Frustrated by a believer, yet again....

[komencanto]

Here is a selection from an MSN chat. Me (Komencanto) and my friend, Misha, are arguing for Atheism against someone who´s beliefs.... I don´t really understand.
Don´t read this if you are looking for great argumentative skills or thrilling arguments. I´m just looking for feedback from the wise people here. Could I have been more persuasive, witty, clever, to the point, etc, than I was.
I want to learn to argue this point very very well. I´ve still got about 65 years of peddling atheism left in me =)
Thanks for bothering to read it. I hope it is more fun than it was to write it =)


Komencanto says:
anyway, down to business
firstly, although these sorts of arguments get pretty heated, its all just for fun eh =)
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
hehehhehe
Religious apologist says:
yeah of course
Religious apologist says:
nad its 2-1
Komencanto says:
to start, may I ask, why are you religious?
i think i know the answer, but i would like to hear your version
we are not born religious or believing in God
so there must be something that makes you that way
Religious apologist says:
im not religious... I just believe that there is some sort of gd
Komencanto says:
ok
then why do you believe there is a god?
Religious apologist says:
as i explained to misha b4
Komencanto says:
sorry if you have to repeat it, i wasn´t here =)
copy and paste if you want
Religious apologist says:
i dont believe there is a gd as such, i think its more that gd is our concience
Komencanto says:
thats curious
why do you believe that?
Religious apologist says:
because if theres is one gd every1 would have the same gd
Religious apologist says:
i believe that its all individual
Religious apologist says:
again, as i was saying b4, for em teh meanign of life is making ppl smile
Religious apologist says:
but for someoen else it could be something different
Religious apologist says:
and if i dontmake someone smile when im able to i feel bad
Religious apologist says:
i feel guilty
Religious apologist says:
thats how i get gd and my concience to be the same thing
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
so isnt essentially the meaning to make urself happy?
Komencanto says:
that is a perfectly normal emotion, yes
Komencanto says:
lets stop this for a moment
Religious apologist says:
yeah
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
as u do this 'good' stuff to avoid personal displeasure?

Religious apologist says:
it is
Komencanto says:
what is your definition of God.
I think we are talking about different things
Religious apologist says:
yeah... i live my own life, no one elses
Religious apologist says:
so why do it for them??
Komencanto says:
I am talking about an omnipotent being who created the universe
your concious has nothing to do with God
Religious apologist says:
for me gd is my concience
Religious apologist says:
i know i cant spell lol
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
u dont believe in a superior being?
Komencanto says:
that is not God
Religious apologist says:
nah i dont
Religious apologist says:
thats why i said im not religious
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
oh
Religious apologist says:
so what is gd?
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
u beleive in fate
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
?
Religious apologist says:
no i dont
Komencanto says:
sorry, but that is not the definition of God you will find in the dictionary
your concious is simply a feeling that is placed in you by society so you will do what they wnt
Komencanto says:
want
Religious apologist says:
i believe in living to make ppl happy
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
but u said before everything that we do is for a reason
Religious apologist says:
yeah
Komencanto says:
then, i don´t see there is much of a disagreement
i also believe in making people happy
Religious apologist says:
everything that happens happens for a reason
Religious apologist says:
i never said there was
Religious apologist says:
but i wanna know how u can tell me my definition oif gd is wrong if u dont even believe in him
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
isnt that fate?
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
bob is ta=lkin gabout the typical definition
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
the definition that is the foundation of most of religions
Komencanto says:
because I am using a definitiong of god which is generally accepted
you can´t invent something totally different and call it god
you will just confuse people
Religious apologist says:
im not inventing anything
Religious apologist says:
i dunno if theres something almghty or not
Religious apologist says:
as far as im concerned there might be
Komencanto says:
rather like, i don´t believe in unicorns
but if someone points to a banana and says that it is a unicorn
I can still tell them their difinition is wrong
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
so ur egnostic
Religious apologist says:
but in that case i think he splits up and live sin everyone
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
really?????
Komencanto says:
yes, that is agnostic
i can respect that
Religious apologist says:
wut does agnostic mean
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
means that u accept the possibilty of god yet u dont kno wif he exists
Komencanto says:
agnosticism is when someone believes that God may exist
or that he may not exist
and that they have no evidence either way
so they remain undecided
Religious apologist says:
lol ok
Religious apologist says:
well, no, i cant prove that he exists
Komencanto says:
do you even have ANY evidence that he exists?
Religious apologist says:
but im starting to think just by chatting with u that there is sumthin out there
Religious apologist says:
i have no evidence... do u have any that he doesnt exist?
Komencanto says:
that is odd
why do we make you believe that?
i´m pretty sure I´m trying to do the opposite =)
Religious apologist says:
yeah
Religious apologist says:
but when u were sayign sumthin b4
Religious apologist says:
u just made methink that there is sumthin beside our concienmce
Komencanto says:
one does not believe in something because of lack of evidence AGAIST it
for example, do you have any evidence that unicorns DON¨T exist?
no
neither do I
but i don´t believe in unicorns for that reason
Religious apologist says:

Komencanto says:
what did i say?
Religious apologist says:
by saying " I am talking about an omnipotent being who created the universe
your concious has nothing to do with God" u made me think that there must be sumthgin more than just my concience
Religious apologist says:
so ur having teh wrong effect on me
Komencanto says:
wait
i think we are having communication problems here
are you talking about your conciousness
or your concience?
Religious apologist says:
why dont u guys believe in gd?
Religious apologist says:
concience
Komencanto says:
like i said before
we do not believe in God because no evidence of God´s existance has been given to us
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
personally, i have seen no evidnce for god at all
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
and ive sen the destruction believin gin god can do
Religious apologist says:
and ive seen the opposite to that
Religious apologist says:
what u see>
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
and i hate the idea of throwing a shrowd across my life of blind faith
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
that destruction one is slightly invalid - i delete it
Komencanto says:
believing in God can do good
and it can do bad
it has had both effects
but ultimately, it is a belief in God that causes the true madnesses of the world
Religious apologist says:
heheeh ok
Komencanto says:
yes, lets forget about that one, it is irrelevent
Religious apologist says:
religion is teh basis of this world
Religious apologist says:
where do all teh laws come from??
Religious apologist says:
originally fromn teh ten commandments
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
religion
Komencanto says:
and ignorance is the basis of religion
Komencanto says:
NO
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
but have u eva questioned those laws?
Komencanto says:
LET ME SPEAK HERE
Religious apologist says:
LOL
Komencanto says:
the 10 commandments are NOT the basis of our current law
Religious apologist says:
yes they are
Religious apologist says:
are u allowed to murder?? no
Religious apologist says:
are you allowed to sleep with ur neighbour wife??
Religious apologist says:
no
Religious apologist says:
are you allowed to steal?? no

‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) has left the conversation.

‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) has been added to the conversation.

Religious apologist says:
y u leave?
Komencanto says:
firstly, the law against murder and stealing is in EVERY law system ever made
secondly, you ARE allowed to sleep with your neightbour´s wife
there is no law against it
Komencanto says:
can you tell me the other 7 commandments please?
Religious apologist says:
hehe yeah but if u do the wife can divorce u, get the kids, get the house get the dogs
Religious apologist says:
i dont know them. cox as i said im not religious
Religious apologist says:
u shouldnt believe in any other gds is one
Komencanto says:
it is a legitimate reason for devoce true
how can you say they are the basis of our law system if you only know 3 of the 7
Komencanto says:
3 of the 10 that is
Komencanto says:
yes, thats number 4
that is AGAINST our law system which allows freedom of religion
Religious apologist says:
that steh only one that isnt the basis for the laws
Religious apologist says:
yea, but u can twist that commandment as much as u want
Komencanto says:
now, what are the others
Religious apologist says:
i dunno
Religious apologist says:
u can twist it in ur favour, or inmy favour
Religious apologist says:
both are possible
Komencanto says:
i can tell you if you want, and show you the 3 are in our legal system
4 are TOTALLY AGAINST IT
and 3 are good ideas but not in the law
Religious apologist says:
ok so tell em wut they are
Komencanto says:
number 2 is: 2. You shall not make yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

there is no law against this and we do it frequently
Komencanto says:
3. You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain

we do this frequently, and a law against it would violate free speach
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
heh
Komencanto says:
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.

We do have a weekend, but who can honestly say they have never done work on a weekend
Religious apologist says:
all it says is we shall remember
Komencanto says:
5. Honor your father and your mother

This is often a good idea, but again, NO LAW FOR IT.
and sometimes it would be a bad idea, such as if you have particularly bad parents
Komencanto says:
6. You shall not kill

A good commandment, but hardly original. Laws against murder existed in pretty much all cultures long before hearing about the 10 commandments. Therefore claiming such laws are based on the 10 commandments are unfounded.

Religious apologist says:
i dunno bout here, but if ppl dont have a sngle day off work its agains t the law
Komencanto says:
7. You shall not commit adultery

A very good suggestion, if you define adultery as between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. However, there is no federal law against it.
Religious apologist says:
they ar entitled vacations
Religious apologist says:
the sabbath can also be twisted
Komencanto says:
to respond to that: i don´t know about the law in your contry but in australia that law doen´t exist
and furthermore, the commandment isn´t about vacations, it is about keeping a day "holy"
which we don´t do, and itn´t in our law
Komencanto says:
8. You shall not steal

Like #6, good but hardly original.
Komencanto says:
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

like #6 and #8 good but not original.

Religious apologist says:
no but the torah defibnes adultery as if anyone has sax with someon,e even if its rape
Komencanto says:
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's

Isn't that what capitalism is all about? There are no laws against thoughts or desires. Any such law would run counter to civil liberties.
Religious apologist says:
and then it is against the law, not necessarily taht shes breaking the law btu still
Komencanto says:
the commandment is not against rape
if it was, it would be written very differently
it is about having sex with someone who is ALREADY married
that is not illegal
Religious apologist says:
yea if someone rapes a married woman for example
Religious apologist says:
in the Torah it says that that is a form of adultery
Religious apologist says:
and that if teh one being raped didnt scream for help it is her fault
Religious apologist says:
or partly he rfault
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
wat if she was aggged
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
gagged
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
or had no tongue
Religious apologist says:
if she couldve prevented it and somehow get hlp its adultery
Religious apologist says:
otherwise it isnt
Religious apologist says:
then its rape
Komencanto says:
now you are trying to change the actual wording of the commandment, but i degress and move on
as you can see, these commandments are not the basis of our legal system, nor even your moral code
presuming you eat animals, you are contribuing towards "killing"
the commandment makes no distinction towards humans or animals
Religious apologist says:
i ahd a test on this last week so dont even boither with that one
Komencanto says:
we´ll see what grade you get before deciding that
Religious apologist says:
yeah well in the torah it says that we shouldnt kill animals unless we need them to eat
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
ha!
Religious apologist says:
its for survival
Religious apologist says:
so it is allowed
Komencanto says:
but we are not talking about the torah, we are talking about the bible, no?
Religious apologist says:
torah is the bible
Religious apologist says:
i dont know the christian one only the jewish bible
Religious apologist says:
but the old testament and the torah is the same thing
Komencanto says:
i´m not trying to avoid this argument, but we can spend eternity argument about the torah (bible) etceterah
lets get back to the orignal question
why do you believe in God
Religious apologist says:
LOL
Religious apologist says:
u want me to be honest right??
Komencanto says:
yes
Komencanto says:
isn´t that commandment 8 =)
Religious apologist says:
i guess its coz my parents brught me up so that i would
Komencanto says:
Agreed
Komencanto says:
that is the reason
Religious apologist says:
yeah, but now im old enough to think for myself
Religious apologist says:
and i still believe in some sort of gd
Komencanto says:
nothing more, nothing less
because you were taught to
Komencanto says:
and now that you are old enough to think for yourself, surely you need a reason to believe that
what is that reason?
Religious apologist says:
because my family have live dthrough so many things
Religious apologist says:
my grandma on my mums side survive dthe holocaust
Religious apologist says:
but thats not the most amazing thing
Religious apologist says:
my other grandma was dead twice
Religious apologist says:
and she is still alive
Religious apologist says:
i thank gd for that
Religious apologist says:
and its also more that im afraid that if i dont belive in gd something might happen to my family
Komencanto says:
if she is still alive it is clear she didn´t die
but lets analise your argument:
you say your family has had good luck
that is, it survived some difficult situations
thereforem you believe in God

I don´t see how it follows
Religious apologist says:
she was announced twice
Religious apologist says:
but it was obviously not time fo rher to leave yet
Komencanto says:
furthermore, does that mean that someone who has BAD luck throughout their life
should NOT belive in God because of that
Religious apologist says:
no
Religious apologist says:
coz gd is just testing the,
Religious apologist says:
m
Komencanto says:
in other words:
is there any situation that doens´t proove GOd´s existance?
if you have good luck, that shows God
and if you have bad luck, that also shows God, because he is testing you
Religious apologist says:
thing is, im afraid that if i dont believe in gd and if i dont pray for certain things like that my siblings will survive the army in israel, they might get hut or die
Komencanto says:
i cannot analyse the case of your grandmother, because i was not there
Religious apologist says:
no neither was i... but i see mhy grandmother as a miracle
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) says:
bye bye

‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’ (Misha) has left the conversation.

Komencanto says:
thing is, im afraid that if i dont believe in gd and if i dont pray for certain things like that my siblings will survive the army in israel, they might get hut or die

why do you believe that?
Religious apologist says:
shes saved ppls lives
Religious apologist says:
because, the torah never says that gd is nice, it actually say sthat he is mean...
Komencanto says:
yes, the God in the torah (Yehwah) is a very very bad person
Religious apologist says:
so if im not good he might not give them as protection as they might need
Religious apologist says:
not person but yeah
Komencanto says:
i have no other word to put in place of person
Religious apologist says:
and he isnt that bad. he obviously isnt that bad if all these ppl, prophets, could convince him to not kill everyone
Komencanto says:
anyway, can you honesty explain to me why you believe te the torah
it is obviously a silly book of fantasies
Religious apologist says:
which happened several times
Religious apologist says:
its all symbolic
Religious apologist says:
i dont believe for a minute that adam and eve were the only ppl alive
Religious apologist says:
but it shows wut the world was like then
Religious apologist says:
with all thi sincest goign onm etc
Komencanto says:
that is to say, it never happened
and is all just stories, like any other fiction book
Religious apologist says:
i think some very wise ppl wrote the torah
Religious apologist says:
as a story book maybe, who knows. but if u choose to interpret it in the i guess positive way
Komencanto says:
"with all this incest goign on"
i doubt that really happened
if i don´t believe the rest, i don´t believe that either
Religious apologist says:
it is clear why so many ppl believe in it
Religious apologist says:
so u dont believe that there was incest than??
Religious apologist says:
u dont believe that family members slept with eachother??
Komencanto says:
yes, because they are scared of death and want to believe in a big brother in the sky
Religious apologist says:
the bible has affected everyone
Komencanto says:
perhaps there was more incest then than now
i don´t know
I don´t care
Komencanto says:
i never said it didn´t
just that it has had a very negative effect for many people
Religious apologist says:
yeah and so has atheism id say
Religious apologist says:
its caused hate
Religious apologist says:
just as much hatred between ppl as religion has
Religious apologist says:
proprtionally that is
Komencanto says:
give me an example
Komencanto says:
communist russia for example?
i dislike that too
Komencanto says:
i think it was a terrible crime
Religious apologist says:
how many ppl do u think have had this argument that we are havin gnow?? and not left it as friends??
Religious apologist says:
yes it was terrible
Religious apologist says:
it was also extreme
Religious apologist says:
everything is bad if u go to far
Komencanto says:
if two people argue different points of view and get angry with one another you cannot blame only one side of the argument
it is equally the fault of religion
furthermore, i do not think that is a negative
two people discussing their views is a good thing
even if they do get very heated about it
Religious apologist says:
yes, i neverf said it wasnt religions fault as well
Religious apologist says:
yeah im not saying this specific discussion lol
Religious apologist says:
this girl in sweden, whom used to be suicidal and i literally saved, hate sjews now
Religious apologist says:
she sees herself as an atheist
Religious apologist says:
she hates me for no reason
Religious apologist says:
wut have i ever done to her except save her life??
Religious apologist says:
now she seriously wants me dead
Komencanto says:
i dislike racism as much as you
her atheism is irrelevant
Religious apologist says:
u cant blame that on religion
Komencanto says:
no, and you can´t blame it on atheism
Religious apologist says:
brb phone ringing
Komencanto says:
atheist ideas say nothing about hating jews
Komencanto says:
ok
Komencanto says:
now, lets get back to the point
Komencanto says:
i asked you why you believed in God
Komencanto says:
you pointed to some good things that have happened to your family
and said that is why you believe in God
Komencanto says:
does that really make sence?
Religious apologist says:
no thats helped me believe in gd
Religious apologist says:
do u believe in the big bang??
Religious apologist says:
or do u believe it happene
Religious apologist says:
d
Religious apologist says:
?
Komencanto says:
the evidence suggests that the universe is expanding
logic suggests that it would have at some point been very small
so yes, I do bleive the big bang happened
Religious apologist says:
ok...so where did those particles that created the big bang come from?
Religious apologist says:
can u prove that that wasnt gds work?
Komencanto says:
i have no explaination for that
but neither do you
nobody does
if you say that God caused them to exist, then you would have to ask yourself "Where did god come from?"
if the universe needs a cause to start it
then God must need a cause also
therefor, using god as an explaintion is no explaination at all
Religious apologist says:
i dont think the world was created buy gd either i just want u to at least CONSIDER that there might be anothe rpossibility
Religious apologist says:
thats all i want u 2 agree with
Komencanto says:
of course i cannot prove that it wasn´t God
it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that
literally impossible
Religious apologist says:
so how can u then say that it is wrong of ppl to believe that it was gd??
Religious apologist says:
at least they believe in sumthin
Komencanto says:
i have considered that it might be God
I am agnostic, so i accept that it is possible
but there is no reason, absolutely no reason to believe that is was
Komencanto says:
stop
Religious apologist says:
they have some sort of explanation
Komencanto says:
so how can u then say that it is wrong of ppl to believe that it was gd??

i will tell them that it is wrong because they have no reason to believe it
simply because something is possible doesn´t mean you should believe it is true
Religious apologist says:
u have no reason for not believeing it if u think bout it
Komencanto says:
at least they believe in sumthin

why is believing in something that is a silly fantasy better than believing in nothhing?
Komencanto says:
they have some sort of explanation

but it is NONSENCE, stupid, idiotic, fantasy
Religious apologist says:
coz they have a whole explanation
Religious apologist says:
lol
Religious apologist says:
u cant prove that it is fantasy!
Komencanto says:
ok
Komencanto says:
lets stop a moment
Komencanto says:
tell me, do you believe in flying unicorns?
Religious apologist says:
how u know that someone didnt, not necessarily write, but tell their kids bout what happened
Religious apologist says:
and they tol dtheir kids etc
Religious apologist says:
until someone wrote it down
Religious apologist says:
no i dont believe in flying unicorns
Komencanto says:
can you proove that flying unicorns don´t exist?
Religious apologist says:
becaus ethen some1 would be able to show me where they are
Religious apologist says:
if someone is able to show me where they are
Komencanto says:
but can you proove that they don´t exist
Komencanto says:
i am doing wat you were doing a moment ago
throwing the burden of DISPROOVING something to you
which makes no sence
Religious apologist says:
thing is noone can see gd
Religious apologist says:
but someone claims to have SEEn unicorns
Komencanto says:
you see, i could say the same of God
someone should be able to show me God, or some evidence of God
i don´t have to disproove God
Komencanto says:
tell me, do you think it is a good idea not to believe in something unless you have evidence that it exists?
Komencanto says:
yes or no
Religious apologist says:
i think it is up to every individual
Komencanto says:
but what is your individual decision?
Religious apologist says:
im not trying to convince u that religion is the way to go
Religious apologist says:
coz thatd be against my religion
Religious apologist says:
i just want u to know y pple believe in gd
Komencanto says:
i know people believe in God
i think they are wrong, and i´m trying to convince you of that
Komencanto says:
now, you didn´t answer my question
Religious apologist says:
im sorry but i have a lot of hwk for tomorrow which i havent done\
Komencanto says:
ok
Religious apologist says:
ill answer it w8
Religious apologist says:
what was it>??
Komencanto says:
tell me, do you think it is a good idea not to believe in something unless you have evidence that it exists?
Religious apologist says:
how can they be wrong
Komencanto says:
just answer the question
Religious apologist says:
i have difficulties in believing sumthin unless there is evidence to be honest
Religious apologist says:
or unless there is logic behind it
Religious apologist says:
and i think there is logi behind the torah
Religious apologist says:
they have a reason for everything
Religious apologist says:
u dont have a reason except that u wanna be a rebell
Komencanto says:
untrue: I am atheist because that is my choice
i do not do it to be a rebel
where i live, being atheist is the normal thing
Religious apologist says:
so the ppl around u have affected u
Komencanto says:
the torah doesn´t make much sence, i have read large parts of it and it is a disgusting book in my opinion
Komencanto says:
i went to church as a child for fun
as i grew older and started studying philosphy i became very interested in the God question
i bleived in God until i was 13 and then i decided it was nonsence and a silly fantasy
Komencanto says:
sorry, i have to go eat
Religious apologist says:
i have to study lol
Komencanto says:
here in spain its lunch time =)
Komencanto says:
ok, i´m sure we´ll talk on this again sometime
Komencanto says:
adios =)
Religious apologist says:
how long u there for??
Religious apologist says:
bye lol
Komencanto says:
20 minutes or something
Komencanto says:
btw, i´ll post this up for discussion on a message board and see what people say
Religious apologist says:
i meant in spain lol
Komencanto says:
i´m in spain from january this year, until december

[billydkid]

My god, that was a lot of work.

[LuxFerum]

Im not reading all of that.:D

[Aristotle]

Haha! I love getting into arguments! The only thing I don't like doing is having to correct my opponent all the time due to improper logic because they have misunderstood the argument. Wheee....ok lets get started!

1. "Komencanto says: anyway, down to business
firstly, although these sorts of arguments get pretty heated, its all just for fun eh =)" - yeah, just for fun till a side begins launching sponges and various unicorns ;)

2. "Komencanto says: to start, may I ask, why are you religious?
i think i know the answer, but i would like to hear your version
we are not born religious or believing in God
so there must be something that makes you that way" - Limiting the opponents argument! An excellent and somewhat manipulative tactic :D Usually, an opponent will rarely challenge the first opinion made unless it is illogical. It is good to set limits innocently like this as it gives you somewhat of an edge when debating.

3. "Religious apologist says: because if theres is one god every1 would have the same god" - Hmm....not a very good response. Just keep asking him why he believes what he believes because it would appear he does not know what or why he believes either. What's wrong with everyone having one God? Monotheism is a perfectly valid, and much simpler, belief system. I'd like to know why this person considers monotheism to be illogical.

4. "Religious apologist says: again, as i was saying b4, for em teh meanign of life is making ppl smile" - I would beg to differ on this opinion. The idea is to live life to its fullest by not living just for oneself. It just so happens this makes some people happy. It doesn't make everyone happy though.

5. "Religious apologist says: but for someoen else it could be something different
Religious apologist says: and if i dontmake someone smile when im able to i feel bad
Religious apologist says: i feel guilty
Religious apologist says: thats how i get gd and my concience to be the same thing" - :confused: That does not rationally follow. Feeling guilty and then saying that a failed action both prove God is existent as an ethically determining being existent only in one's mind is pretty much like saying that either God doesn't exist or saying that monotheism is possible (under the premiss that all consciences are the same but as humans we choose to ignore them). You should have no problem with this guy.

6. "(Misha) says: so isnt essentially the meaning to make urself happy?" - Not necessarily, Misha. The idea is to make others happy and that guilt is a punishment for not doing what God (the conscience) wanted. All though this makes no sense as it is not your decision to define whether your presence makes me happy.

7. "Komencanto says: what is your definition of God.
I think we are talking about different things" - No need to change the subject! It should help clarify the subject though.

8. "Komencanto says: I am talking about an omnipotent being who created the universe
your concious has nothing to do with God" - This is an opinion. You must show why the conscience has nothing to do with your idea of God and why your idea of God is better. There is nothing wrong with saying God is your conscience.

9. "(Misha) says: u dont believe in a superior being?" - I thought this point made itself clear awhile ago, lol.

10. "Komencanto says: that is not God" - This is your opinion. Yet, it is stated as though it were a universal. Avoid saying opinionated things. Get his ontological ideas concerning the metaphysical manifestations (like what does God exist as, is God immortal, is God good) of his idea of God. Then show that these conventions are not the same as the ideas held about what one defines to be a God.

11. "Religious apologist says: thats why i said im not religious" - Being religious and being a theist are two completely different things. Not all religious people are theists and not all theists are religious people. A religion is a mere hierarchically predefined system of beliefs that consist of moral laws, historical facts, and worship. Theism is really just a belief that a God or Gods or Supreme Being or some very powerful being exists. There is a major difference.

12. "Komencanto says: sorry, but that is not the definition of God you will find in the dictionary
your concious is simply a feeling that is placed in you by society so you will do what they want" - Lol, a dictionary is only thing used to consult the meanings of words. A meaning of a word does not tell anything about what the word describes or refers too. For example, the meaning of the word brown has nothing to do with any real world application browness. Think about it :D

13. "(Misha) says: but u said before everything that we do is for a reason
Religious apologist says: yeah" - I don't remember your opponent saying this :( Can you please show me? :\

14. "Religious apologist says: but i wanna know how u can tell me my definition oif gd is wrong if u dont even believe in him" - This guy has a point. Especially concerning why his definition of God is wrong. Definitions, especially in situations such as these, are merely subjective instances. Who says God has to be a guy clothed in white with human emotions and features? Couldn't God be a giant pumplin in the great vine of life?

15. "Komencanto says: because I am using a definitiong of god which is generally accepted
you can´t invent something totally different and call it god
you will just confuse people" - :eek: Just because something is generally accepted doesn't make it right. Remember how it used to be generally accepted that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Earth was also being held by a strong being named Atlas? A person can create or invent a new definition and call it God. God is just a word and its meaning and applications are subjective. After all, Michaelangelo(or was it Da Vinci? lol) created something and called it David. Yet it would be generally accepted that that creation is nothing more then a lump of clay or stone. Get my drift?

16. "Religious apologist says: i dunno if theres something almghty or not
Religious apologist says: as far as im concerned there might be" - I am agnostic. Agnostic means that one either has not yet decided or refuses to make a decision on the existence of God (God in this case I think refers to a universal arbitrator(s) that govern the universe). Whether God is all powerful or not is not a form of agnosticism.

I need a break. Go soak this in for awhile :D

[evildave]

I don't see what the problem is.

You don't fight with a dyed in the wool believer to "convert" him. That's pointless. They typically have a HUGE emotional and social investment in their beliefs, and won't give them up for anything.

You discuss with them individually to learn about what makes them tick.

You discuss with them publically to highlight and contrast your own opinions with their opinions.

There is no "winning".

[Yahweh]

‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’
I dont know what that means, but it came up about every few lines.

Religious apologist says:
i have no evidence... do u have any that he doesnt exist?
Might as well ask if he has evidence that invisible pink unicorns dont exist. Might as well try to find evidence that I wasnt standing behind you a minute ago (I'm fairly certain that I wasnt).

Usually, the way I answer this question is by saying something along the lines of "Everything that exists in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing can exist outside the Laws of Physics. Anything that does not hold true to those 2 criteria cannot and does not exist."

Of course the immediate response tends to be "How do you know?", then I usually respond "Because everything we know in science is demonstratably true in nature and within a controlled scientific environment". After that the response might be "There might be something out there that we havent discovered yet", then I say "That is a possibility in everything, but its not enough to make me believe in God".

(Thats just the way I handle, the rest of you might have a different way of going about it...)

Religious apologist says:
religion is teh basis of this world
Religious apologist says:
where do all teh laws come from??
Religious apologist says:
originally fromn teh ten commandments
That is false in its entirety. Religion and God was created by man to fill in the gaps of what he did not understand: "Where does rain come from? God Makes rain." "Why do earthquakes happen? God makes them happen." "Why am I here? God put you here."

"Morality" (If you have ever read the Old Testament you see that there is very little room to call what is written in it "morality") and law was built into religion at a later time. Also, I never want to live in a place where the 10 Commandments were the Supreme Law, a it would crumble and smolder under your feet.

Komencanto says:
the 10 commandments are NOT the basis of our current law
Religious apologist says:
yes they are
Religious apologist says:
are u allowed to murder?? no
Religious apologist says:
are you allowed to sleep with ur neighbour wife??
Religious apologist says:
no
Religious apologist says:
are you allowed to steal?? no
American law was not designed from the 10 Commandments, killing and stealing are "no s**t" kinda deals. Oh, and you can sleep with your neighbor's wife if you want.

Take thy Lord's name in vain all you want (that's called Free Speech), You can also worship false idols, pray to other gods (that's called Freedom of religion, to put a law against praying to another god would be unconstitutional), covet your neighbors shiny lawnmower, and gossip (aka bare false witness) all you want. It is not a law to respect thy parents, its is not a law to keep the Sabbath holy.

Religious apologist says:
in the Torah it says that that is a form of adultery
Religious apologist says:
and that if teh one being raped didnt scream for help it is her fault
Rape is defined as "the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse". If a married woman does not give her consent (usually she rejects consent) to another who then procedes to have sexual intercourse, that is rape. However if she willing cheats on her husband, that is adultery. Failure to scream doesnt suggest consent.

Religious apologist says:
thing is, im afraid that if i dont believe in gd and if i dont pray for certain things like that my siblings will survive the army in israel, they might get hut or die
Imagine you are at the casinos, you are at the craps table, you hold in your hands a pair of dice, you repeat silently to yourself over and over "Seven, seven, seven"... it does not increase nor decrease the likelyhood that you will throw yourself some sevens.

Komencanto says:
anyway, can you honesty explain to me why you believe te the torah
it is obviously a silly book of fantasies
Religious apologist says:
which happened several times
Religious apologist says:
its all symbolic
Religious apologist says:
i dont believe for a minute that adam and eve were the only ppl alive
I'll agree with him there, but I've read the Old Testament and the New Testament (I'm still working my way through the Book of Mormon), I dont see how in any way that the Torah could be taken symbolicly or metaphorically. It can only be taken literally, its not a book of Aesop fables. Oh well, if he has discovered a way to take the Torah metaphorically, good on him.

Religious apologist says:
yeah and so has atheism id say
Religious apologist says:
its caused hate
Hate was around before atheism, hate has been around since the first people started questioning their religion, hate has an unfortunately permanent seat in Humanity. "Atheism causes hate" is simply and untrue statement, "my beliefs are different than your beliefs" is (but not limited to) was causes all the "hate" (all the trouble going on the Middle East is the first example I can think of).

Religious apologist says:
ok...so where did those particles that created the big bang come from?
Logical error: If science fails to explain something, you dont just throw god in there just to fill in the gaps.

A theory is a "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena", the Big Bang was just dreamed up one day to give the universe a beginning, that would an irresponsible implication of science.

Religious apologist says:
i have difficulties in believing sumthin unless there is evidence to be honest
Religious apologist says:
or unless there is logic behind it
Religious apologist says:
and i think there is logi behind the torah
Religious apologist says:
they have a reason for everything
I have difficulty accepting this at face value.

First, he said "there is logic behind it", well there is plenty of logic (Arguement from Evil, Arguement from Supremecy, Arguement from whatever...) that can show how God cannot logically exist. Of course, logic isnt a set of laws that govern the universe (not to say it doesnt have its practical applications).

"They have a reason for everything", that wouldnt make me believe in God. Science describes why things work and how things happen, religion gives them purpose. Of course, religion is just riding piggyback on science if you use that nutshell description, religion is needless baggage. Instead, take out religion as a whole, and insert a set of moralities and law (this is sometimes instilled from society, its called "Social Ethics"), and there you go, you have science that describes everything and Ethics to keep all the people in order, you've got a simple society!


Ok, I just read everything, the Religious apologist seemed like a genuinely nice guy, I didnt see too much wrong with what he was saying. He even described consciousness as being god, that suggests he has his own personal god, or you could say that his definition of "consciousness" and "god" (which appeared to be the same) caused inherent confusion. If that was the case, it may have been a pointless arguement to begin with... oh well.

[Yahzi]

Dude... learn to cut and paste! (Edit: perhaps you did... I hope you didn't just retype all that, lol!)

Also, the formatting isn't as good as it could be. Dialogue is usually displayed as:

Kom: What are you, stupid?
Stpd: Na-uh!

Anyway to the point:

im not religious... I just believe that there is some sort of gd
Your first big hint that this is a waste of time. Your opponent doesn't actually know what he believes in, he just knows he disagrees with you.

The first question you should always ask is, "Is there anything I could concievably say that would change your mind?" Of course, they will say, "No." And then you say, "So what exactly is the point of talking about it?"

Now if they actually answer that, they'll say something like they just want to learn more. That's great, and now you can have a conversation where both of you are just explaining your position for the other person's education. You will find this far more rewarding (and far more persuasive!) than a combatitive argument.

is there any situation that doens´t proove GOd´s existance?
Why look, you got around to my question. And of course his answer is "No, I have no reason at all, I just beleive what I want, but there was no way I was going to admit that at the outset."

You could have done better in your arguments, of course, because you can always do better. But if you are looking to have more elegant, meaningful conversations, I suggest finding better conversation partners.

[Dub]

Originally posted by evildave
I don't see what the problem is.

You don't fight with a dyed in the wool believer to "convert" him. That's pointless. They typically have a HUGE emotional and social investment in their beliefs, and won't give them up for anything.

You discuss with them individually to learn about what makes them tick.

You discuss with them publically to highlight and contrast your own opinions with their opinions.

There is no "winning".

The thing is alot of religious people [i]do[i/i] see it as their job to convert people. (like all those loud mouths in the city center where I live). These people see debating this issue as a contest, and im sure alot of atheists do too. However, as you pointed out, the believer has alot of emmotion investment in their belief; and I think thats why arguments see to quickly get heated - they feel someone is trying to take away their "precious" (said in a spooky Gollum style voice :D)

When I debate with believers Im doing it because firstly II'd like to know what makes them believe what they do. I then, in explaining my point of view, try to point out an errors, contradictions etc I see in their reasoning. I'd like to think I could someday 'convert' someone (if that is the right word). If I could turn them into a free-thinker and away from irrational beliefs I think I'd be pretty proud of myself.

[komencanto]

Originally posted by Dub

When I debate with believers Im doing it because firstly II'd like to know what makes them believe what they do. I then, in explaining my point of view, try to point out an errors, contradictions etc I see in their reasoning. I'd like to think I could someday 'convert' someone (if that is the right word). If I could turn them into a free-thinker and away from irrational beliefs I think I'd be pretty proud of myself.

Very well said =)

Although this person seems perfectly nice, its just some of the things she says that drive me insane and are obvious flaws of logic. I just feel it is necesary to point out this errors so that they can be stopped before they are used in other ways.
It shocks me that people can believe these sorts of fallacies. Some of the arguments that she used were the sorts of arguments I would use as jokes. Yet they are the sorts of ideas which are used to defend religion on a daily basis, and have been accepted by people for hundreds if not thousands of years.
If I can just get people to question faith, tradition, authority and revelation a bit, then I might make a dent in the general foolishness of the human race.
And that I would be proud of and will waste hours repeating the same things to try and achieve. Call me stupid, but I´m not bored of it after 2 years. 65 or something to go.

[komencanto]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Dude... learn to cut and paste! (Edit: perhaps you did... I hope you didn't just retype all that, lol!)

Don´t worry, I´m not completely computer illiterate =)

[komencanto]

Nice to see you Yahweh. You´re always on hand to analyse even the longest of things I write. What do you do for a job?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
I dont know what that means, but it came up about every few lines.


Its called superliminal messaging.

Seriously though, thanks for your comments, well put =)

[UncaStuart]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Properly read the bible is the most potent force of athiesm’
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont know what that means, but it came up about every few lines.
My guess is that a comma or two, and a change of prepositions would have resulted in something more understandable:

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism

or

The bible, read properly, is the most potent force for atheism

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by komencanto
Nice to see you Yahweh.
:)

You´re always on hand to analyse even the longest of things I write.
I've made a bit of a habit of going through even very long posts, and analyzing them in entirety (I'll be going through Questions to Lucianarchy when I find the time tomorrow).

What do you do for a job?
With my cold sarcastic mentality, a set of Scooby Doo neckties, I stand in front of children and hurt their brains. After a while (usually 170+ days), I transform them into functional members of society. My official title is "teacher guy".

Originally posted by Yahweh
Its called superliminal messaging.

Seriously though, thanks for your comments, well put =)
Cool. :cool:

[Some Friggin Guy]

First, I think it is important to do what you are trying to do, which appears to be getting people to question the validity of religion.

With everything others have said, I can only agree and add one thing:

I read through the whole conversation and I can see that you were trying to keep with a simple, but broad concept (Why do you believe in god?) When having these kinds of debates, though, I have noticed in my experience (and in your posted discussion, as well) that the believer will almost always jump around in the logic of their discussion to avoid having to answer something directly. (Bouncing from the torah/bible, to law, to Genesis, etc.)

I think, perhaps, a better tactic may be to pick a specific aspect of religion (10 commandments, creation myth, Noah, etc.) and work with that. I have found that once you find a thread to pull, you can actually see it start to unravel inside them.

More often than not, they will simply sew it back up with apologetics, but it's a start.

And Yaweh...

Where can I get the Scoby-doo neckties?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
[B]Haha! I love getting into arguments! The only thing I don't like doing is having to correct my opponent all the time due to improper logic because they have misunderstood the argument. Wheee....ok lets get started!

1. "Komencanto says: anyway, down to business
firstly, although these sorts of arguments get pretty heated, its all just for fun eh =)" - yeah, just for fun till a side begins launching sponges and various unicorns ;)

2. "Komencanto says: to start, may I ask, why are you religious?
i think i know the answer, but i would like to hear your version
we are not born religious or believing in God
so there must be something that makes you that way" - Limiting the opponents argument! An excellent and somewhat manipulative tactic :D Usually, an opponent will rarely challenge the first opinion made unless it is illogical. It is good to set limits innocently like this as it gives you somewhat of an edge when debating.



It's not exactly illogical, just basically irrelevant. People are not born atheists either. And they need not be any specific thing which makes you either way.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Religious apologist says:
i have no evidence... do u have any that he doesnt exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Might as well ask if he has evidence that invisible pink unicorns dont exist. Might as well try to find evidence that I wasnt standing behind you a minute ago (I'm fairly certain that I wasnt).



False analogy since God is not a thing in the world.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Actually, Ian, since a person is born without knowledge of god, they are also born without belief in god.

So, yes, we are all born atheist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Actually, Ian, since a person is born without knowledge of god, they are also born without belief in god.

So, yes, we are all born atheist.

No, to be an atheist requires some understanding of what is meant by God. You might as well say a rock is an atheist.

[komencanto]

My point is this: Take a baby and never introduce it to the concept of God. Let it live like other people, but never let any idea of God be introduced. I doubt that the idea of God will occur to it. Therefore, it does not beleive in God. Therefore it is atheist or doesn´t specifically belive in God.
The stone is a false analogy because a stone cannot believe or not believe in anything.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by komencanto
My point is this: Take a baby and never introduce it to the concept of God. Let it live like other people, but never let any idea of God be introduced. I doubt that the idea of God will occur to it.

I disagree. Not the atheist conception of "God" maybe, but certainly the idea that there might be an ultimate purpose to the Universe and our lives. This will naturally lead on to the idea of an afterlife because how could there be an ultimate purpose to ones life if one ceases to exist when one dies? And an afterlife will lead on to the idea of inhabiting some sort of "transempirical" reality after their deaths. And this might lead on to the notion that there is some sort of universal awareness lying behind all things endowing all things with an ultimate purpose.

I suspect a new born child, even if never introduced to religion will believe in an afterlife and a ultimate purpose to their existence. I certainly did. I remember how astonished I was on being told as a child by my father that death is the termination of the self. I now realise how silly that notion is (even if my father doesn't!).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I disagree. Not the atheist conception of "God" maybe, but certainly the idea that there might be an ultimate purpose to the Universe and our lives. This will naturally lead ...What makes you believe this? It certainly isn't self evident that a child who is unintroduced with these abstract concepts would spontaneously generate them on its own.

[komencanto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I suspect a new born child, even if never introduced to religion will believe in an afterlife and a ultimate purpose to their existence. I certainly did. I remember how astonished I was on being told as a child by my father that death is the termination of the self. I now realise how silly that notion is (even if my father doesn't!).

I seroiusly doubt it.
Let´s test it! Now all I need is a juicy newborn. ;)

Seriously though, what the hell makes you so sure there is an afterlife. A river after it changes course doesn´t continue with the old course.
And a brain after it ceases functioning doesn´t continue as before. It stops. No new information coming in. No new thought, etc.
Why the hell would I expect to continue to be concious after my brain has clearly stopped functioning??

[Aristotle]

Philosophical questions are unavoidable. A child, whether introduced to idea of God or not, will ask if perhaps the Universe was created. There is enough absence of knowledge to still question the existence of things such as an afterlife, or all powerful being. The only way to keep any human being from being encapsulated by Philosophical questions and subjects is to completely prevent them from thinking on their own. But doing so would completely go against the premiss you are trying to prove.

When a brain ceases to function, this is all we know: that a brain has ceased to function. A person can only infer into what has happened to the person, but in the end there is no way of truly knowing what has happened. A person's consciousness could be reincarnated into another human or animal (after all, the universe is so infinite, there must be a possibility that my conciousness could be present in a living being once again. The only way we can really embrace areas of complete uncertainty is through reductio ad absurdum. And even this has its fault as it will only show errors in what we know or believe.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Aristotle
but in the end there is no way of truly knowing what has happened.
Why do people think that nilhism is a defense?

If you can't know, then you can't believe whatever you want. If knowledge is impossible, then you must believe nothing.

So many people think that if the answer is unknowable, that means they can make up any crap they want and claim it as the answer. No. If the answer cannot be known, then you have to believe nothing.

[komencanto]

Originally posted by Yahzi

So many people think that if the answer is unknowable, that means they can make up any crap they want and claim it as the answer. No. If the answer cannot be known, then you have to believe nothing.

That is exactly what I wanted to should down that persons throat when she said "at least they believe in something" "at least they have an answer" "you can´t proove them wrong". Oh the stupidity....

[UnrepentantSinner]

I had a similar chat some years ago. I saved it because it really was an abortion of an attempt at evangelism. Here's the last part of it if any of you are interested.


unrepentantsinneratheist: If I were to tell you that I think that the Garden of Eden story and in fact almost the entirety of Genesis was an alegorical tale, how would you respond?
unrepentantsinneratheist: If the whole basis for the sinner needs salvation aspect of Christianity is undermined by a lack of literal enterance of sin into the world and man's nature during the Garden, what need is there to it.
brokenyetrestored: english please english
brokenyetrestored: listen friend all i know is jesus set me free from sin and pain....he can do the same for you...i was skeptical too in the beginning but God proved himself to me
brokenyetrestored: give him a try please....the bible says "test and see that the lord is good" God is calling you out to save you from hell....i dont know your real name but ill be praying for you bye
unrepentantsinneratheist: You don't sound very skeptical to me.
unrepentantsinneratheist: Wait, don't run away.
unrepentantsinneratheist: I'm speaking english.
unrepentantsinneratheist: You haven't shown me that the Genesis Serpent Narrative is a veracitous account of how this supposed scurge of sin entered humans, and how we then need an intercessory blood sacrifice to atone for us.
brokenyetrestored: i didnt say i was skeptical now...i was skeptical when i didnt have God in my life
unrepentantsinneratheist: Let's establish that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil actually existed and had the capacity to infuse this "sin" into human nature.
brokenyetrestored: read john 3:16
unrepentantsinneratheist: Unless you can prove the Tree/Serpent narrative, then the claims of John are irrelevent.
brokenyetrestored: good-bye friend.....Jesus loves you
unrepentantsinneratheist: Wait don't run away....
brokenyetrestored: you just want to argue and show off your long words....but the bible says that the cross is foolishness to unbelievers....i guess so huh
unrepentantsinneratheist: Long words?
unrepentantsinneratheist: I'm just quoting the bible.
unrepentantsinneratheist: Genesis?
unrepentantsinneratheist: Sound familiar?
unrepentantsinneratheist: You can't even defend the very basis of how sin supposedly entered the world, which, had it not, there is no need for an intercessory blood atonement sacrifice.
unrepentantsinneratheist: The Tree on Golgotha is irrelevent without the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
unrepentantsinneratheist: And I"m the fool huh?
unrepentantsinneratheist: .....
brokenyetrestored: it sounds to me like you know the word....but dont believe how powerful it is .....see ya ...bye
unrepentantsinneratheist: I have work to do... take care....
brokenyetrestored: go to your local bible church and talk to a pastor about your questions bye

[BobM]

Take a baby and never introduce it to the concept of God. Let it live like other people, but never let any idea of God be introduced. I doubt that the idea of God will occur to it.

Umm... bad thinking.

Take a race of thinking beings and never introduce it to the concept of God. Let them live like other beings, but never let any idea of God be introduced. I doubt that the idea of God will occur to them.

Clearly that's not true, since it happened.

[komencanto]

Sure, with enough people and enough time. But I don´t think we are hard wired to believe in God from birth. So to speak.

[Eos of the Eons]

suspect a new born child, even if never introduced to religion will believe in an afterlife and a ultimate purpose to their existence. I certainly did. I remember how astonished I was on being told as a child by my father that death is the termination of the self. I now realise how silly that notion is (even if my father doesn't!).


Then I'm sure I was born a skeptic. I thought the idea of heaven was silly when I first heard about it around 6-7. I had really never heard of God, except for in the anthem when I was in Kindergarten. Christmas was a birthday?? That astounded me as well. How could anyone follow a start to a baby that some virgin had? It all seemed so fairytalish. I loved hearing about Cinderella and the Ugly duckling. I never heard a bible story until I was about 8.

When I did hear a bible study I was annoyed at what they attributed cause and effect to. I had just learned differently that consequences are the result of your actions and that you had control over whether or not you got yourself into trouble by lying, stealing, etc. The thought of evil vs good never entered into those factors.

The thought that some evil being (yes i mean god) was planning my life and caused it to happen the way it did by the age of eight just seemed idiotic. Why would anyone plan that sh*t for me? How dare he plan for my mom to go crazy and for all the stuff that happened after that from the time I was five.

Yeah, thanks evil dude who likes to torture people! So I tried to believe for a year or two, but evidence to the contrary (dinos, etc) came up constantly. The laws of physics, astronomy, evolution. I loved science. It made sense when my life didn't.

Yes, I pondered the 'why am I here'. But a creator never entered the picture. A purpose never really evolved in my thoughts. I just accepted that life was birth and death. A constant state of renewal so that a species could survive better and better or die out.

I've never pondered an afterlife. I did entertain the thought of reincarnation briefly. That didn't make sense either. We can't take anything with us to that new life of a sperm and egg and then resulting human.

Afterlife always seemed silly. Bugs die all the time. Trees die too. What makes us so special? Nothing, in my opinion.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by BobM
Clearly that's not true, since it happened.
It happened at least once. That's not to say it will always happen.

The historical record shows that various unconnected societies developed various spiritualities, and in a few cases, none at all. The fact that most societies developed god-concepts shows that it is a common factor in human cognition: the fact that none of the god-concepts agree shows that none of the gods are real.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I had a similar chat some years ago. I saved it because it really was an abortion of an attempt at evangelism. Here's the last part of it if any of you are interested.

unrepentantsinneratheist: If I were to tell you that I think that the Garden of Eden story and in fact almost the entirety of Genesis was an alegorical tale, how would you respond?
unrepentantsinneratheist: If the whole basis for the sinner needs salvation aspect of Christianity is undermined by a lack of literal enterance of sin into the world and man's nature during the Garden, what need is there to it.
brokenyetrestored: english please english
brokenyetrestored: listen friend all i know is jesus set me free from sin and pain....he can do the same for you...i was skeptical too in the beginning but God proved himself to me
brokenyetrestored: give him a try please....the bible says "test and see that the lord is good" God is calling you out to save you from hell....i dont know your real name but ill be praying for you bye

snip

That guy's an idiot. How annoying.

[komencanto]

Originally posted by Yahzi

The fact that most societies developed god-concepts shows that it is a common factor in human cognition: the fact that none of the god-concepts agree shows that none of the gods are real.

It certainly suggests that. I once got this responce from a believer:
The fact that religion has continued for so much time and through so many people shows that God exists.
Me: Either that or is shows that something in human nature gives us the tendency to believe in God, most likely related to fear of death and purposeless in life.

She agreed, but then jodged the topic to something else, i don´t remember what. Bah.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
suspect a new born child, even if never introduced to religion will believe in an afterlife and a ultimate purpose to their existence. I certainly did. I remember how astonished I was on being told as a child by my father that death is the termination of the self. I now realise how silly that notion is (even if my father doesn't!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then I'm sure I was born a skeptic.



I find that extremely implausible. We are both human beings, why should you be so different to me.



I thought the idea of heaven was silly when I first heard about it around 6-7.



As I thought you completely miss the point. Whether heaven is plausible or not is wholly irrelevant.

Snip all the irrelevant stuff





Yes, I pondered the 'why am I here'. But a creator never entered the picture. A purpose never really evolved in my thoughts. I just accepted that life was birth and death. A constant state of renewal so that a species could survive better and better or die out.



I don't believe you



I've never pondered an afterlife. I did entertain the thought of reincarnation briefly. That didn't make sense either.



In what way doesn't it make sense?




Afterlife always seemed silly.



You need to do better than this. I suggest you're just a hapless puppet of the modern western way of viewing reality. You don't think for yourself but just "soak" in the prevailing "wisdom".



Bugs die all the time. Trees die too. What makes us so special? Nothing, in my opinion.



Well if trees and bugs are sentient then obviously we are not more special than them. If they are not sentient then clearly we are. What's the problem?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

---------------------------------------------------
Then I'm sure I was born a skeptic.
---------------------------------------------------
I find that extremely implausible. We are both human beings, why should you be so different to me.
Everybody is different from one another. Hell, even identical twins dont think or act identically.


---------------------------------------------------
I thought the idea of heaven was silly when I first heard about it around 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------
As I thought you completely miss the point. Whether heaven is plausible or not is wholly irrelevant.

It depends on how you look at Christianity. If you see Christianity as "Ethical morality based on the teachings of Jesus Christ", then sure, all the other supernatural aspects of Christianity are irrelevant. However most of the Christians I've known do believe in Heaven, they see it as an important part of Christianity, I myself find "heaven" as being extremely relevant.


---------------------------------------------------
Yes, I pondered the 'why am I here'. But a creator never entered the picture. A purpose never really evolved in my thoughts. I just accepted that life was birth and death. A constant state of renewal so that a species could survive better and better or die out.
---------------------------------------------------
I don't believe you
Rather blunt of you. Here's a quick Intro to Psychology: Most people in their lives go through a period where they believe in the paranormal, its not at all hard to find people who once believed in psychics (or believed they were psychics), believed in chi energy, ESP, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, I have no reason not to believe Mrs. Eos, I respect her sincerity (why else would I quote her in my signature) and I believe she is being honest, I dont know why you feel otherwise. Remember, whether or not she is telling the truth, a good anecdote can be not only entertaining but also a clarification device.

Psychology isnt all that hard...



---------------------------------------------------
I've never pondered an afterlife. I did entertain the thought of reincarnation briefly. That didn't make sense either.
---------------------------------------------------
In what way doesn't it make sense?

I would guess because of the sheer absurdity of it. Afterlife and other forms of spirituality arent scientifically sound, thats why I myself find them nonsensicle.



---------------------------------------------------
Afterlife always seemed silly.
---------------------------------------------------

You need to do better than this. I suggest you're just a hapless puppet of the modern western way of viewing reality. You don't think for yourself but just "soak" in the prevailing "wisdom".
I find afterlife silly for many many reasons. One of which was inspired by Yahzi when he said (as sarcasm) "If God gave us this perfectly good life, who are we to ask him for another even better afterlife, how selfish of us".

(Its not nice to call people puppets.)


---------------------------------------------------
Bugs die all the time. Trees die too. What makes us so special? Nothing, in my opinion.
---------------------------------------------------

Well if trees and bugs are sentient then obviously we are not more special than them. If they are not sentient then clearly we are. What's the problem? [/B]
I dont like bugs, they're icky.
Trees are nice, they make oxygen.
I find humans to be "special" because I myself have manifested my incorporeal omniscience into this flesh prison, the last time I did this it ended kinda bad, when at first you dont succeed you must try try again...

I also find people "special" for my own inner personal reasons...

[Eos of the Eons]

Thanks for all that Yahweh! Yeah, some people are actually special.

For most of my childlife I was an outsider and different. My ideals were some of the reasons why.
Thing is, if you know my history I never had the chance to be a kid, so why would I think like every other kid who could entertain such whims of fancy like heaven and angels on clouds.

I read "Escape from Alcatraz" in Grade 3 and understood the entire thing. Some kids couldn't get through a whole Dr. Seuss book at that age. I was in a 'split class' with half grade four and half grade 3.

That teacher was the greatest! She had a mad scientist boyfriend who came and gave 'shows' for the class. Maybe it was her husband...I don't remember, but I do remember flasks of stuff bubbling and things popping.

At other times she'd bring in things like dead fish or chickens and proceed to dissect them for us all looking on. A few girls turned green. One had to leave the room.

So, when I caught a little fish I dissected it for my brothers...being very careful of this air sac thing (I knew what it was called back then) that would really reek if I broke it.

If people can be born believers, then it is equally possible to be born skeptics.

An afterlife just doesn't make sense when it comes to what all I've learned and experienced. I feel we die, and it's like before we were born. Pure nothingness (bliss IMO). It's our kids that cary on our legacy. We live on through them and their progeny. That's why we have to bring them up as caring moral people. That's why you have to be a good example. It's entirely possible without religion. I feel I have great morals and values. That and respect the kids' differences as well.

If my kids want to believe in a religion or afterlife, then all the power to them. I don't expect them to be exactly like me. As long as they learn not to judge me for not being religious, then great. Respect.


I just don't understand why believers find it so unbelievable that not believing is possible.


I don't believe you

Why is it so hard to believe that I never believed in a creator?:confused:

My mom never talked about god or relgion. My brothers and I didn't see a TV until I was 13. I read a lot of books that had no religion in them. Ramona Quimby was the funniest girl I ever read about.

I never realized how fanatical religious people were until I went to vacation bible school in the summer and saw those 'demonstrations' like the holy water done.

Next thing you knew, there was a free movie and popcorn for 25 cents offered in this run down old building. What was the film?

One day a bunch of people disappear from the planet. Next thing you know, the remaining people suffered all kinds of modern horrors and earthquakes because it was the apocalypse (dogs chasing them down and attacking them, buildings collapsing). It was darn scary and I was ticked off that we were all tricked into watching something that was supposed to scare god into us. Not only that, I had only seen Disney movies before (Cinderella, Jungle Book) when I was like 5.


Ignorance was bliss. Then I went to Vacation Bible school.

You wonder why I'd rather believe we got here by nature rather than this thing that drives people to trick/manipulate others all the time? I was a good kid with good grades and who never hurt anyone, but here I was being told I was going to be punished for not believing something. Punished in a bad bad way. I already had a low self esteem as it was, and anxiety...so let's throw in this god and all the hell and the fear of death leaving you in eternal pain. Yeah. I was looking forward to nothing after putting up with hell already, not more hell.

Wanna know how bad it all affected me? I tried to commit suicide when I was eight. I downed a bunch of oil and pencil leads. Then hid under my bed. Nothing happened. So I just cried.

Yeah, I might have done it anyway, but by adding burdens of guilt didn't help anything.

[Prospero]

I always find believers to be so interesting. From a psychological point of view, religion fills a gap that most of us have filled with some other belief, be it science or just a very practical nature that is content with the simple perceptions of our observational abilities.

However, I do find it interesting how strongly believers maintain their beliefs in the rather harsh light of logic and undeniable observations. I don't say "fact" because even the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, so how concrete is anything, really, but within our realm of perception is still ample evidence that there's no need for a supernatural explanation for our world.

I was brought up in a devoutly Presbyterian home and went to church every Sunday, but I never saw the appeal. I learned the bible inside and out, but just thought of it as another pointless class I was forced to attend, but one in which I was not graded. It had no appeal to me, yet my parents were utterly flabbergasted the first time I expressed a desire to skip church. It had never dawned on them that I would find the endeavor to be fruitless.

Well, my efforts were in vain and the threat of groundings prompted me to continue attending despite my lack of interest in the matter. This was roughly when I was 7 or 8. Several years later, knowing far more of the dogma, I started to see that the church really didn't have much to offer even within the realm of what it claimed. Also I was going through an inner battle of my knowledge of my nature versus the beliefs that had been brainwashed into me every Sunday for the first 14 years of my life.

Two years later, upon gaining the ability to drive, I outright refused to go and informed my parents that their actions to induce my attendence proved that their religion was bullying and didn't practice what it preached. Needless to say they were dumbfounded. They still said I was grounded, but never enforced it. Nor did they ever enforce a punishment after that point. They realized the futility of it, I assume. It was only over the next few years that I really began to see religion in the light that most view it in and wonder how people can allow themselves to be pulled into it.

I'm speaking of people that are converted, to clarify; those born into it come into the world with blinders, so to speak. But those that are capable of observing it from the outside and then get sucked in? Don't they see the wickedly barbed hook that lodges into their insecurities once they take the bait of "acceptance" and "love". Join and be happy. Leave and go to hell. It's an absolutely brilliant psychological trap, but it's so obvious and they do nothing to cover it up. I guess when you believe your soul to be on the line, logic really can't enter into the equation.