isadore;1199193 wrote:I think there are at least one other alternative to consider, possibly more.

I will take any and all options besides being with god. I will take the fiery pits of "hell" before I ever spend eternity with any god.

sleeper;1199197 wrote:I don't try to persuade anyone. I tell them how logic works and that typically is enough to break most minds. Most of my theistic friends are now atheists. It's beautiful and required zero persuasion. Atheism isn't a religion, there are no rules, there are no rituals. It's based on sound fundamental reasoning and logic and nothing more and nothing less.

This is true, atheists are no more connected to a single ideology than people with brown hair or with blue eyes. The only shared characteristic is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it. I do hate when people say that atheism is a religion. That's like saying not golfing is a sport.

I Wear Pants;1199198 wrote:Well thankfully there's absolutely no evidence that hell exists since I assume that's what you meant.

and none that it does not exist, and there are other possibilities like reincarnation.

sleeper;1199200 wrote:I will take any and all options besides being with god. I will take the fiery pits of "hell" before I ever spend eternity with any god.

reincarnation might be your best shot, or a trip up the river styx.

isadore;1199210 wrote:reincarnation might be your best shot, or a trip up the river styx.

I would take both of these options. I know the last place I want to be is with god. This is of course assuming god exists, which has never and will never be proven.

isadore;1199208 wrote:and none that it does not exist, and there are other possibilities like reincarnation.

That's terrible logic.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -Bertrand Russell

You can't prove that there isn't a clone of Tiger Woods playing golf on a comet either. But there is no proof that there is and without such there's no reason to worry about it.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote:On the authors front, I really enjoy watching the debates with some of the names I've mentioned on youtube and such. Fascinating to me really both from the perspective of what they're saying and from how both sides are able to quickly make rebuttles using very specific references from a wide range of social events and literature/scripture. I appreciate that sort of academic thoroughness.

I agree. I marvel at those who have obviously dedicated their lives to their own epistemologies, and in doing so, can discuss epistemology ... the study of how we know what we know ... at a very high level.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote:I guess perhaps the disowning thing is a bit more apparent to me since I'm young and grew up Catholic. Don't think I've ever had a serious problem with it because I generally don't discuss this topic with my family (though my sister did blow up at me the other week for even suggesting the idea that there isn't a deity). Also I have a fair amount of gay or lesbian friends so whenever I see religious attacks on them or their rights it upsets me as well.

Fair enough. Despite having grown up the son of a preacher, I never really believed in any god of any kind for most of my young life. I did know how to fake it pretty well, growing up around it, but I really resented it, because of how false it seemed to me (in part because I was being false, it felt like everyone could be, and probably was ... like an elephant of disbelief in the room that nobody every wanted to talk about). I became pretty "sleeper-ish" in my late high school and early college years (about five years' time), when I was sopping up everything Dawkins wrote, from the Selfish Gene to Climbing Mount Improbable to The God Delusion. As such, though, my working out of my worldview is probably just different.

I do also get upset when I see the mistreatment of the LGBT community. Suppose, for a moment, that they are on par with thieves and prostitutes. Jesus treated the thieves and prostitutes with love and spent time with them. He didn't condone their lifestyles as being acceptable, but the New Testament documents examples of the religious leaders of the day chastising the fact that he spent time "among sinners." So what right does a person have today to treat anyone with contempt, even if they view that person as "more sinful" (an inaccurate theology, given that Jesus himself there was not a single person righteous among all of us). I guess that's my beef. I think that those who find some way to take pride in their own spirituality or morality cheapen the message of "grace" and "redemption" that seems to permeate the Bible's overall theme ...the notion that ALL fall short of the mark that would get them into God's good graces by their own strength, and that there aren't "degrees" of missing the mark. The writer of Ephesians said that grace (getting a good thing which one does not deserve) is what enables ANYONE to be in God's good graces, and that it is a gift ... not earned ... that not one person can, or should, brag about.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote:As does the idea of "Persecution of Christians" which I think I recall seeing an article of in the Catholic Exponent this past week (no idea if it was a current issue, it was in the bathroom). Not because Christians are immune from persecution, but because normally the things people cite as evidence of it really make them look dumb. You are not being persecuted because some people want to remove "under god" from the pledge. Especially since that was a very modern addition likely due to our disagreements with the Soviet Union/communists who were seen as atheists (though probably most weren't).

No disagreement here, though there are indeed Christians in other countries who are being persecuted. Again, I feel like the example above only cheapens the term "persecution" ... a disservice to those ACTUALLY being persecuted.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote: As for the causing angst or frustration in the modern day. Not really for me but there are still places that execute people for being homosexuals for example (and not just Muslim nations either since I believe there's a few Christian African nations that do that as well).

Ah, fair enough. As I said, though, there are today, just as there have been all throughout the timeline, Christians who are adamantly against such actions. I'd honestly say there are probably MORE Christians today that are against such things than there have ever been.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote:Things like birth control in African nations is what I was mostly talking about. There is no secular reason for not promoting the hell out of condom use, etc there (I'd argue even here but I don't think it's even debatable there). That's been done in the name of religion.

Sure, but if someone, or even dozens, of countries tried to do the same in the name of atheism, it would be equitably silly. Such a person ... or people ... might even believe that they are somehow doing good by promoting heterosexual sex, and thus, a larger population in their country (supposing that is what they want). However, we wouldn't vilify atheism (nor should we). We would vilify that nation's decision-makers.

Now it might sound silly as an example, but only because it hasn't been engaged as a reality. If it had, I contend that wouldn't make it any less silly to vilify atheism.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote:As for the distinction between the worldview and actions of followers or claimed followers; I think that can get into the tricky territory of claiming that everyone who does bad in the name of x isn't a true believer of x.

Oh I'm not saying "true" believer. I'm saying "different" believer. Though I think one to be more accurate, I probably cannot question the sincerity of belief in either example, though it's possible.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote:If it isn't clear what I'm saying we see it with the Anders Behring Breivik shooting and how people reacted to that versus how people reacted to Nidal Malik Hasan killing people at Ft.Hood. At least it seemed among a lot of people I talked to I heard condemnations of the Islam religion for the latter but very rarely heard the same of Christianity because of Breivik.

I would call the people you talked to silly for condemning the Islamic belief system based on the actions of one.

I Wear Pants;1199109 wrote: Edit: Reps also for your multiquoting mastery.

Reps to you for your well-thought-out replies.

"Sure, but if someone, or even dozens, of countries tried to do the same in the name of atheism, it would be equitably silly. Such a person ... or people ... might even believe that they are somehow doing good by promoting heterosexual sex, and thus, a larger population in their country (supposing that is what they want). However, we wouldn't vilify atheism (nor should we). We would vilify that nation's decision-makers."

Yes. I agree that it isn't fair to vilify theism because of this necessarily. But there has always been terrible atrocities committed in the name of religion, I can't think of a single one done in the name of atheism.


And I'm not concerned with what good they thought they were doing. It feels cheap to bring up but likely many of the Nazis thought they were doing good for their nation/humanity as well. They were clearly mistaken.

That's one of my main problems. I see the costs of religion as far outweighing the gains and they have for a very, very long time or even always have.

sleeper;1199197 wrote:I don't try to persuade anyone. I tell them how logic works and that typically is enough to break most minds. Most of my theistic friends are now atheists. It's beautiful and required zero persuasion.

For an actual worldview change that drastic, it takes more than a conversation on "how logic works," particularly given that there are logical constructs to validate the existence of a deity. Logic itself doesn't necessitate an appeal to scientific naturalism, which is what you typically use on here. Not meaning to offend, but also given the number of logical fallacies used in some of your posts, it seems odd, unless your friends' worldviews were built on even more fallacies ... not a difficult thing to believe, necessarily, as so many people seem to just regurgitate what they hear, and few people seem to consider their own worldview for themselves. Perhaps it's always been that way for the masses. I'm too young to know.

Any mind broken in a conversation or two was not, I don't think, a very grounded mind to begin with, regardless of what they happened to profess.

Also, by persuade, I simply mean telling what they believe to be true and drawing the implications thereof. It would appear that you do just that.

sleeper;1199197 wrote:Atheism isn't a religion ...

"Religion" ... anymore ... is just a nomenclature for a worldview that accepts the existence of the supernatural/extranatural/etc. As such, you're correct, but only in form. In function, it's quite similar, hence the constant clash.

sleeper;1199197 wrote:... there are no rules ...

Ah, but there should be, as there should be in all worldviews. There should be a rule that necessitates logical construct for the defense of a position. There should be a rule that one ought to appeal to logic to hold a worldview of some kind. There IS a rule, in the case of scientific naturalism, that science and empiricism is the only epistemology to which one may appeal to claim to know something. There is an appeal to exclusivity, which is to say that I, as a person who thinks that a deity is a real entity in present existence, cannot in good conscience claim to be an atheist.

There are rules. The rules may be similar in some ways while different in others, but the rules still exist. The only worldview that would require absolutely no rules would be Descartes-ian cogito-ergo-sum worldview, which claims nothing sans that the individual holding the view exists in some form.

sleeper;1199197 wrote:It's based on sound fundamental reasoning and logic and nothing more and nothing less.

One cannot logically paint with such a broad brush. It's actually based on the assumption that certain epistemological methods trump others, and largely does so without basis (though no more so than any other worldview). If anything, it's not more logical. It's "different-logical," merely because it appeals to certain epistemological methods subjectively, and then it builds logical constructs from there. That's no different than virtually any other worldview.

Something tells me saying a story is correct and living your entire life based on that story being correct when you have no evidence, literally ZERO EVIDENCE, might be a little illogical.

I think simply asking someone why they believe what they believe is the best method to break them. Really any answer they give is going to be pure trash and its pretty EZ to break.

How many people have you successfully broken and changed their mind?

pmoney25;1199633 wrote:How many people have you successfully broken and changed their mind?

Most likely correct answer-0
Answer sleeper will give-10 or more.

just my guess or opinion.

sleeper;1199544 wrote:I think simply asking someone why they believe what they believe is the best method to break them. Really any answer they give is going to be pure trash and its pretty EZ to break.

Are you relying on a person changing their mind because you think their answer was broken?

pmoney25;1199633 wrote:How many people have you successfully broken and changed their mind?

9 people.

Con_Alma;1199751 wrote:Are you relying on a person changing their mind because you think their answer was broken?

Because their answer usually holds no weight and is easy to persuade them that religion is BS.

sleeper;1199775 wrote:Because their answer usually holds no weight and is easy to persuade them that religion is BS.

They probably think your opinion holds even less weight.

Raw Dawgin' it;1199780 wrote:They probably think your opinion holds even less weight.

Not really. Most people just don't know that its okay not to believe in god given the evidence. I know that sounds silly, but most people don't have a good answer for why they believe. From there, it is easy to rationalize with a person and get them to so to speak "see the light".

sleeper;1199783 wrote:Not really. Most people just don't know that its okay not to believe in god given the evidence. I know that sounds silly, but most people don't have a good answer for why they believe. From there, it is easy to rationalize with a person and get them to so to speak "see the light".

That "EZ" huh? We should send you to negotiate in the middle east - maybe the towers would still be standing. Hell, you could've saved thousands of people if we had just used your logic huh?

sleeper;1199775 wrote:Because their answer usually holds no weight and is easy to persuade them that religion is BS.

I want to make sure I'm clear. I'm not the smartest guy in the world so I ask for your patience. Because ther answer doesn't hold weight with you, you believe you can persuade them to renounce their religion. Is that correct?

Raw Dawgin' it;1199788 wrote:That "EZ" huh? We should send you to negotiate in the middle east - maybe the towers would still be standing. Hell, you could've saved thousands of people if we had just used your logic huh?

If religion never existed, millions of people would still be alive. It's a shame something like a fairy tale book killed so many people, but hey that's what believers support not me.

Con_Alma;1199791 wrote:I want to make sure I'm clear. I'm not the smartest guy in the world so I ask for your patience. Because ther answer doesn't hold weight with you, you believe you can persuade them to renounce their religion. Is that correct?

No I don't believe. I know I can.

sleeper;1199796 wrote:No I don't believe. I know I can.

Got it. Thanks.

sleeper;1199795 wrote:If religion never existed, millions of people would still be alive. It's a shame something like a fairy tale book killed so many people, but hey that's what believers support not me.

lol you missed the point....

sleeper;1199771 wrote:9 people.

Lol