I want to examine my faith

[thaiboxerken]

Fnord stated in one of these threads that his reason for posting in the forum is not to preach or convert people, but to simply examine his faith. I have to wonder, what the hell does that mean?

Faith is the simple, blind acceptance of a claim. What is there to examine? "Yep, I still believe in Jesus." "So, that atheist has evidence Jesus doesn't exist, let me look in my bible. Yep, the bible still says Jesus existed." Evidence plays no part in faith, so I have to wonder what examining faith really means.

Can anyone explain this to me, or is this just another one of those non-sensical religious sayings?

[IMST]

My take on this is that religious people have been told that there is evidence for god (theirs only obviously) and they honestly believe that science and reality confirm their beliefs. And when they're shown that that isn't the case, they come right back to checkin' the bible.

[bokonon]

I don't think it's nonsensical. You polish your ideas by subjecting them to the friction of bumping up against other ideas. It doesn't seem to me like this is blind faith, simply because it is faith based. There are lots of ideas to examine besides whether or not Jesus exists, and I expect it's those ideas which Fnord may be open to modifying.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not blind faith, it's faith based?! WTF?

[JoeEllison]

I don't think it's nonsensical. You polish your ideas by subjecting them to the friction of bumping up against other ideas.

Yeah, except that religion doesn't work that way. I suspect that religious people do think that they are examining and polishing their ideas... except that they aren't, and can't.

[JoeEllison]

It's not blind faith, it's faith based?! WTF?
That didn't make any sense to me either.

[Fnord]

Fnord stated in one of these threads that his reason for posting in the forum is not to preach or convert people, but to simply examine his faith. I have to wonder, what the hell does that mean?

...

Can anyone explain this to me, or is this just another one of those non-sensical religious sayings?

You could have gone to the source of the statement and simply asked me in a PM, but since you posted your questions publically, I'll try to answer here, instead.

To "Examine One's Faith" is something that my son suggested that I do. Now, he's an atheist, so at first I doubted his motivations. Then he threw out the "An unexamined faith is not worth believing*" homile, and it began to make sense.

Examining one's faith involves going beyond the usual blind sheep attitude of believing in something just because you are told to. It involves asking one's self:

- What do you really believe in, a person, a myth, or nothing at all?
- Why do you believe as you do?
- How would believing otherwise affect your life?

To more effectively examine my faith, I reasoned that I needed to be around people who would challenge it. What better place than a website run by Atheists, and devoted to skepticism?

JREF and the people who run it are providing me with a very useful service. Thanx, JREF!

(* - My son was taking a class in "The Philosophy of Religion" at the time, and Socrates figures heavily in his own belief system.)

[Fnord]

Yeah, except that religion doesn't work that way. I suspect that religious people do think that they are examining and polishing their ideas... except that they aren't, and can't.

Religion does work that way; at least, a religion that has not stagnated.

Besides, it's the Faith I hold that I'm examining, not the social/politica expression of that faith, which is religion.

I suspect that you are not a religious person. Am I correct?

[Fnord]

My take on this is that religious people have been told that there is evidence for god (theirs only obviously) and they honestly believe that science and reality confirm their beliefs. And when they're shown that that isn't the case, they come right back to checkin' the bible.

There is no quantifiable proof for the existance of God. There is only qualia, which is experience-based. As part of the "Why do I believe as I do?" process, I'm trying to determine just how valid my own experiences have been. No-one else can do that for me.

[Fnord]

It's not blind faith, it's faith based?! WTF?

Blind Faith: The believer believes because he's been told to believe.

Faith-Based: Any idea or practice that is based on a person's faith. Religion is Faith-Based, for example.

[Ipecac]

It involves asking one's self:

- What do you really believe in, a person, a myth, or nothing at all?
- Why do you believe as you do?
- How would believing otherwise affect your life?


Fnord,

That's pretty much what I asked myself a few years back.

I decided that I believed for no reason other than I had been taught to believe, by people who had also been taught to believe, down through history. There was no evidence in my belief and no reason to think that any of the "authorities" who taught me had any evidence, again back through history. I concluded that my belief in Christianity was no more valid than any other religious belief. And since other religions were also just based on hearsay through history, since there was no evidence for any of it, there was no reason to believe any of it.

So I gave it all up. I'm much happier now.

[strathmeyer]

"Examining your faith" here seems to involve people's faith being challenged by being asked simple questions which are ignored, and the faith being retained. The greater the refusal to participate in a simple discussion, the greater a person's faith must be.

[Dancing David]

Fnord stated in one of these threads that his reason for posting in the forum is not to preach or convert people, but to simply examine his faith. I have to wonder, what the hell does that mean?

Faith is the simple, blind acceptance of a claim. What is there to examine? "Yep, I still believe in Jesus." "So, that atheist has evidence Jesus doesn't exist, let me look in my bible. Yep, the bible still says Jesus existed." Evidence plays no part in faith, so I have to wonder what examining faith really means.

Can anyone explain this to me, or is this just another one of those non-sensical religious sayings?


I learn alot about my beliefs by discussing things on this bulletin board (Yrreg in particular), I have found that I can even change my beliefs as part of the process.

[Fnord]

"Examining your faith" here seems to involve people's faith being challenged by being asked simple questions which are ignored, and the faith being retained. The greater the refusal to participate in a simple discussion, the greater a person's faith must be.

It sometimes works out that way, but I'm still here...

[Fnord]

Fnord,

That's pretty much what I asked myself a few years back.

I decided that I believed for no reason other than I had been taught to believe, by people who had also been taught to believe, down through history. There was no evidence in my belief and no reason to think that any of the "authorities" who taught me had any evidence, again back through history. I concluded that my belief in Christianity was no more valid than any other religious belief. And since other religions were also just based on hearsay through history, since there was no evidence for any of it, there was no reason to believe any of it.

So I gave it all up. I'm much happier now.

I've pretty much given up on the authority of the Church, even to the point of resigning from committees, one of which I established. I saw those committees as nothing more than a socialized means to prolong a crisis.

I'm much happier, as well.

[thaiboxerken]

It sometimes works out that way, but I'm still here...

Yes, you do seem to have quite a bit of faith.

[JoeEllison]

Religion does work that way; at least, a religion that has not stagnated.

Besides, it's the Faith I hold that I'm examining, not the social/politica expression of that faith, which is religion.

I suspect that you are not a religious person. Am I correct?Of course I'm not religious. Have I not told Jesus to "suck it"?:D

All religions are dead, except, I suppose the brand newest ones that haven't shaken out the schisms yet. How do you examine faith, especially that based on a fairy tale that claims to be true based on nothing but the fact that it makes the claim?

[l0rca]

I learn alot about my beliefs by discussing things on this bulletin board (Yrreg in particular), I have found that I can even change my beliefs as part of the process.

What do you believe?

[Fnord]

How do you examine faith, especially that based on a fairy tale that claims to be true based on nothing but the fact that it makes the claim?

I've already explained that process HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2956261&postcount=7).

[thaiboxerken]

So, Fnord, what answers have you found so far?

- What do you really believe in, a person, a myth, or nothing at all?
- Why do you believe as you do?
- How would believing otherwise affect your life?

[bokonon]

It's not blind faith, it's faith based?! WTF?
To me, blind faith is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." A person who subscribes to that philosophy is unlikely to be here to examine his faith.

Faith based, to me, would be someone who is open to honestly considering opposing ideas. Maybe they only have faith that God exists, and want to examine the question of whether or not he shapes current events. Maybe they have faith that God inspired the Bible, and want to examine which portions of the Bible they consider essential to their beliefs, which are allegorical, which can be discarded, etc.

I don't know what Fnord specifically has in mind with the statement "examine my faith", but I don't find the statement itself nonsensical. There will still probably be an emotional component to whatever decisions are made about what to continue to believe, but that doesn't mean reason has been jettisoned. Most religious people are still rational when it comes to the 95% of their lives that don't involve religion, and many of them can be rational to a point when choosing their religious beliefs as well. For example, I'm sure there are lots of Christians who don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, and don't really care.

I know some atheists have a problem with a la carte religion, but I don't. I pick and choose which of Newton's statements I accept, and I see no reason to deny someone else the same right to select bits and pieces of their own belief system, even if the bits and pieces come from something I regard on the whole as an earlier version of the Brothers Grimm.

[thaiboxerken]

Faith based, to me, would be someone who is open to honestly considering opposing ideas

I wouldn't call that faith-based, I'd call that a person who is skeptical.

[Fnord]

So, Fnord, what answers have you found so far?

- What do you really believe in, a person, a myth, or nothing at all?
- Why do you believe as you do?
- How would believing otherwise affect your life?

So, TBK, why do you ask?

I've noticed a distinctly cynical theme running through these posts. Some people seem to be seeking ways to criticize my efforts, even though my efforts could lead into my becoming just like them.

If I remain a Christian, so what? If I become an Atheist, again, so what? The journey is mine, and mine alone.

I'm just glad that there are none of my fundie friends logging in; they are not so forgiving and kind as the rest of you.

[thaiboxerken]

I ask because I find it hard to believe that you are sincerely questioning your faith and that, while you say the opposite, you do tend to preach your religion quite a bit in the forum.

[IMST]

There is no quantifiable proof for the existance of God. There is only qualia, which is experience-based. As part of the "Why do I believe as I do?" process, I'm trying to determine just how valid my own experiences have been. No-one else can do that for me.

In that case my take on the matter may not apply to you personally, but there's plenty of people that try to say that God can be proven. See the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron mess or the Intelligent Design movement in general.

[KingMerv00]

There is no quantifiable proof for the existance of God. There is only qualia, which is experience-based. As part of the "Why do I believe as I do?" process, I'm trying to determine just how valid my own experiences have been. No-one else can do that for me.

I respect that you are challenging your beliefs but I don't quite understand how you can contend with a belief in God that has "no quantifiable proof".

What could we here at JREF possibly say or do to make any difference in your faith? To me, it seems there IS no way to challenge it, so why bother?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I respect that you are challenging your beliefs but I don't quite understand how you can contend with a belief in God that has "no quantifiable proof".
I believe the contention is subtler. It is the question of whether one should believe something in the absence of quantifiable proof.

[JoeEllison]

I've already explained that process HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2956261&postcount=7).

Your behavior doesn't bear that out.

[JoeEllison]

So, TBK, why do you ask?

I've noticed a distinctly cynical theme running through these posts. Some people seem to be seeking ways to criticize my efforts, even though my efforts could lead into my becoming just like them.

If I remain a Christian, so what? If I become an Atheist, again, so what? The journey is mine, and mine alone.

I'm just glad that there are none of my fundie friends logging in; they are not so forgiving and kind as the rest of you.
Not "cynical" so much as realistic. *shrugs*

[skeptifem]

well i guess its more a matter of examining wether or not faith is worth it. it is to some people.

[Oubliette]

I know some atheists have a problem with a la carte religion, but I don't. I pick and choose which of Newton's statements I accept, and I see no reason to deny someone else the same right to select bits and pieces of their own belief system, even if the bits and pieces come from something I regard on the whole as an earlier version of the Brothers Grimm.

Are you suggesting that people can pick whatever they want from a certain religion and leave the rest?

Because, with most religions, you either believe it all or nothing at all. At least that's how it worked when I was a Christian. I had to accept everything the Bible said as a "fact", because the moment I started doubting it then I didn't have faith.

[Beth]

Are you suggesting that people can pick whatever they want from a certain religion and leave the rest? Yes, I believe that is what he means.
Because, with most religions, you either believe it all or nothing at all. At least that's how it worked when I was a Christian. I had to accept everything the Bible said as a "fact", because the moment I started doubting it then I didn't have faith.
For some denominations, yes, you are not allowed to question or modify their creed regarding the how to interpret the bible in the slightest. Others have no such requirements and you may pick and choose which parts of the bible you consider to be factual, which are metaphorical or allegorical, and which can be disregarded entirely. Such churches are called creedless, as they have no set of beliefs, or creed, which members are required to endorse as true. There are many such creedless churches in the U.S., although they are a minority when compared to those that do have creeds. Congregationalist churches are one such denomination, believing that an individual's particularly belief in the various parts of the bible is a personal matter between the individual and god. I think that most such churches will typically attract a congregation with fairly similar beliefs and values, but it certainly allows for a wider diversity of belief within a single church than the more dogmatic insitutions.

[truethat]

I think its a very common misconception that spiritual people do not want their beliefs challenged and prefer to keep themselves boxed in to what they have been told.

So its natural to throw the beliefs out there and watch them be shredded and then see what it still means to you.

[supercorgi]

Congregationalist churches are one such denomination, believing that an individual's particularly belief in the various parts of the bible is a personal matter between the individual and god. I think that most such churches will typically attract a congregation with fairly similar beliefs and values, but it certainly allows for a wider diversity of belief within a single church than the more dogmatic insitutions.

I was raised as a Congregationalist and you're pretty much correct. We studied the Bible but, apart from the whole crucifixion thing, we weren't required to believe that any of the Bible was factual. It was all examined as allegory and philosophy. I can't remember there being much dogma. But we only got wonder bread and grape juice for communion - bummer.

[Darat]

...snip...I can't remember there being much dogma. But we only got wonder bread and grape juice for communion - bummer.

Be grateful for that - my lot didn't even have a communion service - so you didn't even get a drink of Vimto (http://www.vimto.co.uk/vimto_history.aspx) and a crisp!

[Freethinker]

So, TBK, why do you ask?

I've noticed a distinctly cynical theme running through these posts. Some people seem to be seeking ways to criticize my efforts, even though my efforts could lead into my becoming just like them.

If I remain a Christian, so what? If I become an Atheist, again, so what? The journey is mine, and mine alone.

I'm just glad that there are none of my fundie friends logging in; they are not so forgiving and kind as the rest of you.

Two questions for you, the answers to which I'd like to compare to those I got from a former member in a private exchange:

Do you fear losing your faith or living your life without faith?

If I held out an envelope and told you that it contained a one paragraph statement that would convince you that the Christian god did not now and never had existed, would you read it?

[Apathia]

If I remain a Christian, so what? If I become an Atheist, again, so what? The journey is mine, and mine alone.

Taking that journey for yourself is a much deeper expresion of Faith than blind, arbitrary, unquestioned belief or hiding behind a psudo-skeptical wall where you'd be safe from examining your core beliefs and values.

Carry on!

[Cello Man]

I think its a very common misconception that spiritual people do not want their beliefs challenged and prefer to keep themselves boxed in to what they have been told.

So its natural to throw the beliefs out there and watch them be shredded and then see what it still means to you.

Sort of like how science is subject to peer review, which is a great thing for science because it's allowed us humans to reject the ideas which don't work and refine the ones that do. The problem in my opinion is that most religious people don't "run the gauntlet" while being fully prepared to reject the beliefs that don't hold up to scrutiny. It seems to me that they invite criticism with their actions, then ignore the logic behind these criticisms for the sole reason of justifying their persecution complex.

Example: Trying to get a monument of the Ten Commandments on the property of a state courthouse, which is constitutionally illegal as it creates a goverment endorsement of one religion over another. The people who tried this stunt knew it wasn't legal, but griped anyway that they were being singled out and persecuted when it was removed.

Seems like everyone the world over would like to believe they're being persecuted or oppressed for one thing or another, as if it grants them some kind of retrograde moral bragging rights. The oh-so persectued Christians whining about their failed stunt in Arkansas should get some perspective and learn how women live (if you can call it that) under the Taliban. That's oppression. (derail over)

One last thing. Why do we as a culture use the redundant term "blind faith", as if there's any other kind?

[articulett]

So faith is about cherry picking the beliefs that make you feel the most moral, right, and true? And you "examine" your faith so you can convince yourself that you are more moral right and true despite all lack of measurable evidence in any of these areas? It seems like faith is very good for feeling "moral" without actually doing anything moral and feeling like you "know" something without any evidence in support of such knowledge. It also makes you feel saved and special for managing to believe the right unbelievable story.

Interesting. I knew there was a reason it wasn't trustworthy. I knew there was a reason faith makes no sense.

[bokonon]

Are you suggesting that people can pick whatever they want from a certain religion and leave the rest?
Yes. They can also pick one from column Allah, one from column Buddha, and one from column Christ, if they want to.

Because, with most religions, you either believe it all or nothing at all. At least that's how it worked when I was a Christian. I had to accept everything the Bible said as a "fact", because the moment I started doubting it then I didn't have faith.
I regard such religions as fundamentalist, but I don't think all religions are fundamentalist, and I'm certain that not every religious person is a fundamentalist.

I've seen this cause a lot of gnashing of teeth when an atheist insists on regarding every religious person as a fundamentalist. They seem to expect that wresting one concession in an argument will cause their opponent's entire belief system to collapse like a house of cards ("all or nothing"), and can become extremely frustrated when this doesn't happen.

Fundamentalists seem to have the capacity to simply ignore the things that, were they to think about them, they would probably concede are illogical. Many more people can acknowledge and discard some illogical bits while continuing to adhere to others.

[JoeEllison]

So faith is about cherry picking the beliefs that make you feel the most moral, right, and true? And you "examine" your faith so you can convince yourself that you are more moral right and true despite all lack of measurable evidence in any of these areas? It seems like faith is very good for feeling "moral" without actually doing anything moral and feeling like you "know" something without any evidence in support of such knowledge. It also makes you feel saved and special for managing to believe the right unbelievable story.

Interesting. I knew there was a reason it wasn't trustworthy. I knew there was a reason faith makes no sense.
Not only is "faith" useless as far as knowing anything, it is also not even "faith" in anything more or less than whatever the believer feels like believing in. It all seems like a giant exercise in narcissism and self-deception.

[articulett]

That's what it sounds like to me... either the believers are personally picking what is true and meaningful and part of the salvation plan... OR they are letting someone else tell them what god wants or means or meant by certain passages or parables. If faith is the key to salvation, then extreme faith seems like the best insurance plan... but who would trust mortals or their own cherry picking for their eternity plan? Aren't fundamentalists of all stripes just more "faithful" and if their faith is the true faith then they're the saved ones? And isn't the notion that faith is good just a manipulative way to get peoples allegiance while fearing dissent?

[triadboy]

Fnord,

I am interested in discovering a 'truth' you have faith in. What is something you believe?

- Adam and Eve?
- Noah?
- Joshua?
- Jesus and the miracles? (good name for a band)
- resurrection?

[Beth]

I was raised as a Congregationalist and you're pretty much correct. We studied the Bible but, apart from the whole crucifixion thing, we weren't required to believe that any of the Bible was factual. It was all examined as allegory and philosophy. I can't remember there being much dogma. But we only got wonder bread and grape juice for communion - bummer.

Chuckle. That reminds me of the fundie church I was raised in (which had plenty of dogma). It served up grape juice and saltines for communion.

[articulett]

Chuckle. That reminds me of the fundie church I was raised in (which had plenty of dogma). It served up grape juice and saltines for communion.

I was raise Catholic and my best friend was Mormon-- they didn't drink wine, and they told me that when god turned water into wine, it was really just grape juice. But even at 12, I new that grape juice without refrigeration becomes wine pretty damn easily. And the bread is supposed to be the literal body of Christ... but clearly it didn't turn into meat in your mouth-- and a DNA test would show wheat DNA-- not Jesus DNA (which would be curious given his lack of a donor for the Y chromosome...)

[kellyb]

I was raise Catholic and my best friend was Mormon-- they didn't drink wine, and they told me that when god turned water into wine, it was really just grape juice. But even at 12, I new that grape juice without refrigeration becomes wine pretty damn easily. And the bread is supposed to be the literal body of Christ... but clearly it didn't turn into meat in your mouth-- and a DNA test would show wheat DNA-- not Jesus DNA (which would be curious given his lack of a donor for the Y chromosome...)

Baptists believe the whole "It was just grapejuice" thing, too. Which I always thought was funny, because one of Jesus's parables (new wine in old wineskin) involved the fermentation process. The parable doesn't make any sense without understanding the release of gas that happens when grapes ferment.
But anyway...


Christians can examine their faith. It usually leads to deconversion, but there might be people out there who can make it all "work" in their heads somehow.
Of course, basic Christian theology has an unspoken list of questions you're not supposed to ask, and it's asking the forbidden questions that leads to deconversion. But that's it's own weird head-trip that each "believer" works out on their own. And then there's a strange time where "examining" definitely starts turning into "questioning"...but according to Christianity, that might mean that you're "under Satanic attack" (or something)...and your local religious authority might tell you that your thoughts at that point aren't even your own, but rather it's a demon whispering things in your ear or something. Which is a really scary thought if you really believe that the Bible is true. And to a believer, that, in and of itself, might serve as a kind of "evidence" that Christianity is "the Truth".
:boggled:

Anyway...
The fact that people leave religions should demonstrate that "examining faith" is possible. I personally can't see how it can't result in atheism (or at least deism, or agnosticism) but I'm not going to pass judgment on a stranger and their sincerity without knowing what's going on in their head.

[articulett]

I can't see how it doesn't lead to that either... except that I know that people can and do test their faith to prop it up... and if you really believe it's the key to salvation or that bad things will happen to not believing, then I think that's a pretty good incentive to "feel" it's truth via confirmation bias.

http://www.isitso.org/guide/fails.html

There's this notion that you are "suffering for your faith" and like hazing in a fraternity, it makes people have greater allegiance to the group. They feel if they can withstand the onslaught of query, that makes their religion more likely to be true when, in fact, it makes them more impervious to contradictory facts.

[Hardenbergh]

How do you explain that people's lives have been changed dramatically through faith in God? Why are so many people released from the bonds of addiction when they surrender to God? Why are relationships healed? Isn't that reason enough to have faith?

[thaiboxerken]

How do you explain that people's lives have been changed dramatically through faith in God?

Belief in any superstition can motivate change. That doesn't make the superstition any more valid.

Why are so many people released from the bonds of addiction when they surrender to God?

They are released at about the same rate as people who go through secular anti-addiction programs.

Why are relationships healed?

Are you claiming that Christians have a smaller divorce rate than atheists?


Isn't that reason enough to have faith?

Considering that everything you've said is either irrelevant or untrue, I'd say no.

[articulett]

How do you explain that people's lives have been changed dramatically through faith in God? Why are so many people released from the bonds of addiction when they surrender to God? Why are relationships healed? Isn't that reason enough to have faith?

Which one... Scientology has lots of people cured from drug use via narcanon. Atheists recover too. Neuroscience tells us a lot about addiction and what brain areas are involved... even rats can get addicted to drugs and have drug seeking behavior... it doesn't seem that god or faith is needed for a cure and one version of faith doesn't seem to be more true than an other. If you are told that you need to have faith to be cured, it could become a self fulfilling prophesy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/science/26brain.html?ex=1189915200&en=f31f034e950f6113&ei=5070
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Farrenkopf.html
http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_glutamateAndCoca ineAddiction

We could compare faith to people told that wishing on a star was the only means to cure addiction and see which had the better long term affect... but for anyone to assume that god was doing it is some pretty lazy and simplistic thinking that religion seems to encourage.

I suspect faith works about as often or as well as hypnosis and/or placebos-- but faith takes credit for all successes and no blame for failures, so it's hard to guage. Double blind studies don't bode well for faith or prayer being a mechanism for healing anything (for example, there are no limbs growing back via faith-- why not?). The stuff where faith works seems to be stuff where prayer or saintly intercession or visualization or hypnosis "work"-- that doesn't say much for the "active ingredient" being a god.

Your question is childish. If you went to a town at the same time a tornado set down and they concluded you brought the tornado, would they be correct in assuming that there were no more tornadoes afterwards because they killed you? Or is that confirmation bias? Anecdotes aren't evidence... and correlation is not causation.

Welcome to the skeptics forum; you are in need of some critical thinking skills, and you came to the right place to learn some.

[kellyb]

I know that people can and do test their faith to prop it up... and if you really believe it's the key to salvation or that bad things will happen to not believing, then I think that's a pretty good incentive to "feel" it's truth via confirmation bias.

Well, if you totally believe, and decide for whatever reason to examine your faith, you do start off with the a priori assumption that in the end the process will strengthen your faith. But it's something that people set out to do with the best of intentions. Sort of like deciding to major in physics, never considering the possibility that you'd come out of college "not believing in atoms". God is THAT real to believers.
And the New testament very much does set up mental "boobytraps" (for lack of a better description) with regard to disbelief. There are mysterious passages about something "very, very bad" that happens to people who used to "know the truth" but "turned away". It's actually alluded to as being the one and only unforgivable sin.
But, paradoxically, part of examining "the truth" behind Christianity involves considering the distinct possibility that it's all a big fat lie/mass delusion, which should logically render null and void the threat if it's true that Christianity isn't true.
But between the place of:
a) of course Christianity is true
and
b) there's a distinct possibility that it's not true
...is a terrifying mental "sweet spot" where there's another option
c) YOU ARE FALLING FOR THE GREAT SATANIC LIE AND YOU NEED TO PRAY, NOW!!!

There's this notion that you are "suffering for your faith" and like hazing in a fraternity, it makes people have greater allegiance to the group. They feel if they can withstand the onslaught of query, that makes their religion more likely to be true when, in fact, it makes them more impervious to contradictory facts.
Well, yeah, people do that. We've all seen that from time to time.
But some people honestly want to know "the truth", too.

[Southwind17]

Belief in any superstition can motivate change. That doesn't make the superstition any more valid.



They are released at about the same rate as people who go through secular anti-addiction programs.



Are you claiming that Christians have a smaller divorce rate than atheists?



Considering that everything you've said is either irrelevant or untrue, I'd say no.

Thanks Thiaboxer - sure saved me the effort! Look forward to the response!

[Hardenbergh]

Belief in any superstition can motivate change. That doesn't make the superstition any more valid.

But you do admit that belief in "superstition" can bring about change?



They are released at about the same rate as people who go through secular anti-addiction programs.

So you're saying that belief in "superstition" can be an alternative to going through an anti-addiction program and still achieve the desired results?

[kellyb]

How do you explain that people's lives have been changed dramatically through faith in God? Why are so many people released from the bonds of addiction when they surrender to God? Why are relationships healed? Isn't that reason enough to have faith?

It seems to be faith in any god or or flavor of woo that can have that effect.
I know a guy in AA who chose his doorknob to be his "higher power". It worked.
Some people use homeopathy to treat addiction with impressive effects.

You also have to be careful about noticing the success stories and ignoring the failures.
Christianity drove me NUTS. I just got more and more depressed crying out to a silent god who made no sense, wondering if my faith was being tested, or if I'd pissed god off somehow, or if He was "strengthening my character" or what.
People divorce over religion all the time, too.

To be completely honest, though, atheism is a bit of a bummer sometimes compared to believing that there's some wonderful purpose in life, a god who loves you, eternal life with your parents and spouse and kids.
It wouldn't surprise me if believing some lies made people happy.
In a basic way, it's like telling a kid "We had to take Spot to a big farm where he can run around more and chase chickens all day" instead of "He got hit by a car and died."
As long as the kid never notices the big, bloody spot in the road in front of the house, it's all good.

[thaiboxerken]

But you do admit that belief in "superstition" can bring about change?

WTF do you think? I posted it, didn't I?! One doesn't need superstition at all to bring about change either.


So you're saying that belief in "superstition" can be an alternative to going through an anti-addiction program and still achieve the desired results?

Sure it is, but it's not a better way. In other words, the world could do well without any superstition since superstition doesn't provide any measurable benefit to society.

[kellyb]

But you do admit that belief in "superstition" can bring about change?





So you're saying that belief in "superstition" can be an alternative to going through an anti-addiction program and still achieve the desired results?


How is Christianity any different from this in that respect?

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/index.php/35/homeopathy-for-alcoholism/

[thaiboxerken]

All too often, faith brings about change in a negative way. That's because with faith, one tends to not think or use reason. With faith, a nice person with a family can turn into a mean person who flies planes into buildings.

[articulett]

So you're saying that belief in "superstition" can be an alternative to going through an anti-addiction program and still achieve the desired results?

Sure... as can brain damage... and prison... and maybe even wishing on a star.
Homeopathy might do the trick... different people are differently susceptible to placebos and beliefs and hypnosis and self delusion.

[Elind]

So, TBK, why do you ask?

I've noticed a distinctly cynical theme running through these posts. Some people seem to be seeking ways to criticize my efforts, even though my efforts could lead into my becoming just like them.

If I remain a Christian, so what? If I become an Atheist, again, so what? The journey is mine, and mine alone.

I'm just glad that there are none of my fundie friends logging in; they are not so forgiving and kind as the rest of you.

I haven't read all posts here, but I gather from the above that you once called yourself an atheist.

It is quite common to hear from Christians (not Muslims however) who say they were once atheists, but on examination they were not atheists, they were just lazy in thinking much about their existence and thought atheist sounded cool.

Rather than explain why you now have faith in a god, could you explain the fundamentals that you once held that caused you to then claim you were atheist?

[kellyb]

I haven't read all posts here, but I gather from the above that you once called yourself an atheist.

It is quite common to hear from Christians (not Muslims however) who say they were once atheists, but on examination they were not atheists, they were just lazy in thinking much about their existence and thought atheist sounded cool.

Rather than explain why you now have faith in a god, could you explain the fundamentals that you once held that caused you to then claim you were atheist?

I think he just meant "So again the question is "So what?"
Not "If I became an atheist again."

[articulett]

I haven't read all posts here, but I gather from the above that you once called yourself an atheist.

It is quite common to hear from Christians (not Muslims however) who say they were once atheists, but on examination they were not atheists, they were just lazy in thinking much about their existence and thought atheist sounded cool.

Rather than explain why you now have faith in a god, could you explain the fundamentals that you once held that caused you to then claim you were atheist?

Yes...
What religion were you raised, and how and when did you decide you were an atheist and then what changed and how did you decide faith was a good way to have "truth" or that it was "good"?

[JoeEllison]

It is quite common to hear from Christians (not Muslims however) who say they were once atheists, but on examination they were not atheists, they were just lazy in thinking much about their existence and thought atheist sounded cool.

Yep, and that ties right into the "Liars for Jesus" concept, most recently reintroduced to this site by me.:D It is the same deceit as the "Fox News liberals"... people who claim to be current or former members of a group, in order to shield their lies and dishonest claims about that group.

[Gestahl]

Fnord stated in one of these threads that his reason for posting in the forum is not to preach or convert people, but to simply examine his faith. I have to wonder, what the hell does that mean?

Faith is the simple, blind acceptance of a claim. What is there to examine? "Yep, I still believe in Jesus." "So, that atheist has evidence Jesus doesn't exist, let me look in my bible. Yep, the bible still says Jesus existed." Evidence plays no part in faith, so I have to wonder what examining faith really means.

Can anyone explain this to me, or is this just another one of those non-sensical religious sayings?

Fnord stated in one of these threads that his reason for posting in the forum is not to preach or convert people, but to simply examine his faith. I have to wonder, what the hell does that mean?


Faith unexamined and unchallenged is not faith at all, simply assumption or a "why not" state of mind.

To have faith is to believe in something *in spite of* or even *because* there is no (or contradictory) data.

[Elind]

Yep, and that ties right into the "Liars for Jesus" concept, most recently reintroduced to this site by me.:D It is the same deceit as the "Fox News liberals"... people who claim to be current or former members of a group, in order to shield their lies and dishonest claims about that group.

There is such a thing as changing one's stance. Sometimes it's considered a good characteristic, like becoming an atheist, for example.:cool:

However you brought in politics:

There is also such a thing as a "group" changing it's stance, but not some members. I for example have been a card carrying democrat most of my voting life, until a few years ago when I quit to become independent. Why is another story, but it is well illustrated by what is often considered the internet flagship of the democrats these days, over on KOS.

They may have a lot more atheists there than the Bush crowd, but nasty loony tunes is how I see them these days.

Hopefully I don't offend anyone here, but I won't equate politics with religion too readily. At least one of those Fox converts I'm sure is an atheist.

[Complexity]

But you do admit that belief in "superstition" can bring about change?

So you're saying that belief in "superstition" can be an alternative to going through an anti-addiction program and still achieve the desired results?


Belief in superstition does bring about change, but they are not a good changes.

Abdication of reason, forswearing thinking on your own, preferring delusion to the real, a loss of dignity and respect, making yourself unfit to be a parent - these are not good changes.

[Complexity]

Fnord stated in one of these threads that his reason for posting in the forum is not to preach or convert people, but to simply examine his faith.


He's not telling the truth.

If Fnord wants to 'examine his faith', he should do so, but in solitude and in private.

Doing so publicly is merely an attempt to proselytize.

I do not think that Fnord invites any challenge or critique of his beliefs.

He wants to infect the rest of us.

[six7s]

So you're saying that belief in "superstition" can be an alternative to going through an anti-addiction program and still achieve the desired results?

I have heard the term 'pendulum swingers' to describe those who are 'cured' of serious/extreme addictions by replacing one senseless activity with another (e.g. fundamentalist religion) and wonder: Does anyone have data re the long-term efficacy of the various alternatives?
To have faith is to believe in something *in spite of* or even *because* there is no (or contradictory) data.

Is this not simply a crude rebranding of 'stubborn ignorance' of/for those with a 'god-shaped-hole' in their heads?

[Elind]

I have heard the term 'pendulum swingers' to describe those who are 'cured' of serious/extreme addictions by replacing one senseless activity with another (e.g. fundamentalist religion) and wonder:

Is this not simply a crude rebranding of 'stubborn ignorance' of/for those with a 'god-shaped-
Does anyone have data re the long-term efficacy of the various alternatives?hole' in their heads?


I know someone like that. Gave up booze. Got religion.

[Roadtoad]

He's not telling the truth.

If Fnord wants to 'examine his faith', he should do so, but in solitude and in private.

Doing so publicly is merely an attempt to proselytize.

I do not think that Fnord invites any challenge or critique of his beliefs.

He wants to infect the rest of us.

Ordinarily, Comp, I'd agree with you. However, having finally said, "Enough," both figuratively and literally, when it comes to religion, in part because of my interaction with people here, I find I'm at odds with you.

Keep in mind, when I showed up, I was a stone-cold fundie. (Just ask Ken, who pretty much charbroiled yours truly in one my early posts.) My beliefs were pretty much in line with Fnord's, and it was only through my communication with people who 1.) wouldn't accept excuses for a lack of evidence, and 2.) cared enough to confront me about what it was I believed, and why I chose to believe, that I finally realized I was living a lie.

It's funny: on the way in tonight, I found myself thinking about leaving. It's almost as if there are those who think that now that I've become an atheist, it's a done deal, and there's no further need to waste time with that damned trucker. I guess there are some who think that, but I'm finding myself wondering if it's now my turn to roll up my sleeves, and help others who find themselves asking the exact same questions I once did. Maybe that's why I should stay.

One thing I remember well about this journey: I met Ken and his wife in Portland one night. They didn't have to come out to see me. They could have stayed at home. Hell, they didn't even have to spring for dinner. But they did meet up with me at Jantzen Beach. And I was genuinely impressed with two people who were crazy about each other, whose devotion wasn't based on some sort of theosophical fallacy, but on the character and integrity of who they each were. It cut to the bone, through all the deception and stupidity.

If all Fnord is looking for is some way to say to his friends, "See how faithful I am, going into the lion's den like this," he's chosen the wrong den. No lions here, just decent people trying to figure it all out, just like one busted up mutt trucker, who finally got home after a long week out.

[articulett]

I just nominated roadtoad...

So often your posts inspire-- I'd never have guessed that you were of the fundie ilk. What a cool story. So some people who come here to preach really do learn? What was your intent on first coming here? And don't leave!
You're "famous" to me.

[JoeEllison]

There is such a thing as changing one's stance. Sometimes it's considered a good characteristic, like becoming an atheist, for example.:cool:

However you brought in politics:

There is also such a thing as a "group" changing it's stance, but not some members. I for example have been a card carrying democrat most of my voting life, until a few years ago when I quit to become independent. Why is another story, but it is well illustrated by what is often considered the internet flagship of the democrats these days, over on KOS.

They may have a lot more atheists there than the Bush crowd, but nasty loony tunes is how I see them these days.

Hopefully I don't offend anyone here, but I won't equate politics with religion too readily. At least one of those Fox converts I'm sure is an atheist.

I have no idea what you're saying. You stopped being a Democrat because they were too much like the Republicans, right?

[Gregoire]

How do you explain that people's lives have been changed dramatically through faith in God? Why are so many people released from the bonds of addiction when they surrender to God? Why are relationships healed? Isn't that reason enough to have faith?


This is a question I struggled with as a teenager and never was able to answer satisfactorily at that time except for noting that mutually contradicting religions appear to have the same alleged "positive effect". This implied to me that it is something contained within various religions and not the religions per se to which one can attribute this.

But now I think there is a very clear answer. To explain it, I will have to digress into Psychology. There is a method called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy which teaches people how to think about their lives. In short, one can always see the same glass as half empty or half full. For example, if one is in an automobile accident, one can either think of oneself as unlucky that such a tragedy should have happened or one can consider oneself very lucky that one is still alive. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy teaches people to use the latter approach and turns out to be very effective.

To me, this appears to be what religion does, although with a lot of superstition intermixed within. If something "good" happens, one is told to thank God. If something "bad" happens, one is told to believe that "everything happens for a reason" and to "trust God" that everything will work out in the end.

In essence, I think Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is teaching a method of thinking used by religion without all the superstition etc. If one did want to design a study to measure the "positive effect" of a religion as alluded to by Articulett, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy would make a good control group.

I should hasten to add that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has nothing to do with self delusion or magical thinking. One must still engage life as it is. One must still do physical therapy, for instance, during the recovery from the aforementioned accident. There will be no miracles. It is simply a method of understanding that we all choose how we look at the world whether we are conscious of it or not.




"When the dog bites, when the bee stings, when I'm feeling sad, I simply remember my favorite things and then I don't feel so bad." The Sound of Music

[triadboy]

But you do admit that belief in "superstition" can bring about change?

I'm having a problem with identifying Xianity as merely a 'superstition'. [and BTW Thaiboxerken - I liked your post.]

If I resist walking under a ladder - which is a superstition - I've brought about 'change' in some way which may have some effect - sometime - somewhere. For instance, if veering to avoid a ladder, I bump into a man on his way to a job interview, who spills coffee on his suit...etc. That's change due to a superstition.

Xianity is much worse than superstition. It's billions of people veering to avoid the ladder...and encouraging everyone around them to veer as well. At that point, it's not just a superstition anymore - it's part of life - and very intrusive.

[Roadtoad]

I'm having a problem with identifying Xianity as merely a 'superstition'. [and BTW Thaiboxerken - I liked your post.]

If I resist walking under a ladder - which is a superstition - I've brought about 'change' in some way which may have some effect - sometime - somewhere. For instance, if veering to avoid a ladder, I bump into a man on his way to a job interview, who spills coffee on his suit...etc. That's change due to a superstition.

Xianity is much worse than superstition. It's billions of people veering to avoid the ladder...and encouraging everyone around them to veer as well. At that point, it's not just a superstition anymore - it's part of life - and very intrusive.

Close, very, very close. It's not just veering to avoid the ladder, it's failing to see why.

[six7s]

There is a method called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy which teaches people how to think about their lives. In short, one can always see the same glass as half empty or half full. <snip/>

To me, this appears to be what religion does, although with a lot of superstition intermixed within. If something "good" happens, one is told to thank God. If something "bad" happens, one is told to believe that "everything happens for a reason" and to "trust God" that everything will work out in the end.

For a similar analogy, see the 'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait' jug of milk optical illusion (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video8.htm) on WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com

<snip/>

"We have to trust that He knows what’s best. God answers prayers in the form of 'yes', 'no' and 'wait'. Sometimes the hardest answer to accept is 'wait'. It’s difficult to be left in limbo, wondering how God will handle our problem, but we must have faith that He will!" - Christianity.com

'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait'. That is how God answers prayers. You have probably heard this a thousand times, and you believe it completely.

'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait' may sound comforting, but here is the thing that I would like to help you understand.

'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait' is actually an optical illusion.

Let me show you how this illusion works. Imagine that I put a jug of milk on the counter, and I say to you, "Pray to the jug of milk." I tell you that if you pray to the jug of milk, it will answer all your prayers. You are skeptical, but you agree to try it. You pray to the jug of milk to give you 1,000.

Now I say to you, "The jug of milk answers prayers in the form of 'yes', 'no' and 'wait'. Let's see what happens."

What is going to happen? There are three scenarios:

<snip/>

If we say "God answers prayers in the form of 'yes', 'no' and 'wait'," God can't lose.

But in reality, "God" is no different than a jug of milk. The jug of milk can't lose either. That is the illusion.

<snip/>

The reason why prayer has no effect is because God is imaginary.

<snip/>

Source (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video8.htm)

The links to Christianity.com don't work - maybe because they have applied a new logic scheme to their folder\file structure... but alas not the content which, if anything, has been refined as a resource for inane trolling techniques, vis:

Prayer and Predestination
John Piper
Desiring God (http://www.christianity.com/11540551/)

A Conversation Between Prayerful and Prayerless
<snip/>
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?

Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.

Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?

Prayerful: That's right.

Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?

Prayerful: Yes. <snip/>

[articulett]

Close, very, very close. It's not just veering to avoid the ladder, it's failing to see why.

And not noticing the ladder is no longer there anyhow--and maybe it never was.

[articulett]

I suggest this fabulous "optical illusion" to understand how faith works it's miracles.

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video8.htm

ETA: oops... six7s beat me too it... when will I ever learn to read them all before posting. (next life I plan on being infallible :) )

[triadboy]

Close, very, very close. It's not just veering to avoid the ladder, it's failing to see why.


But it's his veering that affects your life - not his failure to see why he's veering. :)

[triadboy]

And not noticing the ladder is no longer there anyhow--and maybe it never was.

Oh don't worry the ladder is there and ladder-followers make sure everyone acknowledges it is there. There are pictures of ladders on your money; sports and movie stars thank the ladder for victory and fame; and television shows broadcast 24/7, world-wide extoling the power of the ladder. It's insanity.

[Roadtoad]

Ever wish you could nominate a whole string of posts by certain people, simply because the make sense?

[articulett]

Oh don't worry the ladder is there and ladder-followers make sure everyone acknowledges it is there. There are pictures of ladders on your money; sports and movie stars thank the ladder for victory and fame; and television shows broadcast 24/7, world-wide extoling the power of the ladder. It's insanity.

And I guess it would be arrogant to question the existence of the ladder and hurt the feelings of all the ladder swervers, eh?

[triadboy]

And I guess it would be arrogant to question the existence of the ladder and hurt the feelings of all the ladder swervers, eh?

It gets worse - the ladder-swervers hate the coin-flippers and salt-throwers.

[articulett]

It gets worse - the ladder-swervers hate the coin-flippers and salt-throwers.

And the rain dancers swear that we'll only understand true happiness when we learn their rain dance, right? How can we not have faith in the rain dancers when clearly it rains, does it not? That is surely proof that the rain dancers know what the gods want even if the coin flippers and salt throwers have no evidence for their claims. Moreover, when it rains, it dissolves the salt and rusts the coins and makes everyone want to run under the non-existent ladder for cover.

Yeppers-- faith is good (for amusement).

[six7s]

Close, very, very close. It's not just veering to avoid the ladder, it's failing to see why.

Oh don't worry the ladder is there and ladder-followers make sure everyone acknowledges it is there. There are pictures of ladders on your money; sports and movie stars thank the ladder for victory and fame; and television shows broadcast 24/7, world-wide extoling the power of the ladder. It's insanity.

The mention of ladder prompted me revisit the description of what Jacob dreamed about... whilst he was sleeping with a rock for a pillow...

Maybe the osmotic pressure was intense... or was it an hallucinogenic flashback befitting a Led Zepp style soundtrack

Hairway To Stephen
YouTube Audio: 8 mins 04 secs
_mNjd-hnxbs
There are woos who have told that the world is not old
And they're selling a Hairway to Stephen
How we get there, who knows? If our minds are all closed
There's a world where we get what we're blamed for
Woo, ooh, and they're selling a Hairway to Stephen

There are sites on the web but we want to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings
From a verse in a book, there's some turkeys who cluck
Somehow all of our sins are forgiven

:g1:

Woo, it makes me chunder (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chunder)
Woo, it makes me chunder

There's a feeling I get when I read what's been said
And by logic this defies believing
With my brain I can see that we ought to be free
Of the voices of those who hate thinking

:g1:

Woo, it makes me chunder
Woo, and it makes me chunder

And its worth shouting soon when we're free of the woo
Then plain logic will lead us to reason
And the truth will be told to those who don't hold
On to fears that we'll get no here-after

:g1:

Woo, woo

If there's some strirring in your brain now, don't be alarmed how,
It's just rewiring of your neurons
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on

:g1:

Woo, and it makes me chunder
Woo, Woo

Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't go
The wooists calling you to join them
Dear sceptic, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Their hairy lies are but gastric wind

:g1:

:g1:

:g1:

And as we evolve as we all grow
Our passion better than a soul
There talks a logic we all know
That shines white light and clearly shows
How nothing really turns to gold
And if you listen very hard
The truth will come to you at last
When all is one and one is all
To be a rock and not a troll

:g1:

And they're selling the Hairway to Stephen

[Gregoire]

For a similar analogy, see the 'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait' jug of milk optical illusion (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video8.htm) on WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com





Excellent site!

[articulett]

Beautiful.

It makes me chunder too.

[Gregoire]

A Conversation Between Prayerful and Prayerless
<snip/>
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?

Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.

Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?

Prayerful: That's right.

Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?

Prayerful: Yes. <snip/>



That reminds me of a joke:

Prayerless: "Last night I couldn't sleep so I read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Then I read James' letter to churches in Asia Minor, and finally I read one of Peter's letters to some other early believers. Well after all that, I have started to feel really guilty."

Prayerful: "Wow! Are you feeling guilty because you realize the Bible hasn't been guiding your life?"

Prayerless: "No, I feel guilty because I feel like I have been reading someone else's mail!"
:D

[Elind]

I have no idea what you're saying. You stopped being a Democrat because they were too much like the Republicans, right?

Yeah, trying to say too much in too many words. Not quite sure what I was replying to either, in retrospect, but no, not because they were too much "alike", but because they were similarly inane.

[six7s]

It makes me chunder too.

;)

I do like the way the :g1: smilies nod in time to the soundtrack

Maybe it was predestined?

Woo, ooo...

[Elind]

Keep in mind, when I showed up, I was a stone-cold fundie. (Just ask Ken, who pretty much charbroiled yours truly in one my early posts.) My beliefs were pretty much in line with Fnord's, and it was only through my communication with people who 1.) wouldn't accept excuses for a lack of evidence, and 2.) cared enough to confront me about what it was I believed, and why I chose to believe, that I finally realized I was living a lie.



You actually changed a fundamental belief here? I recognize you from years ago, but I don't think we ever exchanged serious views then.

I am curious to understand; did you really abandon your religion because of discussions like these, here?

I've always assumed that this is something that people do, mostly, by themselves, perhaps with a little guidance here and there, but basically internally and alone.

[kellyb]

Arguing with people online had a lot to do with me leaving Christianity.
A friend of mine online made a mean case for the god of the OT being a god created in man's image (see sexism, sexual slavery, rape and genocide) and the day came when "God and His mysterious ways" just didn't cut it any more.
No god worth worshiping could command those things, and any entity that would, would be my devil, not my god, anyway.

[Roadtoad]

You actually changed a fundamental belief here? I recognize you from years ago, but I don't think we ever exchanged serious views then.

I am curious to understand; did you really abandon your religion because of discussions like these, here?

I've always assumed that this is something that people do, mostly, by themselves, perhaps with a little guidance here and there, but basically internally and alone.

Let me put it this way: I was given grist for the mill here. And while you're right, people do change their beliefs internally and alone, there's a lot to be said for the interaction between people, and the choices they make as a result.

Let's take the example I offered earlier: I had been taught as a Christian that you couldn't truly love your wife unless you had Christ in your life. Without that, you had no knowledge of what true love really was.

Except that here was Ken and his wife, (who's an absolute gem, BTW), two people who had no knowledge of Christ whatsoever, and yet, they were nuts about one another. Sure, there were differences of opinion, but the reality is that they have a better marriage than many Christians I know.

Consider it another way: Most Christians will tell you that without a knowledge of the divine, you can't possibly have any kind of morality. But the problem with that is how do you define morality? Is it really that narcissistic, to be centered around what you believe? Or, is there something more to it, something that goes well beyond your own narrow views?

I considered Zep to be one of the most moral people I've met on this board. His actions and arguments were based on doing what was best, not just what was expedient. I could easily say the same about any number of other people here, none of whom have any religious belief whatsoever. Randfan, for another example, is a very moral individual, someone who constantly examines his own beliefs and actions, and yet, he comes from a completely different religious background than I do.

I know this sounds odd to some, but the reality remains: Religion, while a personal choice, remains a corporate activity. I came here with questions, thanks to Rikzilla, (who seems AWOL for some reason), and was given answers, not just by individuals, but by the group as a whole. Some of the questions weren't asked out loud, but they were there, just the same.

If Fnord, as I have said before, asks serious questions, and is truly looking to confront his faith, that's a good thing. If his faith holds, I'd like to know what it is that holds it together for him. On the other hand, if Fnord's simply here looking to appear saintly to his friends in Church, the reality is that in the end, he's simply going to look silly to them, and he'll lose a chance at real friendship here.

[Complexity]

Ordinarily, Comp, I'd agree with you. However, having finally said, "Enough," both figuratively and literally, when it comes to religion, in part because of my interaction with people here, I find I'm at odds with you.


Roadtoad - I'll read anything you right and give it some thought.

You're right. I generalized out of anger and frustration.

I used to be quite religious, scientific, and skeptical, and the inconsistencies unsettled me for years. I fought my way out of religious belief by myself and some good books. I could really have used an opportunity to participate in something like this forum.

All of my family and nearly all of my friends are religious. I've come to an accomodation with most of them in which there are some things we simply don't discuss. I've lost a few people.

Things are harsh for me right now and I've let that affect some of my posting. In general, I'll stand by what I've posted, but my generalization in this thread was simply wrong.

You're a good man.

Thanks.

[Southwind17]

For a similar analogy, see the 'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait' jug of milk optical illusion (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video8.htm) on WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com

This analogy's OK - a little drawn out and just another variation on a theme. Certainly nothing to write home about. Why, though, does it call belief in god an optical illusion? It has absolutely nothing to to with optics. It's a shame it doesn't mind, because then the existence of god or otherwise would probably lend itself much better to scientific scrutiny! Surely 'mental illusion' would be a better tag line!

[Elind]

Let me put it this way: I was given grist for the mill here. And while you're right, people do change their beliefs internally and alone, there's a lot to be said for the interaction between people, and the choices they make as a result.

Let's take the example I offered earlier: I had been taught as a Christian that you couldn't truly love your wife unless you had Christ in your life. Without that, you had no knowledge of what true love really was.

I guess the difference is between those brought up in a fundamentalist way, as the above suggests, versus my case of going to Sunday school for a while without finding anything said there very convincing, but not being preached to at home either.

I started questioning this stuff internally by the age of 10, although it took at least another 10 to come to use the word atheist confidently.

[articulett]

This analogy's OK - a little drawn out and just another variation on a theme. Certainly nothing to write home about. Why, though, does it call belief in god an optical illusion? It has absolutely nothing to to with optics. It's a shame it doesn't mind, because then the existence of god or otherwise would probably lend itself much better to scientific scrutiny! Surely 'mental illusion' would be a better tag line!

Because people "see" what they want to "see"

And because the title makes people watch it.

[Dancing David]

What do you believe?

Hard knock materialist nihilist.(Nothing is real outside of reality) I am also a buddhist and a neopagan.(They are useful if unrealted to reality to a certain extent.) As a result of being on this board I have come to believe in affirmative action based upon socioeconomic status and that free will could be an illusion. I already felt that the mind and consciousness are illusiory and have had that belief affirmed.

[Dancing David]

Are you suggesting that people can pick whatever they want from a certain religion and leave the rest?

Because, with most religions, you either believe it all or nothing at all. At least that's how it worked when I was a Christian. I had to accept everything the Bible said as a "fact", because the moment I started doubting it then I didn't have faith.

Not so for all religions.

[triadboy]

Excellent site!

Originally Posted by six7s
For a similar analogy, see the 'Yes', 'No' and 'Wait' jug of milk optical illusion on WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com

That's wild - I've been saying that for years, but I've always said "broomstick"

Great video - thanks

[Fnord]

Is there no finding or decision that will bring creationists to examine reason or reality?

Today's examination: An Answer to Mr. Randi.

The short answer is 'No.'

The longer answer is 'maybe,' but it will require a personal experience that both outweighs and eclipses any previous religious experience. And by this I mean that both the emotional and intellectual content would have to so overhwelm the creationist's understanding as to make Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus seem like a mere passing thought.

In my experience, most, if not all Chrisitians have had at least one 'religious' experience in which they claim to have either felt or witnessed the presence of God. Whether or not they actually did is a moot point. However, this experience, or "Qualia" is more real to them than any scientific demonstration, so much more real that you could literally take a creationist by the hand and walk them through a museum of natural history, explain every exhibit and answer every question truthfully unto the most minute detail, and still not gain any ground.

Or to put it as my son has, their delusions are so much a part of their very being, that removing this delusion would be like removing the BIOS from a computer and expecting it to still run Windows.

Mr. Randi, with all due respect, if you want to convert creationists to the naturalist point of view, you must first establish a rapport with them. Noting the adversarial nature of Naturalists versus Creationists, there is little to expect that such a rapport could take place.

The Good Mr. Dawkins has possibly done more to alienate Creationists than any other scientific mind since Einstein. Overcome that alienation, and you are well on your way towards your goal.

Or look at it from the opposite perspective: If a Creationist were to try to convert you to their point of view, where could they start? If you say "Nowhere," then you understand all that you need to on how to convert them to your point of view, because that is how Creationists feel about Naturalism.

As long as this "Us" versus "Them" attitude exists on both sides, there will never be an open-minded dialog. Adversaries fight; they do not negotiate.

I wish you well. Sincerely,

Fnord

[ned flandas]

FNORD

How did you go from athiest to follower of Jesus?

[thaiboxerken]

Probably like most theists do, ned, they were born atheist and then indoctrinated afterwards.

[triadboy]

I guess the difference is between those brought up in a fundamentalist way, as the above suggests, versus my case of going to Sunday school for a while without finding anything said there very convincing, but not being preached to at home either.

I started questioning this stuff internally by the age of 10, although it took at least another 10 to come to use the word atheist confidently.

I was so lucky! We moved to Germany when I was 9 (1964) - and I never had to go to church or sunday school again. I ignored religion until I was 38. I had to get a Masters to make Major in the Air Force, so I took Humanities. Just on a lark - I signed up for a bunch of religion classes and liked it. I realized I was an Atheist and wrote my thesis on Christianity. (That's the one that the xian read and told me I would get cancer.)

So I didn't have to go through all that painful middle-years stuff. My old keyboard player grew up in Louisiana and had to go to church on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays! Ouch.

[Fnord]

FNORD

How did you go from athiest to follower of Jesus?

I was never an Atheist.

[Fnord]

Probably like most theists do, ned, they were born atheist and then indoctrinated afterwards.

I was never an Atheist. I was born into and raised in a Christian home, so even before I could really comprehend what was being said or form an opinion about it, I was infused with the Christian faith during the time when my neural synapses were forming. Therefore, Atheism had little, if any, chance of getting started with me, as my 'indoctrination' began at birth.

[ned flandas]

I was never an Atheist. I was born into and raised in a Christian home, so even before I could really comprehend what was being said or form an opinion about it, I was infused with the Christian faith during the time when my neural synapses were forming. Therefore, Atheism had little, if any, chance of getting started with me, as my 'indoctrination' began at birth.

how did you stay a Christian then?

[ned flandas]

Probably like most theists do, ned, they were born atheist and then indoctrinated afterwards.

I must have indoctrinated myself. I had no Christian family and friends.

[six7s]

I must have indoctrinated myself. I had no Christian family and friends.

Possibly... but I think probably not, at least not entirely by yourself - based on the assumption that you weren't living in an environment devoid of all religion

[triadboy]

... it will require a personal experience that both outweighs and eclipses any previous religious experience.

How can science attempt to out-do a euphoric, delusional soul tingle?

For many of us, "science" easily beats religion with the jaw-dropping awe of the universe and the great strides mankind is making in discovering it. Can religion possibly give you photos from Saturn's moons? Religion is old, old thinking.

Here's something funny. But first I want to identify something we say everyday - but don't understand the exponential value of - and that's billion. If I start counting right now - one number per second - I would reach a million in 12 days. To reach a billion would take me 31 years!

So with that in mind:

- Light travels at 186,000 miles per second

- A light year is the distance light travels in a year = almost 6 trillion miles! (want to count to a trillion? - That's 3100 years.)

- We can see billions of galaxies

- We can see galaxies 12 billion light years away.

- Each galaxy has billions of stars

- Earth is located out in the boondocks of the Milky Way - on one of the spiral arms. As inhabitants of Earth, we are those uni-browed cousins you got living up in the Ozark mountains.


And yet, with this V A S T expansive universe - the Xian/Islamic/Judaic creator - Yahweh - loved to smell smoked meats on Earth. What are we...some kind of Galactic Smoke House?

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour;

Exd 29:18 And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it [is] a burnt offering unto the LORD: it [is] a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Exd 29:25 And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn [them] upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour before the LORD: it [is] an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Exd 29:41 And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Lev 1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, [to be] a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

and on and on in Numbers and Leviticus.

See how old religion seems? And how exciting science is?


... Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus seem like a mere passing thought.

Apparently - from the conflicting stories - Paul is kinda confused about what happened.

Mr. Randi, with all due respect, if you want to convert creationists to the naturalist point of view, you must first establish a rapport with them.

On a wider scale, I don't think atheism will be able to convert creationism. That has to happen within the church by the more liberal xians.

The Good Mr. Dawkins has possibly done more to alienate Creationists than any other scientific mind since Einstein.

That's good! Alienate them. Push them further out on the limb. Then - as science advances - the liberal thinkers of the church will see the childlike folly of creationism.

[thaiboxerken]

I must have indoctrinated myself. I had no Christian family and friends.

It probably has something to do with the society you live in.

[articulett]

Possibly... but I think probably not, at least not entirely by yourself - based on the assumption that you weren't living in an environment devoid of all religion

I didn't indoctrinate my son with Santa or god-- but my son picked up the memes from culture... I didn't really discuss my feelings, because he didn't ask... but I answered his questions... and he reasoned his way out of both.

[articulett]

Scientists can't help it if reality meshes with peoples' cherished delusions.

I think Dawkins fact based info that he gladly shares with everyone is astounding-- we all ARE related... and related to every other life form on this earth--the food we eat, our pets, our plants. And we can look at genomes and tell how closely related any two life forms are and how far back in time they were likely to share an ancestor...what that ancestor looked like and where that ancestor existed. That is cool. So is this. Religion--pshaw. No religion or guru told us the really cool info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2JU4gX6rg8&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5yYNkkgnBA

It's not atheists fault that the those who get allegiance from faith demonize those who bring the truth so they can keep themselves empowered.

It's the notion that faith is a good way to know something that keeps people praising invisible gods and the men who claim to speak from them while making nasty commentary to those who want nothing more than to share and discuss the facts.

[Elind]

The Good Mr. Dawkins has possibly done more to alienate Creationists than any other scientific mind since Einstein. Overcome that alienation, and you are well on your way towards your goal.

That is silly. Dawkins has pointed out the truth, the verifiable kind.

Creationists have alienated themselves from reason. Who cares if they suffer from the alienation? I don't.

[six7s]

Who cares if they suffer from the alienation?

My concern arises when alienation prompts a violent knee-jerk reaction

But this is simply an 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff'

Better to construct insurmountable barriers

Better still... steer them away from the danger zone altogether

As there is a tendency for them to act like sheep, this ought to be do-able

If only we could get rid of the dogs yapping in their ears

Do I get a prize for mixing metaphors?

[kellyb]

Today's examination: An Answer to Mr. Randi.

The short answer is 'No.'

The longer answer is 'maybe,' but it will require a personal experience that both outweighs and eclipses any previous religious experience. And by this I mean that both the emotional and intellectual content would have to so overhwelm the creationist's understanding as to make Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus seem like a mere passing thought.



No, it doesn't have to reduce it to that degree. I still remember my "religious experience" as being overwhelming and profound. I remember how intense it was. I just think now that it was the product of psychological desire and maybe some neurological issues due to extreme stress.

It wasn't a personal experience outweighing it or eclipsing it that caused me to reconsider, though, but rather a desire to follow the truth in a rational way. I first came to accept that it really could possibly have been something other than a bona fide encounter with the supernatural. And from there, it simply became an increasingly plausible idea.


Or look at it from the opposite perspective: If a Creationist were to try to convert you to their point of view, where could they start? If you say "Nowhere," then you understand all that you need to on how to convert them to your point of view, because that is how Creationists feel about Naturalism.
Actually, all the Creationist needs to do is present some good evidence.
That's it.

Evidence. Good, solid evidence.

But they ask for faith and a willingness to fall for emotional arguments and basic "mind tricks", to be followed by brainwashing.
So it's really not the same at all.

[kellyb]

I was never an Atheist. I was born into and raised in a Christian home, so even before I could really comprehend what was being said or form an opinion about it, I was infused with the Christian faith during the time when my neural synapses were forming. Therefore, Atheism had little, if any, chance of getting started with me, as my 'indoctrination' began at birth.

Doesn't that bother you?
Don't you ever wonder if what you think you "know" is the result of brainwashing?

If god is real, why do people need to be brainwashed into believing in him?

[Roadtoad]

My concern arises when alienation prompts a violent knee-jerk reaction

But this is simply an 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff'

Better to construct insurmountable barriers

Better still... steer them away from the danger zone altogether

As there is a tendency for them to act like sheep, this ought to be do-able

If only we could get rid of the dogs yapping in their ears

Do I get a prize for mixing metaphors?

Here's another: Nothing is foolproof to a smart enough fool.

[six7s]

Here's another: Nothing is foolproof to a smart enough fool.

Indeed!

In a similar vein...
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots.

So far, the Universe is winning.
Rick Cook

[Roadtoad]

I like that. I especially like your sig. Who said that first? (If it's original, you gotta send me your personals. I gotta use that in my blog.)

[six7s]

My sig?

Its not original... I imagine it predates the ark;)

I have no idea when I first heard it, but hey! I like it and the more the merrier :)

[Elind]

My concern arises when alienation prompts a violent knee-jerk reaction

But this is simply an 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff'

Better to construct insurmountable barriers

Better still... steer them away from the danger zone altogether

As there is a tendency for them to act like sheep, this ought to be do-able

If only we could get rid of the dogs yapping in their ears

Do I get a prize for mixing metaphors?

I had to reread this a few time to get the metaphors, and I'm still not sure I did.

Many times a quick kick to the $#%%*'s is really the only way to get attention, but your position seems to assume that this is a winnable argument.

My conclusion, after some years of life, is that this is the human condition. Bairly capable of civilization without violent conflict between irrationality and reason.

So far, as evidenced by the results, reason has been winning, but the accomplishments have been largely due to the advances by non theists, which of course is utterly unrecognized by the superstitious masses who are kept happy by taking the same advances as, presumably, invented by their own.

The ignorance of the masses is amazing sometimes in the most basic knowledge sense.

Last night there was one of those win a million contests where the player had accumulated over a $100,000 in winnings upon answering trivia, then bombed on the simple question on which was currently in orbit. Mir, Spacelab, or Hubble. The answer given was Mir.

How can anyone who knows everything about nothing be so utterly ignorant about something so trivial (in terms of simple newspaper or TV news)?

We are on a knife edge of implosion by idiocy every day. It's a damn good thing, for my peace of mind, that I'm an eternal optimist and think everyone is at least almost as smart and rational as I am. Otherwise who knows what I'd do....:cool::cool:

[six7s]

I had to reread this a few time to get the metaphors, and I'm still not sure I did.

Mea culpa :boxedin:

...your position seems to assume that this is a winnable argument

Well... its definitely losable... and, for me, a goal

My conclusion, after some years of life, is that this is the human condition <snip/>
The ignorance of the masses is amazing sometimes in the most basic knowledge sense.

If I remember correctly, the spread of christianity into the pagan world was facilitated by clever marketing - subjugating solstice and equinox festivities by jiggling the calendar so that christmas and easter became the reason for the season to get lagered up


We are on a knife edge of implosion by idiocy every day

Simple factors like rates of reproduction threaten to tip the balance...

Although I am loathe to be regarded as a CTer, I can't help thinking that right-wing birth-control and abortion policies are part of the numbers game

[Elind]

Although I am loathe to be regarded as a CTer, I can't help thinking that right-wing birth-control and abortion policies are part of the numbers game

Hate to disappoint you, but it's not "right wing" birth control policies that are the problem. They (our right wingers) cheat all the time and even if they were more rational about how "we" give millions for such issues, it wouldn't make a gnats difference to the way the fundies screw around, from Mormons, to Catholics to Taliban (poor hygiene alone has kept them from ruling the world by now), and of course many others who contribute nothing but sperm and ovum to the pot.

[articulett]

Doesn't that bother you?
Don't you ever wonder if what you think you "know" is the result of brainwashing?

If god is real, why do people need to be brainwashed into believing in him?

Yes... and clearly many people have believed and do believe made up things-- greek myths, Scientology, Moonies,-- heck people die for their beliefs. Rconk is a Mormon who got a direct message from god that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true. Other people swear they've been abducted by aliens. We know for certain humans are very good at fooling themselves with these kinds of beliefs...especially if it makes them feel special, saved, eternal, and "holier than thou"-- but we haven't a lick of evidence to suggest that any of them are more than human imagination. Eons of assorted similar beliefs-- not an iota of actual measuable evidence. And isn't that all it would take really. Wouldn't it be useful to refine and hone actual true knowledge. But faith offers nothing but anecdote and feeling and immeasurable invisible gods and stories that don't make sense and are explained away as part of the mystery no human can understand.

[articulett]

Here's another: Nothing is foolproof to a smart enough fool.

Here's a related tongue twister guaranteed to amuse any third grader:

One smart fellow; he felt smart (repeat 3 times fast)

[Elind]

Here's a related tongue twister guaranteed to amuse any third grader:

One smart fellow; he felt smart (repeat 3 times fast)

Stinky?:o

[kellyb]

Haha...I made it through 2 times and was thinking "This is a piece of cake..."
Then the third time...

[six7s]

Hate to disappoint you, but it's not "right wing" birth control policies that are the problem. They (our right wingers) cheat all the time

Sorry, sloppy use of the 'right-wing' on my part... and I oughta remember, considering that where I live, our right wing is more liberal than your left wing!

I mean conservative/reactionary/fundamentalist christian policies that, despite common sense backed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, endorse the idea that the word NO will stop unwanted pregnancies, thereby increasing the incidence of the gullible gene in the population

[Elind]

Sorry, sloppy use of the 'right-wing' on my part... and I oughta remember, considering that where I live, our right wing is more liberal than your left wing!

I mean conservative/reactionary/fundamentalist christian policies that, despite common sense backed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, endorse the idea that the word NO will stop unwanted pregnancies, thereby increasing the incidence of the gullible gene in the population

Fair enough, but no mention for the Muslim and other non Christian philosophies that if they can't win by brains they can win eventually by, shall we say, other means?

[six7s]

To be honest, what I know about Judaism and Islam could be summarised on the back of a postage stamp

And my only 'knowledge' of other religions is based largely on what I have observed in my travels - when I couldn't really see the wood for the trees

[articulett]

Fair enough, but no mention for the Muslim and other non Christian philosophies that if they can't win by brains they can win eventually by, shall we say, other means?

Yep... if you can't recruit them for the cause-- spawn them from scratch and inculcate your dogma from the get go. A meme gene faith miasma...

Run!!!

[Fnord]

Doesn't that bother you?
Don't you ever wonder if what you think you "know" is the result of brainwashing?

If god is real, why do people need to be brainwashed into believing in him?


Brainwashed? I think that the more correct term is "Imprinted." But the results are the same.

[six7s]

Brainwashed? I think that the more correct term is "Imprinted." But the results are the same.



Theory of cognitive development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development)
Although there is no general theory of cognitive development, one of the most historically influential theories was developed by Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist (1896–1980).

<snip/>

... the ability to more accurately represent the world ...

<snip/>

The theory concerns the emergence and acquisition of schemata—schemes of how one perceives the world—in "developmental stages", times when children are acquiring new ways of mentally representing information.

The theory is considered "constructivist", meaning that, unlike nativist theories (which describe cognitive development as the unfolding of innate knowledge and abilities) or empiricist theories (which describe cognitive development as the gradual acquisition of knowledge through experience), it asserts that we construct our cognitive abilities through self-motivated action in the world.

<snip/>


Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development)

OK... calling it imprinted or whatever hopefully won't hinder your answering of the following questions, first posed by kellyb

I was never an Atheist. I was born into and raised in a Christian home, so even before I could really comprehend what was being said or form an opinion about it, I was infused with the Christian faith during the time when my neural synapses were forming. Therefore, Atheism had little, if any, chance of getting started with me, as my 'indoctrination' began at birth.
Doesn't that bother you?

?

Don't you ever wonder if what you think you "know" is the result of brainwashing <insert> imprinting </insert>?

?

If god is real, why do people need to be brainwashed into <insert>have their brains imprinted in a particular pattern in order to faciltate</insert> believing in him?

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Fnord http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2969193#post2969193)
I was never an Atheist. I was born into and raised in a Christian home, so even before I could really comprehend what was being said or form an opinion about it, I was infused with the Christian faith during the time when my neural synapses were forming. Therefore, Atheism had little, if any, chance of getting started with me, as my 'indoctrination' began at birth.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. I and the majority of atheists here were raised with the knowledge that God was real. Maybe some more intensely than others, but I knew who was watching me when my parents weren't.

If that was hardwired synapses, we are proof that rewiring is possible, and I did it long before the internet, and basically alone.

[thaiboxerken]

Brainwashed? I think that the more correct term is "Imprinted." But the results are the same.

So are many of the methods.

[ned flandas]

It probably has something to do with the society you live in.

i live in an atheistic society, with an athiest business partner ...

[thaiboxerken]

i live in an atheistic society, with an athiest business partner ...

And you have no bibles or christian influences there eh? If that's the case, then you became christian because of some other illogical reason.

[triadboy]

i live in an atheistic society, with an athiest business partner ...

That's a good plan on his part. Then when the Second Coming arrives, he will own the business fully.

[Robin]

i live in an atheistic society, with an athiest business partner ...
Where do you live? I don't know of any atheist societies.

[articulett]

And you have no bibles or christian influences there eh? If that's the case, then you became christian because of some other illogical reason.


He must have been infected with the "faith is a good way to know truth" meme... coupled with something heavy falling on his head (a bible, perhaps?).

[six7s]

I must have indoctrinated myself. I had no Christian family and friends.

Self-indoctrination: prostration before the altar of Onan?

[Southwind17]

I love the Muslim faith. I work in the Middle East in an office full of Muslims. It's Ramadan right now - the holy month. Nobody's in the office except me (I'm not a Muslim!). They're all at home still recovering from over-eating last night - when Allah can't see them, presumably! I can sit here all day reading and posting threads unhindered. Who's the daddy!

[Elind]

Where exactly?

[Southwind17]

Where exactly?

When you say 'exactly', how precise would you like me to be? Is it relevant, or are you just curious?

[Ipecac]

I should note that I, too, gave up my faith in large part due to exposure to critical thought at this very Forum. The JREF changed my life for the better in a very real way.

[triadboy]

I should note that I, too, gave up my faith in large part due to exposure to critical thought at this very Forum. The JREF changed my life for the better in a very real way.

Congrats!

[Elind]

When you say 'exactly', how precise would you like me to be? Is it relevant, or are you just curious?

I wouldn't want you to lose your security clearance and get denied access to the internet:cool:

But I lived in Saudi and Kuwait and traveled all over the area, including perhaps 8 or 9 Ramadans, so I was curious if you were in a place like Saudi or closer to the 21st century.:rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

I wouldn't want you to lose your security clearance and get denied access to the internet:cool:

But I lived in Saudi and Kuwait and traveled all over the area, including perhaps 8 or 9 Ramadans, so I was curious if you were in a place like Saudi or closer to the 21st century.:rolleyes:

I'm close to Saudi, but not too close! Good point though - never can be sure who's looking in, I guess. Thanks for the heads up.