Thread: Any Atheists Here..?

After struggling with the belief in god for most of my life(so far) I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do is be agnostic, so i'm agnostic

I have been an so called atheist all my life. And today I dont know what lable I would put on my thought's since I believe that the universe could be anything. I dont really have the urge to trying to figure out if there is some god or not. But merely believe in those thought's that I feel can enhance the quality of my own life, so I also hopefully making a positive effect in other people's life as well.

So my belief today is that all this, (the universe). Is just a game/play.

I was raised with Christian values, but God rarely came up in conversation. We celebrated Christmas and all that and whenever I asked "what happens when we die?", heaven and hell were always the answers, but, ultimately, my parents wanted me to choose for myself, so, the man upstairs was never really given a mention. Anyways, I went to a Catholic school, despite being, if only in name, Christian, but even they never really spoke of him. We had the occasional church visit, which I spent most of the time sleeping. Because of all this, God was never important to me and only entered my mind during R.E. class.

I went to a secular secondary school, which further buried him in obscurity to me, and it wasn't until about midway through my third secondary school (we moved house a lot), in one of the best R.E. classes I've ever had, that I started getting fascinated in the concept and went on to debate it whenever possible. While both God and Gods are fascinating concepts in their own right, it seemed ludicrous to me to believe in something because of an ancient book.

As for the rest of my family, everyone is also an atheist apart from my Mother who identifies as one for convenience, but could be probably better described as agnostic with Christian values and my grandma on her side, who is a pretty strong Christian and spends more time in the church than she does at home. Perhaps I'm unusually lucky, but no one I've met in real life (with the exception of door-to-door Jehovahs who swift become door-to-face) has tried to force their beliefs on me.

I have to say again - I'm rather blown away by how many people have already shown up here - without counting Sageous and Original Poster - who are very, very welcome to take part, like any other "believers" are. I counted 17 up to now! I didn't know if I should count you Darkmatters, but I cheekily did!
We are more than the openly self-proclaiming Christians I am aware of at the moment - on a very American forum - I'm proud of us!
Just the one thing really bothers me - are there no other female specimens out there?? No need to post actual content, gals, just a "Hi there, me too!" Anybody?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was a Christian until I was 16. When I was 15, my dad and my best friend started telling me how crazy the idea of God is. At 16, another good friend started saying the same stuff to me, and we debated the issue on a regular basis. I finally agreed with them when my dad got me to understand that my only reason for believing in God was not logical. I had the, "This couldn't have all just happened by itself," perspective. My dad responded to it by asking me where God came from, and I replied with the usual, "He's always been." So my dad said, "Maybe the universe has always been." Modern physics has made that issue much more complicated, but I got the point. God does not resolve the issue. He is just an extra level of question. My dad made his comment, and I was an agnostic immediately. My mind was blown. I remember walking to the car from the restaurant and really tripping out over the fact that I had just stopped believing in God.

I stayed an agnostic for about the next nine months, and then I got into Taoism. That eventually led to Zen-Buddhism and then to Hinduism. I was starting to believe in the existence of the Hindu gods, but that only lasted a few weeks. At this point, I was 21. Right after I became pretty much a Hindu, my uncle died. He died of a rare and mysterious disease. At the funeral, the priest said that God was in that hospital room with him when he was dying. My thought was that if an infinitely powerful and totally good being had been in the hospital room, my uncle would not have died. I have never come across a way around that. That comment stuck in my head and pushed me all the way to being an atheist. I have been one ever since, and I am 42 now.

Sounds a bit like me - it's only abbreviated, but I had childhood agnosticism as well, but in the early 20s I embarked on a wild ride through anything promising spirituality. I've been through almost all kinds and flavours... But I left out Hinduism and and Taoism and other big religions except Buddhism - and except taking a second helping of Christianity. What I would call all that now, inspired by DV, is being a "beyonder", or "being of the beyonder persuasion" - somebody fervently searching for a beyond, not being content with "plain reality".
I liked to believe that this second helping of Christianity did it for me once and for all. I had written it so on here not long ago, but thinking back I have to acknowledge, that this wasn't the last time either. I had some weirdness going with using the I Ging as late as my early 30s, and even made a major decision by what I thought it meant. Not an overly good one, either.
I guess, what really did it, was the internet. My voracious hunger for consuming science and scepticism rid me of any wishi-washi wishful thinking concerning the paranormal for good.
It was my mother, by the way - setting this whole thing up, setting the stage for it. I've emancipated myself from her incessant failing with whatever new guru she brought up and thought I would be done with it in my late teens. But it was more in opposition to her - and it was able to catch up with me again later.
By the way - I'm sort of exploring my memories here - and I'm well aware of how much I'll probably distort thereby..

Originally Posted by OneUpBoy71

Im agnostic, and no i dont want to start any debate or anything, im simply just stating my belief. But I will tell you why I am agnostic. First off I am currently 16 and I was raised up in a die hard christian family, I guess you could say I am still being raised up. I was a die hard christian as well until this year. This year has been the wierdest year of my life, because of all of the changes I have been through. Anyways, to get back on point I am agnostic because of some of the things I came to realize. One of these things I realized is that (In My Opinion) I feel that it is completely unfair that in christianity- if you're not a christian you go to hell. I see no absolute reason why ANYONE should be punished for an infinite amount of time for their own finite actions and the way they lived their own finite life. It simply doesnt match up. I feel that one shouldnt be punished for eternity for things they did in their short life of no more than 120 years. But anyways thats what made me agnostic. Stay Chill guys, peace.

Congratulation! I agree - Christianity is morally abhorrent, it really is. Not only that it's not true - I would dearly hope it wasn't true, if I wasn't sure it isn't anyway.
You are 16 - as an "old woman" - I know this might not be the end of the story. What can I say? If you come to feel desperate for finding something of the "beyond" - stay sceptical and as intellectually honest as possible with yourself - check for the counter-arguments of anything, which is being introduced to you and I hope you'll be fine! That goes for us all - so please don't feel belittled or something here - it's just that you somehow motivated me to say it!

Originally Posted by tropicalbreeze

i was a Catholic until i realized i was blindly following my parents beliefs, who were blindly following their parents beliefs. i began to question god's existence and which religion was based on truth. around that time i use to by books on religion and spirituality then began to question whether those books were based on truth or not. i got more involved with meditation as i found that more beneficial than going to church. all this took place about 6 or 7yrs ago. i still meditate but not as intensely as i did when i was younger, i even find myself praying sometimes. i lean more towards the agnostic side. i don't know whether there is some "higher power" or not. and perhaps its better that way, i kinda enjoy the mystery.

I have a bit of an obsession with finding the truth, but it's also very understandable to me to like having a bit of the mysterious about the world.
But I'm very happy and fully satisfied with what Dawkins calls the poetic magic of nature.
I meditate as well - not enough for my liking, but I think many people would be surprised that a die-hard materialist like me would do such a thing.
That's not incongruent - especially not with neuroscience!

Originally Posted by hassman789

I was raised in a catholic household; however no one in my immediate family is super involved with the church. From my earliest memories I would go to church on most Sundays with my father and brother, and went to religion class once per week until I was confirmed at age 13. In the very beginning of it all, I believed that this god existed, and I would occasionally pray. There wasn't a specific moment where I stopped believing, but it happened early, probably when I was 8 or 9. Church and religion class were just chores, something I was doing because everyone else was. I never even felt the need to speak up about it, I was under the impression that no one actually took that stuff literally. Eventually I realized other people believed and I kept my disbelief a secret because I had never known anyone that didn't believe. Probably around age 13 I became comfortable with telling people I was agnostic/atheist. My family never had any major qualms about it, but they don't understand how I could possibly "not believe that there is something greater."

Now, at age 17, I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I do not believe there is a god, but I could certainly be wrong. There is still so much we don't know about reality and why the universe even exists, therefore I believe no one can be sure said higher powers exist (or don't, I suppose). My (non)beliefs are supported by the fact that there are countless religions practiced by humans, all claiming to be the truth. Not to mention that it is the perfect scheme, order needed to be kept in early societies, what better way to do it than making a set of rules and saying if citizens break the rules, they will burn forever; if they do as their told, they get into heaven. On the topic of heaven, Do dogs go to heaven? What about plants? Or microorganisms? Even most theists would probably say no. But the fact is, humans are no different than everything else living on earth, we're not special. The whole concept just doesn't make sense to me.. I respect everyone's beliefs, but it just seems like a no brainer...

I call myself agnostic atheist as well, except I feel like saying it as it is and add the anti-theist label. There are a lot of things in the world worth opposing as a "past-time", but I feel drawn to religion and superstition. They are ubiquitous and clearly harmful, were harmful to me, and I think trying to tip the scales away from them and towards rational thought and intellectual honesty for others is a worthwhile endeavour. For innumerable reasons...

Originally Posted by ViIe

Very true StephL, I honestly think the idea of heaven was created long ago about how many people grieve over the deaths of close ones and how they were not able to understand why a thing like death exist nor did they know how to stop the emotional pain. Though I can not say this is true as it's only an assumption. Back then you can't really blame them because there was so many questions and no one had any scientific answers. In times like those having a lot of positive energy was great as it really help others come out of that stress. But now in our time all that was is positive thinking now we have actual things to prove what the sky truly is , what the sun truly is. The idea of heaven to me seems too selfish to be real, if you believe you'll live forever in paradise but you have to worship someone in order to get that. To me I can live in paradise right now just by enjoying the little things like reading to learn new things or taking a nap. I don't need to live forever to feel better about the way things are, I accept that I won't exist forever but I do know that I spent my time doing what I wanted. That would be enough for me.

Very true - religion used to be the means of finding explanations for strange phenomena and especially the horrors, an uncaring nature put us through. Unfortunately that's not all it was and is about - otherwise we would be rid of it since the advent of science...
"Too selfish to be real" - very good point! To me Christianity is an incredibly selfish religion - everything centres around one little person and her petty deeds and thoughts - a god having created all the universe, but he needs me to adore him, and if I don't he doesn't simply kill me - no - he runs a facility for my eternal torture!
My bad - I hope if there will be/are artilects creating universes - they won't be that petty and neurotic as to expect sapient creatures to roll out their carpets zig times a day and prostrate...

Originally Posted by Ginsan

I really don't give a crap, the only reason I pretend to be a Muslim is because most of the people around me seem to be Muslim. I believe in the power and the beauty of the idea of an all mighty, all knowing god and the positive effect the idea has on people, but I don't believe in the thing itself, whatever in is. I only believe in humanity, you know, that feeling we all share, everybody has it although it takes on many different forms. I believe in kindness, honesty and integrity.

Hi fellow humanist - I have to strongly disagree with you on what I highlighted, though. Especially when it comes to Islam to be honest, but Catholicism at least was just as bad in it's effects on people within and without of it's borders. They all are, all religions are - but there is nothing going on in the moment, which defames the concept of religion as much as Islam does in my view.

Maybe we have something to debate after all - "Is belief in the divine rather a force for good in the world?". If you really think so.

There was a huge public debate along those lines with Catholicism, fantastic thing, with Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens (may he not have a soul in a celestial North Korea or elsewhere!): http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...-opposite.html

One thing I want to mention is that I watch a lot of debates - and usually what is brought forth by Christians is simply laughable, totally.
But I watched one with the Muslim Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss - not that it wasn't flawed and faulty and in the end also ridiculous what he had on offer - but I have to say, I was comparatively impressed with the guy's intellect. While employing dirty tricks - that as well. Krauss could have done a bit better on some things, like going into these four possibilities of his opponents argument, even while he was of course dismantling it with negating the need for a cause per se for the universe to come into existence. Krauss, who is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, did well overall I find - I like him!

Originally Posted by Aristocles

Your welcome - and thank you for the warm welcome I really do appreciate it. I must add I think it's wonderful you've given atheist a platform on DV and of course this isn't unprecedented; there are multiple pro-atheist threads on DV. There should be a distinction of yours and theirs, though if you were to enquire what that distinction may be; I could not answer you. Perhaps something of the thread title "Any Atheist Here..?" appeals to me... actually I believe I have somewhat an affinity for it. Subtly, yet fervently it screams the desire to associate or congregate with like minded people. I applaud you StephL and all among us who participate in this thread.

:pillowfight: You've got me figured out quite nicely! And thank you!

Originally Posted by Xei

Welcome to the board, Aristocles. Are you named for Plato? I must remark, and not condescendingly I hope, that I find your mixture of copious and incisive vocabulary with semi-regular grammatical deviations to be disarmingly charming.

Uuui! Xei is here! Welcome!
I really like Aristocles' style as well - it's charming and he equips me with nice new English vocabulary in the process!

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Personally I thought he was new to using a thesaurus or just trying too hard to sound intelligent, but there is something of an old-world charm to that style of writing.

My own story to atheism isn't exciting. I was raised as a Catholic to two socially liberal parents, one of which is almost certainly an atheist in principle at this point while the other is content in not examining her beliefs at all. I lost interest in investing myself in religion in my early teen years, and by my mid-teen years I was starting to foster a vitriolic dislike for the Catholic church and organized religion in general. I'd say by the time I was confirmed into the church - about 16 years old - I was very nearly an atheist. The only reason I actually went through with being confirmed was due to parental force. Even if I didn't buy into what they were selling, I had to do it because of...tradition?

All the worse for my parents, however. They know I won't be baptizing my future children or sending them to CCD/Sunday school. They can do that on their own, if they choose. My mother isn't happy.

I didn't start identifying with the atheist "movement" until my later teen years when I started becoming aware of more serious arguments against theism in general. So, my atheism didn't evolve out a process of critical self-questioning, which seems to be a common thing among people reciting their own deconversion stories. It's also a practice I find to be rather tired and snobbish. I think of people like Bill Maher who will tout themselves as logical, free-thinking humans, but then go and proudly do something illogical like Maher did and speak out against vaccines. In short, just because you've left theism doesn't mean you've maxed out your critical thinking skills. In fact I find that a lot of self-proclaimed atheists grant themselves a very shaky foundation when arguing against theists.

Instead, my atheism evolved out of being bored with what the church was offering and finding most of what they said to be incredibly unlikely given how I viewed life anyway. But that didn't stop the tween me from being able to live day-to-day without even thinking about God, and then suddenly, at the age of 13 when I for whatever reason thought reading the Bible was a good idea after seeing a History Channel episode on Jesus, silently pledged myself to Jesus at about midnight. The pledge was obviously short lived and very one sided; I never heard back from him.

That experience has allowed me to appreciate what people feel when they say they have a religious experience, like they feel a sense of happiness or maybe a presence in the room. After muttering some words about believing in God and Jesus, I got goosebumps and shivered a little. And now that I've grown out of faith wholesale, I also have an appreciation for what is actually happening in those kinds of experiences. You, this little, powerless human being, are telling the creator of the universe that you are essentially his right-hand-man. In your mind, you've built up this relationship between yourself and another being who happens to be incredibly powerful and apparently incredibly loving. Humans are social creatures; doing that just plays into our most basic sensibilities. It's a shame that religions like Christianity view this relationship as one of unending devotion to the point where it mirrors spousal abuse and Stockholm Syndrome.

That latter appreciation has also formed into a worldview that I find trumps the worldview religions provide in nearly every single way. There is no need to place oneself in abject servitude to a creator you've never met and, if we have any appreciation for biology, likely never will. Accepting your tiny role in the machinations of the universe has a counterintuitive effect. Instead of wallowing in despair about how we're insignificant, I take pride in our loneliness (ignoring alien life). Yes, we are primitive compared to what we could be. But despite these shortcomings, we still know so much and have discovered so much, and have conquered so many things that could have wiped us out as a species. Even if an asteroid were to come and destroy all life on Earth tomorrow, nobody could ever say we didn't try to both survive and make things better for ourselves in general. And this beats the religious worldview because we did it ourselves, without help.

Amen, BLUELINE! And sweet you came along!
First of all I have to say I'm shocked to hear that of Bill Maher - he's not somebody I follow and watch for several other reasons - but that I didn't expect!!
Very true - "just" loosing religion doesn't mark one out as a rational thinker, a sceptic, somebody worth listening to. But it's a start.
Catholicism is a rather easy religion to loose, one could think just going by this thread, and I believe I read some numbers which supported this notion as well at least for the first world. I needed to look it up - but it also makes sense intuitively.

Originally Posted by EmoScreamo

I was raised catholic and I hated it. There were so many kindergarten teachers telling about bad folks who are going to a lake of fire and fry. This stories gave me nights of nightmares. But this kind of education left its traces and I felt somehow religious and believed into an eternal soul but I found the concept of reincarnation more reasonable.

The more I knew about the history of religion, the laws of physics, neuroscience and stochastics, the more atheist I became. Studying probability calculus finally killed my believes in parapsychology. So I am something like a materialistic atheist.
I consider myself as a happy person and I really enjoy my Sundays at home.

I consider some folks of the atheist movement as too arrogant. E.g. Penn & Teller or the CSICON.

Me too, welcome! Materialist atheist basically on grounds of neuroscience, physics and statistics, that is.
And somebody who had parapsychology on the menu as well.
These two guys you mention are not known to me, I'll take a peek once in a while. Some people find Dawkins too sharp and while he does clearly not hold back on what he thinks - I am a big fan of his!

Originally Posted by HeWhoShapes

After struggling with the belief in god for most of my life(so far) I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do is be agnostic, so i'm agnostic

Congratulation - that's a start!
You're from Israel - I've been working there for some months a while back, and if I remember correctly - if you are Israeli by birth, you need to take religious lessens and an exam on the topic to be allowed to graduate from school at all - is that still the case?

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I have been an so called atheist all my life. And today I dont know what lable I would put on my thought's since I believe that the universe could be anything. I dont really have the urge to trying to figure out if there is some god or not. But merely believe in those thought's that I feel can enhance the quality of my own life, so I also hopefully making a positive effect in other people's life as well.

So my belief today is that all this, (the universe). Is just a game/play.

Oh wow - I didn't expect you - how nice!
Do you allude to Hinduism, maybe, with your "game-theory"? I believe I watched a video you posted somewhere, that's a long while back, if it even was you? I made myself a bit of a picture of Hinduism's worldview from it - a cosmic game. From a poetic viewpoint I like this idea - up to a point.

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I was raised with Christian values, but God rarely came up in conversation. We celebrated Christmas and all that and whenever I asked "what happens when we die?", heaven and hell were always the answers, but, ultimately, my parents wanted me to choose for myself, so, the man upstairs was never really given a mention. Anyways, I went to a Catholic school, despite being, if only in name, Christian, but even they never really spoke of him. We had the occasional church visit, which I spent most of the time sleeping. Because of all this, God was never important to me and only entered my mind during R.E. class.

I went to a secular secondary school, which further buried him in obscurity to me, and it wasn't until about midway through my third secondary school (we moved house a lot), in one of the best R.E. classes I've ever had, that I started getting fascinated in the concept and went on to debate it whenever possible. While both God and Gods are fascinating concepts in their own right, it seemed ludicrous to me to believe in something because of an ancient book.

As for the rest of my family, everyone is also an atheist apart from my Mother who identifies as one for convenience, but could be probably better described as agnostic with Christian values and my grandma on her side, who is a pretty strong Christian and spends more time in the church than she does at home. Perhaps I'm unusually lucky, but no one I've met in real life (with the exception of door-to-door Jehovahs who swift become door-to-face) has tried to force their beliefs on me.

Ha! You give me a cue for telling a little anecdote of mine from R.E. - evangelical Lutheran class. I kid you not - it did really happen!
We had an exam and it was about the sermon of the mount. I write quite big and I always tended to write and write and write a lot.
So I had run out of paper, and went to the teacher's desk to get a fresh sheet, like that was usually done.
What I didn't realize was, that I had taken the answer-sheet (why on earth he had one is another question). I went to my desk and sat down and this guy - he wasn't a teacher otherwise, but a pastor - came through the rows of tables to each side of the aisle and hammered his fists down to the left and right through several rows. When he reached me, he took the sheet away and gave me a slap in the face - beet-red of head himself. And that wasn't just a little slap - it hurt and got quite red as well.

I was soo flabbergasted that I didn't think of ostentatiously presenting him my other cheek - but that was the most bizarre thing that ever happened to me with Christianity. Jeesus!!? Luckily just about that time an "ethics class", and a good one, had been newly installed, and I switched the next year.


And thank you for the videos, box77 - I know and like them both a lot! I'll see what I find out about Franz Stephan Griese!
Edit @box77: Uuuaah - soo sorry!! I must have somehow missed out on clicking your first post to answer - I will do that later!

Originally Posted by StephL

Very true - religion used to be the means of finding explanations for strange phenomena and especially the horrors, an uncaring nature put us through. Unfortunately that's not all it was and is about - otherwise we would be rid of it since the advent of science...
"Too selfish to be real" - very good point! To me Christianity is an incredibly selfish religion - everything centres around one little person and her petty deeds and thoughts - a god having created all the universe, but he needs me to adore him, and if I don't he doesn't simply kill me - no - he runs a facility for my eternal torture!
My bad - I hope if there will be/are artilects creating universes - they won't be that petty and neurotic as to expect sapient creatures to roll out their carpets zig times a day and prostrate...[/COLOR][/B]

An example for your 1st statement would be a mirage in a desert as some people would claim that god had save them with these miracles. However science has explain this very well about why this phenomenon occurs and I am sure that most paranormal activity could be explain scientifically it's mostly a matter of time at least that's the pattern it seems to be taking.

Originally Posted by Aristocles

Your welcome - and thank you for the warm welcome I really do appreciate it. I must add I think it's wonderful you've given atheist a platform on DV and of course this isn't unprecedented; there are multiple pro-atheist threads on DV. There should be a distinction of yours and theirs, though if you were to enquire what that distinction may be; I could not answer you. Perhaps something of the thread title "Any Atheist Here..?" appeals to me... actually I believe I have somewhat an affinity for it. Subtly, yet fervently it screams the desire to associate or congregate with like minded people. I applaud you StephL and all among us who participate in this thread.

I have to say I am feeling a pleasant shocking reaction discovering the news that you are actually my brother it's a feeling I am not use to. I was suspicious at first and had the idea that you could be him as the way you type is so you. I am very grateful for you to have join as well and for the unexpected entrance, Aristocles and I was very interested in your debate on the thread " Any Christians here " as it was very impressive how you came to so many accurate conclusions. I also think the idea of your thread is an excellent way to show how knowledgeable atheist are to the answers they have for why for they are atheist and to prove it wasn't irrational thinking. I was not tempted to the idea of telling what made me an atheist but now with the unexpected turn of events I feel very compelled in doing so. My brother and I began to have conversations that question god when I was 8 and he was 9 we had many conversations about the belief. I was skeptical but realize I didn't knew everything so I can't draw up a better conclusion, that will change when later events happen to which I realize that it's best not to wait for someone to help me but to help myself. This is when it did not matter to me if god is real or not you have to help yourself instead of relying on others. That is when I decided it's better to be my own controller and have my own reality than to worship a god. I can not look at people as simply as this person is good and this one is bad I always see there is a reason for why somebody does something. No matter how small or big / illogical it is there is always a reason for why someone is the way they are.

"Congratulation - that's a start!
You're from Israel - I've been working there for some months a while back, and if I remember correctly - if you are Israeli by birth, you need to take religious lessens and an exam on the topic to be allowed to graduate from school at all - is that still the case?"

yes this is the case, you have to learn about the bible(old testament) and do the exams, but since i am in a very secular environment, most people just finish the exams and go on with their lives(unless they want to learn more about judaism\the bible).

Me and my editing - at least I know now, why I didn't make that click, Box! You had your post "sneaked in" while I was working on my last before last one! Scandal!

Originally Posted by Box77

Long ago I had a painful Facebook discussion with one of my little half-brothers who believes god exists. He's even in the way of becoming a minister (pastor, preacher?) in one of those international very known christian groups. Perhaps that was why when I was talking to him, I preferred to say 'God' trying to show some respect to his thoughts (or was I being sarcastic?). At the end I was pointed (by one of our older half brothers) as having sort of an agnostic-open-minded point of view and he as being a very obstinate person. Anyway, there was a moment when we were immerse in the discussion that I remembered him as he was 5 y.o. (almost one of my kid's age at the time of the discussion) when his mother got separated with our father and I didn't see my little brother but from time to very long time, that I realized I was arguing with him in stead to some unknown die hard christian, and it was him who was defending to death his weak but strong point of view (if you know what I mean). I couldn't feel nothing but regret for life and all I learned was that we must respect other peoples thoughts whatever they think and try when possible to teach them how things work already in the most simple way. I mean, I cannot pretend to teach partial differential equations to somebody who knows constants but doesn't understand variables.

I think imaginary things do exist in our brains as part of the complexity of nature and we are constantly reflecting those thoughts to the outside whenever something strange (bad or good) happens in an effort to explain it. Unfortunately for me, I always find a logic, scientific and not-controversial explanation for whatever strange happens to me. And if I don't, I simply consider that I don't have enough information. A lot of times I find people claiming, when similar things happen in their life, that it's a prove of the existence of deities. Sometimes it's hard to see somebody claiming truths from things we consider to be false, specially when it's a person who we love, but I think that as one of the first steps towards understanding of our fellow brothers and sisters. At the end, perhaps we are all related in terms of evolution!

It's curious to see people claiming to be tolerant and acting exactly the opposite, not allowing others to express their ideas and trying to change other people's mind by forcing them into thinking against their own convictions, scientific or not.

Hope it makes sense.

Makes very much sense and it's a beautiful post! I don't have this experience with a really convinced Christian in my circle of friends or even my family. And so I do really come from "these internet discussions" in my attitude. But I watched the playlist I posted, the one I got from Balban, and I realized what it really takes for somebody to leave a pretty extreme kind of Christianity behind - one which provides a whole (sub-)culture and is deeply grounded in personal spiritual experience - a feeling of true communion with god as something almost tangible. I did have some pretty tangible experiences of my own - but they almost never fit into a system, into which I could then immerse with body mind and soul - I was rather fabricating my own "systems". I can't even start to imagine how it would actually feel to be ripping oneself out of everything, basically. Away from (almost) all the people in one's life. His deconversion came to pass by an internet dialogue with a professor of linguistics and history, if I remember correctly. But he had to ask several times for this exchange - the professor being wary at first to confront him with all he knew - so what "worked" on him was not something confrontational and public, but he had sought out this conversation - initially to save the professor.
Like I said before - I think Catholicism is easier - it's claims and some of the things you are expected to do are just too outrageous to be just taken on on face value, and in contrast to the "newer" Christianities - they don't control the lives of their believers in any similar way these days and in the West. At least in Bavaria they don't, and that's a very, very Catholic strip of land. Yeah - I have to again recommend this series - I watched a lot of on-topic stuff - but that was clearly different and gave me a new outlook, too.
And I'm really happy to have met you on here - needs saying!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Hi there StephL! Hehe well thank you! It's a nice thread you made, but Im even more impressed that you actually took your time to respond to everyone here. I dont mind being put in any category at all, as long as it is necessary for the one who puts me in one. But your "I want to believe in the beyond!!!" category is probably a good one since you have the more scientific approach your self. It sounds like you got every thing right about what we have been discussing before. And yes, Hinduism is a very interesting religion for sure. I cant say that I know too much about it, but I have merely grasped the big picture of it, wich for me is the most important part of it. Though I wouldn't mind to learn more about it.

I got to say that Hinduism for me sounds very logic in the big picture if we dont go to far deep in the different gods/numbers of years etc.

Just think about this, the whole world consist of communication and responses. So the world becomes like a big dance, and what ever style you choose. It will be okey to choose what ever you will. But for the most living creatures, they will prefer the one with the smoothest flow to it. Like if some one run into a stone that lies on the ground. Then there is a direct communication between ones nerves and the stone. And the next time one runns towards the same stone and sees it, there will probably be a choice thanks to the communication witch is that one sees the stone, and can make a conscious decision like jumping over it or go beside the stone, and the feeling of flow will be greater than running into the stone of course.

Another short though that is interesting to think about is: WHY do we like music? It's obvious that we like it because we think that it sounds nice and all. But WHAT is it that makes us like it? Because even if there is multiple noise put together, we dont call it music. But when we feel the beats and the flow of the music, there is often the urge to move in a way that we personaly feel have the same flow as the sound itself. And all this kind of dance and play fills no other purpose than going with it and enjoy it here and now. That is probably why the "now" is so important to embrace, but so hard to understand.

Well this is pretty much my current view of the world. So I dont know if this would be called religion. But what ever works would do, I guess. Maybe just philosophy will do.

Ha - you caught me, I've been editing again, while you already answered - it's not my best trait... Thank you for your compliments!
Whatever works will do, sounds like a great motto! ("Because Science works ... bitches!" Dawkins )
I believe music is something for which we have evolved our love - a brain-child of ours. What would be really interesting, would be finding out, if sapient aliens have music, too. I guess, that yes, they would - and maybe we could even relate to it emotionally..?
I had dug up something for Darkmatter's evolution thread next door, about how while a certain type category-learning takes place, two different brain regions, the striatum and the prefrontal cortex, seem to synchronize their firing rhythms and make use of resonance phenomena. Just as an example for how we use "musical" effects for learning. Then we have our heart-beat as inspiration... Our voices, our special arrangements of anatomy in the throat, are one of the things, which make us human per se, too. Like the big toes for walking on our feet and the thumbs for using tools - our throat enabled us to this immensely complex communication - including song, which surely is one of the oldest forms of music - besides percussion.

Originally Posted by ViIe

An example for your 1st statement would be a mirage in a desert as some people would claim that god had save them with these miracles. However science has explain this very well about why this phenomenon occurs and I am sure that most paranormal activity could be explain scientifically it's mostly a matter of time at least that's the pattern it seems to be taking.

Taking psychology into the equation - I think, we don't have something even now in terms of claimed paranormal effects, which is not explainable otherwise. I keep mentioning the Randi challenge, where you can get one million dollars for demonstrating that you can do any of these things. Of course the argument is then - these controlled conditions disturbed my vibes...
From Box77's video "The Enemies of Reason" and from memory, there were these dousers, and they tested them properly double-blinded, and it didn't work. Only one woman seemed to be genuinely shocked and seemed to start doubting herself, when this was revealed, while all others found their convenient excuses.

Originally Posted by HeWhoShapes

yes this is the case, you have to learn about the bible(old testament) and do the exams, but since i am in a very secular environment, most people just finish the exams and go on with their lives(unless they want to learn more about judaism\the bible).

That's a significant difference, though - but I also had the impression, that most people I worked with and had private contact to, either didn't believe at all or took it pretty lightly. I didn't come into closer contact with those, where you see it from a long way off, that they are fundamentalists. It's such a dissonance, though - I was there over Pesach (Passover) and invited to a traditional festivity with a large family - and everybody was happily pondering what horrible things God did to the Egyptians - to then go on and eat interesting things and then party. Made me speechless at first - then I tried to talk about it with the younger people. Only one guy said all fairy-tales and tradition, and gruesome ones at that - the others just changed the topic fast.



Soo - finally to my latest atheistic joy - paradoxically I have found my god!!

It is not just any odd god - noo - it's the famous Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM)! His very first invocation on the records was done by a certain Professor Richard Dawkins as another example for things which cannot be proven not to exist - besides Russel's teapot orbiting Jupiter, if I remember that one correctly. This has caused somewhat of a run-away effect and now he even has its very own church! Of course I joined up with them directly after this hands-on revelation:
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster



It might be better to say that I was swept away in divine inspiration and created HIM from materials, which I had purchased together long years past, without knowing their destination - namely the pipe-cleaners and styrofoam balls. For the meat-balls I used the red wax I had accumulated for no clear reason either, except because it's like play dough. It comes with, or rather around my beloved little 'Babybel' cheeses. I used all I had of it and the proportions fit exactly!
This was pure destiny at work! Must have been!! And we will have a "Holy Pastamas Tree" this year with Him on top!
My crafts are not comparable to the famous Michelangelo painting 'Touched by His Noodly Appendage' unfortunately - but a resemblance is there:




The church makes huge leaps of progress - this is the most impressive of them: Pastafarian minister sworn into office « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Encouraging news, reported by The Observer out of Dunkirk, New York:

A unique style of headwear was present during newly-seated Pomfret Town Council member Christopher Schaeffer’s oath of office Thursday afternoon, but it wasn’t intended to keep his head warm.

Schaeffer wore a colander (a strainer typically used to drain water from spaghetti) while Town Clerk Allison Dispense administered the oath of office to him before the board’s reorganizational meeting. When the OBSERVER asked afterward why he wore a colander on his head, Schaeffer said he was a minister with an even more unique organization – the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This may be the first openly Pastafarian sworn into office. For sure, the first to be sworn in wearing a colander.

I imagine Council member Schaeffer is getting a lot of heat because of the news coverage. Some people will see it as obnoxious or a sign that he’s not taking the oath of office seriously. But I am completely confident that Schaeffer will distinguish himself as a Council member of the highest caliber.

Scaeffer’s statement at the end of the article says it all:

“Mostly, I’m just looking forward to making sure that the town is run smoothly and we meet the needs of all of our citizens,” he said. “If anybody ever has any concerns or questions, I hope they contact me, because I want to make sure that everyone is represented.”

Conclusion: Atheism is not dry and negative and heartless - it can be enormous fun! Also for children!!

I was about to comment about something I observed in the last debate you shared when I found your answer, thanks a lot!! Sorry, I don't have words to describe my joy , now to my point:

Originally Posted by StephL

One thing I want to mention is that I watch a lot of debates - and usually what is brought forth by Christians is simply laughable, totally.
But I watched one with the Muslim Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss - not that it wasn't flawed and faulty and in the end also ridiculous what he had on offer - but I have to say, I was comparatively impressed with the guy's intellect. While employing dirty tricks - that as well. Krauss could have done a bit better on some things

I don't use to watch debates, but it called my attention because it had the term 'Islam' on the title. I didn't finish to watch it yet, but I find significant and very related to what I experienced when discussing with my little brother, because of something similar was going on then. As an example, I want to link a segment of the video starting from the following position: 46:17 and play it until 47:40.

In spite professor Lawrence Krauss, since the start of the debate, has such beautiful answers against the most fundamental flaws in Hamza Tzortzis' theory, I see him acting more like a jerk when trying to 'ridicule' Hamza's weak point of view. However, the other guy, in spite of being ignorant in terms of science, shows more humanity in stead. It let me think, perhaps some scientist are lacking something that they should learn from some religious people in stead of apparently ignore all what they have to say just because they are considered ignorant. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think he could have acted a little bit more like a father with a son, or an older brother with a little brother in stead of two complete strangers. I think, that way he could have touch more than one heart (or brain?) in that debate. If I would be a Muslim, perhaps I hadn't hear professor Krauss arguments at all. I mean, if somebody considers you as a threat to his/her inner world, they will treat you like that.

Some humor is good too, when it let you think: It happened not only in Africa, but in the Americas when the Spanish guys put their asses some hundred years ago, etc, etc....


There are two stand-up comedians who I consider did a good work in that subject: George Carlin (RIP) and Louis C.K.

Edit: I like your Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) born from divine inspiration and some cheap random materials... that's the way it works.

Originally Posted by StephL

Or to share material – articles, pictures, videos – have you listened to a fascinating debate lately? Or just simply watched a science-video, which you think, would fit nicely?

I wanted to share a link to a little book I found hidden and almost forgotten in my grandparents' house, which I think is very illustrative, although by now, I can find on the web, only the Spanish version of it. Apparently its English version was named: “The great Error of Christianity – proved by a Priest”. It was written by Franz Stephan Griese (it's curious that there's no other article in Wikipedia about his biography in other languages, perhaps you could help to translate it? My German is not good enough yet, and it's easier for me to translate things from English to Spanish than the other way around).

And here are a couple of videos I think perhaps could be interesting to watch:

Oh wow - hi there! I didn't expect you - how nice!
I had placed you in my "I want to believe in the beyond!!!" category - while being well aware that it's not a good thing to "categorize" - I seem to have been incorrect, too. Do you allude to Hinduism, maybe, with your "game-theory"? I believe I watched a video you posted somewhere, that's a long while back, if it even was you.
And it was this video from which I got a bit of a picture what Hinduism is all about at it's core for the first time - a game.
I liked that thought up to a point, actually. Same with the video - up to a point...

Hi there StephL! Hehe well thank you! It's a nice thread you made, but Im even more impressed that you actually took your time to respond to everyone here. I dont mind being put in any category at all, as long as it is necessary for the one who puts me in one. But your "I want to believe in the beyond!!!" category is probably a good one since you have the more scientific approach your self. It sounds like you got every thing right about what we have been discussing before. And yes, Hinduism is a very interesting religion for sure. I cant say that I know too much about it, but I have merely grasped the big picture of it, wich for me is the most important part of it. Though I wouldn't mind to learn more about it.

I got to say that Hinduism for me sounds very logic in the big picture if we dont go to far deep in the different gods/numbers of years etc.

Just think about this, the whole world consist of communication and responses. So the world becomes like a big dance, and what ever style you choose. It will be okey to choose what ever you will. But for the most living creatures, they will prefer the one with the smoothest flow to it. Like if some one run into a stone that lies on the ground. Then there is a direct communication between ones nerves and the stone. And the next time one runns towards the same stone and sees it, there will probably be a choice thanks to the communication witch is that one sees the stone, and can make a conscious decision like jumping over it or go beside the stone, and the feeling of flow will be greater than running into the stone of course.

Another short though that is interesting to think about is: WHY do we like music? It's obvious that we like it because we think that it sounds nice and all. But WHAT is it that makes us like it? Because even if there is multiple noise put together, we dont call it music. But when we feel the beats and the flow of the music, there is often the urge to move in a way that we personaly feel have the same flow as the sound itself. And all this kind of dance and play fills no other purpose than going with it and enjoy it here and now. That is probably why the "now" is so important to embrace, but so hard to understand.

Well this is pretty much my current view of the world. So I dont know if this would be called religion. But what ever works would do, I guess. Maybe just philosophy will do.

Ah - I know!!
Krauss went as far as wielding logical fallacy - and I can't help myself than thinking he knew it, while doing so. I had to watch it again - and will do with your location! That's the worst you can do. You can provoke with simplifying at times, and in a good way - but not when it's about arguments.
Ha! Again something I refrained from editing in as comment - yeah - that was not so clever of Krauss. I like him better alone or in combination with for example Dawkins. Tzortzis did some trickery of his own - but much less.
Initially I forgot to mention it for Krauss, while doing so for Tzortzis - biased little me...
That's also something this playlist mentions - the lack of "trickery" on the side of the professor and how this enabled him true access to the Christian. Otherwise the thinking goes - ignorant, simplistic person, not shying away from violating the touted own principles. I always cringe when I notice such a thing on "our side". At least in official debates this should be better. Who didn't do that at all in my memory was Bill Nye in the debate with Ken Ham. This is probably why some fundamentalist Christians wrote tooth-grindingly respectful of him. But then - Krauss is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, who got drawn into "New Atheism" and Nye is an actual science educator. And a nicely humble one.



I will transport your creationism video on over later - didn't you ask for some assistance with some passages, in terms of what would be a good reply?

Edit: And I really laughed and like your cartoon a lot!!

Originally Posted by StephL

I will transport your creationism video on over later - didn't you ask for some assistance with some passages, in terms of what would be a good reply?

Do you mean that which I first posted in the evolution thread? If so, I didn't take it too seriously (perhaps the harder I tried, I was never able to take any religion seriously), I was wondering about the evolution of the flagellum mentioned there (love the animations though), because of I didn't eat the suggestion of the existence of a creator, but I didn't know how could that evolve that way as they proposed with the argument of the irreducible complexity. Besides the suggestion that some scientists changed their minds, etc. Anyway, that thread helped me to finally understand it, because of I had some clues like that in your videos on ferrofluids (molecules can take complex arrangements by nature) and thanks to @Xei's final comment about Abiogenesis I was able to put all the pieces of the puzzle in their place.

Originally Posted by balban

In light of that realization, I spent some time thinking back at all the "debating" I've ever done after I chose Atheism as my label. I don't believe that I've ever sought to help someone move into a headspace that will be productive for them. Rather I maintained the point/counterpoint style of conversation, believing that I was going to say something so completely amazing that the other person wouldn't be able to respond to and they would have to convert to my way of thinking. It wouldn't have happened with me, so I can't expect that it would happen for anyone else.

I think perhaps the way it's said won't drastically change their minds, although it could leave the virus of the doubt to be thought later 'at home'. I don't know.

Originally Posted by Box77

I think perhaps the way it's said won't drastically change their minds, although it could leave the virus of the doubt to be thought later 'at home'. I don't know.

Belief is a tricky thing, particularly when it is being taught that doubt somehow makes you "lesser" - blessed are those who believe without seeing; come to god as you would a child; etc.. Couple that with the atheist, being the opposition to their worldview, is seen as evil or death or something to fear (i.e. the image from StephL's first post). It doesn't help when a "discussion" (from the atheist's perspective) is probably being perceived as being clubbed over the head on the other side of said "discussion". If the goal is to shame someone for their beliefs, then debates are awesome. But if the goal is a type of proselytising to you, then a more pragmatic approach may be more productive. Admittedly, I've done a lot of shaming and I've been shamed. I suggesting that neither of these experiences had lead to anything productive in my life; and I certainly don't believe it has been productive to anyone I have ever "debated". Drawing from my own deconversion experience, I put myself in the place where I could be deconverted. No one else put me there.

I'm not saying that something won't get through during the debate. But how much more impactful would your insights be if you shared them in the context of what the other person can understand? But that's work and one has to kind of "care" that the other person understands what is really being said. Clubbing them over the head is certainly easier and probably a hell of a lot more fun. But it really comes down to what your goal is, I guess.

Originally Posted by HeWhoShapes

I sense you had a bit of a culture shock which is natural, but i'm sure that other nations have these coflicts too(the USA comes to mind).

It's nice to see you coming to israel and all, but the thing is that aside from certain absolutes(like male circumcision) alot of people regard religion in a different way, so the family you were in would be very different than another one.

btw, those "interesting things" are apart of the passover meal and they have a symbolic meaning to every food, just a FYI.

Also. ALL HAIL THE SPAGEHTTI AND MEATBALLS!!!!! RAMEN

RAMEN to you as well!

Haha - not so much of a culture shock, and I tried to be funny with the "interesting things" - I'm well aware of the background. No - what astonished me, was the open gruesomeness of the story being recited from the OT. At least what Christians recite to their kids is usually not so - at least not god doing something gruesome to innocents. This family had a children's book with illustrations on Passover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And it wasn't a fundamentalist family - they were just following the traditional festive ceremony. My problem is with the story, and how one can selectively not pay attention to it or think about it, without even feeling weird in the process. But then - Christianity has the same stories of course. In my childhood religious lessons, this story was glossed over and rather best not gotten into, taught with a sort of guilt, I would almost say. It's cultural conditioning.

Originally Posted by Box77

I think perhaps the way it's said won't drastically change their minds, although it could leave the virus of the doubt to be thought later 'at home'. I don't know.

Exactly - and see below. So the video is not relevant any more - also good! Better!

Originally Posted by balban

Belief is a tricky thing, particularly when it is being taught that doubt somehow makes you "lesser" - blessed are those who believe without seeing; come to god as you would a child; etc.. Couple that with the atheist, being the opposition to their worldview, is seen as evil or death or something to fear (i.e. the image from StephL's first post). It doesn't help when a "discussion" (from the atheist's perspective) is probably being perceived as being clubbed over the head on the other side of said "discussion". If the goal is to shame someone for their beliefs, then debates are awesome. But if the goal is a type of proselytising to you, then a more pragmatic approach may be more productive. Admittedly, I've done a lot of shaming and I've been shamed. I suggesting that neither of these experiences had lead to anything productive in my life; and I certainly don't believe it has been productive to anyone I have ever "debated". Drawing from my own deconversion experience, I put myself in the place where I could be deconverted. No one else put me there.

I'm not saying that something won't get through during the debate. But how much more impactful would your insights be if you shared them in the context of what the other person can understand? But that's work and one has to kind of "care" that the other person understands what is really being said. Clubbing them over the head is certainly easier and probably a hell of a lot more fun. But it really comes down to what your goal is, I guess.

And hi balban!! Sweet you are here!

I guess, it's the fence-sitters who actually can be swayed with such debates. People who might usually not think about the topic a lot - they can come to find it fascinating and at least modify their worldview by a bit. People who just needed that little piece of information more to come to some insight, like how Deism doesn't make sense either for example. Or people who think that there is nothing which says religion and science contradict each other fundamentally. That trying to sway the not directly involved is not only wishful thinking is demonstrated in the debate on Catholicism I linked up to in a prior post. While none of the debaters changed their minds - hundreds of people in the audience did. Who is to count the ones only watching from afar?

Motion: The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.
For the motion: Archbishop John Onaiyekan, Ann Widdecombe --- Against the motion: the late Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Fry
The Yes fraction went from 678 down to 268 --- No rose from 1102 to 1876 --- undecided swayed to No almost entirely

But then - they had Fry besides Hitchens and that's just about the perfect recipe...
To me the internet is and was helpful - like for preventing relapse, I'm pretty sure that won't happen again!

"That's a significant difference, though - but I also had the impression, that most people I worked with and had private contact to, either didn't believe at all or took it pretty lightly. I didn't come into closer contact with those, where you see it from a long way off, that they are fundamentalists. It's such a dissonance, though - I was there over Pesach (Passover) and invited to a traditional festivity with a large family - and everybody was happily pondering what horrible things God did to the Egyptians - to then go on and eat interesting things and then party. Made me speechless at first - then I tried to talk about it with the younger people. Only one guy said all fairy-tales and tradition, and gruesome ones at that - the others just changed the topic fast."

Yeah alot of israeli families have this, from religious extremists to hardcore atheists and everyone in between, we israelis have seen'em all(we learned about them alot in school too). I think that this diversity is good though, you get to understand different view points of different people and their lives , even though there is alot of religous tension between the different groups.

I sense you had a bit of a culture shock which is natural, but i'm sure that other nations have these coflicts too(the USA comes to mind).

It's nice to see you coming to israel and all, but the thing is that aside from certain absolutes(like male circumcision) alot of people regard religion in a different way, so the family you were in would be very different than another one.

btw, those "interesting things" are apart of the passover meal and they have a symbolic meaning to every food, just a FYI.

Also. ALL HAIL THE SPAGEHTTI AND MEATBALLS!!!!! RAMEN

I don't think I've ever been swayed by anything anyone has said in a debate format. When I've been a part of a debate, I can at least acknowledge that I am only listening enough to make a counterpoint. And it seems to me, when watching others debate, that this is a fairly natural occurrence in the minds of the participants regardless of how open to information they say they are during the debate. IMO, it's a very defensive style of communication and a person's debating style can completely shut down the dialog in the minds of those who are watching from the sidelines. So, essentially, the debate turns into both sides just throwing punches in the air.

After contemplating sharing my own deconversion story in this thread, I've come to the realization that my deconversion took place because I was ready to accept a completely new paradigm on my own. I fell away from my belief. I sought out my own information. At the risk of coming across as totally cliche`, I had to get lost in order to be found (ugh! that sounds lame). All the debating I've been a part of, before I deconverted, never lead me to the point of altering my worldview. My experience has been the complete opposite, the debates hardened my position and strengthened my resolve whether I was part of the debate or just watching. So something is wrong with this type of communication, IMO.

In light of that realization, I spent some time thinking back at all the "debating" I've ever done after I chose Atheism as my label. I don't believe that I've ever sought to help someone move into a headspace that will be productive for them. Rather I maintained the point/counterpoint style of conversation, believing that I was going to say something so completely amazing that the other person wouldn't be able to respond to and they would have to convert to my way of thinking. It wouldn't have happened with me, so I can't expect that it would happen for anyone else.

One of the more interesting takeaways from that video series I shared with you, StephL, and you have shared here, is that A) the professor intimately understood who he was talking to and B) he used that knowledge to guide rather than debate. Though we don't know the exact contents of the email exchange, Evid3nc3 didn't indicate that the professor sought to alter his thinking. What he does say, however, is that the professor was leary about saying something that would deconstruct his sense of reality. Why? I have my thoughts about it, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.

In the end, I wrestle with why I involve myself in such topics. Really... why do I care if anyone is free from their religion? I don't honestly believe that if I do my part to convert the world toward atheism that we'll all become these shiny happy people holding hands. I also don't believe that religion is the evil scourge in the world holding us back from these amazing levels of technological advancement. So why bother? Ultimately, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by StephL

Motion: The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.
For the motion: Archbishop John Onaiyekan, Ann Widdecombe --- Against the motion: the late Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Fry
The Yes fraction went from 678 down to 268 --- No rose from 1102 to 1876 --- undecided swayed to No almost entirely

But then - they had Fry besides Hitchens and that's just about the perfect recipe...
To me the internet is and was helpful - like for preventing relapse, I'm pretty sure that won't happen again!

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have such debates in front of kids and let them choose their option from an early age, in stead of being the parents who choose for them? I don't know, just speculating.

Anyway, I was watching the recent debate (kick ass?) you posted, and while watching the creation guy introducing his believing scientists. I felt propelled to do something similar and put it in stead, George Carlin's point of view (RIP):



Edit: Sorry if someone gets offended with that, but I see so many things behind the mask of religion that I couldn't take it seriously. Although I knew many religious people whose actions are worth to mention, at the same time I see a lot of sad things happening under its name. The same as the other way around with science. At the end, I think it counts what you do, whatever you think.

I'm having a bit more time right now and so I'll get back to you a bit more at length.

Originally Posted by Box77

I don't use to watch debates, but it called my attention because it had the term 'Islam' on the title. I didn't finish to watch it yet, but I find significant and very related to what I experienced when discussing with my little brother, because of something similar was going on then. As an example, I want to link a segment of the video starting from the following position: 46:17 and play it until 47:40.

In spite professor Lawrence Krauss, since the start of the debate, has such beautiful answers against the most fundamental flaws in Hamza Tzortzis' theory, I see him acting more like a jerk when trying to 'ridicule' Hamza's weak point of view. However, the other guy, in spite of being ignorant in terms of science, shows more humanity in stead. It let me think, perhaps some scientist are lacking something that they should learn from some religious people in stead of apparently ignore all what they have to say just because they are considered ignorant. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think he could have acted a little bit more like a father with a son, or an older brother with a little brother in stead of two complete strangers. I think, that way he could have touch more than one heart (or brain?) in that debate. If I would be a Muslim, perhaps I hadn't hear professor Krauss arguments at all. I mean, if somebody considers you as a threat to his/her inner world, they will treat you like that.

I have now reviewed the part highlighted - and I have to say - yes, Krauss wasn't nice - but Tzortzis started behaving weirdly. Krauss had asked for his definition of causality, because he stated he disagreed with Krauss' notion that "the cause precedes the effect" and such had implied time.

The reaction to the question was: "No - I won't give you that favour." That's what Tzortzis said.
And Krauss reacted a la - come on - what is this now? Then Tzortzis tried to answer and almost didn't manage because Krauss was pissed off by this dodging and talked over him. I feared that he wouldn't get his second/third chance to give his definition - but he did get it and to my relief, actually.

Interesting topic by the way - Krauss started with saying that if you applied Occam's razor as Tzortzis had done to causality concerning the universe's beginning
the number zero would be even less complex and enough of an explanation. No cause.

Given his chance Tzortzis claimed, with a lot of not completely honest modesty in my view, that the agreed upon definition would contain a concept of asymmetrical spontaneous causality on the basis of quantum mechanics, and that would mean, that there can be a state where something is prior causally, but not temporally. Krauss asked for an explanation - and Tzortzis produced something he called a Kantian example - I didn't look it up.

It went like - if you have an infinite pillow and an infinite ball on it, then the indentation of the pillow would be caused by the ball, but since both are infinite - there would be no time involved.

Krauss replied that Tzortzis had initially in the debate negated the existence of anything infinite as impossible a priori.
So why then such an example he asked Tzortzis, who didn't have an answer to that. Anyway - Krauss asked how that ball got there - did somebody put it there? And then it petered out.
Krauss remarked, that these terms and definitions would seem to be exactly what really mattered to Tzortzis and that his whole deduction would rest on the fact that nothing is infinite. And that deduction generally just simply wouldn't matter here, what matters would be that we can measure the actual universe, and all would be perfectly consistent with it indeed having had a beginning - and that's a reason to believe so - not deduction.
But he also said, that we don't know enough yet to understand said beginning (or even be completely sure, there was one as he had mentioned earlier).

What will the almost entirely Muslim audience have experienced? Maybe an arrogant scientist, not patient, not polite, talking over Tzortzis while getting louder - so they might "deduce" from this that Krauss was wrong. But then - maybe not.

Does somebody have an idea about infinite pillows and asymmetric spontaneous causality?





I also want to answer a bit more in depth to you balban, for which I didn't take the time yet as well:

Originally Posted by balban

I don't think I've ever been swayed by anything anyone has said in a debate format. When I've been a part of a debate, I can at least acknowledge that I am only listening enough to make a counterpoint. And it seems to me, when watching others debate, that this is a fairly natural occurrence in the minds of the participants regardless of how open to information they say they are during the debate. IMO, it's a very defensive style of communication and a person's debating style can completely shut down the dialog in the minds of those who are watching from the sidelines. So, essentially, the debate turns into both sides just throwing punches in the air.

This is unfortunately something which doesn't only happen in serious debates or even only in arguments about - well - anything. It is also what can prevent you from listening in a normal, honestly friendly conversation. Especially when what the other person says evokes memories of your own, stories you want to tell on the topic, and instead of listening, you construct what you want to say. Huge source for misunderstanding.
But I do get swayed by arguments - I really do and I even take a sort of pride in admitting it. But it can drive you nuts, if you do that with somebody close to you, and they never, ever would explicitly do the same - say that yes, they were wrong. Even while it's obvious they were and they also act respectively, but verbally admitting to have been wrong seems to be almost physically painful to some people. Even when it's about banalities with some people. I'm aware that my attitude here is not completely free of calculation, trying to gain the moral high-ground by admitting to having been wrong.
Maybe it actually is more honest, though.
But I do get the feeling that what arrives in such people's mind is - ah - she's always wrong, if she even admits it! Sorry for the rant...

Originally Posted by balban

After contemplating sharing my own deconversion story in this thread, I've come to the realization that my deconversion took place because I was ready to accept a completely new paradigm on my own. I fell away from my belief. I sought out my own information. At the risk of coming across as totally cliche`, I had to get lost in order to be found (ugh! that sounds lame). All the debating I've been a part of, before I deconverted, never lead me to the point of altering my worldview. My experience has been the complete opposite, the debates hardened my position and strengthened my resolve whether I was part of the debate or just watching. So something is wrong with this type of communication, IMO.
In light of that realization, I spent some time thinking back at all the "debating" I've ever done after I chose Atheism as my label. I don't believe that I've ever sought to help someone move into a headspace that will be productive for them. Rather I maintained the point/counterpoint style of conversation, believing that I was going to say something so completely amazing that the other person wouldn't be able to respond to and they would have to convert to my way of thinking. It wouldn't have happened with me, so I can't expect that it would happen for anyone else.

Yeah. Confirmation bias is an extremely powerful beast. But it seems to me that you were "hardcore" so to speak, debating atheists. And my hope lies with the fence-sitters, as said before. Another thing - some people might let go of any superstitions by coming to see some basic reasons against holding such beliefs, but applied to religion, which they might have left behind already, and so it's easier to swallow. I can empathise here, strongly.

Originally Posted by balban

One of the more interesting takeaways from that video series I shared with you, StephL, and you have shared here, is that A) the professor intimately understood who he was talking to and B) he used that knowledge to guide rather than debate. Though we don't know the exact contents of the email exchange, Evid3nc3 didn't indicate that the professor sought to alter his thinking. What he does say, however, is that the professor was leary about saying something that would deconstruct his sense of reality. Why? I have my thoughts about it, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Sure I have my thoughts - I guess he was acutely aware as to how disastrous dropping out of a fully rendered Christian life can be for a person. Potentially losing all friends, family, their partner. Luckily he didn't lose his wife - but otherwise as I remember it - that wasn't exactly a nice time in his life before it started getting better.
What are your thoughts on it?

Originally Posted by balban

In the end, I wrestle with why I involve myself in such topics. Really... why do I care if anyone is free from their religion? I don't honestly believe that if I do my part to convert the world toward atheism that we'll all become these shiny happy people holding hands. I also don't believe that religion is the evil scourge in the world holding us back from these amazing levels of technological advancement. So why bother? Ultimately, I have no idea.

Oh - lots of reasons including vanity and other selfish ones, but also really because I feel my life is much the better without chasing after phantoms with all my heart. It worked with me then it can work for others.

Best example for me - I left lucid dreaming be because of being scared witless by my first experience long years past following Castaneda. I have told this story many times already - but it really was a shame - it halted my progress in exploring my consciousness!

I think it is actually also important to come in contact with like-minded people, exchange ideas, just talk with each other, share material - atheism is not a religion, but why not get some social bonding from it - recognition and validation - plain fun? Like Aristocles suggested - this is one of my motives.
And surely not all problems could be solved, which now are on the menu of religions in terms of causation - people always find a way to impose their will and ideas on others and exploit and subjugate them. But some problems could be if not solved be at least alleviated. What seriously worries me is to know that America with all it's power is so overwhelmingly in the hands of irrational people with bizarre and unethical moral codes and a wish for Armageddon to come.
I read somewhere that a really high percentage of American Christians expect the rapture in their life-times - want the rapture in their life-times.
What might such people come to do?!

Originally Posted by balban

Belief is a tricky thing, particularly when it is being taught that doubt somehow makes you "lesser" - blessed are those who believe without seeing; come to god as you would a child; etc.. Couple that with the atheist, being the opposition to their worldview, is seen as evil or death or something to fear (i.e. the image from StephL's first post). It doesn't help when a "discussion" (from the atheist's perspective) is probably being perceived as being clubbed over the head on the other side of said "discussion". If the goal is to shame someone for their beliefs, then debates are awesome. But if the goal is a type of proselytising to you, then a more pragmatic approach may be more productive. Admittedly, I've done a lot of shaming and I've been shamed. I suggesting that neither of these experiences had lead to anything productive in my life; and I certainly don't believe it has been productive to anyone I have ever "debated". Drawing from my own deconversion experience, I put myself in the place where I could be deconverted. No one else put me there.

Puuh yeah - exactly this attitude needs to be overcome. It's contra reason, contra science and yes progress, too. Again - the fence sitters hopefully to come to their senses, like in the Catholicism debate. I might edit in the numbers on how atheist is the worst attribute you can possibly have for elections in the USA. This needs to change and it could with people like Bill Nye, who are able to communicate the awe and wonder inherent in nature, in science and it's fruits - without any "divine baggage".

Originally Posted by balban

I'm not saying that something won't get through during the debate. But how much more impactful would your insights be if you shared them in the context of what the other person can understand? But that's work and one has to kind of "care" that the other person understands what is really being said. Clubbing them over the head is certainly easier and probably a hell of a lot more fun. But it really comes down to what your goal is, I guess.

Yeah - but I lack a person close to me to help along. "Of course" I would do it differently then, but for me it's not so much about a person I debate, I suppose that this would be a fruitless endeavour in almost all cases anyway. But sort of shame on me for that, I know...

Originally Posted by Box77

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have such debates in front of kids and let them choose their option from an early age, in stead of being the parents who choose for them? I don't know, just speculating.

Yepp - schools should do that - provide exactly such things as the Nye/Ham debate. Wasn't it that kids should be able to see both sides - creation and evolution in science class?
So why not such a thing then?

Originally Posted by Box77

Anyway, I was watching the recent debate (kick ass?) you posted, and while watching the creation guy introducing his believing scientists. I felt propelled to do something similar and put it in stead, George Carlin's point of view (RIP):

George Carlin - Religion is bullshit [HQ DVD-Rip][Subs] - YouTube

Really funny and clever this guy - barefaced and brazen! A shame he is dead! Aand - what did you mean with "kick ass?"?

Originally Posted by Box77

Edit: Sorry if someone gets offended with that, but I see so many things behind the mask of religion that I couldn't take it seriously. Although I knew many religious people whose actions are worth to mention, at the same time I see a lot of sad things happening under its name.

Well yeah - but there is usually a connection between what you think about reality and your actions - Humanism is at the least harmless with strong tendency to "intuitively" positive effects, while I think the opposite of religion. Even while it's not on the surface, necessarily - even while the "perpetrators" are not (even) aware that they are doing wrong unto others. Because they believe they have the ultimate moral power - objective morality - backed up by the divine. They refer to a justice system out of even sight, let alone understanding of mankind. But men and some women claim they do understand - and that is where it gets dangerous. Believing to have objective morality figured out is the problem I think! But it's also a lure - true guidance - no need to decide yourself...

Religion is also an international power game besides the level of personal spirituality, not to forget, and they have a lot of assets more than "we" have - which would be words, mainly.

Caring for Africa and it's poor and sick by telling people that condoms are causally involved with HIV the wrong way round is a moral abomination in my view. But it might and does lead to subjectively feeling benevolent for those who do that, lead to applause from the not really well informed public - but it clearly is disastrous in practice. And so is scaring children with hell - out of love and true belief and/or in order to have them obedient - goes for grown ups too!

Originally Posted by Box77

The same as the other way around with science. At the end, I think it counts what you do, whatever you think.

I completely agree with the latter - but would like to explicitly state that speaking and writing etc. is clearly doing something.
But not with the former.
What is there in science per se which leads causally to "intuitively" negative effects, that can not also be said for "things in general" - I refer to weapons, destructive technology. Or down to personal dishonesty, which has nothing really to do with the scientific method except you want to name competition as a factor inherent in peer review here - but that goes for all human endeavours.

Maybe violating our inner, biological and evolutionarily deeply installed natural and fuzzy, human-centred morality in favour of insight. Like experiments on prisoners or other non-consenting humans. But it makes sense on the basis of science to uphold these inner feelings with an outer structure of law and society. Which is indeed in place - this is what ethics commissions are for in science directly. And "it works" quite well at least in "civilized places and times" and for humans.

Then the same as above with not only our furry friends the animals. There we go with something fuzzy and non-absolute in morality. We will have much more disagreement there, but the tendency goes towards animals maybe gaining the status of a person, too. This will be something to "mentally evolve" on. New scientific insights tell us that even fish are much closer to us in terms of "mind" than most have thought. But I would guess, this is not what you are talking about?

Originally Posted by StephL

yes, Krauss wasn't nice - but Tzortzis started behaving weirdly. Krauss had asked for his definition of causality, because he stated he disagreed with Krauss' notion that "the cause precedes the effect" and such had implied time.

I think, you implicitly pointed a very interesting question here (and perhaps the main point of the discussion): "How did it all started?" I can say, it was Krauss who wanted to ridiculize Islam since his first intervention, making a very clever observation that it has no sense to put it in the title of the debate and confront it alone against atheism since it's just another religion. Some other could say, he did that because of he was pissed off due to apparently some religious people didn't want women to take part of the audience. Another person could ask for the persons who organized that debate and so on. And if we go back in time, it most probably will lead us to the start of life itself which is scientifically presumed (and almost fully demonstrated), started in an abiogenic environment. Talking about cause and effect

Originally Posted by StephL

Yepp - schools should do that - provide exactly such things as the Nye/Ham debate. Wasn't it that kids should be able to see both sides - creation and evolution in science class?
So why not such a thing then?

Fear? Convenience? Particular interests? Lack of interest?

Originally Posted by StephL

Aand - what did you mean with "kick ass?"?

I was looking for a term to describe a really nice butt beating from reason to faith (long ago I used to say "blind faith", but faith is already blind for itself).

Originally Posted by StephL

What is there in science per se which leads causally to "intuitively" negative effects, that can not also be said for "things in general"

You're right, I think it would be better to put it that way. Perhaps it's not a fact of just religion or science, and it's a matter of nature in general. Some things are more dangerous than others.

Originally Posted by Box77

I think, you implicitly pointed a very interesting question here (and perhaps the main point of the discussion): "How did it all started?" I can say, it was Krauss who wanted to ridiculize Islam since his first intervention, making a very clever observation that it has no sense to put it in the title of the debate and confront it alone against atheism since it's just another religion. Some other could say, he did that because of he was pissed off due to apparently some religious people didn't want women to take part of the audience. Another person could ask for the persons who organized that debate and so on. And if we go back in time, it most probably will lead us to the start of life itself which is scientifically presumed (and almost fully demonstrated), started in an abiogenic environment. Talking about cause and effect

Point conceded - who started it was not exactly a good question here!
And yeah - put their friendliness, civility, politeness etc. over the whole video on the scales - the Muslim wins.

Originally Posted by balban

Whereas once I focused my efforts on certain things I felt were important to me, now I focus them on different things I feel are important to me. But is that "better" per se? Better, to me, would mean an improvement in some aspect of my life - I would be happier with the direction of my life; I would be a better person; etc.... I can't say that any of that has happened.

In my case I look back on incessant searching for esoteric knowledge and that is a much less satisfactory route than being culturally well embedded, I guess. Since I was searching - I kept falling for things, for people. I had to lose faith and drop stuff, either because I saw behind it, which was rather rare - or because it just didn't get me any closer to my beloved mystical or even magic(k)al experiences.

To be honest - I think the main gain I have from "loosing faith" is being happy not to be such an obvious fool any more. Good that memory spares me the details - but I do remember enough to feel ashamed for a lot of what I did and said, down to how I went about some decisions. I had conflicts with people close to me because of it and I cringe at even the little bit I can remember.

This might not count for much - but for me it does. Since school I had a picture of myself as an intelligent and rational person and anchored myself in this picture, but in my "spiritual phases" I wilfully refused to bring it to bear on the whole thing of having an immortal soul with psychic potential. Refusing religions of various denominations was easy - probably because I was brought up in disrespect for esp. Christianity by my mother.

Oh my - this whole topic invites one to "soul-striptease" doesn't it just...

For me this supernaturality endeavour had a real and nasty consequence as well. It kept me scared of lucid dreaming for years!! Following Castaneda's exercises - that was finally something, which actually worked!! I should have been over the moon - nope.

With me even explicitly expecting evil entities - of course it was a nightmare, a very impressive and hyper-realistic one. But not only that - it was also very short, since I threw all my willpower at "finding my body back". So I found it - but still in sleep paralysis - something which didn't happen even once with my a bit over 40 LDs now. It was clearly from forcing wake-up out of a flying panic. If I had read LaBerge instead - I would have known what I was dealing with.

I didn't and lets just say that was probably the most scary experience ever in my life - while I (used to) live quite dangerous and was in real mortal danger at other times. Like getting caught up in a lightning storm on top of a mountains of 2600 meters - I was extremely frightened and rightly so - but not on such a deep level.

I left my fingers right off LDing for 10 years to follow, even while I had LDs as a child, I didn't see the connection back then. Even worse - I told a friend of mine, who didn't do the exercises yet, hadn't dared to - and she was absolutely terrified by my story - she scared me right back. She was so disquieted by this that we didn't even dare to talk about it any more!!

And then to find out it is fiction, and not even authentically South American Shamanism, but invented by some American sociologist and best-selling author!
That's something I came to consider as clearly harmful - scaring people off things like lucid dreaming with superstitious nonsense - maybe even knowingly!

So besides not wasting my time chasing phantoms it's also not wanting to be such an obvious fool, wanting to make decisions on proper reasoning (as proper as possible) and last but surely not least being able to explore my consciousness for real and without superstitious bullshit baggage.

Buut yeah - I too did lose something. Something which I can't conjure out of thin air - and you have made that point in a fabulous way below.

Originally Posted by balban

When I was a believer, I wouldn't say that I was "unhappy". I had a community that I felt like I was a part of. I didn't feel like I was "lesser" or "guilty" or a "sinner", rationalizing that "removal of this yoke" is why Jesus had died on the cross. I mindfully tried to be the best version of me among my family, community and society.

Comparing the previous version of me to who I am now, I would say that I still have all these qualities and in the same proportions. I am still not "unhappy" with my life. Though the community has changed, I still feel a part of something bigger than myself. I still strive to be a better person and I do examine how my interactions with others affect them (I recognize that I fail quite a bit, but I did back then too).

There.
So are you saying that you used to have a high degree of moral passion, a burning desire to be your very best? And now you "only" strive to be a better person?
I would agree with you here - a fuzzy view of morality and reality doesn't provide that "holy fire" which is an extremely powerful beast. There's a great book by that title too, off topic though.

It's a bit difficult to analyse for me now, but at times, especially in one phase, I was running on such a moral overdrive as you seemed to have been doing as well. Everybody loved me for it especially at work. I was constantly giving it my all - I also had a weird feeling of being sure, what was exactly the right thing to do at any moment (exaggerating here, sure, but overall it's been so). This whole state of affairs was making me really very happy indeed. Even while I was out of town and living in a shoe-box on campus. Looking back on this, I'm neither as happy any more nor as productive. I decided to leave the place on the basis of something stupid, supposedly destiny and my letter of recommendation reads like I had been out for sainthood there...
It was ultimately all based in delusion - a collection of delusions actually, which fuelled an inner flame, and I can't just simply re-light again with any odd match...

Originally Posted by balban

But, here is where a difference lies; where I once saw a reason for it (god's plan) even though I may not have understood it, now I see as totally meaningless.
Now when I am a witness to suffering, be it my own or that of someone else, it tends to make me more upset and angry in the light of such senselessness.
And I still feel unable to do anything about it in most cases, which is exactly the same result as it was when I was a believer - I do nothing about it, just watch it happen feeling mostly helpless. But again, knowledge of this doesn't make my life any worse nor any better, just different ways of coping with it.

It's still so that I experience synchronicities and detect patterns and my inner meaning-generator takes to work and throws a notion of significance my way. And I like it and indulge it - I don't even think that's double book-keeping - I tend to just "agree with myself" concerning said significance - knowingly, though. But that's me personally.

I have to say that the fact that it makes you more angry to witness suffering is actually a good thing in my view!!
And it is a bad thing about religion, leading you have blind faith that ultimately all is good! Believing that all of it would be in god's plan doesn't motivate one to change the world for the better, it doesn't! It also doesn't motivate people to free themselves from oppression and exploitation - it tends to lead to sheepish acceptance of whatever god has put upon you in the hope for a better deal in the afterlife. But that's a cheat - not a deal!!
Getting angry and upset about senseless suffering and cruelty and misery and whatnot is maybe not measurably productive in our cases - in the sense of running out and actually doing something about it - but it could and might!

Originally Posted by balban

But I will reel this in and try to bring all this back to the main point that I started concerning "debating". I guess my failure is that I don't see debating religious topics, as an attempt to make someone's life better, to be a very good reason, regardless of whether or not you are speaking to a fence sitter or an entrenched zealot.

Why would you call this point of view of yours a "failure"? It's a good point and well made - "even" while I argue with you about it!
You have a weird tendency to put yourself down, I sometimes feel!

Originally Posted by balban

I also wouldn't limit the reasons for debating to the other reasons that you listed; though I sometimes wonder if these reasons aren't more to the point. I don't understand psychology as much as I would like. So I am still left with this feeling of not knowing why I "debate" these topics or why I even give a shit if someone believes or not.

Oh well - yeah. Christopher Hitchens went as far as stating that no - he wouldn't want all religion to disappear from the face of the planet because he likes debating religious people so much. Approximately - I believe I could find it in the "Four Horsemen" video...
But there are two sides to it - it might be the sole point of an "atheistic exhibitionist" going to such a public debate, but if it "works" - that's fair enough for me. I really do feel that there is more to it than going off on one's own perceived intellectual superiority in the minds of those, who make it "work", though. I feel genuine concern in many of these people, including Hitchens of course. Take Richard Dawkins, who yes, has a tendency to get arrogant once in a while - but I really believe he means well for humanity by what he is doing primarily. Good examples for this are Sam Harris and Bill Nye - doing it in a bit humbler of a style.
But I do enjoy a good old bashing, too, even while being aware that it might well be contra-productive, I'm only human...

Originally Posted by balban

There is a lot I dislike about religion and I do feel that people can get lost in it. However, at the risk of making myself really unpopular with "my community", I see some things to like about religion. I may even go as far as to call it a useful tool... nothing more.

I find you lovely! You're not making it easy for yourself, you try to get to the bottom of things and minimize bias - are honest and open and share a lot of yourself with others, don't you worry! I agree in terms of this inner "holy fire" - I'm afraid you won't get that without religion/spirituality, except maybe in psychosis, and you'll have a lot of other problems coming with it in that case. I also agree that it is a useful tool - very useful even, and since it's so ubiquitous, the notion that it's something of evolutionary benefit seems sensible. It's just that science and rationality are much better tools in my view, and I really feel that bringing up children religiously from an early age onwards is akin to systematic brainwashing, it's harmful and hard to reverse later on.
Yeah - you didn't feel the sinner, because of Jesus - but you never were a sinner, you never had a reason to need help from the divine - it's just something I want to spare children from - esp. the horrendous hell-scaremongering. We don't even know how our society would be like if instead we would be living after some generations holding up Humanism and nothing else as a guideline. How could I know? Surely I can't - but I imagine it would be a better state of affairs, I really do.

Originally Posted by balban

This is certainly not unique to our time. I would be comfortable enough to state that every generation of Christians have thought that they were the last. I believe it is historically accurate to say that the first christian believers thought that they were the last, so nothing has changed. Yet how much trouble have all these generations of people really caused our society. Of course there are specific examples of some extremist crackpots stirring up trouble, pointing to the end times as being their reasons. The same could be said about anti-abortion and gay rights rhetoric and the lamentations of what the Christians could do because of their hardline stances on these subjects. George W. Bush's admission that he was actively talking to god was a little unnerving, I'd have to admit; that had me particularly nervous for a time. And look at how many people are convinced that Obama is the anti-christ. Really? Last I heard it was from the European Union that this character was supposed to enter the world stage.

Definitively - I've been posting a verse, where it's really quite obvious that the disciples themselves expected it in their lifetimes in the other thread, I think. But doesn't this liberate one's thinking in terms of personal responsibility for our world? With Armageddon imminent - you can rationalize anything. Sure - people are people and the usual people live by their inner moral compass. But Bush is a very good example why this notion doesn't put my mind at rest at all. Not to mention Jihadists... It only needs some crackpots finding the right tune to get wide resonance in those minds, which are already prepared to go down that road. Especially when the actual political situation is really dire for whatever reasons. It's not as good and useful a tool as to tolerate the whole baggage coming with religion, I don't think.

Originally Posted by balban

Either way, I see these as the very fringes of those types of beliefs turned into action and I just don't believe, nor have I seen any convincing evidence that anything but the most insignificant minority of believers will really act this out on their own simply because they are believers. And I would further suggest that our society has suffered/suffers/will suffer far more ill-effects from other, more secular, reasons.

Ah - but this is somewhat flawed in my view - religion is religion but secularism is just the absence of something. Meaning you have all the human nastiness you always have minus religion's specific share of it. That can't be more harmful than all human nastiness plus religion. Except you claim that religion keeps people from acting even more nasty. But Christians at least by name and in high places have been throwing atom-bombs, torturing people, invading other countries, you name it - it just doesn't seem to work that way...

Originally Posted by StephL

Oh - lots of reasons including vanity and other selfish ones, but also really because I feel my life is much the better without chasing after phantoms with all my heart. It worked with me then it can work for others.

I feel I may be steering my end of the conversation a little away from the original point. However, the above quote is the part of your post that most resonated with me. It started me thinking... can I say that my life is "better" now as opposed to then? Having sat on both sides of the fence, and comparing my thoughts then and now, I realize that I've never taken the time to think about whether or not I really considered my life to be "better" now. After some reflection, I don't think I see my life as being any "better", just different. Whereas once I focused my efforts on certain things I felt were important to me, now I focus them on different things I feel are important to me. But is that "better" per se? Better, to me, would mean an improvement in some aspect of my life - I would be happier with the direction of my life; I would be a better person; etc.... I can't say that any of that has happened.

When I was a believer, I wouldn't say that I was "unhappy". I had a community that I felt like I was a part of. I didn't feel like I was "lesser" or "guilty" or a "sinner", rationalizing that "removal of this yoke" is why Jesus had died on the cross. I mindfully tried to be the best version of me among my family, community and society. I also wasn't a biblical literalist; I saw some of the main themes in the bible, particularly in the OT, as allegorical. For example, I believed the big bang was creation and that evolution was the chisel and the creation story was just a story, put in place of what really happened, to relay the idea that A) there was a creator and B) he mindfully created everything (there is more, but I'll stop there). I feel that I was a fairly compassionate person, able to empathize with suffering. With those points, I would even go as far as to say that I could apply some, if not all, of these same properties to many Christians I've come in contact with, then and now. There are, obviously, exceptions and my suggestion certainly isn't the rule (and no, I am not justifying religion even though it kind of sounds that way - I left that thought process for a reason).

Comparing the previous version of me to who I am now, I would say that I still have all these qualities and in the same proportions. I am still not "unhappy" with my life. Though the community has changed, I still feel a part of something bigger than myself. I don't feel "lesser" or "guilty" or a "sinner", but for different reasons than I rationalized before. I still strive to be a better person and I do examine how my interactions with others affect them (I recognize that I fail quite a bit, but I did back then too). I still believe in the big bang and evolution, but for scientific reasons rather than just believing in something I didn't really understand on a basic level. And I still feel that I am the same compassionate person, able to empathize with suffering. But, here is where a difference lies; where I once saw a reason for it (god's plan) even though I may not have understood it, now I see as totally meaningless. Now when I am a witness to suffering, be it my own or that of someone else, it tends to make me more upset and angry in the light of such senselessness. And I still feel unable to do anything about it in most cases, which is exactly the same result as it was when I was a believer - I do nothing about it, just watch it happen feeling mostly helpless. But again, knowledge of this doesn't make my life any worse nor any better, just different ways of coping with it.

This is obviously a very simple, short list I am using for a simple comparison to drive home a larger point. There is a lot of wiggle room to argue from here and there is certainly a lot more detail I could have inserted. I'll leave it at that. But I will reel this in and try to bring all this back to the main point that I started concerning "debating". I guess my failure is that I don't see debating religious topics, as an attempt to make someone's life better, to be a very good reason, regardless of whether or not you are speaking to a fence sitter or an entrenched zealot. I also wouldn't limit the reasons for debating to the other reasons that you listed; though I sometimes wonder if these reasons aren't more to the point. I don't understand psychology as much as I would like. So I am still left with this feeling of not knowing why I "debate" these topics or why I even give a shit if someone believes or not. There is a lot I dislike about religion and I do feel that people can get lost in it. However, at the risk of making myself really unpopular with "my community", I see some things to like about religion. I may even go as far as to call it a useful tool... nothing more. When viewed through this prism, I supposed I could suggest that this tool can be used for the greater good or for destruction and it has a lot to do with whose hand is wielding it. Given that, I don't see it as something that someone needs saving from, necessarily.

Originally Posted by StephL

Sure I have my thoughts - I guess he was acutely aware as to how disastrous dropping out of a fully rendered Christian life can be for a person. Potentially losing all friends, family, their partner. Luckily he didn't lose his wife - but otherwise as I remember it - that wasn't exactly a nice time in his life before it started getting better.
What are your thoughts on it?

Perhaps what I wrote here gives you some kind of an indication on what my thoughts are about it? I'm not trying to be coy or avoid your direct question. I just don't think what I think about it really matters. What is relevant is how each of us sees it and how we use that awareness, should you so choose, in future "debates" with believers. Your view on it is certainly reasonable and respectable... thumbs up.

Originally Posted by StephL

I read somewhere that a really high percentage of American Christians expect the rapture in their life-times - want the rapture in their life-times.
What might such people come to do?!

This is certainly not unique to our time. I would be comfortable enough to state that every generation of Christians have thought that they were the last. I believe it is historically accurate to say that the first christian believers thought that they were the last, so nothing has changed. Yet how much trouble have all these generations of people really caused our society. Of course there are specific examples of some extremist crackpots stirring up trouble, pointing to the end times as being their reasons. The same could be said about anti-abortion and gay rights rhetoric and the lamentations of what the Christians could do because of their hardline stances on these subjects. George W. Bush's admission that he was actively talking to god was a little unnerving, I'd have to admit; that had me particularly nervous for a time. And look at how many people are convinced that Obama is the anti-christ. Really? Last I heard it was from the European Union that this character was supposed to enter the world stage. Either way, I see these as the very fringes of those types of beliefs turned into action and I just don't believe, nor have I seen any convincing evidence that anything but the most insignificant minority of believers will really act this out on their own simply because they are believers. And I would further suggest that our society has suffered/suffers/will suffer far more ill-effects from other, more secular, reasons.

Wow a lot of long posts! I didn't read any of them, so here is my answer:

I'm an atheist, have been since almost a year.
I've always been a rational person, and when it came to anything, I have a full open mind.
I always knew that religion isn't true, but I always tried to convince myself otherwise, happily fooling myself so I wouldn't have to face the truth that when I die, that's it, game over.

When I met LDing, I became happy. I then dropped off my religion and faced the facts. I've since pondered a lot about the human perception of the world, including these things I concluded:

_There is no self, just an illusion of self and ego due to self awareness, we are all but merely machines.

_Emotions are hormones, no matter how real they feel, they are supposed to feel like that. Being happy is inducing triggers that release these hormones, triggers often related to human needs, like sex for example. (Happiness is merely a reward system for our good actions of existing and survival, but still it's awesome)

_ Good and bad, Nobel and evil are just points of view. Normally what is good is what serves the community, and what is bad is what harms the community. I'm lucky that most people believe in good, because then the community would be good for me, and I can be selfish and gain, without worrying about that balance.

_Human life is worthless. Everyone has his own world where he only matters. Only thing that stops me from crime is the law, not empathy (even though empathy still does stop me a little since it is in my human nature).

_being nice and good with others serves my own benefit, that is why I do it.

_Don't blame religious people for believing, because they tend to be good people that follow the law, so why stop them, and they are happy not accepting death, so leave them be, and don't blame them for close minded discussion, because they know they are in doubt, but just want faith because it helps them with dealing with death.

My original religion was Islam. I have to agree, it is a sexist and kinda ignorant religion, but just to clear something, jihad the way alquaida uses it is unright, so don't blame Islam for alquaida's actions and wars. Still, I'd have to say, if the religious is faulty in most of it's users, then it is a failure of a religoun . (Islam is kinda faulty for a big portion of Muslims).

That's pretty much it

Originally Posted by StephL

So are you saying that you used to have a high degree of moral passion, a burning desire to be your very best? And now you "only" strive to be a better person?

I am a bit confused as to why you quoted "ONLY". It seems you are pointing to a change that you noticed. I certainly didn't mean to give that impression. I was trying to make a that point that my desire to be a better person, in all the ways I mentioned, hadn't changed at any point in my life. Further to the point and probably worth mentioning, I don't believe that my particular moral code came from being a Christian and it wasn't until after I walked away from faith that was I able to see that. But really, the end result of me trying to be a better version of myself manifested exactly in the same way in both of these contrasted points, but they were rationalized for completely different reasons; where once I did it because "it's what god expected of me" and now it's because "it's the right thing to do in a functional society". The net gain/loss is 0.

Originally Posted by StephL

I have to say that the fact that it makes you more angry to witness suffering is actually a good thing in my view!!
And it is a bad thing about religion, leading you have blind faith that ultimately all is good! Believing that all of it would be in god's plan doesn't motivate one to change the world for the better, it doesn't! It also doesn't motivate people to free themselves from oppression and exploitation - it tends to lead to sheepish acceptance of whatever god has put upon you in the hope for a better deal in the afterlife. But that's a cheat - not a deal!!
Getting angry and upset about senseless suffering and cruelty and misery and whatnot is maybe not measurably productive in our cases - in the sense of running out and actually doing something about it - but it could and might!

I don't believe that it can be said that Christians just lay down and accept suffering as god's plan. That was my own bullshit that I was admitting to. Christians, in particular, do quite a bit to try and ease suffering in the world. However, in the face of failure they are pretty quick to invoke the "god's will" argument to, IMO, sugar coat the hopelessness they see right in front of them. It is a win-win proposition in their thought processes, but the reality is that it changes nothing - the suffering is either relieved by their actions or perpetuates because of the failure. The invocation of the god's will argument is really irrelevant.

I also don't agree that me getting more upset with suffering is necessarily a "good" thing. I pretty much stand by and watch just as helplessly as I did back then. However, my remark was more an acknowledgement that I did lose something in my deconversion... an excuse. And the reason it doesn't "lessen" me, in my own view of myself anyway, was because I didn't really translate the witnessing of said suffering into any kind of action action in either case. So again... the net gain/loss here was 0.

Originally Posted by StephL

Oh well - yeah. Christopher Hitchens went as far as stating that no - he wouldn't want all religion to disappear from the face of the planet because he likes debating religious people so much. Approximately - I believe I could find it in the "Four Horsemen" video...
But there are two sides to it - it might be the sole point of an "atheistic exhibitionist" going to such a public debate, but if it "works" - that's fair enough for me. I really do feel that there is more to it than going off on one's own perceived intellectual superiority in the minds of those, who make it "work", though. I feel genuine concern in many of these people, including Hitchens of course. Take Richard Dawkins, who yes, has a tendency to get arrogant once in a while - but I really believe he means well for humanity by what he is doing primarily. Good examples for this are Sam Harris and Bill Nye - doing it in a bit humbler of a style.
But I do enjoy a good old bashing, too, even while being aware that it might well be contra-productive, I'm only human...

Certainly. But this is why I was really careful to mention that it has a lot to do with the goal. Hitchens had an amazing intellect for many things and could wield that knowledge at the drop of a hat. But, I also recognize that he turned a lot of believers off and he was dismissed before he even opened his mouth. So I don't really see the point unless you are an atheist who likes a good shaming (no judgements if that's you). But to what end? Entertainment? If so... fair enough.

Originally Posted by StephL

Ah - but this is somewhat flawed in my view - religion is religion but secularism is just the absence of something. Meaning you have all the human nastiness you always have minus religion's specific share of it. That can't be more harmful than all human nastiness plus religion. Except you claim that religion keeps people from acting even more nasty. But Christians at least by name and in high places have been throwing atom-bombs, torturing people, invading other countries, you name it - it just doesn't seem to work that way...

Don't make me take out the dictionary! Secularism is not just the absences of "something"; it is something with the absence of religion specifically. To that, I'll restate my point... the probability of suffering to occur because of a secular reason, as opposed to a religious one, is more likely. This doesn't, in any way, let religion off the hook; after all, suffering is suffering. However, I feel it is too simple to claim that because some population is religious in an eschatological sense, it is more likely a society (or even better... you) will suffer because of it. I can see why you believe this. But I don't think the numbers are on the side of this belief, IMO.

Also, you mentioned the Jihadists. It is pretty easy to say that this issue is rooted in religion alone. But from what I understand, these issues are incredibly political as well. However, it gets messy in my mind because I am hard pressed to separate the political arm of Islam from the religious arm. This is a kind of "uniqueness" that I see in that religion, at least as far as how the Jihadists are exercising their belief. So I suppose you could assert that someone suffering in a terrorist attack is because of that religious ideal, but I am not too quick to make that assertion for many reasons that not within the scope of this discussion. I'll leave it at that.

I purposely didn't answer all the points you brought up. Originally, I did. But man... it was way too f'ing long and I thought my answers to not be relevant to this specific discussion. I am not looking to get banned.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

That's not nihilism then, it's just existentialism. As I understand it existentialism means life has no meaning so we must create our own, nihilism means life has no meaning so all is worthless and we might as well just die or do as much damage as possible before we go since nothing matters. I see nihilism as very depressive and amoral, while existentialism is just a sense of responsibility that we need to create meaning.

I don't think I've ever heard a nihilist described as desiring wanton destruction before death. Wouldn't it be that the act of destruction be meaningless, so why bother? I can see the path to that logic though.

Originally Posted by StephL

No - they don't lay down and look on. Many feel it is their mission to help the underprivileged and suffering - but they never do it just to alleviate the actual problems of people alone. Christians tend to come along with one more problem, if they are not dealing with Christians already - they will tell people that they need to do this and that and at the least believe in Christ in order to be saved, not from their misery, but from unimaginably worse misery in the afterlife.
For a true believer saving a soul from hell will always come before saving a human from injustice, pain and misery. You will hear them say that god especially loves his suffering children, making it almost sound as if that was a good thing, too...

A lot of the charity work worldwide is done by the religious - but that also includes this horrendous bullshit you get when you let people with a completely twisted relation to sexuality influence other people's behaviour when it comes to contraception and protection. What they do is exactly the opposite of what is needed. So is that help then or hindering progress and causing suffering and disease?!
What should be done in many of the crisis-regions of our world is empowering the women. How? Freeing women from chattledom, being constantly pregnant under ugly conditions for starters. And surely not with a misogynist propaganda act with general fearmongering. The Catholics always come to mind first - but I mentioned something in another place, about how American Christians on religious adventure holiday trod off large-scale institutionalized homophobia in Africa - up to Uganda putting a life-sentence on it, after giving up on trying to install the death sentence instead due to international pressure: Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push - The New York Times

Really - I think the world would be better off if these people stayed at home. The world does not need this sort of "help"! Disgusting!
I'm not saying that no good is done by these religious charity missions at all of course. But it does not put my mind at rest to know that they are crawling all over the developing world and putting their shit in more impressionable minds than can be found around the corner - it bothers me.

I think the meaning of this part of the topic has changed. I certainly wouldn't argue with you about whether or not their attempts at easing the suffering comes at some cost. The original point was that you claimed that Christians, because of their belief, have a mindset that they will simply accept suffering and do little about it. It also seems that you were implying that atheists, freed from blind faith, and their feeling bad about might lead to action.

A quote from your previous post...

And it is a bad thing about religion, leading you have blind faith that ultimately all is good! Believing that all of it would be in god's plan doesn't motivate one to change the world for the better, it doesn't! It also doesn't motivate people to free themselves from oppression and exploitation - it tends to lead to sheepish acceptance of whatever god has put upon you in the hope for a better deal in the afterlife. But that's a cheat - not a deal!!

Getting angry and upset about senseless suffering and cruelty and misery and whatnot is maybe not measurably productive in our cases - in the sense of running out and actually doing something about it - but it could and might!

My response was an attempt to refute this particular quote, not as some kind of an endorsement of how Christians practice their easing of suffering. To restate my point, I believe that Christians, in general, feel much the same about suffering as we do, evidenced by what we do see them do. So what I am taking exception with is your notion that Christians trend more apathetic toward suffering because they think all suffering is good.

From this latest response, you seem to agree with this; however, you are taking exception as to how they go about it. That it totally fair. I will even go as far as to say that I mostly agree with you but I'll leave it at that. I don't know if this thread can support yet another topic of ongoing conversation.

Originally Posted by StephL

But it's more honest intellectually and for me that constitutes at the least a personal net gain, but of course this need not look so to you.

I don't see how not lying to one's self about the meaning of the suffering and the fact that one doesn't do shit about it is even relevant. Whether or not I believed that god willed it, if the action I take is no action, the result is still the same - the suffering continues. So I can feel better about myself that at least I know that I am not motivated to action because... well... just because? Why? I am not lying to myself anymore about my inaction? You must see more in this than I do; I just don't see it.

Originally Posted by StephL

I have another great panel debate with him - and again the atheist side changed hundreds of minds in the audience in the "right direction". Not he alone, he was one of three and said himself that he was sort of invited as a radical element and went about being - blunt but heartfelt. Didn't harm the notion, I don't think! To stay fair here - both sides gained in numbers, the religious side probably gained some support from the unsure section here, but less than 100, while the notion gained almost 400 votes.

You made mention of gains/losses in this context before. I certainly don't mind you pointing at this as some kind of a validation data point. However, I don't really even know what it really means. From what did these minds get changed? Was it a meaningful change or just a "yeah I see your point" moment? Does this mean who the audience thought "won" the debate or real change expressed by the audiences? I get what you are saying, but I just don't draw any great meaning from it. <-- was hard for me to say in this way, but I have a rep to protect.

Originally Posted by StephL

Well - this is exactly what I meant to say! We have a huge amount of suffering because of secular reasons, always will.
Then we have on top of that, and almost always in entanglement with secular reasons, the specific share that religion adds to the mix.
This share is smaller than the former one - no doubt, if you mean that - fully with you.

Buut - given the baseline nastiness - the religious stuff is an add-on and we would be better off without it.
Even worse - any conflict coming about for secular reasons, say over land, ethnicity or whatever - religion will act upon it as a huge intensifier of force, a multiplicator. You might feel in the right, thinking somebody stole your land, you might even be in the right - but nothing will drive you as strongly as the notion of divine justification. Religious righteousness is an incredibly powerful beast, and I would propose that it worsens all basically purely secular conflicts into which it reaches.

I wouldn't disagree with you. But say religion is somehow wiped off the face of the Earth. Do you have faith enough that humanity wouldn't/doesn't use other tools, just as galvanizing, in order to justify their hostilities? Politics; border lines; race; culture; any property that makes one person different from the other is a potential excuse that can/will be used. Religion is just another excuse. It's like we have a sickness and our symptoms are these excuses. We can remove a symptom here or a symptom there, but we are still sick and other symptoms will continue to pop up until we realize that we've only been curing the symptoms. Is it not more pragmatic to go after the disease rather than the symptom? Cure the disease and the symptoms are irrelevant. It's a cheesy analogy, but it's the best I have ATM.

Wow! Brutally honest and I can't fault you for any of it - thanks for sharing LuoaiB.
Difficult to swallow - but there goes another form of self-delusion...

Yes - my "humanist" and "nature-admiring and -conservationist" etc. attitude is something I ultimately hold because it makes me feel good to do so. One could say it's a hobby, a personal passion maybe, at least talking about it is. But it's not a foundational rock like religions promise it, it's a fuzzy attitude collection.

I also depend on an outer structure of the law taking care of this balance needed for a community to thrive, in order to go about my very own business, possibly quite a deviant one from mainstream acceptance. Up to a point it absolves you to take (every bit of) it seriously - up to a point. The point where your inner moral compass kicks in, or when the risk to get caught surmounts your comfort zone.
I don't believe humanity needs religion to "morally synchronize" people in harmonious and consistent ways - it's also what society and culture are about, among other things. If you completely decouple - you will be freer, but also more burdened with finding your path, one worth living with the knowledge that there is only the one life, the one path.

Call me romantic - but I don't like the notion of being a mere machine. And it's not true either - at least not with the machines we know today. Take self-replication with evolution for starters. Do we have "nano-goo" already, by the way? Life is something special for me, something with inherent value, but it's ultimately subjective, even while empathy and a certain "righteousness" are - objectively seen - observably inherent in our mental make-up. We can also come to rational decisions as to what sort of legislation is necessary for a community on the basis of science - but absolute moral values on a subjective level are not really easy to claim, even while I came across such attempts quite often.
And I'd still trample a lot of insects, if I became a vegetarian - I'm aware of that...

Interesting that you found out of religion with lucid dreaming - AirRick101 said something similar - I hope I got the/your name right?

I really like your ~ If a religion is faulty in most of it's users, then it is a failure of the religion. ~

Sorry for tinkering with it - I hope that's okay with you - but I don't think I really changed it...