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.
Resurrecting an older thread to see if the subject matter is still relevant. I've been wondering this myself.
The subject matter was never relevant. The quiz contained questions involving multiple religions including US laws regarding separation of church and state. So of course, someone who is Hindu is going to miss some questions about the Bible, or a Christian not get the Hindu questions correctly.
It's almost like the atheist approach is to first visit every possible existing explanation and then decide which is true, but no one approaches life that way. I don't have to study every existing religion in the world to know that my faith is true. It's not a process of elimination.
This simply reinforces the old adage a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But the corollary one is that not enough knowledge is also a dangerous thing.
What is as dangerous is living life with a philosophy of slogans and catch -prases rather than real understanding, and also the acquiring of more knowledge as selected to fit in with Faith rather than on its' merits.
Resurrecting an older thread to see if the subject matter is still relevant. I've been wondering this myself.
It is, I think, as said, that atheists have to study religion more in order to begin the questionin and looking for more answers - and finding they aren't good enough. They may then consider other religions, but never really as much as Christianity. Most of what I have learned about Islam and Jain has been here on the board.
One thing I am quite sure of is that, ideally, the best place for a Believer is in Not discussing or debating, unless it is within their comfort -zone and debating doctrine with wrong believers rather than having think about questions and t doubts outside the bo.
We see what this leads to. Evasions, excuses, lies and personal miff, which all get shown up for what they are and make for even more pressure on the conviction of the believer that they are Right. That is on top of the continual ignoring of good sound doubts. The ones they don't respond to bu change the subject. ask a querstion to go on the offensive or dish out accusations about bias. But deep inside, they must know they haven't answeered a damn' good point and the stress it must put on the whole rationale "I know it is true on Faith - never mind how the evidence looks" must be tremendous.
When I say that someone might be a convert in the making it isn't needle, but because I see a rational mind dealing with unreason and not even taking the easy way out - of adapting the faith to what society is accepting. I don't know how the denial can stand up to the pressure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"knowing about" something is not the same as "putting it into practice" in your daily life.
you may "know about" the laws of tithing but do you tithe 10% to 20% of your income every month, every year?
You are correct, it isn't. One may Know what is the better thing to do, but be unable to do it. But just knowing is better than not knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
14 of 15 and the one I missed was a dumb, brain-fart sort of mistake.
I think a lot of believers forget that many atheists WERE once believers. It's not something they like to remember.
@Tzaphkiel, no one is saying knowledge = practice, that's not the point of the thread. Certainly, lacking knowledge, there's nothing to put INTO practice. The ignorance of many believers, of their own faith ... and of the faith of others ... is a practical problem.
You said it , better, here.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-03-2018 at 08:48 PM..
The bolded is a very good point. Many former believers may have felt uneasy, or whatever, about their faith, and upon further investigation, came to their current position.
It's these additional studies, of their religion and other worldviews, that make them overall better educated in religious matters than the typical believer.
Add to this that they're more likely to study atheism than a non-questioning believer, that makes former believers-turned-atheists one of a religious apologist's greatest challenges.
A wishy-washy believer stands hardly a chance against ones with such extensive background knowledge and experience.
There's an Unsolicited testimonial and no mistake. Yes. The thing I notice most in debate is how often the believing side really don't know what they need to know in order to take on the opposition. It is sad but funny to see then trying the stuff that works in Church - citing scripture by the shedload, threatening hellfire and punishment for sin. We just laugh and rip the validity of the Bible to pieces and ask what they will say when put up in front of Allah. At least we considered the merits of Islam.
The knock - on is that we are learning all the time; I am for sure. And I learn as more problems get solved and more questions answered. But the believers have to persistently NOT learn. They have to ignore the conclusions and best arguments and keep trying the old ones and denying everything on Faith. It would corrode my mind from the inside, I tell you.
It reminds me of one of the first surprises I had in debating with a believer - how they would avoid understanding the discussion. What I called the 'keyword exegesis'. I'd put an argument and the response would be nothing to do with it. It was like they'd skimmed over it picking a few keywords to use for a completely different matter and never stop long enough to actually understand what I was arguing.
"I had to hit him quick. He was starting to make sense." (Lucy Van Pelt.)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-03-2018 at 09:09 PM..
The subject matter was never relevant. The quiz contained questions involving multiple religions including US laws regarding separation of church and state. So of course, someone who is Hindu is going to miss some questions about the Bible, or a Christian not get the Hindu questions correctly.
It's almost like the atheist approach is to first visit every possible existing explanation and then decide which is true, but no one approaches life that way. I don't have to study every existing religion in the world to know that my faith is true. It's not a process of elimination.
Yes Jeff, we know. The way it works in YOUR worldview is to be sold the Faith and then spend the rest of your life rejecting anything that doesn't fit it.
The idea of looking at all the faiths (or none) on offer and seeing which makes the most sense would never occur to you. And the hilarious thing about it is that you think that your way is the right way to do it.
The subject matter was never relevant. The quiz contained questions involving multiple religions including US laws regarding separation of church and state. So of course, someone who is Hindu is going to miss some questions about the Bible, or a Christian not get the Hindu questions correctly.
It's almost like the atheist approach is to first visit every possible existing explanation and then decide which is true, but no one approaches life that way. I don't have to study every existing religion in the world to know that my faith is true. It's not a process of elimination.
You don't understand how some of us think. I will leave out the anti-religion socialist and fascist theist types. they are a very dangerous lot to freedom. Lets just talk about the middle man atheists and theist. As CD has shown me, we can talk and live next to each other with no trouble at all.
so We start at
1)Some people, like me, look at how a claim(s) holds up under many different conditions.
For example
a)for me, when I was in the 2nd or 3rd grade, I asked if I was born in a non christian country would I be that religion or christian?
Well, over time I saw the answer. I would probably be the religion of the region I was born. That's the most valid claim we have. i was atheist by around 9. In a private catholic school I might add.
We can apply the same notion to christian God.
2) Studying the other religion can help put religion(s) in there place and help people find a better "truth". Claims that are found to be in all religions can be seen as more valid claims and the claims only seen in one religion, or fewer religion, can be seen to be less valid.
In fact, if we find claims/beliefs that are found in non religious people or even people that hate religion also, those claims can seen to be some of the most valid.
2-a Love, compassion, understanding. Crosses all religious lines
2-b)Treat your neighbor like you want your child to be treated is another one. i use child, jesus uses "you". I am not the most import thing, our children are.
2-c)christian god, moses, dream time, thor, zues and others do not cross religious lines.
conclusion
Moses, christian god, some talking angle, jesus, dream time, and many others figures do not cross religious lines. They only work in their respective religions. they, in effect, are short cuts. Like using the bohr model of the atom, they work in a region, but they are not the whole truth. not near it.
3) This is where the 20% start to separate from the pack. We ask "if "their" god is not real, why is the "god" or spiritual ideas, and other notions of all of these different people there?"
"Why do so many people believe in something over nothing?"
3-a) anti-religious dont care. From the different forums I have been to they are anti-religious socialist. They don't care about anything but those views. the same for fundy theists.
well, to me I start at describing the system we are in. People act just like the system they are in would predict.
Conclusion:
We do have more complexity, so there is some variation, but basically people are defined by the system around us. We do not define the system. there is a set of feedback loops that really suggest we are part of the system. So feed back loops, lots of them are classified as what again?
4) so what is that system we are in? how is that system affecting people? whats the best way to describe it for us all?
I keep it to just the biosphere because its empirical. Its so empirical that mordant absolutely wigged out and shunned me when it went against his faith. he is so afraid of it he would not discuss it at all. like any fundy-mental does when their belief statement rubs up against science.
Put a living cell on one end of a meter stick.
put a virus on the 50cm mark
put a thing we classify as not alive on the other end. i would a computor or even fire.
slide it back and forth until you feel it matches. Change what you put on the meter stick.
What would most people say?
would those readings cross religious boundaries?
would non religious people make the measurement? If not, that's proof enough.
record findings.
but remember, fundy mental theists and anti-religious socialist will fight that notion; hard. All personal need based beliefs that are challenged with observation will revolt. they will kill others.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 01-04-2018 at 07:29 AM..
The bolded is a very good point. Many former believers may have felt uneasy, or whatever, about their faith, and upon further investigation, came to their current position.
It's these additional studies, of their religion and other worldviews, that make them overall better educated in religious matters than the typical believer.
Add to this that they're more likely to study atheism than a non-questioning believer, that makes former believers-turned-atheists one of a religious apologist's greatest challenges.
A wishy-washy believer stands hardly a chance against ones with such extensive background knowledge and experience.
This is a rare bit of honest introspection from a believer and I commend you for it. One thing I can say in your own self-interest is that you'll get much further with unbelievers of any sort if you make them feel listened to, heard and understood and respected as fellow humans. This is something that some believers are incapable of, and I simply can't think of an explanation for that other than, they are afraid of us having an even somewhat valid point. It's all demonization all the time. And then they project this dehumanization onto us, when all we're generally doing is simply not agreeing with them.
This is a rare bit of honest introspection from a believer and I commend you for it. One thing I can say in your own self-interest is that you'll get much further with unbelievers of any sort if you make them feel listened to, heard and understood and respected as fellow humans. This is something that some believers are incapable of, and I simply can't think of an explanation for that other than, they are afraid of us having an even somewhat valid point. It's all demonization all the time. And then they project this dehumanization onto us, when all we're generally doing is simply not agreeing with them.
try this on for size, listen to how you sound:
"This is a rare bit of honest introspection from an atheist, and I commend you for it. One thing I can say in your own self-interest is that you'll get much further with believers of any sort if you make them feel listened to, heard, and understood and respected as fellow humans. This is something that some atheists are incapable of, and I simply can't think of an explanation for that other than they are afraid of believers having valid points. It's all demonization all the time. When all we're generally doing is simply not agreeing with them."
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.
rather than having think about questions and t doubts outside the bo. 
