Convince and Convert an Atheist

[Beanbag]

This is an open invitation for Christians out there to open a discussion with a true, dedicated atheist. I want to hear and understand why I should become a Christian.

This IS NOT being done in an antagonistic fashion -- I'm not out to argue with you, or attempt to convert you to my way of thinking. I want to hear from your point of view without either of us raising our hackles and spitting at each other. TALK WITH ME. I will listen and reply, either with comments or questions.

I ask that we remain civilized here. Being an open forum, remember that others can see what's going on here. If anyone begins behaving badly, I'll Ignore you, and you'll lose the opportunity. The same goes for any "nonbelievers" -- I don't want this thread derailed and taken off too the wild blue whatever.

These are the starting conditions. I'll give you some information about my personal beliefs in the following post.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Okay. I'm an atheist. I pretty much have never believed, though I was raised a Methodist. I've looked through the bible, suffered through years of parables and singing inane songs in Sunday school. I've looked at the inconsistencies in the world and not seen any rhyme or reason, no sense of a guiding hand. The current state of the world and universe appears to be adequately explained as the end result of a long chain of random events.

My personal opinion is that god is lacking in several fundamental skills that a good manager should have. Most particularly, god appears to lack the ability to communicate clearly. I can't make the jump of "believe, and it will be true." All it would take is one clear, incontrovertible act of a divine being to make me believe, but for some reason I can't find one.

What am I missing?

Beanbag

[Cosmo]

Okay. I'm an atheist. I pretty much have never believed, though I was raised a Methodist. I've looked through the bible, suffered through years of parables and singing inane songs in Sunday school.

I think you're coming close to breaking your own rule. ;)

I ask that we remain civilized here. Being an open forum, remember that others can see what's going on here. If anyone begins behaving badly, I'll Ignore you, and you'll lose the opportunity.

[Beanbag]

Sorry. The whole Sunday School experience is one long string of bad memories. I'll try to behave.

However, the songs were pretty inane.

Beanbag

[Tricky]

If you're really interested in this, you should try some Christian forums. We don't get a lot of Christians here and they tend to fall into two categories: Either extremely... um... faithful, therefore unlikely to convince you, or thoughtful and rational, therefore unlikely to try to convince you.

[Cosmo]

If you're really interested in this, you should try some Christian forums. We don't get a lot of Christians here and they tend to fall into two categories: Either extremely... um... faithful, therefore unlikely to convince you, or thoughtful and rational, therefore unlikely to try to convince you.

Are these two groups not representative of the internet at large?

[Beanbag]

It's the thoughtful and rationals that interest me. Though I am interested in hearing from those who have a great deal of enthusiasm on the subject. As long as things remain on a civil level.

Beanbag

[FaisonMars]

I'm very interested in this discussion, too. Anyone want to witness to me? It's one of Jesus' commandments, so let me help you out. Every few years I go round and round with a Christian, and I learn something new every time.

The problem is that being a Christian (or not) really depends so much on your worldview. I was raised as a fundie Christian in the South, and even though my critical mind had a lot of problems with the theology, I accepted it because in the culture of the Bible Belt, Good person = Christian and Bad person = lapsed Christian. It wasn't until I went to college and opened up my worldview that I saw you can be good and moral and not a Christian. And it wasn't until I studied a lot of science that I understood that the idea of the afterlife made no sense and that there was a lot of evidence to support evolution and the Big Bang (and hence no need for a theistic, creator God).

But that didn't happen over night for me... it took a long time, a lot of education, and a lot of thinking and breaking out of that worldview that I was brought up in. It's hard to get anywhere with an evangelical Christian who hasn't made that journey him or herself (and who doesn't want to).

[Blutarsky]

Not a whole lot to say here other than it reminds me of CS Lewis who, after stating something that very much mirrored your comments.

He stopped for a second and pondered why he had reason to question why things appear to be "wrong" with the world, and realized that even in the asking of the question it pointed to a god. A man doesn't call a path crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight path looks like.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning-- CS Lewis

[FaisonMars]

Not a whole lot to say here other than it reminds me of CS Lewis who, after stating something that very much mirrored your comments.

He stopped for a second and pondered why he had reason to question why things appear to be "wrong" with the world, and realized that even in the asking of the question it pointed to a god. A man doesn't call a path crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight path looks like.


You are saying that God provides an absolute framework for morality. Morality is a complicated problem, but it's possible to say what is "good" and "bad" using plenty of principles (e.g. utilitarianism) that do not involve God. Even Christians do it.

[FaisonMars]

It's the thoughtful and rationals that interest me. Though I am interested in hearing from those who have a great deal of enthusiasm on the subject. As long as things remain on a civil level.

Beanbag

Exactly-- I don't want to go down to Bible study again at the local church, because I've heard it all before and never found it convincing, and the person trying to convert me eventually gives up and prays that some day God will open my heart.

I did make contact with a guy in the molecular biology department here who recently wrote an article for the student paper about why he is an evangelical Christian. We're going to meet for coffee periodically, and I'm looking forward to it.

[Beanbag]

I've come to the conclusion that the defining quality of being a "good" or humane person is empathy. I look at situations and either know from hard experience or through logical reasoning what it would feel like to be in that situation. It has nothing to do with any divine guidance or commandments. I look at something and make a judgment as to whether it is "good" or "evil" based on the level of harm it would do to others. I've seen so much of what I don't want to be, had a lot of things done to me that I wouldn't do or wish on others. It's a moral compass, if you will, that I let guide my decisions. It isn't based on a threat of divine retribution or eternal torment if I choose to do certain things.

One often-quoted anti-atheist saw is that atheists are "dangerous" because they have nothing restraining their actions. My compass is based on what I think is right and wrong. It has nothing to do with an afterlife, because I truly believe that the afterlife doesn't exist. I think whatever "immortality" one has is in the memories of others and the consequences of the actions one made while alive. Alexander Flemming, for example, discovered penicillin and antibiotics, a momentous discovery that sent ripples throughout the future that affect almost everyone. That, my friends, is immortality.

Beanbag

[Jekyll]

Not a whole lot to say here other than it reminds me of CS Lewis who, after stating something that very much mirrored your comments.

He stopped for a second and pondered why he had reason to question why things appear to be "wrong" with the world, and realized that even in the asking of the question it pointed to a god. A man doesn't call a path crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight path looks like.


I find that very unconvincing, if I remark that horses do not have horns on their heads this does not imply the existence of unicorns.

Why does right deserve this special status that makes it points towards god and suggest his existence?

[tkingdoll]

The CS Lewis argument is silly. Of course a fish feels 'wet' if given the same opportunity for comparison that man is in and out of water. Lewis has a concept of 'just' and 'unjust' because he has experienced both of those things personally and uses empathy to figure out how others feel in a given situation, then makes moral judgements based on those feelings. For example, when he was a kid and his older brother took his sweets away by force and ate them, he was deprived of the enjoyment of the sweets and struck by the imbalance of the situation (which is that his brother could deprive him of the enjoyment of the sweets and also get to enjoy them himself). Now imagine him as the head of a family whose survival depends on the animal he just killed. The head of another group comes and takes it by force to feed his own family. That is simple survival, 'just' and 'unjust' are the modern labels we put the exact same feelings but without the context.

Lewis is just a product of his instincts, that's all. I daresay he might have found that boorish.

Oh, I should also point out the inherent fallacy in assuming that just because a person is a fabulous writer of literature, it does not make him an authority on the existence of God. Argumentum Ad Celebrity :)

[phildonnia]

Not to take over your thread, but I'll check back here to see if any compelling arguments might convince me to become a Christian as well.

Problem is, I've never felt that deep abiding conviction that really is the essence of Christian faith. Not that I didn't spend at least two decades of my life lying to myself about it.

[RationalReverend]

Beanbag, if your interest is genuine, then feel free to PM me and we can have a discussion via that route.

[Blutarsky]

I find that very unconvincing, if I remark that horses do not have horns on their heads this does not imply the existence of unicorns.
If that is what you think it says, you are misunderstanding the argument entirely.

[Blutarsky]

Argumentum Ad Celebrity :)You'd better tell sazai you've found another "fallacy" for his list.:D

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Beanbag, if your interest is genuine, then feel free to PM me and we can have a discussion via that route.
Can't we have it here? Many of us would be interested in the discussion.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I think we could have a rational discussion without resorting to insults. Many people here are in the same boat, as far as growing up in a Christian household goes.

[Blutarsky]

The CS Lewis argument is silly. Of course a fish feels 'wet' if given the same opportunity for comparison that man is in and out of water. Lewis has a concept of 'just' and 'unjust' because he has experienced both of those things personally and uses empathy to figure out how others feel in a given situation, then makes moral judgements based on those feelings. For example, when he was a kid and his older brother took his sweets away by force and ate them, he was deprived of the enjoyment of the sweets and struck by the imbalance of the situation (which is that his brother could deprive him of the enjoyment of the sweets and also get to enjoy them himself). Now imagine him as the head of a family whose survival depends on the animal he just killed. The head of another group comes and takes it by force to feed his own family. That is simple survival, 'just' and 'unjust' are the modern labels we put the exact same feelings but without the context.
Of course this assumes that we have, with some certainty, concluded that morality is entirely subjective and depending from empathy (sazai loves this one). It's fascinating, but far from proven. People overstate the current scholarship regarding objective/subjective ethics quite regularly around here. If there were such incontrovertable evidence about the subject my former jurisprudence professor in law school would be out of a job...:)

[Blutarsky]

I can't speak for everyone here, but I think we could have a rational discussion without resorting to insults.Speaking as a theist, I'm a little "skeptical" that rational discussions about the subject won't diverge into little more than cat fights, but I'm slightly hopeful about this thread...:boxedin:

[Darth Rotor]

This is an open invitation for Christians out there to open a discussion with a true, dedicated atheist. I want to hear and understand why I should become a Christian.

This IS NOT being done in an antagonistic fashion -- I'm not out to argue with you, or attempt to convert you to my way of thinking. I want to hear from your point of view without either of us raising our hackles and spitting at each other. TALK WITH ME. I will listen and reply, either with comments or questions.

I ask that we remain civilized here. Being an open forum, remember that others can see what's going on here. If anyone begins behaving badly, I'll Ignore you, and you'll lose the opportunity. The same goes for any "nonbelievers" -- I don't want this thread derailed and taken off too the wild blue whatever.

These are the starting conditions. I'll give you some information about my personal beliefs in the following post.

Regards;
Beanbag
As I told The Atheist when this topic first came up in an area where I was having a discussion, I think it a fool's errand to try and spread the Faith via internet argument. IMO, the best way it happens is in person, via a witness that has integrity.

So, no, not wasting my time, nor yours. Faith isn't some intellectual exercise.

DR

[Tricky]

Are these two groups not representative of the internet at large?
I'd say no. In my experiences on some Christian boards, I met a number of people who were thoughtful and fairly bright, but would hem and haw around basic Christian beliefs if pressed. They would not claim that they had truth, but would say the equivalent of "It's true for me," and that would be it. They left it to others to pound out the specifics of their "beliefs"

It is true that the internet does see a preponderance of people who hold strong beliefs, but they are not ubiquitous. The moderates are scarcely heard among the din of the ends.

[FaisonMars]

So, no, not wasting my time, nor yours. Faith isn't some intellectual exercise.



I guess that's why I'll never be a theist.

[Blutarsky]

As I told The Atheist when this topic first came up in an area where I was having a discussion, I think it a fool's errand to try and spread the Faith via internet argument. IMO, the best way it happens is in person, via a witness that has integrity.

So, no, not wasting my time, nor yours. Faith isn't some intellectual exercise.

DRDid we have this discussion before? Should I go stand in the corner until I've learned my lesson? One of these days I might listen to wise counsel...:o

[Glen.Nogami]

As I told The Atheist when this topic first came up in an area where I was having a discussion, I think it a fool's errand to try and spread the Faith via internet argument. IMO, the best way it happens is in person, via a witness that has integrity.

So, no, not wasting my time, nor yours. Faith isn't some intellectual exercise.

DR

What is it about seeing someone in person that makes arguments more convincing than reading their words?

[Jekyll]

If that is what you think it says, you are misunderstanding the argument entirely.
I'll tell you what, I'll drop the whole horse thing.
The argument given hinges on the idea that we can, to some degree, objectively recognise something not part of this world and determine how true something in front of us is true to this ideal. If the comparison with unicorns bugs you than consider the platonic shapes. A perfect sphere can not exist nor a triangle but that doesn't stop us recognising a deflated football as non-spherical or even as less spherical than it should be.

I assume that as with the unicorns you wouldn't consider this evidence of god, so why is justice any different?

[DangerousBeliefs]

If you're posting here I see only two alternatives...

1) Remain atheist/agnostic

2) Accept that god(s) exist, but know that there is no true understanding of what he/they want of us.

I don't see any other alternative given the variety of choices for the concept of god and then among those choices, all the sub choices. Clearly Christians have NO IDEA WHAT GOD THINKS as religious ideas vary widely... nor do Jews... nor do Muslims.

[Lonewulf]

I don't see any other alternative given the variety of choices for the concept of god and then among those choices, all the sub choices. Clearly Christians have NO IDEA WHAT GOD THINKS as religious ideas vary widely... nor do Jews... nor do Muslims.

You could always become a Deist.

God created everything and then said, "To hell with this, I'm going to play my Playstation 2".

[Beanbag]

As I told The Atheist when this topic first came up in an area where I was having a discussion, I think it a fool's errand to try and spread the Faith via internet argument. IMO, the best way it happens is in person, via a witness that has integrity.

So, no, not wasting my time, nor yours. Faith isn't some intellectual exercise.

DR
This really isn't supposed to be a matter of faith (no pun intended). This is a matter of gaining understanding. When I want to learn about Islam, I go to the local mosque and talk with an imam or someone who is a "native speaker" of the religion. It's all too easy to pick up a book on Islam and get a Christian or non-Islamic interpretation of the religion (think the works of Led Zepplin reviewed by Van Cliburn). The hope was to keep things civil and fairly intellectual. I freely admit the likelihood of my grasping faith from this thread is very unlikely, but I would like to at least come away better informed.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Speaking as a theist, I'm a little "skeptical" that rational discussions about the subject won't diverge into little more than cat fights, but I'm slightly hopeful about this thread...:boxedin:
I realize completely that this thread would be very easy for one or two persons to derail. Perhaps I'm foolish enough to hope people will have some respect for the intent.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Problem is, I've never felt that deep abiding conviction that really is the essence of Christian faith. Not that I didn't spend at least two decades of my life lying to myself about it.
Don't feel like you're alone -- I've spent a lot of time on the outside, looking in.

Beanbag

[FaisonMars]

You should become a Christian because Jesus loves you, and the only way to salvation is to believe in Him:

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

[Beanbag]

Beanbag, if your interest is genuine, then feel free to PM me and we can have a discussion via that route.
This was supposed to be a more open discussion. Having seen some of the responses directed your way in other threads, I can understand your skepticism about my intentions. Frankly, I'm a bit curious to see how this thread works out.

Beanbag

[Lonewulf]

You should become a Christian because Jesus loves you, and the only way to salvation is to believe in Him:

How are you so sure that the Christian Hell exists, though?

(Honest question, honestly).

[UnrepentantSinner]

www.christianforums.com

There are a number of forums there specifically dedicated to just these sorts of conversations.

[FaisonMars]

How are you so sure that the Christian Hell exists, though?

(Honest question, honestly).

I don't think it's actually a certainty in Christian theology. "Salvation" could be just salvation from non-existence.

Jesus certainly talks about the fire of hell (Mt. 5:22, Mk 9:43), but there's also Matthew 10:28:

"Be afraid of the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell..."

Whether hell is eternal punishment or non-existence, the only way to eternal life is through Jesus.

[Beanbag]

You should become a Christian because Jesus loves you, and the only way to salvation is to believe in Him:

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
That's standard Fundie Answer #485. I have to ask: just because somebody did something that I didn't ask for, and didn't necessarily want in the first place, why should I climb aboard the movement? You need to understand that while I'm not actively pursuing the end of my life, I'm not exactly terrified of it happening.

Frankly, the two choices offered by Standard Christianity (either heaven or hell) don't appeal to me. Neither option has any definite evidence that they exist. I go with what I know: I have no memories, good or bad, of before I was born and my consciousness switched on. I suspect it will be the same after I've died. Just nothingness. I get a certain amount of comfort from this concept.

There has to be a better, more compelling reason.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com)

There are a number of forums there specifically dedicated to just these sorts of conversations.
Yeah, but I'd rather keep it in the family. I've found it easier to connect with the people here. JREF works as a prefilter of sorts. While there are a few people here that get on my nerves, for the most part I like the folks here.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

What is it about seeing someone in person that makes arguments more convincing than reading their words?
There's a total lack of nonverbal feedback and other cues that provide at least a third of the "understanding." Smilies can only do so much.

Beanbag

[Miss Anthrope]

www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com)

There are a number of forums there specifically dedicated to just these sorts of conversations.

Wow, I just wound up reading a thread on their teen forum entitled "Do you believe the bible is true?" and WOW.

[FaisonMars]

Wow, I just wound up reading a thread on their teen forum entitled "Do you believe the bible is true?" and WOW.

You should check out the NT for teen girls that they put out a few years ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolve-2007-Complete-Testament-Biblezines/dp/0718016483/sr=8-1/qid=1172552064/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6537463-8700027?ie=UTF8&s=books

There's one for boys, too:

http://www.amazon.com/Refuel-Complete-New-Testament-Biblezines/dp/0718013026/sr=1-1/qid=1172552256/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6537463-8700027?ie=UTF8&s=books

Their forum layout and ads are very annoying. And I'm astonished to see that every controversial topic has a Christian and a non-Christian section.

[Solus]

I've seen that forum it's so... cutesy in a non cute sort of way (if that makes any sense). It's has some of the highest traffic for a message board on the web.http://www.big-boards.com/.
It's even number 13 :D. If you look at what's ranked number 1 and the rest you can clearly see that quantity does not equal quality. This board is at 521 which is good.

I'd say if you want a decent discussion though it would be best to go outside and maybe talk to some educated theologians at least you might have some kind of interesting discussion.

[logical muse]

I just checked out that forum, and saw this in the "Christians Only Section".

5753

I make no comment.

[Cosmo]

www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com)

There are a number of forums there specifically dedicated to just these sorts of conversations.

I was banned from that forum. Twice. :boxedin:

Edit: Whoops! I was on christianforums.net, not .com :)

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry. The whole Sunday School experience is one long string of bad memories. I'll try to behave.

However, the songs were pretty inane.

Beanbag

Plenty of Christians think they're inane, too. See the book, "Why Catholics Can't Sing".

[Mr Clingford]

Ok, Beanbag (like the name and avatar), do you have a purely materialist outlook? I think that an empirical approach can be a good tool, but what if there is more to existence beyond that which can be (easily) measured and repeatably tested? Do you think there is a chance you might be wrong - do you know that you are right?

[aggle-rithm]

I've come to the conclusion that the defining quality of being a "good" or humane person is empathy. I look at situations and either know from hard experience or through logical reasoning what it would feel like to be in that situation. It has nothing to do with any divine guidance or commandments. I look at something and make a judgment as to whether it is "good" or "evil" based on the level of harm it would do to others. I've seen so much of what I don't want to be, had a lot of things done to me that I wouldn't do or wish on others. It's a moral compass, if you will, that I let guide my decisions. It isn't based on a threat of divine retribution or eternal torment if I choose to do certain things.


Minor sidetrack --

I heard a lecture recently where an important distinction was made between "empathy" and "sympathy". Empathy is the ability to recognize the possible emotional state of others, while sympathy has the added dimension of caring about that emotional state. Without empathy, bullying, intimidation, and psychological manipulation would be impossible, but moral conduct requires sympathy.

Sidetrack over.

[FaisonMars]

Frankly, the two choices offered by Standard Christianity (either heaven or hell) don't appeal to me. Neither option has any definite evidence that they exist. I go with what I know: I have no memories, good or bad, of before I was born and my consciousness switched on. I suspect it will be the same after I've died. Just nothingness. I get a certain amount of comfort from this concept.


I think the standard line is that souls are created when you are conceived, and then they are semi-infinite. Or rather, once you join God in heaven, you are "outside time and space" like God and the angels are, and so the time evolution of the Universe doesn't affect you anymore. It always seemed like a much worse punishment to exist for eternity than to cease to exist (talk about ultimate boredom), but sometimes I hear it phrased this way, that you don't experience time the same way after you die. Maybe it's like in Slaughterhouse Five, where you experience all time at once.

You can't PROVE that there's no afterlife-- no one can. If you can take it on faith that the Christian God created the Universe and knows what's going on, He tells us that the only way to eternal life is to believe in Jesus.

However, if you don't find the theological arguments convincing, there are also the cultural aspects of Christianity. Even though the historical Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic Jew calling for a revolution against the Romans and the Pharisees, the perspective of Jesus as an anti-capitalist ("sell all of your possessions and follow me"), peace-loving ("turn the other cheek") hippie is kind of appealing to me. I find little to argue with in the Sermon on the Mount.

You could start with this, join a liberal Christian church, and "fake it till you make it." Maybe you have to go this far before Jesus comes to live in your heart and then you know that being a Christian is the right way to live.

[Beanbag]

Ok, Beanbag (like the name and avatar), do you have a purely materialist outlook? I think that an empirical approach can be a good tool, but what if there is more to existence beyond that which can be (easily) measured and repeatably tested? Do you think there is a chance you might be wrong - do you know that you are right?
I deal with what I can see or detect. I don't do "believe, then you'll see." If something can't be measured or detected reliably and repeatedly, then there's something wrong, either with what you're trying to measure or in your experimental design. I don't think it is wise to depend on something unreliable for issues as weighty as those religion purports to mediate.

I love it when I'm shown to be wrong, or let's make that "in error"; wrong has such criminal connotations.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

I think the standard line is that souls are created when you are conceived, and then they are semi-infinite. Or rather, once you join God in heaven, you are "outside time and space" like God and the angels are, and so the time evolution of the Universe doesn't affect you anymore. It always seemed like a much worse punishment to exist for eternity than to cease to exist (talk about ultimate boredom), but sometimes I hear it phrased this way, that you don't experience time the same way after you die. Maybe it's like in Slaughterhouse Five, where you experience all time at once.
Nice supposition, but totally without any support. It could be like the line from George Carlin, where when you die, your soul goes to a garage in Buffalo, NY. I also recall a quote loosely attributed to Mark Twain about where the more interesting people are in hell.

You can't PROVE that there's no afterlife-- no one can. If you can take it on faith that the Christian God created the Universe and knows what's going on, He tells us that the only way to eternal life is to believe in Jesus.
Same token: you can't prove there IS an afterlife. Islam wants you to believe in Allah, and that Mohammed is his one true prophet.

You could start with this, join a liberal Christian church, and "fake it till you make it." Maybe you have to go this far before Jesus comes to live in your heart and then you know that being a Christian is the right way to live.
So your advice is to go through the motions until it becomes automatic and takes over? That really isn't convincing at all.

Beanbag

[Darth Rotor]

What is it about seeing someone in person that makes arguments more convincing than reading their words?
It isn't about the argument. Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.

Huntster was too nice to you people.

DR

[Tony]

This is an open invitation for Christians out there to open a discussion with a true, dedicated atheist. I want to hear and understand why I should become a Christian.

This IS NOT being done in an antagonistic fashion -- I'm not out to argue with you, or attempt to convert you to my way of thinking. I want to hear from your point of view without either of us raising our hackles and spitting at each other. TALK WITH ME. I will listen and reply, either with comments or questions.

I ask that we remain civilized here. Being an open forum, remember that others can see what's going on here. If anyone begins behaving badly, I'll Ignore you, and you'll lose the opportunity. The same goes for any "nonbelievers" -- I don't want this thread derailed and taken off too the wild blue whatever.

These are the starting conditions. I'll give you some information about my personal beliefs in the following post.

Regards;
Beanbag


Are you only open to christianity? Is there anyway I can convince you to worship and deify me?

[Beanbag]

You could start with this, join a liberal Christian church, and "fake it till you make it." Maybe you have to go this far before Jesus comes to live in your heart and then you know that being a Christian is the right way to live.
In hindsight, I can see a parallel with the sense of right and "wrong" that I use as a moral compass. Obviously, I developed the standards through personal experience. I suppose one could develop a religious "bent" by walking the walk for a while. Need to consider this for a while.

Thanks.
Beanbag

[FaisonMars]

It isn't about the argument. Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.


Ooh, is there evidence up there? I spend a lot of time looking up, and I'm not seeing it. In fact, the more I look out at the Universe, the more evidence I see that there's no need for God.

[Darth Rotor]

I freely admit the likelihood of my grasping faith from this thread is very unlikely, but I would like to at least come away better informed.
That won't happen as the result of an internet forum discussion.

DR

[FaisonMars]

In hindsight, I can see a parallel with the sense of right and "wrong" that I use as a moral compass. Obviously, I developed the standards through personal experience. I suppose one could develop a religious "bent" by walking the walk for a while. Need to consider this for a while.


Like I wrote in my first post, I think there is a Christian worldview that's an important part of the faith. I went to a fundie church for 18 years and grew up in the Bible Belt, so I'm kind of familiar with why many Christians value their outlook on life. You can also lurk around on that Christian forum and get a sense of it.

Evangelicals believe that God wants everyone to be a Christian, that's one of the unique things about the Christian God (The Jewish God doesn't want everyone to be Jewish, nor does Shiva want everyone to be Hindu). So if Christians witness to you and bring you the Word, it's up to you to be open to accept it. Matthew 7:7: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

But I'm obviously playing "Devil's advocate" here... I wish a real Christian would speak up in this thread. Where's Jesus_Freak when you need him?

[Beanbag]

It isn't about the argument. Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.DR
If it's a matter of taking time to stop and appreciate the beauty and wonder around you, I do that frequently. That might be because I'm visually driven and detail-oriented, where I can spend hours appreciating small parts of larger congregations.

The finest night I ever spent was in a meadow in the Galiuro (?sp) Mountains, flat on my back, watching a clear sky, seeing meteors and orbital objects.

The difference is I see the beauty and appreciate the wonder, but I don't see the divinity behind it.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Are you only open to christianity? Is there anyway I can convince you to worship and deify me?
What'cha offering?:D

Beanbag
(Come to the Dark Side -- we have cookies)

[Darth Rotor]

But I'm obviously playing "Devil's advocate" here... I wish a real Christian would speak up in this thread. Where's Jesus_Freak when you need him?
How about a True Scotsman? At least they are snappy dressers.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

If it's a matter of taking time to stop and appreciate the beauty and wonder around you, I do that frequently. That might be because I'm visually driven and detail-oriented, where I can spend hours appreciating small parts of larger congregations.

The finest night I ever spent was in a meadow in the Galiuro (?sp) Mountains, flat on my back, watching a clear sky, seeing meteors and orbital objects.

The difference is I see the beauty and appreciate the wonder, but I don't see the divinity behind it.

Beanbag
Your dishonesty is showing, he who protesteth too much.

Not even a nice try.

This IS NOT being done in an antagonistic fashion -- I'm not out to argue with you, or attempt to convert you to my way of thinking
The term that comes to mind is "lying sack of __________."
Nice supposition, but totally without any support.
Yep.
Same token: you can't prove there IS an afterlife. Yep.

"Don't want to argue."

Liar.

DR

[Beanbag]

That won't happen as the result of an internet forum discussion. DR
Not without effort.

Beanbag

[FaisonMars]

Are you only open to christianity? Is there anyway I can convince you to worship and deify me?

Can you make good pancakes?

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2007/02/10/

[Beanbag]

Your dishonesty is showing, he who protesteth too much.

Not even a nice try.

DR
And out of left field comes....
Gee, where did that come from? Huh? What?
'Scuse me, I gotta go scratch over that one. Interesting collection of partial quotes and words, but it parses like the holographic gibberish in THX-1138 (director's cut).

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

"Don't want to argue."

Liar.

DR
Never said I was going to just nod and agree with you. Those aren't "arguments," they are statements. The OP, as I recall, couched this as a discussion, not a lecture. Just because I don't take what you said as solid gold, it isn't any reason to clam up.

The chip, I would say, is on your shoulder. I'm willing to talk and also listen and consider. If you're willing to take up the latter two, we might actually have some movement, either pro or con.

Beanbag

[Darth Rotor]

Never said I was going to just nod and agree with you. Those aren't "arguments," they are statements. The OP, as I recall, couched this as a discussion, not a lecture. Just because I don't take what you said as solid gold, it isn't any reason to clam up.

The chip, I would say, is on your shoulder. I'm willing to talk and also listen and consider. If you're willing to take up the latter two, we might actually have some movement, either pro or con.

Beanbag
The words in your posts on two pages of this thread suggest otherwise. Go fish.

DR

[Lonewulf]

Ooh, is there evidence up there? I spend a lot of time looking up, and I'm not seeing it. In fact, the more I look out at the Universe, the more evidence I see that there's no need for God.

Man spent a long time on their knees, trying to find answers beyond themselves. Galileo just used a telescope and looked into the night sky.

[Lonewulf]

That won't happen as the result of an internet forum discussion.

If you had any actual data to provide, you would be able to provide it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yeah, but I'd rather keep it in the family. I've found it easier to connect with the people here. JREF works as a prefilter of sorts. While there are a few people here that get on my nerves, for the most part I like the folks here.

Understand. Just wanted to offer the option. Have you given any thought to more ecumenical religions like Unitarianism or Ba'hai? What about Thereveda Buddhism?

Their forum layout and ads are very annoying. And I'm astonished to see that every controversial topic has a Christian and a non-Christian section.

The ads are annoying. I'm a site supporter just to be rid of them. One great irony of the Christians Only section is that far from a safe haven, some of the most furious debate occurs between denominations.

I just checked out that forum, and saw this in the "Christians Only Section".

5753

I make no comment.

I just noticed this the other night.
http://www.christianforums.com/f46-mens-corner.html
I wonder if anyone but me found the "Sticky" masturbation thread hilarious.

[Kopji]

Hey Beanbag!
I heard someone was channeling Huntster so I came by to take a look.

I think they are right about faith being something that is caught rather than taught. Atheism or unbelief is different from faith, I doubt you could 'catch' being an atheist.

[Lonewulf]

Never said I was going to just nod and agree with you. Those aren't "arguments," they are statements. The OP, as I recall, couched this as a discussion, not a lecture. Just because I don't take what you said as solid gold, it isn't any reason to clam up.

The chip, I would say, is on your shoulder. I'm willing to talk and also listen and consider. If you're willing to take up the latter two, we might actually have some movement, either pro or con.

Having a rational discussion on religion is difficult, moreso when you actually act skeptical or require evidence (or use Occam's Razor...). A major part of religion is making a "Leap of Faith", where you have to lack skepticism for one part and make that leap... and suddenly you can accept a few portions that other skeptics may not.

Without leap, however, you will find most arguments to be rather lacking. However, if anything is appealing when it comes to argument, it is historical studies or philosophical arguments. Historical studies of the ancient past (I.E., showing that some man named Jesus may have existed at one time) tend to be somewhat shakey, as the farther back in time you go, the more shakey the records tend to be, depending on what society you're dealing with. With philosophical arguments, most of the ones I've seen have been very shakey at the least. The one argument that makes you question is the Cosmological Argument, though; the argument that there needs to be a First Cause. Now, there may not need to be an intelligent First Cause of reality, but it's somewhat hard to accept that it's just "random" (I.E., stuff just happened because it did), and it's hard to accept the idea of an existance that has no beginning. At the same time, the idea of something appearing from nothing is difficult to contend with. So this is a tough one; it's hard to really remain logical and not just pick a choice that merely fits the preference of the thinker.

Personally, I think that we have further yet to go to understand the universe around us. But I would not trust that knowledge to faith.

[Lonewulf]

Wow, I just wound up reading a thread on their teen forum entitled "Do you believe the bible is true?" and WOW.

Searching around for it... got a quick link?

(If not, I'll keep searching)

[Mr Clingford]

I want to hear and understand why I should become a Christian.Because if God exists and is something like what Christianities point to then it is true!

Because you would be starting something that could lead to a deeper, better, more selfless, more exciting and fulfilling life.

[Mr Clingford]

I deal with what I can see or detect. I don't do "believe, then you'll see." If something can't be measured or detected reliably and repeatedly, then there's something wrong, either with what you're trying to measure or in your experimental design. I don't think it is wise to depend on something unreliable for issues as weighty as those religion purports to mediate.

I love it when I'm shown to be wrong, or let's make that "in error"; wrong has such criminal connotations.

BeanbagOne still has to make decisions in life based on incomplete evidence because we only have one life and one can't run a serious of experiments on different choices. Relationships are an interesting item because people don't like being tested so commiting oneself is a stepping out of one's comfort zone into the unknown.

[Humphreys]

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning[/COLOR]-- CS Lewis[/I]

Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning

[aggle-rithm]

Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning

Sometimes when a person suffers a stroke that renders him/her blind, it also wipes out the entire concept of vision with that person. There is no visual memory and no sense that one is missing anything.

Trying to discuss vision with these people would be like an alien from another planet, who possesses a sense called "furfle" (which can only be described in terms of "furfle"), trying to discuss "furfle" with us. There would be no frame of reference.

I guess my point is that our brain contains structures that endow things with meaning. Some of these things give us a clear evolutionary advantage, some don't appear to at all. Regardless, it all comes from within our brains, not the Universe.

[Humphreys]

Sometimes when a person suffers a stroke that renders him/her blind, it also wipes out the entire concept of vision with that person. There is no visual memory and no sense that one is missing anything.

I didn't know that, that's really interesting though.

I guess my point is that our brain contains structures that endow things with meaning. Some of these things give us a clear evolutionary advantage, some don't appear to at all. Regardless, it all comes from within our brains, not the Universe.

Yes, so when Lewis says the Universe has no meaning, he is actually wrong in a way. It does have meaning, to us. Meaning is a subjective thing anyway, it's not something that actually exists, out there somehow, and it certainly isn't a property of the Universe. Such a thing doesn't even seem to make sense.

Anyway, I agree with you.

[Miss Anthrope]

Searching around for it... got a quick link?

(If not, I'll keep searching)

Here it is. What was disturbing to me is the whole "sheep" mentality. Some kid said there is no evidence for evolution. Sheesh.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3300574

[Blutarsky]

It isn't about the argument. Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.

Huntster was too nice to you people.

DR

:D

[Blutarsky]

Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning
I've heard some really good responses to his point. This is one of them.

[Blutarsky]

Yes, so when Lewis says the Universe has no meaning, he is actually wrong in a way. It does have meaning, to us. Meaning is a subjective thing anyway, it's not something that actually exists, out there somehow, and it certainly isn't a property of the Universe. Such a thing doesn't even seem to make sense.

Anyway, I agree with you.Did you actually read the quote? It doesn't sound like you did.

So you believe the universe is objectively meaningless?

Great, if the universe is meaningless, the words you have used, which are part of this universe are just as meaningless.

In effect you have really said nothing.





Thanks for playing.

[FaisonMars]

Did you actually read the quote? It doesn't sound like you did.


Could we get one of those filters like on fark, so that when anyone posts "Did you actually read _____?" the phrase gets turned into something like, "That was very insightful" or maybe just "OMG! Ponies!"

[FaisonMars]

Great, if the universe is meaningless, the words you have used, which are part of this universe are just as meaningless.



Humphreys' point is that the meaning is constructed in our brains, like the sensation of light from our eyes.

[Kopji]

Nothing CS Lewis wrote ever convinced me that he was a better atheist than he was a believer.

It is not so much we KNOW there is no god, but if an atheist were to say more precisely - there might be a god, how can we assert anything at all? By the same reasoning the sun might come up tomorrow, the moon might still be out there but I can't really say until I've checked today, or have the mountains moved? Are waves still pounding the shore?

[chriswl]

So you believe the universe is objectively meaningless?

Great, if the universe is meaningless, the words you have used, which are part of this universe are just as meaningless.

In effect you have really said nothing.
Lewis, in your quote, is really attacking nihilism, not atheism.

Atheists (or, more to the point, naturalists) do not think that "the universe has no meaning". They usually think it has no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is always meaning for someone, there is no absolute meaning even though there may be universal meanings (meanings that happen to be the same for everyone). Lewis isn't really refuting this kind of humanism.

[Tony]

What'cha offering?:D


Well, as my first follower, you'd get preferential treatment and an influential position in my religion. Weed, alcohol, ecstacy and group sex is permitted and there is no hell. Also, if you're lucky, I might include you in the dental plan. Whattaya say? :)

[phildonnia]

As I told The Atheist when this topic first came up in an area where I was having a discussion, I think it a fool's errand to try and spread the Faith via internet argument. IMO, the best way it happens is in person, via a witness that has integrity.


I would agree that internet evangelism is likely to be ineffective.

But what is present in the in-person encounter that is missing from internet interaction?

Why is the integrity of the witness really important when it's technically God's spirit that imparts faith? (And yet: "Let your light shine before men that they may see the good you do and give glory to God")

[Lonewulf]

Did you actually read the quote? It doesn't sound like you did.

So you believe the universe is objectively meaningless?

Great, if the universe is meaningless, the words you have used, which are part of this universe are just as meaningless.

In effect you have really said nothing.

????

If the universe has no meaning, why do you claim that he said nothing? To the universe, what he said was meaningless. To you, obviously, it was not, or else you wouldn't have responded. That's kinda the definition of "subjective"; you extrapolate your own meaning.

If the universe didn't have a Creator and was, ultimately, meaningless, then would that really change anythng here on Earth? A meaningless universe would change human mindset not a jot; almost all religions in the world are accepted because it "brings meaning" to people. Not because it was enforced on them by a God that came down and forced them to believe in it; and everyone that is religious tends to focus on different parts of that meaning.

Really, I don't get your logic here.

[Lonewulf]

I would agree that internet evangelism is likely to be ineffective.

But what is present in the in-person encounter that is missing from internet interaction?

Why is the integrity of the witness really important when it's technically God's spirit that imparts faith? (And yet: "Let your light shine before men that they may see the good you do and give glory to God")

Y'know, after reading bits of the Koran for World Literature class, I am happy to know that if I'm an unbeliever, it's because God wanted me to. Mohamad was, like, the ultimate determinist.

[Beanbag]

The words in your posts on two pages of this thread suggest otherwise. Go fish.

DR
Gee. We're really going to miss you.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Understand. Just wanted to offer the option. Have you given any thought to more ecumenical religions like Unitarianism or Ba'hai? What about Thereveda Buddhism?
Right now I'm working the Christian side of the street. I don't want to cast too widely right now. I'm focused and curious to see if there are any cogent talking points for Christianity.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Hey Beanbag!
I heard someone was channeling Huntster so I came by to take a look.
Not me -- I'm on a quest for information.
I think they are right about faith being something that is caught rather than taught. Atheism or unbelief is different from faith, I doubt you could 'catch' being an atheist.
I actually suspect a lot of faith is maintained by simple inertia. Those who "opt in" have a need to fill, and are willing to make the change. Others maintain their faith because its always been that way in their family/community. I suppose if one grew up in an atheist environment, they would maintain their atheism in a similar manner.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

One still has to make decisions in life based on incomplete evidence because we only have one life and one can't run a serious of experiments on different choices.
Says who? I've "field-tested" a number of variables in my life. Some I've kept, others I've discarded. Data sets are never complete. That's why I am willing to adapt to new information.

Response has been heartwarming, but for the most part the major theme has been "believe, because that's what god wants you to do." With the exception of Darth Rotor, who for whatever reason frequents this thread that he insists is a waste of time, it's stayed on target and intellectually genial.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Well, as my first follower, you'd get preferential treatment and an influential position in my religion. Weed, alcohol, ecstacy and group sex is permitted and there is no hell. Also, if you're lucky, I might include you in the dental plan. Whattaya say? :)
Sorry, you're dangling the wrong bait. A well-equipped machine shop, limitless stock to machine with, and a decent level of intellectual conversation would make me consider signing on. Along with the sex -- group or otherwise.:D

Beanbag
(Yeah, I know I'm dull)

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, you're dangling the wrong bait. A well-equipped machine shop, limitless stock to machine with, and a decent level of intellectual conversation would make me consider signing on. Along with the sex -- group or otherwise.:D

Same sex or opposite sex? ;)

It's important to clear those things up before signing on.

[Beanbag]

Same sex or opposite sex? ;)

It's important to clear those things up before signing on.
Opposite.

Beanbag

[Glen.Nogami]

It isn't about the argument. Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.

Huntster was too nice to you people.

DR

Is faith then supposed to be immune to rational consideration? It seems to me that the existence of some amazing being such as a god would leave some evidence...

...any evidence at all.

As for missing the point, I was rather making the point that faith should not be something that is judged beyond scientific merit. I'm sorry if your poor reading comprehension/reactionary mindset prevented you from observing such.

[Darth Rotor]

Gee. We're really going to miss you.

Beanbag
Were you aiming at me? What with?

DR

[jesus_freak]

You should become a Christian because we are really nice people and your life will instantly become so much hapier, and if you give 10% of your GROSS income you will receive so much more in return you will not know what to do with all of your money! oh oh oh and Christians have the best SEX!!! it's a fact.
It's sad that this is what a lot of churches or Christians will lead you to beleive...
The real reason is quit simply...You are a sinner and you are gonna die...10 outta 10 people die... when you die you are going to be judge according to God's law(the 10 comandments) I think it is safe to say you have broken at least 1 of God's laws...So you will be found guilty...now if you repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ, your fine has already been paid, and you will go to Heaven. If you do not you will go to hell for eternity(no matter how many tell you that a loving God would send his children to hell for eternity, it's true). So basically why should you become a Christian? for fear of going to hell if you don't?...No...You should become a Christian because you love God your creator so much that spending eternity away from him and all of his goodness is the absolute worst thing that you could emagine.
This is either something that you beleive in and it makes so much sense to you that it is rediculous, or you do not beleive and this sounds like nonsense, or a fairytale...All I can say is listen to your conscience and read your Bible everyday...Either way you stake your soul on what you decide.I do not think that anyone is capable of "coverting" you...all we can do is witness to you.Hope this helps!

[Lonewulf]

You should become a Christian because we are really nice people and your life will instantly become so much hapier, and if you give 10% of your GROSS income you will receive so much more in return you will not know what to do with all of your money! oh oh oh and Christians have the best SEX!!! it's a fact.
It's sad that this is what a lot of churches or Christians will lead you to beleive...

Church of the Subgenius: Eternal salvation or triple your money back!

The real reason is quit simply...You are a sinner and you are gonna die...10 outta 10 people die...

I've had worse odds...

when you die you are going to be judge according to God's law(the 10 comandments) I think it is safe to say you have broken at least 1 of God's laws...So you will be found guilty...now if you repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ, your fine has already been paid, and you will go to Heaven.

So, I'll go to eternal damnation for committing a sin, but if I repent and believe in Jesus, then whatever sins I committed, no matter how atrocious, are suddenly resolved. I know that people commented on this already, but this still seems so arbitrary and unjust. Okay, I should shut up now, as this is supposed to be the OP's thread...

If you do not you will go to hell for eternity(no matter how many tell you that a loving God would send his children to hell for eternity, it's true).

How do you know that?

So basically why should you become a Christian? for fear of going to hell if you don't?...No...

Then why even attempt to belabor the point? I don't get it -- "You're going to hell if you don't do this! You will SUFFER FOR ETERNITY! But don't worry about that..." This is a classic tactic... it's like a scare tactic to get you listening, and then a "mercy" tactic to get you going, "oooh, that sounds nice."

You should become a Christian because you love God your creator so much that spending eternity away from him and all of his goodness is the absolute worst thing that you could emagine.
This is either something that you beleive in and it makes so much sense to you that it is rediculous, or you do not beleive and this sounds like nonsense, or a fairytale...All I can say is listen to your conscience and read your Bible everyday...Either way you stake your soul on what you decide.I do not think that anyone is capable of "coverting" you...all we can do is witness to you.Hope this helps!

I tried to read the bible, personally. It was so... dense. And hard to follow, really...

[RandFan]

Regarding the Lewis quote.

I don't think that a sense of justice is something that we are born with. Infants are self centered. They are their world. Their needs and wants come first. When my son was young and we had friends over he refused to share his toys. Later when we went to our friends home my son wanted to play with the other child's toys. Funny thing happened. A light bulb went off in my son's head. It was like when he figured out how to maneuver the chair to the counter to get a cookie. He wanted something and devised a strategy as to how to get it. As to sharing, my son figured out that such a strategy was an equitable way to maximize benefits. Ok, he didn't really see it that deep but he got it at an intuitive level. It works. After that he started thinking in terms of fairness. If you want to borrow your friends things it's only fair to share your things.

How this happens is not complicated at all. Humans have wants. We also are capable of realizing that other humans have wants. From there it is no great leap to develop a sense of fairness. It's a simple process of devising strategies to improve our lives through cooperation. No Deity needed. It's how our brains are wired, not necassarily for fairness but simply to solve problems. Game theory objectively shows us that cooperation is the best strategy to maximize benifits over the long run.

Of course, some people are not born with the ability to understand that other people have wants and desires or they have some degree of limitation in this regard. Autistics are such individuals. They are often, AIU, not very good at devising such strategies.

That said, I really don't get the quote by Lewis. It seems post hoc and a non sequitur. How do you go from justice to god? You first have to assume that god is just. Not all religions believe or have believed that god or gods are just. So it would also seem to beg the question. A lot of fallacies in that quote it seems to me.

In the end, I think justice can be said to be the result of wants and of comparison. "You can't know the sweet unless you have tasted the bitter".

[SimonD]

Beanbag, if your interest is genuine, then feel free to PM me and we can have a discussion via that route.

If you are going to converse with RR, be warned, if you ask hard questions he will ignore or insult you.

He is a rude little man

[Lonewulf]

If you are going to converse with RR, be warned, if you ask hard questions he will ignore or insult you.

He is a rude little man

Yeah, I got that impression myself, and I'm new here...

[Mr Clingford]

Says who? I've "field-tested" a number of variables in my life. Some I've kept, others I've discarded. Data sets are never complete. That's why I am willing to adapt to new information.

Response has been heartwarming, but for the most part the major theme has been "believe, because that's what god wants you to do." With the exception of Darth Rotor, who for whatever reason frequents this thread that he insists is a waste of time, it's stayed on target and intellectually genial.

BeanbagLet me try again. Say you are aged 20. You have a number of choices of career - it is not possible to let each course run and then try again aged 20. Also say you are interested in 2 women - you can't marry one at 20 and then the other at 50 and say that you and the circumstances are exactly the same. You have to do a 'believe' and step out.

Also, are you a materialist, because if so, you would have no reason to ask why you should start something that you think is in error?

[Darth Rotor]

As for missing the point, I was rather making the point that faith should not be something that is judged beyond scientific merit. I'm sorry if your poor reading comprehension/reactionary mindset prevented you from observing such.
Nice oxymoron.

Did you read what you wrote before you hit the "submit reply" button?

Also, nice resort to ad hom.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

But what is present in the in-person encounter that is missing from internet interaction?
You are kidding, right?
Why is the integrity of the witness really important when it's technically God's spirit that imparts faith? (And yet: "Let your light shine before men that they may see the good you do and give glory to God")
How does that cherry pick relate to person to person interaction? Last I checked, RL is what most people live in. RL requires, and is both enhanced by and made troubling by, human interaction in the flesh.

DR

[Humphreys]

Did you actually read the quote? It doesn't sound like you did.

So you believe the universe is objectively meaningless?

Great, if the universe is meaningless, the words you have used, which are part of this universe are just as meaningless.

In effect you have really said nothing.

The Universe has no property called "meaning", just like it has no property called "wet" or "dry", these are all creations of our brains.

[phildonnia]

You are kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding. It seems very odd if something in the body language is needed to win souls, since
1. The scriptures do not include body language,
2. We have no way of observing the body language of God, Jesus, or the prophets,
3. Professional actors can mimic this stuff pretty easily,
4. Blind people can be converted (I would assume),
etc.

[Tony]

Sorry, you're dangling the wrong bait. A well-equipped machine shop, limitless stock to machine with, and a decent level of intellectual conversation would make me consider signing on.


I'm still developing my theology. :D

[Jekyll]

No, I'm not kidding. It seems very odd if something in the body language is needed to win souls, since
1. The scriptures do not include body language,
2. We have no way of observing the body language of God, Jesus, or the prophets,
3. Professional actors can mimic this stuff pretty easily,
4. Blind people can be converted (I would assume),
etc.

However:
1) Arguments put forward tend to get buried under objections from all sides.
2)The conversation gets side tracked all the time (we're now having a meta discussion :D )
3)There is very little feedback to see how ideas are being received and which avenues should be followed.
4) Derren Brown type mind control doesn't work over the internet, unless your PIN is 8654.

I was talking to one of the guys from my department about religion while we were waiting for a bus and on the internet, I'm sure, it would have deteriorated into a deitist vs. atheist slanging match that would have lasted 3 days. Instead it turns out that we believe basically the same thing, it's just that he'd rather use the word god when I wouldn't, to represent nature / the universe / what ever.

[Lonewulf]

I was talking to one of the guys from my department about religion while we were waiting for a bus and on the internet, I'm sure, it would have deteriorated into a deitist vs. atheist slanging match that would have lasted 3 days. Instead it turns out that we believe basically the same thing, it's just that he'd rather use the word god when I wouldn't, to represent nature / the universe / what ever.

Dawkins refers to that as an Einsteinien type of atheism; it sounds religious, when it really is not.

[Beanbag]

As a former technical telephone support person, and a direct, face-to-face customer support rep, I can tell you that (most) people are more polite and respectful when they are in the same room and within touching distance. When insulated by a technological barrier (telephone, internet, etc.), the social restraints such as respect and politeness go away. I have been repeatedly insulted and chewed out while handling relatively trivial matters over the phone, whereas I've never been griped out or mistreated when I had to deal with an irate customer in person (we're talking high-end expensive watches here, where $2k USD is considered a cheap watch). It might have something to do with the fact that my whole body language and demeanor projects that I really DO give a rat's patootie and will do everything within my influence to take care of the problem. It can be seen, whereas over the phone, all they have to work on is tone of voice and whatever the words might be. Internet, it's even worse. No tone at all, just words and whatever emoticons are available.

The most successful evangelists are the ones with presence. It's one thing to read a sermon from a revival meeting, compared with actually being there and seeing the delivery.

Beanbag.

[Beanbag]

If you are going to converse with RR, be warned, if you ask hard questions he will ignore or insult you.

He is a rude little man
For now, I'm keeping things public. Thank you for your advice. Sometimes, though, hard questions get hard answers.

If you ask a man for bread and he gives you a serpent, it may be that he only has serpents to give, and his gift is therefore a blessing.
(Loosely paraphrased from Gibran).

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

Also, are you a materialist, because if so, you would have no reason to ask why you should start something that you think is in error?
My personal philosophy is that the process of "growing up" is earning the right to make your own mistakes. If I was truly worried about making a mistake, I'd be paralyzed, unable to commit to even the smallest detail in fear that it might set off a cascade of disasters.

One of the more delightful experiences I have in life is discovering I've been "wrong." Some decision or opinion I've formed doesn't pan out. It's irritating at times, like when I discover a judgment call I made didn't give the desired result and I have to redo something; however, I learned something.

Beanbag

[Glen.Nogami]

Nice oxymoron.

Very well, I'll clarify it. I was not missing your point, rather making an entirely different one, as explained above.

Did you read what you wrote before you hit the "submit reply" button?
Yes.

Also, nice resort to ad hom.

DR
Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.
Thanks, yours, too.

ETA: I apologize for the reading comprehension bit of that last post. It was wrong of me. I believe, though, that your own inflammatory diction is in part responsible. As for reactionary tendencies, you have, in fact, exhibited them towards the non-religious, and that is a relevant part of the discussion at hand.

Also, in my initial post, I fully understood what you were saying regarding the inapplicability of argument. I therefore asked what it was, precisely, that made personal testimony, or witnessing, or whatever you want to call it more effective than argument. You have not, to date, answered that question, save through a scathing line of the ad hominem you condemn.

[jimecallaw]

I'll try to take up the original challenge of this post.

It seems clear that religious people and scientists are really both trying to do the same thing, make sense of the universe around them.

I could create an ant farm with one way mirrors and observe the Ants therein. If the Ants inside the farm took separate views, it would be likely that the scientific Ants would not suspect my existence, whilst the religious ants might.

In this specific case the scientist ants would be wrong, as their universe did have a creator.

[Beanbag]

I'll try to take up the original challenge of this post.
It's not a challenge -- it's an invitation.

Beanbag

[RandFan]

4) Derren Brown type mind control doesn't work over the internet, unless your PIN is 8654. I'm not so sure. Have you seen his telephone stunt where he controls strangers over the phone?

[Lonewulf]

I'll try to take up the original challenge of this post.

It seems clear that religious people and scientists are really both trying to do the same thing, make sense of the universe around them.

I could create an ant farm with one way mirrors and observe the Ants therein. If the Ants inside the farm took separate views, it would be likely that the scientific Ants would not suspect my existence, whilst the religious ants might.

In this specific case the scientist ants would be wrong, as their universe did have a creator.

It's fun how in the Elder Scrolls Series, when you run into atheists, how silly they are.

For instance:

"The gods, they don't do anything. You pray and pray and nothing ever happens. Now the daedra, they actually effect reality. Just usually in bad ways; but they still affect it."

Yet if you go into a chapel and pray, not only are you healed or magically boosted, you're also surrounded by this glowing magic thingy. Sure, you might be able to question Creation (I actually have a fantasy world where evolution is how life came about, but there are still gods; yet they claim they created the world, making things confusing!), but as for their existance, you can't really question that. It's even a repeatable experiment... line up good men in front of an altar, and they're surrounded by blue light and get boosted magically. No brainer.

[Darth Rotor]

Very well, I'll clarify it. I was not missing your point, rather making an entirely different one, as explained above.


Yes.



Thanks, yours, too.

ETA: I apologize for the reading comprehension bit of that last post. It was wrong of me. I believe, though, that your own inflammatory diction is in part responsible. As for reactionary tendencies, you have, in fact, exhibited them towards the non-religious, and that is a relevant part of the discussion at hand.

Also, in my initial post, I fully understood what you were saying regarding the inapplicability of argument. I therefore asked what it was, precisely, that made personal testimony, or witnessing, or whatever you want to call it more effective than argument. You have not, to date, answered that question, save through a scathing line of the ad hominem you condemn.
Not reactionary, sarcastic and in some cases dismissive. Reactionary is a political descriptive, in which category I do not fit.

The rare JREF anti or non theist who doesn't post from on top of a high horse doesn't get such snide remarks.

No need to apologize to me, Glen. I am fully aware that counter battery fire is due when rounds are sent down range.

Scathing, eh? Glad to see the site line and the targets lined up in a few cases.

Y'all enjoy the thread. It's bound to result in a breakthrough in understanding. :rolleyes:

DR

[SimonD]

For now, I'm keeping things public. Thank you for your advice. Sometimes, though, hard questions get hard answers.

If you ask a man for bread and he gives you a serpent, it may be that he only has serpents to give, and his gift is therefore a blessing.
(Loosely paraphrased from Gibran).

Beanbag

Don't mind getting a hard answer. I love being challenged. Despise rudeness and name calling.

Like the quote by the way

[Glen.Nogami]

Not reactionary, sarcastic and in some cases dismissive. Reactionary is a political descriptive, in which category I do not fit.
Linguistic imprecision acknowledged.

The rare JREF anti or non theist who doesn't post from on top of a high horse doesn't get such snide remarks.

I started by asking a question regarding what it was about personal testimony that made argument more convincing. You responded with an unrelated personal insult. Should I have opened with a volley of ad hom attacks? Would that help me avoid a "high horse?"

Scathing, eh? Glad to see the site line and the targets lined up in a few cases.
I would say that "you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads." is, I expect, by consensus a "scathing" line, regardless of the impact it might have had on me personally.

Y'all enjoy the thread. It's bound to result in a breakthrough in understanding. :rolleyes:

DR

Futile it might be, but for some reason, we're both staying around.

[Renfield]

You could always become a Deist.

God created everything and then said, "To hell with this, I'm going to play my Playstation 2".

He created everything a long, long time ago though, didn't (s)he? I think it would've been an NES way back then.

[Renfield]

Originally Posted by Humphreys View Post
Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning


I've heard some really good responses to his point. This is one of them.

I think its the only one you really need. Its such a silly argument, totally flawed from the start. No need to get deeply into ethics or philosophy.

[Lonewulf]

He created everything a long, long time ago though, didn't (s)he? I think it would've been an NES way back then.

Dude, it's God. (S)he exists outside of time. And obviously, the PS2 is the most likely to gain God's attention, because I like it personally. D'uh.

[Beanbag]

Well, this thread whimpered out.

Summation:
1: Convert to avoid burning in hell for eternity.
2: Convert because Jesus took it upon himself to die for you and your sins, and you really shouldn't waste his sacrifice for you.
3: Convert because God wants you to.

Sigh. Nothing new since I was in Sunday school.

I did enjoy the "side trips," however. Thank you all for your time.

Beanbag

[Kopji]

hi Beanbag,
I think about your topic once in a while, it took me many years to leave my religion. I've always been something of a storyteller and like to use various metaphors to help myself understand.

When I first stopped believing it was something new and not completely painless. I likened what was happening it to a carefully built and well loved sandcastle that was being washed to sea, and I kept frantically trying to rebuild it even as it washed away. The sea finally carried the last of it away and there was only water, sand, and foam...

The next story was like setting off into the wilderness, searching for something, but leaving a trail of crumbs to find my way back. After a long time the markings could not be found again, and there was no way back home. Home was only forward.

Next was like standing in a vast grassy field. This field existed in precisely the same place that I once was - but the previous time, I was completely surrounded by a large elaborate structure that looked like it was the whole world. With the great structure torn down and gone, there was now only grass, sun, and sky, stars and moon.

Many writers have expressed this same idea - that of traveling great distances and then finding that we have returned to the beginning just to understand it a completely new way.

I've put some honest thought into how I might believe again. To the 'plus' of belief there is a sense that we are born, change, die, and are born again - even within a lifetime if we will allow ourselves the freedom. And within the arts, there is an idea that something false can help tell a truth.

But doesn't an artist always work from a place where whole is seen? Aspects of true and false are seen and understood, and so that seems a greater 'true'.

I do understand belief, and I don't think that my religion was a waste of time, where I stand now has much to do with where I've been. It would be dishonest to not admit something like that.

To 'convert' though, seems like denying this new place. To choose a partial understanding over a broader one.

[Lonewulf]

Bad arguments make the baby Jesus cry.

Not converting also makes the baby Jesus cry. Beanbag, how could you make Jesus cry? HOW COULD YOU?!

[Mr Clingford]

You appear to have missed out my reasons here:
Because if God exists and is something like what Christianities point to then it is true!

Because you would be starting something that could lead to a deeper, better, more selfless, more exciting and fulfilling life.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Because you would be starting something that could lead to a deeper, better, more selfless, more exciting and fulfilling life.
With all due respect, I'm not sure how Christianity and a belief in God would give me this.

1) Better - I fail to see how my life would be better with Christianity? My life is great! I live every day to it's fullest because I know there is no second chance. I have known many Christians who don't try as hard at making a great life for themselves, because they believe that things will be better once they go to heaven.

2) More selfless - This completely depends on your outlook on Christianity. My outlook comes from all of the people I knew in the 20 years I attended church. Their 'selflessness' boiled down to: 'Do good things, because a great reward awaits me in heaven'; 'Don't go bad things, because a terrible punishment awaits me in Hell'.
What is more selfless than doing good things for the sole reason that they are good and help people?

3) More exciting - The universe is a wonderful place. There are so many amazing discoveries that have taken place, and so many more discoveries to be made. Is it more exciting to look at the stars, knowing how they were formed over billions of years, and wondering how it all started, or by looking up and saying 'Wow. Goddidit.'

4) Fulfilling life - Again, I think my other points have clarified why I don't think life is more 'fulfilling' as a Christian.

I would be interested in hearing why you think that Christianity would give all of these things.