Thread: Any Atheists Here..?

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.