Ahab and the Believers

[Phil]

Reading Pirate Lad’s "The atheist test (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33553)" thread in the Community forum got me to thinking. Usually that just leads to a lot of confusion and a headache on my part, and this case was no exception. But I also began to wonder about a few things.

When I reached a certain age --- oh about 14 or 15, I guess --- I started to look critically at the religion I professed at the time (Christianity), as well as the concepts of a creator and life after death. Coincidentally, that’s about the time I started looking more closely at girls, too, but I digress.

Like most of you, finding no indication that that stuff was anything more than an encapsulation of the hopes of a frightened, emotionally unstable, sometimes delusional set of people and their engrained traditions, I eventually strayed and found my own way in the world. Fortunately, I also found a few girlfriends, and they were tremendously more fulfilling than any spiritual enlightenment I got at church. I even had what I call some true “religious experiences”, but again, I digress.

These days, I occasionally get involved in discussions with the fairly religious folk, but only when they ask me my thoughts or when they inquire about how I became a non-believer. On those occasions I share with them the same ideas we’ve discussed ad nauseam on these boards; the questions, the investigations, the discoveries, and the rational thought that led me to a non-theistic worldview.

But aside from those discussions, I never spend a second of my life actively pursuing any type of “anti-theistic” movement, nor do I concern myself with what any person, group, church, or cult believes. If it doesn’t affect the price of beer, what the hell do I care? I never ask that believers see things my way. Actually, I do little more than suggest they look critically and objectively at their beliefs, and if they still come to the same conclusions, fine. That’s as far as I take it, and I never trouble my head over them again.

I know some people do actively pursue debate with believers, but even in those cases, it’s generally more of a “You should think more critically” approach, then a “You should believe what I believe” approach.

I’m wondering, however, why the faithful seem to have so much ongoing concern for non-believers, going so far as to develop tests and strategies to debate/refute/convert the sinners and their pesky rational approach to the universe.

I don't pay extremely close attention, but I have never heard a non-theist preach to a believer that they must stop believing in god for whatever reason, and if I ever do, I’ll chastise him or her for using the same groundless threats as the religious. Hey, some folks apparently prefer to remain deluded, and if they’re not hurting anyone, so what? Leave them to their fairies and ghosts. But I personally have had people try to “convert” me to their theistic worldview, not just in passing, but with an extended, determined effort.

Now, I know that certain doctrines of some religions teach witnessing to the uninformed masses and spreading the word and such, but it seems there is more to it than that. Why do some believers treat atheists like their white whale? Why do they see a non-theistic worldview as a sort of enemy?

I suppose I don’t understand fervency in matters religious, nor do I really grasp the notion that they are threatened by the truth.

Without simply deferring to Shermer and Sagan, can we start a discussion about this? Maybe you psychology majors can offer a glimpse into the thought processes at work among the more ardent believers.

[Mercutio]

How about "Pascal's wager by proxy"?

That is, if we are right, all that happens to them is a waste of time. If they are right, what happens to us (I'll stick with christianity, since it was your example and my experience) we are going to hell.

There can be no more important activity for a true believer (ummm...I base this paragraph on my own experience as a born-again christian... your mileage may vary) than saving souls. If I was your neighbor, it would be just horrible for me to not try to save you from an eternity of torture. I simply must do my level best to see that you hear and understand god's word. If you hear it, and reject it, I see it as a challenge given to me by god, and I am bound to do my best to turn you to the light.

Anyway, that's my $.02...

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
. . .There can be no more important activity for a true believer . . . than saving souls. . . . it would be just horrible for me to not try to save you from an eternity of torture. I simply must do my level best to see that you hear and understand god's word. If you hear it, and reject it, I see it as a challenge given to me by god, and I am bound to do my best to turn you to the light.
Yeah, I get that basic tenet. But what is the mechanism that drives this attitude, even in the face obvious and irreversable defeat? Perceived duty? Stubborness? Fear? Bragging rights about their tenaciousness?

I'm trying to understand what keeps the believers plugging away.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Phil

Yeah, I get that basic tenet. But what is the mechanism that drives this attitude, even in the face obvious and irreversable defeat? Perceived duty? Stubborness? Fear? Bragging rights about their tenaciousness?
. All of the above, I am sure...and occasionally, if you find the right person, the belief that they are doing Good. What keeps a teacher plugging away for low pay, apathetic students, comments like "those who can't, teach"? Once in a while you make a difference.

Once in a while, you save somebody. (speaking from their shoes now) Once in a while, you turn somebody to the lord. Like the slot machine paying back on a schedule to not merely keep you working, but keep you enthusiastically coming back for more, the variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement (for the behaviorists out there) is a potent schedule. You keep evangelizing because you never know where your next lost soul is that is now going to heaven because of you.

So there's a behaviorist "mechanism" for you...

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
. . . Once in a while, you save somebody. (speaking from their shoes now) Once in a while, you turn somebody to the lord. Like the slot machine paying back on a schedule to not merely keep you working, but keep you enthusiastically coming back for more, the variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement (for the behaviorists out there) is a potent schedule. You keep evangelizing because you never know where your next lost soul is that is now going to heaven because of you.
I may never start another thread if it's only going to be the two of us discussing my topics. Not that I don't value your ideas and opinions, you understand, but geez . . . Maybe I'm on everyone else's ignore list or something.

Anyway, what you describe is something I can understand. Hopeful determination, dedication, and passion. And it's actually quite admirable in some circumstances. A soldier prevailing in the face of apparently insurmountable odds. Folks who just won't take no for an answer, or hear "I can't" in any situation.

But we can't forget that sometimes the soldier does the "smart thing" and turns and runs, because staying would certainly get him killed, helping no one. And the person who doesn't take no for an answer, still doesn't always get what he asks for. And sometimes the teacher who exhausts all available techniques, and in deference to the other students, has to admit that the student was beyond help.

I have my passions, too, and I really feel that pushing in the face of long odds helps us become stronger, but when I recognize an obstacle that truly cannot be overcome, I don't hesitate to move on. Perhaps there is a failure among believers to recognize futility when it comes to indoctrinating skeptical non-theists.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Phil

I may never start another thread if it's only going to be the two of us discussing my topics. Not that I don't value your ideas and opinions, you understand, but geez . . . Maybe I'm on everyone else's ignore list or something. oddly enough, you'd be on my list too, if mods could have them...:D


Anyway, what you describe is something I can understand. Hopeful determination, dedication, and passion. And it's actually quite admirable in some circumstances. A soldier prevailing in the face of apparently insurmountable odds. Folks who just won't take no for an answer, or hear "I can't" in any situation.

...snip..

I have my passions, too, and I really feel that pushing in the face of long odds helps us become stronger, but when I recognize an obstacle that truly cannot be overcome, I don't hesitate to move on. Perhaps there is a failure among believers to recognize futility when it comes to indoctrinating skeptical non-theists. Remember, you are not seeing the ones who gave up. They exist, of course, but they are not memorable. For every evangalist who knocked on your door, how many did not?

Sheesh, we could have done this through PM...

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
oddly enough, you'd be on my list too, if mods could have them...:D
Remember, you are not seeing the ones who gave up. They exist, of course, but they are not memorable. For every evangalist who knocked on your door, how many did not?

Sheesh, we could have done this through PM... [/B]
You're absolutely right. I'm never starting another thread; ever. I'll be a hit and run poster in other people's threads, but I just don't have the 'passion' to keep trying. I know futility when I see it. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Perhaps you guys are looking at it backwards. Maybe it isn't being a believer that makes people act that way, maybe religious belief provides an outlet for and thus attracts people who are otherwise prone to act that way anyway. The kind of person who, even if they weren't religious, would be trying to get you to join their club/political party/whatever.

I am no psychology major, so I could just be talking out of my @$$, but it strikes me as a possibility.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Phil

You're absolutely right. I'm never starting another thread; ever. I'll be a hit and run poster in other people's threads, but I just don't have the 'passion' to keep trying. I know futility when I see it. ;)

Hey, I posted something, so there.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Fine, fine, I'll be the somebody else who posts. Happy? ;)

Anyways, Mercutio summed up my feelings on why people continue to persist in their attempts to convert the godless heathen unbelievers. As an ex-Catholic, I never felt the extreme door-to-door pressure to convert others, but I would look for ways to help others see the "Truth" for the very reason that I didn't want them to perish. I was never extremely vocal, but would attempt to respond to questions when they arose.

Regarding the soldier allegory, there really isn't a need to ever retreat when attempting to convert others, as there is no penalty for continuing. The assumption being that you can take a break and continue another day if you are not making any headway.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Perhaps you guys are looking at it backwards. Maybe it isn't being a believer that makes people act that way, maybe religious belief provides an outlet for and thus attracts people who are otherwise prone to act that way anyway. The kind of person who, even if they weren't religious, would be trying to get you to join their club/political party/whatever.

I am no psychology major, so I could just be talking out of my @$$, but it strikes me as a possibility.
Talk out of any orifice you want. Just glad to have others in the discussion.

[Skeptical Greg]

I think most of the ones who make a living at it; preachers, priests & etc.. know ( deep down or not...) it's a bunch of crap and face unemployment if they give up..

I believe that most of the lay-evangelists are looking for affirmation by bringing others into the fold.. i.e.. Some of this sounds fishy, but if I can get others to believe, then maybe my doubts are not warranted...


Being religiously converted is kind of like falling in love. After the initial emotional, hormonal high goes away, you need something else to sustain it.. For religion, you keep it going by telling the story over and over again and gain affirmation by having someone feed it back to you...


I think I can add more to this, but I have to leave for now..

Good thread Phil... You should do this more often...

[Nyarlathotep]

It also strikes me that it isn't necessarily a majority, or even a large minority of believers who behave in that manner. However those of us who are not churchgoers are much more likely notice (or even encounter) those that do simply because we don't move in the same circles as they do but the beleivers who are prone to try to push their faith off on others make an effort to seek us out.

[Phil]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
. . . Regarding the soldier allegory, there really isn't a need to ever retreat when attempting to convert others, as there is no penalty for continuing. The assumption being that you can take a break and continue another day if you are not making any headway.

Makes sense.

Man, I'm wondering if I ever felt that type of ferver when I was going to church. I honestly don't think I did.

But I know that I'm capable, as I have great passion for writing, and surfing, and generally just hanging out at the beach among other things. And I suppose where those things are concerned, I can be just as immoveable as a believer. The difference is, I'm not taking any of my objects of passion on faith.

[Ignatius]

Phil,

I'm taking you off of my ignore list just long enough to reply, then it back to oblivion with you! (and don't ask me tough questions like how I knew about this thread if I had you on ignore)

Maybe one factor is church and upbringing. I don't think this acounts for most of it, but it should be a little slice at least. Think about it, you reached the point you are at now starting when you were a teenager. Maybe if you had been raised an atheist and sent to anti-church at least once per week and had your non-believe built into daily rituals you would see things differently and approach others with different beliefs differently.

Someone raised from birth to believe a certain way might be more prone to prosteletizing (forgive my spelling it is late on Friday afternoon and I'm not bothering with smell checker). I don't have anything to back this up, but it makes sense that there would be a difference in attitude from somebody that comes to a belief system at a different time in their life than someone that believes it from birth.

Then again, there are people that are fairly indifferent to the question of god and then become born again later in their life. Maybe that kills my theory, maybe not. Just throwing out ideas for you.

Now back to my secret, unprovoked loathing of you and your good threads!

[Phil]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
It also strikes me that it isn't necessarily a majority, or even a large minority of believers who behave in that manner. However those of us who are not churchgoers are much more likely notice (or even encounter) those that do simply because we don't move in the same circles as they do but the beleivers who are prone to try to push their faith off on others make an effort to seek us out.
Granted. I didn't mean to generalize. Thanks for pointing this out.

And it follows that not all non-theists are impossible cases in the eyes of the believer. Some non-theists aren't skeptics, but simply folks who haven't been introduced to whatever the believer is on about. Those individuals would be better potential converts I should think.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Phil,

I'm taking you off of my ignore list just long enough to reply, then it back to oblivion with you! . . .
Put me on ignore if you must, but let buy a couple of hot dogs before you go.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Phil

Put me on ignore if you must, but let buy a couple of hot dogs before you go.

Hot dogs! Ahh, that warms my valve.

I love you now.

I'm so fickle.

[Ralph]

I think it's the "misery loves company" theory.........

[Phil]

Originally posted by Ralph
I think it's the "misery loves company" theory.........
Are you saying they're miserable? Because they seem so happy. You know, happy, in that Stepford Wife sort of way . . . uhh . . . hey, you don't think . . .? Nah.

Seriously, there's probably some truth to that, but I'd ask the same questions of that mindset. What drives it?

BTW, your statement reminds me of all the married people who tell me how great it is to be married. Now that's the misery loves company mentality. {An aside: See, Ignatius? No emoticon.}

[Dancing David]

Yours is a post due consideration, and one that many have discussed recently. Why do people behave in a religous fashion, even when there is no discernable benefit to the behavior, and even more importantly why do they do it to thier detriment?

So many reasons, so little foam coming from my mouth, I used to have fits when the word 'religion'was mentioned.

There are so many good answers that just want to jump right out, wonder, fear and more fear.

It seems that few people engage in religion with any sort of sincerity, they are content to sit on the bus and just goe where-ever the bus takes them. I am trying very hard to sort out all my negative beliefs about religion.

Maybe obsessive compulsive disorder would explain a lot of the questions that have been asked. I want to say more but I am going to follow Thumper's father's rule.

[Ladyhawk]

Phil;

I think it's a combination of fear and desire. Fear that this life may be it...all that there is....and desire for something better after death. The need for a reward; the final answer...

I am also a recovering Catholic but was somewhat more devout than you describe yourself to have been when I was younger. There was some comfort in being able to assign blame/reason/purpose to every event in my life (mostly the bad ones) to a power greater than I. It meant I didn't really have to be responsible....just loyal . Oh, how easy life was when everything was merely a "test of my faith"....

Sure, I questioned a lot of things I was taught. But, it was so much more comforting to keep believing. And, if LOTS of other people believe in the same similar concept, well, it's got to be right!

Looking back, I realize faith is easy. Atheism is hard. Atheism doesn't allow scapegoats or secret passages or messages that have to be decoded to get to the truth. It's not open to interpretation by different sects of Atheism. And it sure isn't as popular to be an atheist as it is to be a Xian.

Good post, Phil!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Phil

Man, I'm wondering if I ever felt that type of ferver when I was going to church. I honestly don't think I did.
I did, at one point. I even lost a good friend for 2 years, nearly for good, because she was an atheist and I wanted her to see "the truth". I'm better now :D, but that's 2 years of a friendship I can't get back. And all the while I was certain that I was doing the right thing.

It is because of that incident that I am now able to take the "woo" point of view now (on occasion, at least) and see it with sympathy.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Dancing David
. . . So many reasons, so little foam coming from my mouth, I used to have fits when the word 'religion'was mentioned.

There are so many good answers that just want to jump right out, wonder, fear and more fear.

It seems that few people engage in religion with any sort of sincerity, they are content to sit on the bus and just goe where-ever the bus takes them. I am trying very hard to sort out all my negative beliefs about religion.

Maybe obsessive compulsive disorder would explain a lot of the questions that have been asked. I want to say more but I am going to follow Thumper's father's rule.
Feel free to spew any and all venom here, my man. We'll all abide ya.

Actually, I hold some negative feelings toward organized religion myself, and it has nothing to do with the nature of its inherent beliefs, but more about the great ills that have been perpetrated down through the years. I mean, I would feel just as negative about any other group had they done similar things on such a scale. The motives aren't the source of my negativity. The actions are. I don't however hold anything negative toward individuals that are ardent in their beliefs. As I say, if they ain't hurting me, I don't really care what they do or believe. To each his own. Do you feel similarly, or is there more to your distaste?

And obsessive compulsive disorder would explain a lot, but some of the folks I've encountered don't exhibit any signs of OCD in other circumstances. I think there is more to their mindset than that. That's why I started this thread, to see if we can come to some conclusions.

Now I must go check all the windows and door, and wash my hands about 50 times.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I did, at one point. I even lost a good friend for 2 years, nearly for good, because she was an atheist and I wanted her to see "the truth". I'm better now :D, but that's 2 years of a friendship I can't get back. And all the while I was certain that I was doing the right thing.

It is because of that incident that I am now able to take the "woo" point of view now (on occasion, at least) and see it with sympathy.
Understood. It's a shame to have something like that come between you and people you care about. Makes you wonder how many good relationships could have developed had no barriers existed. I mean, I don't judge people based on what they do and do not believe. If I like someone, they are my friend. But I know there are people acquainted with me that veer away from a stronger relationship, because I don't believe in their god. Oh well.

BTW, I would expect better from you than 'the "woo" point '. How did the poet inside you let you write that?;)

[Cleopatra]

Although I believe in God I have never preached about God on the contrary when it comes to discussing about it I insist that I do not believe in his physical existence but I consider the psychological help of believing in God valuable at least for me.

Being involved in Politics though I have been doing nothing but preaching. I have spent hours trying to persuade people about the necessity to make changes in this or that. I have written articles in papers, I have debated like crazy issues in my association, I have represented in court groups that I believe in their ideas.

By studying History I have understood that Politics and Religion are very similar --not to say identical- in the way they preach. It wouldn't be hyperbolic to say that politicians learned the secrets of their professions by the priests. So, from this point of view I believe that religious preaching is nothing but a matter of control

Opinionated people feel that it's essential that others share their beliefs, they are certain that they know the right thing and others do not share the same opinion only because nobody has explained it to them properly.

One of the things that distinguishes Politics from Religion though is the fact that the later is unable to provide proof for its claims. Religion preaches about a God of Mercy whilst in our everyday lives are witnessing nothing but humans in pain. However hard religious people try to rationalize this they are humans and when pain knocks on their door believing in God is not enough. They feel that is important to make other share their ideas. To the eyes of a religious person, everytime an atheist embraces their beliefs is not only a Victory but it's a Proof of the existence of God.After all, if the majority believes , can the majority be THAT wrong?

I have a different feeling towards Atheists :) Sometimes, when I read threads in the forum I feel jealous of the people that they do not need to believe in God. I have observed of course that many atheists here have substituted Religion for an uncontrolable love towards their Nation or towards a political party and to be exact only one poster in this forum appears to me free from such beliefs and needs but this is not our question.

Another thing that bothers me a little is that although Atheists do not preach they don't make any effort at all to hide their contempt for those that they believe.I don't think that people like me have anything to do with the Fundamentalists but yet quite often I receive from atheists the same behavior.

I have a question and but I will bring an example to pose it as clearly as possible. In my work I see people getting away with crimes they have committed although others(policemen, lawyers, judges) have tried really hard to make them pay for what they have done but sometimes the system works for the benefit of the criminal. Every time I see such a thing of course I get very angry and disappointed. I have found relieving to believe that "God sees Injustice and He will make them pay in the Future".Otherwise what's the alternative? I know colleagues that day-dream about underground organizations that "take care" of obvious cases of injustice and they punish apart from the criminal the judge or the jury that contributed to that. I am sorry but I rather believe that God will take care of the issue.

I always wonder how atheists deal with such situations and how they deal with the things in life that do not have a logical explanation.

BTW Nice topic Phil :)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I have a question and but I will bring an example to pose it as clearly as possible. In my work I see people getting away with crimes they have committed although others(policemen, lawyers, judges) have tried really hard to make them pay for what they have done but sometimes the system works for the benefit of the criminal. Every time I see such a thing of course I get very angry and disappointed. I have found relieving to believe that "God sees Injustice and He will make them pay in the Future".Otherwise what's the alternative? I know colleagues that day-dream about underground organizations that "take care" of obvious cases of injustice and they punish apart from the criminal the judge or the jury that contributed to that. I am sorry but I rather believe that God will take care of the issue.

I always wonder how atheists deal with such situations and how they deal with the things in life that do not have a logical explanation.


In my case, I wind up feeling a bit angry and a bit sad. Angry that such things happen and that some people are literally getting away with murder, and a bit sad that people can be so disappointing in letting such things happen.
Not in a utopian 'world free of crime' kind of way, but in a 'Damn, things could be better' way.
And this is not directed at you, but I get the distinct impression that some out there can hand wave injustice away by consoling themselves with some kind of 'Eternal Judgement' concept.
Not me. All the suffering and torment and petty little problems in the world need to be faced and adressed. You can't just pretend you're going to happy land after you die. It's all here and now, so make it better here and now.

[Desdemona]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I always wonder how atheists deal with such situations and how they deal with the things in life that do not have a logical explanation.


Your basic concept is wrong. In your example there is a pretty logical explanation to why criminals can escape punishment. Legal systems are not perfect and when humans are involved there are many factors you can't control and predict. Another example of what theists believe that it doesn't have a logical explanation is death this is their favourite example. We can specify with certainty what causes death. If a child dies of cancer there is nothing illogical in its death, it's not illogical that we haven't found the cure for cancer yet. Some decades ago we didn't know we couldn't cure tuberculosis and today nobody dies of that. The pain a death causes is not illogical either it is very understandable. I can't see anything irrational in death that can lead you to God for comfort. The way I deal with unpleasant situations is to find the logical explanation in each case and then consider if I have done anything wrong. I can't prevent a death from cancer (maybe) but I find comfort in my belief in Science. If we can't prevent death today this doesn't mean that we won't be able to prevent death in the future. This is a comfort God can't provide to me.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I always wonder how atheists deal with such situations and how they deal with the things in life that do not have a logical explanation.

The way that I deal with it is a certain acceptance that life simply isn't fair. There just wont always be justice for the kind and punishment for the wicked.

This gives me a very real appreciation for the fragility of life and the huge role that chance plays for all of us. Because of this I think I really do cherish the time on this earth that I have. I honestly do spend quite a bit of time just appreciating the family that I have and the comfortable, privileged life I have compared to the majority of people that live now and have ever lived.

I think that this view gives me a certain advantage over people that have different belief systems. It seems very contrary to human nature to be content and happy. That may be why many people that live similar lives to me are not.

[Mercutio]

Desdemona, if I read you right, it is as if there are 2 very different responses, after a perceived injustice:

1--Why? It must be part of god's plan, beyond our knowledge. We must have faith that justice will be done in the hereafter.

2--Why? I don't know; let's try to find out, to fix it so that it doesn't happen again.

I think that each may give rise to its own kind of optimism, but with very different results.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
. . . One of the things that distinguishes Politics from Religion though is the fact that the later is unable to provide proof for its claims. Religion preaches about a God of Mercy whilst in our everyday lives are witnessing nothing but humans in pain. However hard religious people try to rationalize this they are humans and when pain knocks on their door believing in God is not enough. They feel that is important to make other share their ideas. To the eyes of a religious person, everytime an atheist embraces their beliefs is not only a Victory but it's a Proof of the existence of God.After all, if the majority believes , can the majority be THAT wrong? . . .

So are you saying that many religious people somehow in the backs of their minds understand that blind faith isn't rational, and that they may indeed suspect that their god really doesn't exist? But to be fervent and witness to others until those others profess the same faith over which they have a tenuous grasp is a sort of salve for their own denial, actually diminishing it or wiping it out completely?

If so, that is a very interesting thought. It's like a liar who has convinced himself that his lies are true by constantly repeating that they are. Isn't there a psychological term for that?
Originally posted by Cleopatra
. . . I have a question and but I will bring an example to pose it as clearly as possible. In my work I see people getting away with crimes they have committed although others(policemen, lawyers, judges) have tried really hard to make them pay for what they have done but sometimes the system works for the benefit of the criminal. Every time I see such a thing of course I get very angry and disappointed. I have found relieving to believe that "God sees Injustice and He will make them pay in the Future".Otherwise what's the alternative? I know colleagues that day-dream about underground organizations that "take care" of obvious cases of injustice and they punish apart from the criminal the judge or the jury that contributed to that. I am sorry but I rather believe that God will take care of the issue.

I always wonder how atheists deal with such situations and how they deal with the things in life that do not have a logical explanation. . .
I think it's a difficult thing to come to terms with, Cleo, especially for a person with deep convictions such as yourself. And it's an even more difficult thing to explain. I won't even try, other than to tell you how I deal with it.

In my case, I know that the world is full of injustice, and in my heart I'd like to be able to do something about each and every instance. Had I the ability, I would. But I know that I can't.

A lot of guilty people go free and will continue to go free. Many bad individuals will never have to pay for whatever atrocities they have perpetrated. How do I deal with that knowledge? I just do. I can't explain how, but I just let it go.

We do the best that we can when it comes to dispensing justice, and by definition we can do no more. It is pointless to (though I understand difficult not to) worry about it beyond that. If you bottle it all up, and worry about it incessently (sp?), pretty soon your quality of life suffers and the piece of sh*t you couldn't bring to justice has unknowingly affected another life for the worse. I won't let that happen to me.

As to dealing with things that have no logical explanations (yet): well to me, those are some of the things that make life fun. There will probably be explanations for them some day, but in the meantime, why not enjoy them? I personally like the unexplained. It opens the door to wonder, allowing me to imagine and to dream. We have evolved a great capacity for imagination. Why not embrace the keys that unlock it?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Phil
I’m wondering, however, why the faithful seem to have so much ongoing concern for non-believers, going so far as to develop tests and strategies to debate/refute/convert the sinners and their pesky rational approach to the universe.

Because the faithful believe that we are all in this together. Also, the faithful are commissioned by their religious texts to have concern for non-believers. Also, because they believe their beliefs are worth defending and promoting.

In addition, conversion is a never-ending process (in my opinion), so strategies to convert others can also be beneficial to oneself.

I don't pay extremely close attention, but I have never heard a non-theist preach to a believer that they must stop believing in god for whatever reason, and if I ever do, I’ll chastise him or her for using the same groundless threats as the religious.

From my experience, usually what I get is a caveat, as in...You have to stop believing in God or you are irrational; You have to stop believing in God if you want intellectual satisfaction; You have to stop believing in God if you want to be liberated from instituational patriarchy. Is this kind of what you're alluding to?

I never tell anyone they have to believe in God, period. Nobody has to believe in anything. Obviously it is a silly thing to say. If I tell someone who doesn't believe in God that they have to believe in God, all they have to say is "I don't believe in God and I'm doing just as well as you, so back the hell off". End of. If they follow up their statement with "if you want to go to heaven", I'd reckon you don't believe in heaven so this would not bother you in the slightest.

Hey, some folks apparently prefer to remain deluded, and if they’re not hurting anyone, so what?

This is what some theists say about atheists. The theistic notion about God is that God allows people to remain deluded as well. The difference is that God is bothered by that, but not enough to infringe upon free will.

Leave them to their fairies and ghosts.

Oh but it's so much more than that, you should know better.

But I personally have had people try to “convert” me to their theistic worldview, not just in passing, but with an extended, determined effort.

I've had non-theists try to persuade me to their worldview. So what? What's the big deal? If it bugs you, ignore them, right? I've had girls hit on me who I wasn't interested in; some I just avoided, some I had to verbally shut down. It's like this with so many different things, no use bitching about it. Unless you aren't bitching about it. I can't tell. Yes, religious people proselytize. Professors proselytize. Coaches proselytize.

Now, I know that certain doctrines of some religions teach witnessing to the uninformed masses and spreading the word and such, but it seems there is more to it than that. Why do some believers treat atheists like their white whale? Why do they see a non-theistic worldview as a sort of enemy?

Because ideas are like viruses. Survival of the fittest, memes and all that. On this board many have said that the religious idea is a bad one that needs to be stamped out. Consider the opposite perspective. I can't expect you to agree, just to understand where the other perspective is coming from. When it comes to alternate worldviews, an opposite one is in fact an enemy. And no reason to bring up stuff that is not part of this discussion (killing others who don't believe as you, etc.). Ideas exist and unfortunate ones are treated as such by certain people who are passionate about their own ideas.

I suppose I don’t understand fervency in matters religious, nor do I really grasp the notion that they are threatened by the truth.

Right, because you can't consider the other perspective. You can't understand that others think that you do not represent the truth or espouse the truth, as you think and say that you do. Fervancy...well, only some people are fervant. Their are millions and millions of unfervant Christians. The vocal and active minority. Like the Green Party folks on my college campus. They bug me, but I don't let them get to me. I just smile and take their pieces of paper. I respect their tenacity and do try to be charitable most of the time.

Without simply deferring to Shermer and Sagan, can we start a discussion about this? Maybe you psychology majors can offer a glimpse into the thought processes at work among the more ardent believers.

Maybe starting closer to home? The fact that you, amidst others, join a forum to have discussions about your own beliefs and the beliefs of others...well, something is going on their, isn't it?

There's a quote by Gandhi that went something like...If Christians truly had the best idea in the world, then all Christians should want to share it with others. Something like that? Again, I don't expect everyone to believe that, but surely this concept is not a head-scratcher either.

-Elliot

[Phil]

Originally posted by elliotfc
. . . From my experience, usually what I get is a caveat, as in...You have to stop believing in God or you are irrational; You have to stop believing in God if you want intellectual satisfaction; You have to stop believing in God if you want to be liberated from instituational patriarchy. Is this kind of what you're alluding to?
I'm glad that you mentioned this type of thing. It seems you've encountered a non-theist or two that has become frustrated because you couldn't be as rational as they. And that's not to say that you couldn't, but perception plays a big part in heated discussion.

I have been involved in discussions where a skeptic has shown repeatedly that the beliefs of the faithful in the crowd are irrational, even to the point where the believers say, "Yeah, I know it's not rational given what you've said, but it doesn't change how I feel in my heart."

At that point, I say, "Fine, let's go shoot some pool or see if the girls are here yet". But I've seen other skeptics become flabbergasted and start saying the types of things you mention, and I think it's due to frustration that in the eyes of the non-believer, the believer will continue in their blind faith even though they know it's not rational. If and when that happens, I make a point of changing the subject or flat out telling the skeptic just to let it go. And invariably they do. At least in my circles.

Conversely, I've had believers become frustrated with me. The difference is, they come back to fight the good fight again and again, sometimes months and years later, even though I've said to them, "I understand and respect your beliefs, but I can no more go back to believing in god than I could go back to being an eight year old boy." Shouldn't they, at that point, say, "Let's go shoot some pool," or "Let's go see if the girls are here yet"?

It boggles a skeptics mind that a believer will hold so firmly to myths and legends when they themselves admit it's not rational.

And apparently, it boggles a belivers mind that a non-theist can't find solace in the groundless, unproven notions of mythology the way they have.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I never tell anyone they have to believe in God, period. Nobody has to believe in anything. Obviously it is a silly thing to say. If I tell someone who doesn't believe in God that they have to believe in God, all they have to say is "I don't believe in God and I'm doing just as well as you, so back the hell off". End of. If they follow up their statement with "if you want to go to heaven", I'd reckon you don't believe in heaven so this would not bother you in the slightest.
I'm sure you know that I wasn't singling you out. Sounds like you and I could get along famously.
Originally posted by elliotfc
This is what some theists say about atheists. The theistic notion about God is that God allows people to remain deluded as well. The difference is that God is bothered by that, but not enough to infringe upon free will.
I wish more of the believers I meet would say that and be done with it.
Originally posted by elliotfc
Oh but it's so much more than that, you should know better.
I do know better and I apologize for not be more respectful of your fairies and ghosts. :D

Originally posted by elliotfc
I've had non-theists try to persuade me to their worldview. So what? What's the big deal? If it bugs you, ignore them, right? I've had girls hit on me who I wasn't interested in; some I just avoided, some I had to verbally shut down. It's like this with so many different things, no use bitching about it. Unless you aren't bitching about it. I can't tell. Yes, religious people proselytize. Professors proselytize. Coaches proselytize.
It doesn't particularly bug me, but I'm fascinated with what people think and why. I know you understand that some of us on this forum are less interested in slamming theists and those who believe in the paranormal than we are in learning a thing or two. This is an educational foundation. I know we can be harsh when speaking of "those not like us" sometimes, but in my case it's mostly done with what I hope is humor. Perhaps I failed.

I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to have a discussion about people's mindsets.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Because ideas are like viruses. Survival of the fittest, memes and all that. On this board many have said that the religious idea is a bad one that needs to be stamped out. . .
And I would agree that certain aspects of certain religious sects are and are potentially dangerous. But that is for another thread.
Originally posted by elliotfc
Consider the opposite perspective. I can't expect you to agree, just to understand where the other perspective is coming from. When it comes to alternate worldviews, an opposite one is in fact an enemy. . .
I don't know that I would agree with that last statement. Certainly the potential is there for alternate (not sure how you'd define 'opposite') worldviews to be dangerous to me, but not all are dangerous. Most are just different. And as I said, "If it ain't hurtin' me, what the hell do I care?"

Originally posted by elliotfc
Right, because you can't consider the other perspective. You can't understand that others think that you do not represent the truth or espouse the truth, as you think and say that you do. . .
This is why I started the thread. If understanding the other perspective will give me a glimpse into fervency in the face of futility, than that's what I want. Enlighten me.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Maybe starting closer to home? The fact that you, amidst others, join a forum to have discussions about your own beliefs and the beliefs of others...well, something is going on their, isn't it?
I'll just disspell a misconception among non-skeptics and then be on my way. It's getting late and I'm hungry. I hope I'm not taking too many liberties here, but skeptics do not deal in "beliefs". Skepticism, critical thinking, and science just don't operate that way. Believing, as it is defined by inference in this thread, is a departure from everything to which skeptics adhere.

Well, having said that. Thanks for your post, elliot. Look forward to hearing more from you.

[c4ts]

The athiest test is hillarious. Look here:
Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone ten rows of five.

They would if you dropped them into a box the right size and shape!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
All of the above, I am sure...and occasionally, if you find the right person, the belief that they are doing Good. What keeps a teacher plugging away for low pay, apathetic students, comments like "those who can't, teach"? Once in a while you make a difference.

Once in a while, you save somebody. (speaking from their shoes now) Once in a while, you turn somebody to the lord. Like the slot machine paying back on a schedule to not merely keep you working, but keep you enthusiastically coming back for more, the variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement (for the behaviorists out there) is a potent schedule. You keep evangelizing because you never know where your next lost soul is that is now going to heaven because of you.

So there's a behaviorist "mechanism" for you...

This doesn't explain one characteristic I've found of the overwhelming majority of religious proselytizers, namely, that they lie a lot. Not just about things that can be considered matters of religious versus irreligious opinion, but about clearly identifiable matters. I've pressed some religious proselytizers on the issue, and more than once I've gotten the answer "Lying for Jesus is a virtuous act."

I therefore guess that one of the primary motivations for proselytizing is to provide justification for feelings of superiority.

[Dancing David]

There are so many reasons to prosletize and so little time. the scary one is the myth that the second coming won't occur until every person has had a chance to hear the gospel. So I have a small child I keep locked in my basement to prevent them from hearing the gospel.
When i was a 'jesus-person', I and most of the people I hung out with were Xian, we would only talk about our faith when it was appropriate to the conversation, and certainly I don't remeber being motivated to preach or anything.

But I have had a friend convert who went from atheism to born again , and it was painful, he definitly became snide and superior about his faith. He antagonized us with his faith and condescension on a daily basis.

I think that religion at times is like addiction, the more people around you use, the more comfortable you are with your own use.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by epepke

This doesn't explain one characteristic I've found of the overwhelming majority of religious proselytizers, namely, that they lie a lot. Not just about things that can be considered matters of religious versus irreligious opinion, but about clearly identifiable matters. I've pressed some religious proselytizers on the issue, and more than once I've gotten the answer "Lying for Jesus is a virtuous act."
I must say that my observations were based on one small group of very good people. I honestly do not think any of them lied, or would lie, or felt there was any need to.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Phil

I'm glad that you mentioned this type of thing. It seems you've encountered a non-theist or two that has become frustrated because you couldn't be as rational as they. And that's not to say that you couldn't, but perception plays a big part in heated discussion.

I have been involved in discussions where a skeptic has shown repeatedly that the beliefs of the faithful in the crowd are irrational, even to the point where the believers say, "Yeah, I know it's not rational given what you've said, but it doesn't change how I feel in my heart."

The problem here is that the non-theist has a more limited definition of *rational* than the theist. Irrational sounds like an insult; these days I understand that the real problem deals in incongruent definition.

When it comes to demonstrating another is irrational, I think the most important thing is to identify the persons' boundaries and preconceptions and premises. That way I can very well understand the statement that I am not speaking rationally, based on your beliefs on what is included/discluded in rational discussion. It comes down to point-of-view for me, but that's just me. As long as I can understand why someone thinks differently from me I am content with that; that's why I participate here.

It comes down to *feel* for everyone in the end, doesn't it? There is no universal law that says any individual has to embrace a certain world-view. Contentment can be had with any of a thousand different world-views...it all depends on individual *feel*. I'm saying that plays a role, don't take that as me believing that intellectual thought does not play a role. People throw out the word *feel* as if that is something that must be avoided to be rational; the fact is, it is not avoidable. If something doesn't feel right, you think it through until it does feel right, or until you accept something else. Self-evident, right?

But I've seen other skeptics become flabbergasted and start saying the types of things you mention, and I think it's due to frustration that in the eyes of the non-believer, the believer will continue in their blind faith even though they know it's not rational.

Well I'm certainly not the type who apologizes by saying "I know mine is a blind faith, but..." On the contrary, mine is faith that sees just fine. Do I accept some things without seeing? Of course. And others accept abiogenesis without ever having seen it. What's the big deal? Everything that I see fits with my worldview.

You speak as if rationality is a universal standard that every human must agree on. I think rationality is very personal and can not be considered impersonally. Does that mean every mind is equally rational? Of course not. We must measure other minds by our own personal standard of rationality. Mine does not measure up to yours since your definition is more confining than mine, I think. I can't speak for the people who you've discussed, the people who admit to blind faith or irrationality, but maybe they are coming from where I am coming from.

If and when that happens, I make a point of changing the subject or flat out telling the skeptic just to let it go. And invariably they do. At least in my circles.

You need to try out some different circles. :)

Oh there are so many variables; amount of beer, the company that is listening in, time of night. I've learned to let go over the years. The one thing I hate is saying the same thing over and over again. My one regret is usually when the other just shakes my head at my perspective and indicates that they can not understand my perspective at all. I get turned off when the other speaks in dogmatic certitude.

Conversely, I've had believers become frustrated with me. The difference is, they come back to fight the good fight again and again, sometimes months and years later, even though I've said to them, "I understand and respect your beliefs, but I can no more go back to believing in god than I could go back to being an eight year old boy." Shouldn't they, at that point, say, "Let's go shoot some pool," or "Let's go see if the girls are here yet"?

Agreed, some people have a hard time letting go. Insecurity has a bit to do with it I think...I don't mean that negatively, or, maybe just a bit negatively. We all have to justify our beliefs to ourselves, and some people do that by being persistent and keeping up the fight.

It boggles a skeptics mind that a believer will hold so firmly to myths and legends when they themselves admit it's not rational.

Would you accept that there are different species of rationality? You yourself must admit that people who make the admission you report manage to get along pretty well.

I don't wake up every day and declare "In all things, rationality!" I say silly and outrageous things all the time. I believe in creativity. I entertain the most bizarre notions in existence. I don't have the personal requirements of acceptance that you possess. This absolutely does NOT mean I believe in an intergalactic Easter Bunny, or whatever straw horses you might ever throw my way. It's just that I think the human species might be lower on the overall hierarchy, something like that. Is that an irrational thought? Not in my mind. Do I admit that such an idea is irrational in your mind? Yes I do.

And apparently, it boggles a belivers mind that a non-theist can't find solace in the groundless, unproven notions of mythology the way they have.[QUOTE]

But surely religions aren't groundless. Just take Christianity. There are reasons for the existence of that religion. As for unproven, the existence of human error is adequate proof for most Christians (I think). Again, when you talk of grounds or proofs, you have different things in mind than I do. You're putting the claims of Christianity to a scientific test, and they fail, or, they are untestable. That doesn't mean the claims aren't true. Because I see grounds and proofs all around me that have nothing to do with the scientific method. I don't live my life, or subject my beliefs, to a scientific method. Science is merely useful to me, why should it be anything more? It ain't no religion, that's fer sure.

[QUOTE]I do know better and I apologize for not be more respectful of your fairies and ghosts. :D

You bastard! Go stick a microscope in your ear.

I know we can be harsh when speaking of "those not like us" sometimes, but in my case it's mostly done with what I hope is humor. Perhaps I failed.

No, it's just fun to wax indignant a bit every now and then. :)

I've reached the point where I never exclaim to another person "How can you possibly believe that?" My thing is getting huffy when people exclude other theories with a flick of the wrist. I might be sounding like a hippy, but we should all understand each other.

I'll just disspell a misconception among non-skeptics and then be on my way. It's getting late and I'm hungry. I hope I'm not taking too many liberties here, but skeptics do not deal in "beliefs". Skepticism, critical thinking, and science just don't operate that way. Believing, as it is defined by inference in this thread, is a departure from everything to which skeptics adhere.

Skeptics believe in the standards in which their intellectual process operates...

Obviously, a person does not have to operate within your standards. Therefore, you have to believe in the standards.

Any thoughts? Let's keep this one up, you're an amicable fella in spite of your fairy phobia. ;)

-Elliot

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Perhaps you guys are looking at it backwards. Maybe it isn't being a believer that makes people act that way, maybe religious belief provides an outlet for and thus attracts people who are otherwise prone to act that way anyway. The kind of person who, even if they weren't religious, would be trying to get you to join their club/political party/whatever.

I am no psychology major, so I could just be talking out of my @$$, but it strikes me as a possibility. Sounds about right...those folks are 'joiners'. And, of course, joiners want everyone else to join too. They are the same people who start a diet and try to get everyone to join them. They lend their favorite movies to you whether you want it or not. Scumbags!

[Phil]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The problem here is that the non-theist has a more limited definition of *rational* than the theist. Irrational sounds like an insult; these days I understand that the real problem deals in incongruent definition. . .

. . . . Obviously, a person does not have to operate within your standards. Therefore, you have to believe in the standards.
You make some very good points. So many that I won't quote them all back to you.

It seems we've reached a point where we could spin off in a number of different directions, but I wanted to address one thing you brought up, and leave the rest for another time. Hope I've got your meaning correct. I apologize if I'm mistaken.

The notion of degrees.

It may not be possible, but it might be beneficial to all parties if we could have a sort of lesson on degrees the moment we realize that a) a discussion about religion is going to take place, and b) the "dais" includes both theists and non-theists.

Although I can do it very easily because I have a good imagination and a sharply defined sense of fantasy, it's against my nature to be rational by degrees when seriously considering life's bigger questions. In my view, a rational person, absorbs the given information and logically ferrets out the facts and best indications in all situations when looking for the truth; not just selected situations, but all situations. And what's left over is great for speculation but not necessarily for drawing conclusions until more is known.

An example: Concerning stories from the Christian Bible (since I'm a little more familiar with it than other religious documents) --- Several natural processes can explain the parting of the Red Sea, the flood, and even the ressurection of Christ. These are supposedly supernatural events, but there is strong indication that there is a more natural explanation for each. Viewing each as a natural event turned into a good story by folks who didn't know any better or who had an agenda does not insult my intelligence and falls precisely into line with the way I've seen nature and humans behave over and over again. Now if I want to be true to myself, and discover what I think is the truth, I have to approach every other supposed supernatural phenomenon in the Bible, including whether or not the man upstair exists, the exact same way. Doing that I find no indication that god is real.

On the other side of the coin, if one is prone to being rational only by degree, that person might concede that some of the supposed supernatutal events weren't supernatural at all, but stories about phenomena that were simply unexplained at the time. There's not a strong indication that Moses laid down a staff and it turned into a viper or that Jesus walked on water or fed 5000 people with a couple of fishes and some bread. These are just stories or parables to teach good lessons. But these sometime rational people stop short of the bigger parts. Is Jesus god? Does god exist? These things are of a supernatural nature, too, but there is no more indication that they are actual than bread falling from the sky or a man being raised from the dead. Still, the sometime rational stop short in their examination here.

And my question is not how. I can do it, too, if I so choose. My question is why. Why be rational and logical about some things that are this important and not others? More importantly, if you (not you, elliot, but the fervent believer) know how to be rational, don't you know that since I've applied that type of reasoning to the big picture, I'm not going to buy the tales of the supernatural no matter how many times I hear them?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by epepke


This doesn't explain one characteristic I've found of the overwhelming majority of religious proselytizers, namely, that they lie a lot.

I respect your own personal experiences, but surely you are speaking anecdotally.

People, in general, lie a lot, or sometimes, or once a month. Are you talking about lying in the context of a debate? Maybe it's the place where you live, or the type of peope you associate with? I don't know. I find religious proselytizers to be honest people myself; maybe I'm not asking them the right questions?

Of course proselytizers of other non-religious philosophies and ideologies lie as well. I'm not sure what all that means, besides people lie, and when debates occur, lying is often rampant.

Not just about things that can be considered matters of religious versus irreligious opinion, but about clearly identifiable matters. I've pressed some religious proselytizers on the issue, and more than once I've gotten the answer "Lying for Jesus is a virtuous act."

Fascinating. May I ask...if possible...could you put me into contact with these persons?

-Elliot

I therefore guess that one of the primary motivations for proselytizing is to provide justification for feelings of superiority.

That is often a primary motivation, but certainly not for everyone.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Epepke...if you are there...you mentioned you've spoken to Christians who have said that lying for Jesus is a virtuous act. If at all possible could you hook me up to a discussion with those people? My e-mail address is elliotfc@optonline.net. I'd really appreciate that, thanks.

-Elliot

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Phil

Are you saying they're miserable? Because they seem so happy. You know, happy, in that Stepford Wife sort of way . . . uhh . . . hey, you don't think . . .? Nah.

Seriously, there's probably some truth to that, but I'd ask the same questions of that mindset. What drives it?

BTW, your statement reminds me of all the married people who tell me how great it is to be married. Now that's the misery loves company mentality. {An aside: See, Ignatius? No emoticon.}

I've been reading a lot of posts over at Rapture Ready. While I'm sure there are depressed, unhappy people on any internet forum, I get the impression that they're running above the national average over there.

A lot of them postively can't wait for this big event to occur. For some it seems to be mainly due to the fact that they find life here on planet earth so unsatisfying and a desire for revenge on the non-believers.

Others seem to be suffering from signs of clinical depression and I've seen others with signs of alcohol & drug dependence issues.

I posted something over there to the effect that even though I'm not a believer.....my life is going quite well now. That seemed to bother a few of them quite a bit.

I get the impression that unless your happiness is somehow related to Jesus------you must be doing something wrong and you're not REALLY happy.

If you're having fun with life----somehow you're going to wind up burning in hell for it.

Good analaogy with the "Stepford Wives" though......it fits well.