have been traumatised as a result of having belonged to certain Christian denominations where members are expected to "park their brains at the door."
I've met Christians like this, both in real life and online, but because my own circle of close Christian friends are in the main intellectuals (both Protestant and Catholic) I don't have too much contact with people who sound like they walked out of a Flannery O'Connor story (such as the relatives and friends you describe) although I appreciate that they exist.
They tend to hate my beliefs (Roman Catholic) as much as they hate yours.
It's common for theists to explain the incomprehensible antipathy of atheists to religion, the Bible and the God - concept. "What made you angry at God?" (TM)
Let me give my example of the parked brains mutual misunderstanding. I was atheist, sure. You don't want the story. I was challenged by a colleague to look into Christianity. I did and not only was i even more convinced that the Gospel - story was not true, I began to understand how and why. I reported back to my colleague with the results.
Now he was one of the smarter people. His reasoning faculties and analytical abilities were very good. So Imagine my astonishment when he began to dismiss my findings on what seemed to be mere prejudice and just ignoring the results on what seemed to me like irrelevant pretexts. Attempts to explain this or that conclusion just resulted in impatient dismissal. It was like there was a person I'd never seen before.
Now, you may well say that's only my bias showing and maybe he gave some darn good answers and I was the closed - minded one. But he didn't. I won't go into details as we are allready off topic, but I can say it was just the 'witnesses don't always agree' and fixating on irrelevant red herrings (e.s the way the term 'return' is used metaphorically in the Bible, when it was blindingly obvious this instance was about going back home)
And he was a quite reasonable mild chapel - bod. But it sure looked to me like he'd checked a pretty fine brain in the locker in that respect.
It's common for theists to explain the incomprehensible antipathy of atheists to religion, the Bible and the God - concept. "What made you angry at God?" (TM)
Let me give my example of the parked brains mutual misunderstanding. I was atheist, sure. You don't want the story. I was challenged by a colleague to look into Christianity. I did and not only was i even more convinced that the Gospel - story was not true, I began to understand how and why. I reported back to my colleague with the results.
Now he was one of the smarter people. His reasoning faculties and analytical abilities were very good. So Imagine my astonishment when he began to dismiss my findings on what seemed to be mere prejudice and just ignoring the results on what seemed to me like irrelevant pretexts. Attempts to explain this or that conclusion just resulted in impatient dismissal. It was like there was a person I'd never seen before.
Now, you may well say that's only my bias showing and maybe he gave some darn good answers and I was the closed - minded one. But he didn't. I won't go into details as we are allready off topic, but I can say it was just the 'witnesses don't always agree' and fixating on irrelevant red herrings (e.s the way the term 'return' is used metaphorically in the Bible, when it was blindingly obvious this instance was about going back home)
And he was a quite reasonable mild chapel - bod. But it sure looked to me like he'd checked a pretty fine brain in the locker in that respect.
This would exasperate me as well. Not wanting to veer further off-topic either (although this is arguably within the realm of the question of "conversion" raised by the OP), but I am extremely sympathetic to both Atheism and Agnosticism. I'm not "Christian by disposition/temperment," I'm actually probably Agnostic by temperment. The "problem" I have with most of the Atheists/Agnostics at this forum is their sheer mean-spiritedness (statements like Christians all have "half a brain stem" for example).
There is no way that Shakespeare, JRR Tolkein, T. S. Eliot, Thomas Aquinas, Mary Ann Glendon, John Henry Newman, Bella Dodd, G. K. Chesteron -- or even William Lane Craig for that matter (just to name a handful) have "half a brain stem." It's an irrational statement, not to mention a highly inflammatory one.
I had a much higher opinion of Atheists and Agnostics as a group before I started participating in this forum, to be honest. Although I remain sympathetic to the Atheistic and Agnostic positions, I have become a bit more circumspect about the belief system in its practical manifestations then I was previously.
This would exasperate me as well. Not wanting to veer further off-topic either (although this is arguably within the realm of the question of "conversion" raised by the OP), but I am extremely sympathetic to both Atheism and Agnosticism. I'm not "Christian by disposition/temperment," I'm actually probably Agnostic by temperment. The "problem" I have with most of the Atheists/Agnostics at this forum is their sheer mean-spiritedness (statements like Christians all have "half a brain stem" for example).
There is no way that Shakespeare, JRR Tolkein, T. S. Eliot, Thomas Aquinas, Mary Ann Glendon, John Henry Newman, Bella Dodd, G. K. Chesteron -- or even William Lane Craig for that matter (just to name a handful) have "half a brain stem." It's an irrational statement, not to mention a highly inflammatory one.
I had a much higher opinion of Atheists and Agnostics as a group before I started participating in this forum, to be honest. Although I remain sympathetic to the Atheistic and Agnostic positions, I have become a bit more circumspect about the belief system in its practical manifestations then I was previously.
Well, can't say fairer than that. I can say... (fishes around for something nice to say about theism..) that I am actually quite sympathetic towards the idea of Deistgod and though I say so tactically I am not convinced that theists belief cannot make a lot of people behave better than they would if they didn't believe.
And perhaps I was a bit tired and, yes, maybe I should have looked back at all the posts before plunging in headlong and I shall go back and review the thread before posting anything more and, since I owe you one, I shall cred. you for a reasonable post.
Well, can't say fairer than that. I can say... (fishes around for something nice to say about theism..) that I am actually quite sympathetic towards the idea of Deistgod and though I say so tactically I am not convinced that theists belief cannot make a lot of people behave better than they would if they didn't believe.
And perhaps I was a bit tired and, yes, maybe I should have looked back at all the posts before plunging in headlong and I shall go back and review the thread before posting anything more and, since I owe you one, I shall cred. you for a reasonable post.
And, you may take that as as an apology.
Thanks.
By the way, I would NEVER begin a discussion with an Atheist or Agnostic with this type of statement:
It's common for theists to explain the incomprehensible antipathy of atheists to religion, the Bible and the God - concept. "What made you angry at God?" (TM)
For one, it assumes the existence of God -- how extremely condescending--not to mention intellectually dishonest--is that? Second, it sounds like something cheesy from pop psychology and is unworthy of a place in theological or even philosophical discussion. Equally important (to me), it cheapens the Christian faith as handed down to us from St. Ignatius, Edmund Campion, St Thomas Aquinas, et al.
So yeah, that's a pukey Dr Phil-type statement, and I can see why it irritated you so coming from someone you had been led to believe was capable of much more.
By the way, I would NEVER begin a discussion with an Atheist or Agnostic with this type of statement:
It's common for theists to explain the incomprehensible antipathy of atheists to religion, the Bible and the God - concept. "What made you angry at God?" (TM)
For one, it assumes the existence of God -- how extremely condescending--not to mention intellectually dishonest--is that? Second, it sounds like something cheesy from pop psychology and is unworthy of a place in theological or even philosophical discussion. Equally important (to me), it cheapens the Christian faith as handed down to us from St. Ignatius, Edmund Campion, St Thomas Aquinas, et al.
So yeah, that's a pukey Dr Phil-type statement, and I can see why it irritated you so coming from someone you had been led to believe was capable of much more.
Actually that quote is a generic label for that type of suggestion - that atheists don't become or stay atheist because they just can't believe it (which is the almost universal reason put forward by those who have thought about it) but some suggestion that something bad happened in our lives or we had some bad experience with religion that turned us off.
Well, as to Aquinas, etc, I find it hard to imagine any who could have reasoned their way to God (especially Biblegod) without postulating it in the first place. Certainly Lane Craig was doing that and his argument didn't stand up for a second without the basic assumption of it being true.
Hitchen's response was on the right lines but it was certainly not delivered very well. I think I could have done a lot better myself and without attacking religion.
Yep, I do that too. I just wanted to say that I now see why you posted that 'conversion story' - because someone suggested that they'd never heard of an athest who converted, so you provided an example. I have satisfied myself on that score.
I don't think anyone said that they had never heard of an atheist who converted...What I and another poster said, was that we did not personally know a Christian who had converted from atheism...Big difference.
However I do know (personally) quite a number of atheists who were formerly Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) off us. We can laugh if they are a small bunch of nuts like Phelps, but when they have power, money and TV shows and a voice in the White House, we stop laughing right quick.
(fishes around for something nice to say about theism..) that I am actually quite sympathetic towards the idea of Deistgod and though I say so tactically 
I am not convinced that theists belief cannot make a lot of people behave better than they would if they didn't believe.
