151. Comment #108336 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm

ADH Those three items have a high correlation with atheism but they are not characteristics of atheism or caused by atheism. Steve is right if he is saying that those things are more descriptive of rational inquiry.

Other Comments by Radesq

152. Comment #108337 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Reverend Dark, as it happens I have read quite a few Greek tragedies. The Gospel account of the crucifixion, I can assure you, reads very differently.

It is similar in the sense of the tragic inevitability I suppose. But in that sense it maybe reas¡ds more like a (then unknown) 19th century novel - realistic detail, fleshed out characters, conspiracy, inner conflict within the protagonist, the irony resulting from the protagonist knowing what the other characters do not (even his closest associates). But as I say, that was agenre that was unknown (as fiction) to writers in the first century. It makes more sense to believe that they were simply recording what they saw and experienced.

Other Comments by ADH

153. Comment #108338 by robotaholic on January 6, 2008 at 2:13 pm

ADH the fact that you have to somehow figure out what the gospels were talking about or mean would seem to indicate to me that the inspirer (sic(lol))of the book didn't do a very good job... how can you not see this?

Other Comments by robotaholic

154. Comment #108339 by Seamus Reason on January 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"And then you would have us believe that atheism is only non-belief in God! That's a pretty big part for a non-belief to play! "

What's your problem or point?

Other Comments by Seamus Reason

155. Comment #108340 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"which are denied to us if we are theist daydreamers."


When I read post like the last one by Seamus reason I can't help wondering WHO is daydreaming!

Other Comments by ADH

156. Comment #108341 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 6, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Atheists - it's all very well having these great discussions with ADH, but methinks he's be given, or has volunarily taken on, the assignment of tying up the time of great atheist thinkers on this site.
Please everyone, don't waste so much time with ADH or any other Christian trolls. This "one-at-a-time approach" is spoiling my chances of seeing an atheist planet Earth in my lifetime, and this is very disappointing.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

157. Comment #108342 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm

"What's your problem or point?"

Go figure!

Other Comments by ADH

158. Comment #108343 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:18 pm

"Please everyone, don't waste so much time with ADH or any other Christian trolls. This "one-at-a-time approach" is spoiling my chances of seeing an atheist planet Earth in my lifetime, and this is very disappointing."

What would your preferred method be? Stick 'em all together in an ideological gas-chamber?

Other Comments by ADH

159. Comment #108344 by Seamus Reason on January 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Yes. Quite typical.

See post #108309.

Other Comments by Seamus Reason

160. Comment #108345 by Mark Smith on January 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm

ADH

Albondigas was doing a fine job. I agreed with everything he said.

In that case perhaps you'd like to return there, because he has gone quiet since we reached an agreed summary of what his argument is for the resurrection and I set out a refutation.

As regards the historical reliability of the Gospels, I could point you to a number of sources.

I doubt you could. But be my guest (on the Resolution 888 thread).

All I want you to realise is that there is a lot of very serious historical scholarship which supports their reliability.

I'm very well aware of what scholarship there is, and the large majority from the last 100+ years does not support Gospel reliability, though a minority does argue that way (not successfully in my opinion).

But I know your mind is made up, so any evidence I could produce would make little impression on it.

If you mean you know that I have carefully weighed the evidence and the scholarship, and have arrived at a considered conclusion, then you are right (and somewhat spooky too!). If you wish to suggest that I am not open to reconsidering matters if new evidence or convincing historical arguments were produced, then you are wrong.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

161. Comment #108346 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Seamus, you all expect me to believe that atheism is not a belief-system and is simply a condition of not believing in God, yet with the growing number of "atheist traits" you are coming up with what amounts to a creed.

Other Comments by ADH

162. Comment #108347 by Steve Zara on January 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Please everyone, don't waste so much time with ADH or any other Christian trolls.

Hey, we have had a concession about a theological matter. That is pretty rare, I would say.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

163. Comment #108348 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Mike asked

All creation had to suffer for that (the eating of a fruit which God had planted knowing full well Eve'd eat it and which Adam would also eat) - note ALL creation, even the creatures that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

ADH replied (I'm sorry, don't know your first name)

Goldy, I will not engage in debate on this site for your or anyone's entertainment.

Two things spring to my mind.
1. Thought so. Damn tough question ;-)
2. Stop posting - everything you write is a source of amusement to me and I dare say pretty much anyone else.

Other Comments by Goldy

164. Comment #108349 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 2:26 pm

We are just going to have to agree to differ

Is that because he has no evidence to back up his claims? Evolutionary hypotheses concerning morality can and have been tested sucessfully. To agree to differ is just running away.

as morality requires reason and both self and other-consciousness.

Last time I looked, various animals displayed these traits. What evidence do you have that they dont?
More importantly, what evidence do you have that morality requires reason. What for example is rational about declaring homosexuality immoral?
What about those nasty OT laws?

On the "historicity" again, you cant even demonstrate the "gospel" authors were first hand witnesses(paul even tells us he wasnt). In a court, their evidence would be nothing more than hear say.
Most of the life of jesus is made up. All the so called prophecies he is supposed to have fulfilled are taken out of context (no way is micah 5:2 saying jesus will be born in bethlehem, or I saiah 7:14 claiming he will be born of a virgin)

What would your preferred method be? Stick 'em all together in an ideological gas-chamber?

I think your god would prefer a real gas chamber.

I think J used this verse earlier, but you seem to have ignored it first time round:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

You claim there must be reason for morality - rationalise that!

Other Comments by BillySands

165. Comment #108352 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Mark I am honestly not sure how open you are. In any case I'm going to be pretty busy from tomorrow on, so I might not have time for much interaction on this thread. I'm not crying off by the way. But I start work again tomorrow after the Christmas break. So if I appear to go silent for a while, that is the reason. I will be back though

Other Comments by ADH

166. Comment #108354 by Steve Zara on January 6, 2008 at 2:29 pm

When I read post like the last one by Seamus reason I can't help wondering WHO is daydreaming!

Well, historically, it has been the religious who have done the daydreaming, or at least who have considered them a route to something of supernatural significance.

I feel that Seamus may have used "atheism" in contexts where "reason" was more appropriate, but that is a minor quibble. His points where sound.

Those who currently positively label themselves as atheists in this world are usually people who have had a good think about things and that has freed them from all kinds of intellectual and emotional baggage.

However, could I add to the comments of others in that it would be good if you could get back to answering questions on the appropriate threads.

This diversion into what I call a 'meta-discussion' (a discussion about the discussion) is a common trick, even if unintentional, for avoiding answering questions.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

167. Comment #108355 by Mark Smith on January 6, 2008 at 2:31 pm

ADH
You are 'honestly not sure how open' I am! Have you heard yourself? Could you be any more condescending (and that's not the only word I can think of)?

Other Comments by Mark Smith

168. Comment #108356 by The Reverend Dark on January 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Reverend Dark, as it happens I have read quite a few Greek tragedies. The Gospel account of the crucifixion, I can assure you, reads very differently.

Yes. Greek tragedies stay fairly consistent. The synoptic gospels tell very different accounts of the trial and crucifixion. This includes Jesus's behavior on the cross; the trial. The chronology of the time from his arrest to his death and resurrection; the date of his crucifixion. They have also been subject to significant change over the course of their life; including the Marcan Appendex,

I would suggest that you take Professor Bart Ehrman's suggestion and read the synoptic gospels in parallel rather than series. See what each says about specific events. Make a list.

The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

169. Comment #108358 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

This is an interesting article on the non historicity of the trial http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sanhedrin.html

Incidentally, Jesus speaking at the trial contradicts the claim that Isaiah 53 is about him - it claims he was slient -There are many other reasons not to believe it is about jesus - not least its post-exilic context

Other Comments by BillySands

170. Comment #108359 by Mark Smith on January 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

ADH
I don't care whether you cry off or not. I would just prefer that if you felt the need to repeat the assertions I highlighted earlier you did not give the impression that they had not already been strongly challenged. That is just my preference though, and you are free to do as you feel appropriate.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

171. Comment #108360 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Atheists - it's all very well having these great discussions with ADH, but methinks he's be given, or has volunarily taken on, the assignment of tying up the time of great atheist thinkers on this site.
Please everyone, don't waste so much time with ADH or any other Christian trolls. This "one-at-a-time approach" is spoiling my chances of seeing an atheist planet Earth in my lifetime, and this is very disappointing.

Lots of reasons for doing it, ClunkClick - not the least important of which being that I enjoy it :-) It's very flattering to think we might otherwise be converting the masses to atheism, but I doubt it somehow! And for those individual theists (many of whom will just be lurkers, so we'll never know about them) who ARE willing to question their beliefs, will it not be more effective to be able to see a reasoned debate going on than just a stream of abusive comments about how stupid people are for believing? There are good, strong, rational reasons for preferring atheism over theism - why shouldn't they be set out loud and clear for all to see?

And never mind the theists. Speaking personally I learn a huge amount from reading the posts in this kind of interaction, and wouldn't miss it for the world; and being challenged to explain my own views to someone who doesn't share them is a learning experience that helps me to clarify my thoughts too.

But if you've got a better plan for bringing about an atheist planet in your lifetime, do share it with us - I'm curious! :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

172. Comment #108361 by ianmkz on January 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.

Odd. That's the second time I've heard the argument today. The first was in a CBC Radio documentary about The Secret. It was pretty chilling then as well.

Other Comments by ianmkz

173. Comment #108362 by croatcat on January 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

ADH

On suffering. From personal experience (having dealt with cancer twice) I found that suffering was a mind-set enforced by my then strong Catholic beliefs. I decided that the cancer was not personal, i.e. not an attack deliberately prevailed upon me, but rather a defect that required medical treatment. At no time did I look to "god" for assistance. Therefore I felt no need to "suffer" as an act of faith re-enforcement or atonement for some transgression. The experience did not induce any life-changing revelations, unless one considers a realization that this is it, and when I die the world will go on just fine without my presence.


Jim

Other Comments by croatcat

174. Comment #108363 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I want to add another reason to the list. I am watching American Football right now and when this game is over somebody will be interviewed and almost certainly say "first I want to thank God for this victory". (Make that reason 6.5 maybe) As if an omnipotent God would take sides in a sporting event. I notice however that when the losers are interviewed they never sarcastically say "thanks a lot God for helping the Giants win". This got me to thinking about when the Israelites would claim in Judges that God let some heathen tribe or other conquer them in war because they had "sinned in the eyes of God". How did the "chosen" manage to commit more sin than the unwashed? Would they really be comparatively deserving of death and enslavement (even if temporary) as opposed to their oppressors who had the temerity to believe in other than the one true God? Is this progress or backsliding? I'm not sure.

Other Comments by Radesq

175. Comment #108366 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Paula: I don't know if it is a better idea. But I find it intriguing that Brian Coughlin often drops in on Christian blogs and does his thing there. I am considering doing the same thing but I am going to create another e-mail address to do so - in case they want to spam me with a bunch of Evangelical email.

Other Comments by Radesq

176. Comment #108367 by ianmkz on January 6, 2008 at 2:51 pm

We know that God doesn't really take sides in sports or war because if he did we could measure the correlation between righteousness and victory... and then he wouldn't be intangible. And if there's one thing I've learned from theist postings it's that God is intangible.

Other Comments by ianmkz

177. Comment #108368 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 2:54 pm

ianmkz

One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.

Odd. That's the second time I've heard the argument today. The first was in a CBC Radio documentary about The Secret. It was pretty chilling then as well.

The argument is akin to saying to the families of the victims of September the 11th "well, if it hadn't have happened, you wouldn't have had the compensation from the government", or saying to a person who has been blinded "well, look how great your hearing is now" in the sense that something positive comes only because something negative happens. Its just a pathetic argument and shows that the theist really is clutching at straws.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

178. Comment #108371 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Paula: I don't know if it is a better idea. But I find it intriguing that Brian Coughlin often drops in on Christian blogs and does his thing there.

Yes, that's great too. But isn't there room for both? Wouldn't it be odd if there weren't people actively defending atheism on the Richard Dawkins website of all places?! :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

179. Comment #108375 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 6, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Paula, I wish I had a plan. Think globally, act locally was an environmental slogan that work in this context.
For me, it has to start in the schools with accurate and honest science education.
My timescale is definitely unatainable, sad to say. However, considering TGD was first published in 2006, the stimulation of activity among previously silent atheists has been excellent but there is a long (several generations at least) struggle to enlightenment for humanity as a whole.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

180. Comment #108381 by tangerine_tree on January 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm

ADH,
So far you have referenced "king lear", "war and peace" and the works of George and TS Elliot.

Do you read any non-fiction ?

Other Comments by tangerine_tree

181. Comment #108387 by LorienRyan on January 6, 2008 at 5:19 pm

I would like to applaud all my fellow atheists who have risen above the petty rhetoric of parasitic ideologies and the emotionally infantile hankering of those who would harbour such absurdity. Again, I applaud you.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

182. Comment #108394 by PJG on January 6, 2008 at 5:55 pm

One reason to believe there is no God (all other reasons follow from this)

The existence of a God (or gods) poses more questions than it answers.

It starts with the statement, "There is a creator God"
First question: "Who/what created the creator?"

Other Comments by PJG

183. Comment #108421 by dlitt on January 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm

The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

Spiritual is something I'm not. I hope the oxymoron was a deliberate attempt at humour.

Other Comments by dlitt

184. Comment #108424 by robotaholic on January 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm

My parents are christian and I am definitely an atheist. I was raised a christian and decided I didn't believe in invisible entities when I was about 20 or 21 and when I moved out on my own...since that time my parents and I have had a relationship that has definitely suffered but that is not why I am writing this. My parents and I have pretty much put our differences aside for the past 4 or 5 yrs and we would just talk about superficial things in order to put on the faccaid of a normal human relationships between parents and child. Today my dad decided to bring up religion and he asked me why I went from being so happy and religious in my younger years to learning about the strange things I'm interested in now such as particle physics, the origin of the english language and the history of mankind. I tried to ignore the question and just revert back to the superficiality but he persisted. I told him I'm interested in science generally as well as technology. He said "Why do you think that for thousands of years humans didn't progress but in the last couple hundred of years we finally went past the 'horse and buggy stage'?"- I instantly said "due to the accumulation of information"- he replied well don't you think ppl thousands of years ago could talk just like you or I and at that point I was forced to explain that I really believe that humans or humanoids have been on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years and we just recently developed language and then were able to write it down as well as agriculture etc...- he cut me off and said the progress was inspired by satan and I just smiled. I told him: "look, the bottom line is that you want me to believe in invisible people with superpowers..for example angels and demons and spirits and I just don't" he then proceded to tell me that the "lesson" that they went over today (in church) explained that atheism is a religion." I replied that actually it means the absence of belief in a god and that by his definition my being an a-astrologer could be a religion since I have absence of belief in astrology" The conversation escalated to the grand conclusion when he asked me again "Why did you stop being such a happy kid with all your christian friends?...What made you change and want to learn about all this stuff (incidentally he thinks that protons, electrons, neutrons, and anything on that subject is a religion somehow or spiritual" - I looked at him and said "The reason that I now can't get enough of science and history and biology and all the other things I'm interested in is because when I was a child and religious I was prevented the knowledge of anthropology, biology, and all the things humans have discovered for thousands of years before I was born through enforced ignorance (I instantly had a picture of Daniel Dennet in my mind)" and at that he said I would have to hit the road - or leave in other words. He got upset at the reference that he enforced ignorance upon me as a child. In fact he wouldn't talk to me anymore even to say goodbye. My mom looked at me and smiled and said it would be alright and for me to just leave.

The reason I wanted to share this story is because we sit here and type our responses to christian or religious things and it's true, we have the explanations. What we don't realize is that we are talking to Zombies - Zombies that we love who are our parents, and people we have to see at work and when we're out. Sometimes I think that they really are genuinely two different types of people genetically- the religious and the nonreligious. The sad part is that it has really ruined my relationship with my parents and even people who were my friends in the past when I was a christian. But when I think about it, those people never were my friends in the first place if they just dropped me like a brick because I started to learn about science and history and threw away superstitions. We really are battling with people who are beyond change in a lot of ways. I'm just happy I can come here and not be surrounded by zombies for just a few minutes a day!

Other Comments by robotaholic

185. Comment #108425 by dlitt on January 6, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Comment #108328 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm

[edit]As regards the historical reliability of the Gospels, I could point you to a number of sources. All I want you to realise is that there is a lot of very serious historical scholarship which supports their reliability. But I know your mind is made up, so any evidence I could produce would make little impression on it.

I'm sorry - what you produce would not be sufficient evidence. I'm sure everyone here would agree with you were sufficient evidence ever produced.

Other Comments by dlitt

186. Comment #108431 by pkruger on January 6, 2008 at 9:19 pm

ADH says---right from the start...

"Two compelling reasons for believing in God:
1. there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible: the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle, the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter (etc )

Right from your very first words, it is obvious you are not even aware of the task at hand that awaits you. An attempt to demonstrate theism as a correct position would have to show the God as inconclusively true--not "plausible" as you state.
You assume the burden of proof, as you are asserting the existence of something--in this case a God-like entity. This means to provide compelling, inconclusive testable evidence just as any other serious claim is susceptible to.

On the other hand, in order for the atheist to show his position as the correct one, needs only to demonstrate your evidence to support your claim as insufficient

Other Comments by pkruger

187. Comment #108432 by dlitt on January 6, 2008 at 9:40 pm

A good read - robotaholic. Moving.

As a child my sister and I also went to church every Sunday with our parents. I remember the children's books on biblical stories. I remember enjoying those stories - but I also enjoyed lots of non-biblical fiction as well. I was about 11 when I first questioned the validity of God belief. I questioned the validity of all the other religions throughout the world. If they all professed to be true then I concluded none of them could be true. I was given a book about paleontology which revealed to me a more acurate understanding of the age of the Earth.
Shortly after, I refused to go to church on the grounds that it was a waste of a perfectly good Sunday morning.

Fortunately, my father was understanding - indeed impressed by my reasoning. We all stopped going to church.

I asked my father, many years later, why we went to church when we obviously didn't believe it. It was to placate my grandmother who was still alive.

Non-belief in God didn't start with me - it started with my parents. It is a generational change and usually starts with the young before dogma sets in. I believe there will be a change toward atheism in two of three generations. As church attendance starts to dwindle, the religious will get more and more aggressive and threatening - with hell-fire and damnation sermons and lots of noisy rallies. That will only accelerate non-belief through the observation of the absurdity of it all.

It is too bad your father had to press you on your atheism. The consequence was not good for either of you.

Other Comments by dlitt

188. Comment #108434 by NorthernLight on January 6, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Robotaholic:

There may be hope.
I've been in a very similar situation for the last 4 years, though my parents and I have had open discussions about me being atheist.
I've been talking about evolution with my folks for some time now and was able to convince my mom to read E.O. Wilson's "The Creation – An appeal to save life on earth", 1 point for me in my mind. On other occasions she has told me that "all this science talk has filled you with demons"
One of my proudest moments was in the midst of an argument over stem cell research with my mom whom shouted "We should be saving every embryo because it has potential to become human life!!" before I had a chance to respond my father yells out from the kitchen "Well we should be saving every amoeba because it will be human too if we give it a billion of years!"...close enough for me :)

YES!!!!! A small victory, that simple sentence proves that a little discussion can go a long way if you give it enough time. While I haven't completely "won" my dad over, it really isn't about winning, for me I'm content that he's making an effort towards understanding me.

I suspect that your father is upset because of his love for you, hopefully with time and patience you will be able to find common ground.

Please don't give up, it's worth fighting for!

Other Comments by NorthernLight

189. Comment #108436 by Roland_F on January 6, 2008 at 10:05 pm

188. Comment #108432 by dlitt
I believe there will be a change toward atheism in two of three generations. As church attendance starts to dwindle, the religious will get more and more aggressive and threatening ....

Seeing this televangelists in USA occupying own channels and a more and more entertaining shows - I am afraid the opposite might happen. There will be a move away from boring Sunday sermons inside dusty churches - towards multi media show events. And to improve attendance rates of their flock the mainstream churches might have to adopt as well, and this will come over to Europe as well.

Other Comments by Roland_F

190. Comment #108439 by dlitt on January 6, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Roland_F - I'm trying to be optimistic. I do have your fear, though. Especially after seeing "Bible Camp."

Other Comments by dlitt

191. Comment #108442 by Atheist_from_Hell on January 6, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Amen. Preach it brother!

(This is a response to the original article.)

Other Comments by Atheist_from_Hell

192. Comment #108443 by Jon_Sociologist on January 6, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Vadjong:

Well thanks, guys !
By blasting ADH clean out of our oasis with your clear-headedness, I picture him/her now somewhere on her/his knees, praying for our souls, as s/he is compelled to love us anyway.
We win every single 'argument' (because that is the easy part), but all it does is strengthen the belief that it's just a test (the more right we are, the more counterproductive).
This 'test of faith' meme always trumps reason, precisely because it is of an anti-scientific mindset. Let's call it the Catch-Mother-Theresa stratagem.
So if we cann't use logic or evidence, how do we unfurl this loop ?

I think you're missing an important point: if people who are still on the fence read ADH's arguments and our responses to them then they will see an example of how hollow and foolish theism is. Demonstrating that theists are in fact the "village idiot" convincingly may well convince such fence-sitting people to become Atheists. If our arguments cause ADH to go cry in a corner or reinforce ADH's faith then so what? ADH will likely never be convinced, but others can read our rebuttal of ADH, and read the pleasantly worded but thoroughly empty replies and realize that only a "village idiot" would be convinced by such things.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

193. Comment #108446 by Jon_Sociologist on January 6, 2008 at 11:22 pm

ADH:
Here is the definition of gullibility from TheFreeDictionary:

The term gullibility refers to the state of being easily deceived. Someone who fits into this category is said to be gullible. There are several causes of gullibility. The person may be naive, have some form of learning difficulty or may display gullibility as a result of wishful thinking.

Believing in things such as the bible without and even in spite of evidence makes one easily deceived. This is particularly true of believing things that are self-contradictory such as the bible. I'm curious how all flute players today could be descendents of someone (Jubal) whose descendents all died in Noah's flood (see Genesis 4:21)?

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

194. Comment #108450 by Jon_Sociologist on January 6, 2008 at 11:43 pm

robotaholic:

I don't know if it makes things better or worse for you, but something to keep in mind: you're father probably sincerely believes in things like Hell. From this perspective your Atheism is presumably a terrifying prospect for your father as he likely considers it an express ticket to Hell. Almost any parent would be sickened by the very thought of such a horrible fate for a child that they have loved and raised since birth.

You and I may know that the concept of Hell is a blatantly ridiculous fiction, but if your father is christian, then the absurdity of it will have escaped him, leaving only the terror of eternal torment for his beloved son.

I hope that helps.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

195. Comment #108467 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 3:01 am

ClunkClick: For me, it has to start in the schools with accurate and honest science education.
My timescale is definitely unatainable, sad to say. However, considering TGD was first published in 2006, the stimulation of activity among previously silent atheists has been excellent but there is a long (several generations at least) struggle to enlightenment for humanity as a whole.

ClunkClick, I agree with you on both counts. Accurate and honest science education is crucial and, yes, the debate between theists and atheists is going to last for generations.

All I'd say is that every mass of people is composed of n number of individuals. So, although it may feel slow, it's worth debating with individuals. You just never know where conversations will lead. I don't flatter myself, by the way, that even one individual is going to abandon religion as a direct result of a conversation with me; but if they even go away and think about some of the issues we've talked about, and maybe talk about them with other believers, who then in their turn ALSO go away and think about them ... you just don't know where these things might lead.

Incidentally, when I was a Christian I was always rather bemused at the lamentations of one of my friends, who was concerned she wasn't converting enough people to Christianity. Personally I was just pleased if I hadn't actively put anyone off! And I'm not sure I view things much differently now ...

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

196. Comment #108482 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 3:37 am

Robotaholic: Thanks for posting that. Again and again I am struck by how difficult it is for some people to be(come) atheists - especially if they're open about it. We've seen posts on here recently about the fear of persecution at work and now your account of a breakdown in family relationships. It's sad. I hope it was just a temporary loss of temper on your dad's part, and that things will settle down soon.

Might I just make a plea to us all though please? And I include myself in the plea, since I know I'm as capable of getting impatient with theists as anyone else.

It is clear from some of the stories posted here that relinquishing belief can be a pretty daunting thing to do. Not only might you have the nagging fear to begin with that perhaps you're making a mistake and (if you're from a fundamentalist background) that you might be condemning yourself to hell as a result; but you have to face life without the comforting thought of a benevolent superpower watching over you; without the (to some) comforting thought that you'll never truly die; and without the sense of community that being part of a church congregation undoubtedly provides.

Add to that the fact that, for some (as we have seen), becoming an atheist may expose them to the real disapproval of - or even rejection by - friends, family, employers. That's not an easy choice to make.

So when we're engaging with theists and challenging their beliefs, we're actually asking them to consider embarking on a course of action that could prove to be incredibly painful and difficult for them. Or, at the very least, that they FEAR could prove to be incredibly painful and difficult for them. And they may well be right.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that we shouldn't challenge their beliefs, but I do think we should try to do it as kindly as we can, remembering that the rejection of theism isn't JUST a rational process, but an emotional one too, and one that can have very emotional consequences.

Resorting to abuse and name-calling, and accusing them of being "moronic" and "fucktards" and all the other terms of abuse that get hurled around from time to time, is almost certainly going to prove counter-productive in that it's just going to reinforce their sense of needing the comfort that their religion (and their religious community) provides. It's also going to reinforce their fears about atheism and what it does to people.

I do understand the impulse to shout and scream, but ultimately I think we're going to be more effective if we can gently encourage people to question their beliefs rather than think we can abuse them into doing so.

This is a preachy post, and I'm sorry about that, but reading Robotaholic's post brought it home to me so vividly just what we're asking of people. If Robotaholic didn't feel his atheist friends were supportive, it would be even harder for him to deal with this family crisis just now. Well, he's an atheist, so he's in "our club" and knows he'll get our support; but imagine a theist who's posting on this site and being abused for doing so: why should they want to even consider potentially isolating themselves from all sources of support but us? In a way it comes back to what I wrote in my last post (above): maybe in many cases the most effective thing we can strive to do is just not to put people off.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

197. Comment #108492 by _J_ on January 7, 2008 at 4:14 am

PaulaKirby, 197
Hear, hear!

One of the things that makes me most cross about many of even the more moderate strains of religion is their insistence on the idea that god is good and good is god, so that literally all that is good comes directly from god. However innocently meant, this idea adds up to a weighty bit of emotional blackmail for any potentially questioning believer to deal with. Being told that by leaving the faith you stand to lose all that is of any value, or otherwise to lead a guilty life of thankless freeloading, makes it hard to even experiment with the trains of thought that lead towards atheism.

I very much agree with you on the value of trying to maintain a sympathetic and welcoming attitude. It's very worthwhile to be reminded of that from time to time (so as to remember to try to restrain the instinctive sarcasm...)

Other Comments by _J_

198. Comment #108498 by Richard Morgan on January 7, 2008 at 4:37 am

Paula Kirby :

...becoming an atheist may expose them to the real disapproval of - or even rejection by - friends, family, employers. That's not an easy choice to make.

I am wondering to what extent it is a choice to become an atheist. To what extent do we decide to believe or not?
If what you're saying here is how one handles one's discovery of the non-existence of god(s), yes, that can be a very delicate and painful business for many people.
For handling family problems caused by beliefs, there is an excellent precedent, of course:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34-36 NASB)
Perhaps we can take comfort in that.
No?
Well, it was just a thought while thinking...

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

199. Comment #108501 by Steve Zara on January 7, 2008 at 4:51 am

Paula: It is a nice idea, and clearly I fully support it. However, there are really militant atheists who consider this approach to be worse than useless, even damaging to the "cause". I got slammed on PZ Myers' blog for suggesting that I disagreed with a Pat Condell video implying that polite debate was wrong and we should use mockery and ridicule. My impression was that PZ was similarly dismissive of what you, I, and others believe to be a useful approach.

I happen to think we are right, or at least that we need both militant and "respectable" approaches. But I am just warning you to be ready for some harsh criticism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

200. Comment #108502 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 4:59 am

But I am just warning you to be ready for some harsh criticism.

I'm sure you're right, Steve - that's why I made sure I put my flak jacket on securely before I hit "Submit"! :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby