Why The Dude Converted

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, the one he quoted indicated that 40% believe that God exists, 45% believe there is no god, and 15% say that they aren't sure ... Essentially the same numbers as the survey when it was done 80 years earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, that's a deceptive statement to make in the context of our hyper-religious culture. Culturally relevant models of God make Him a PERSONAL God who takes interest or offense at the decisions of individuals. From the Nature survey:

[ QUOTE ]
When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative...Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is CLEAR rejection of any religious model of God. And since the idea of "God" in our culture is defined religiously, you cannot honestly say that 40% of scientists believe in "God" in the same way that John Doe at Fellowship Bible believes in "God."

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, for example, had never deeply questioned his faith before. When he did, he made a decision that there is no god. Having made that decision, everything he looks at points to the logic behind his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually read the OP? You're absolutely wrong. The Dude makes decisions motivated by logic and objective probability. If some new data comes to light strongly favoring God's existence, then Dude will absolutely re-convert.

[ QUOTE ]
Either one now looks at the world from a certain perspective. They *believe* certain things to be true, and they *see* things based on what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a comfortable delusion for a Christian, since a Christian DOES need to see reality according to his Christian presuppositions. But it is wrong to say an atheist has any such mind-closing faith that requires him dismiss new data.

[ QUOTE ]
Despite what any of us want to say, we can't be completely open minded. There are some who are, and they don't get much accomplished, because they have terribly difficult times making decisions about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, 100% wrong. The people who most closely approximate "complete open-mindedness" are the best scientists. And they get a LOT accomplished.

[LouBlue]

What I'm talking about is a behavior that is common among people in general, regardless of one's theology. (Purchase Justification Reflex is one term I've heard. There's another, but I can't think of it.) It has been specifically studied and documented regarding people's car buying behavior. Once they have made a purchase, they look for logical reasons to justify their purchase.

I wasn't trying to criticize Dude, and perhaps I'm wring about him, but I doubt that I am. I think that when he reads the statements posted here by Christians, he probably does so from the perspective of someone who is going to defend his own decisions and point of view, not as once who is going to listen to them for any truth they might contain and potentially integrate them into his belief system. At this point in his life, his decision is made. There may come a time in his life in which he consciously starts reevaluating that stance, but right now he is explaining how the decision is made. It's a closed book.

Regardless of our rightness or wrongness, you and I are the same. I could share stories with you of numerous occasions when my wife has been praying about something on my behalf only to have the event take place ... resulting from actions on the part of someone totally outside our influence. Or how I have thought to send money to someone I encounter once every several years because I was thinking of him and his wife, only to have them write me back to tell me that they had really hit a hard spot and they were praying about how they'd cover their bills when my letter came. ... Those stories would be unconvincing to you. I suspect that the mention of them confirms what you've you've already determined about me, that I have limited reasoning skills and that I have just as simplistic view of the world as children who believe in the tooth fairy.

I'll let Dude speak for himself on this. Dude, would you say that at this point, when you here Christians speak regarding their belief in God, that you're listening for truth that could persuade you otherwise, or are you listening to them from the perspective of someone who has already made up his mind on the matter and considers it to be settled?

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
If some new data comes to light strongly favoring God's existence, then Dude will absolutely re-convert.


[/ QUOTE ]
New [censored] has come to light, man.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to criticize Dude, and perhaps I'm wring about him, but I doubt that I am. I think that when he reads the statements posted here by Christians, he probably does so from the perspective of someone who is going to defend his own decisions and point of view, not as once who is going to listen to them for any truth they might contain and potentially integrate them into his belief system.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're still missing the key distinction that usually evades Christians. That is: just because one needs blind faith to believe Christianity, does NOT mean that one needs blind faith to disbelieve!

I understand that, as a Christian, you think it virtuous to believe without proof, and consider it heretical---even sinful---to seriously doubt Christian dogma. So I'm not surprised you have trouble accepting that The Dude genuinely wants to believe what is most likely to be true. But, from all appearances, he genuinely does! And I don't think you have any justification to doubt him.

Again, however, if some objective data appeared to support Christianity---if some new [censored] came to light---then Dude's methodology would lead him back to Christianity. But, as it stands, Christianity is an enormous dog to be true, so Dude doesn't believe it.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of our rightness or wrongness, you and I are the same. I could share stories with you of numerous occasions when my wife has been praying about something on my behalf only to have the event take place ... resulting from actions on the part of someone totally outside our influence. Or how I have thought to send money to someone I encounter once every several years because I was thinking of him and his wife, only to have them write me back to tell me that they had really hit a hard spot and they were praying about how they'd cover their bills when my letter came. ... Those stories would be unconvincing to you. I suspect that the mention of them confirms what you've you've already determined about me, that I have limited reasoning skills and that I have just as simplistic view of the world as children who believe in the tooth fairy.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are very far from the same on our ideas of appropriate methodology! Also, I don't know you, but if you seriously believe that some favorable coincidences directly support your theology...then, yes, I do think you have a pretty simplistic viewpoint.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If some new data comes to light strongly favoring God's existence, then Dude will absolutely re-convert.


[/ QUOTE ]
New [censored] has come to light, man.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God may exist, God may not. I don't know for sure, so believe whatever the hell you want as long as you don't try to go around convincing people that you know and they don't. I choose not to take a strong stance one way or another. I'm smart enough to admit I'm too dumb to know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is reallllllly wishy-washy. To the people who hold this view: Do you also take this stance on things like the tooth fairy, goblins, ghosts, santa? Maybe we're all part of some giant bug's dream. Why is believing in God any different?

"They COULD exist but I'm not sure either way. Can't prove it." Just because something cannot be disproved does not mean that both viewpoints are equally valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, but I want to clarify. What I am not willing to dismiss is the possibility of a deist type god. I am certain that all of the world's past and present religious ideas and teachings are purely human inventions.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
So those of us who have had those conversations and made those examinations but come up with the conclusion that God does exist or that the Bible *is* inspired are sadly delusional, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Dude didn't say this, but I will.

To me, a very simple starting point for rejecting faith is:

"Am I so privileged that I just happened to be born to parents believing in the one true religion?"

To those who believe because "my ancestor's religion makes sense and all others don't", you are just shining examples of the power of childhood indoctrination.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am certain that all of the world's past and present religious ideas and teachings are purely human inventions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well OK then. I guess that takes care of it.

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]

You're still missing the key distinction that usually evades Christians. That is: just because one needs blind faith to believe Christianity, does NOT mean that one needs blind faith to disbelieve!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing a distinction that evades non-christians. Blind faith is not a requirement to believe Christianity. In fact a reasoned faith is encouraged.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that, as a Christian, you think it virtuous to believe without proof, and consider it heretical---even sinful---to seriously doubt Christian dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

While true that Jesus commended to Thomas those who believed without seeing him resurrected in person for themselves he didn't ask us to believe without evidence, hence the understanding that without the resurrection our faith would be nothing.

Also, if Christians never challenged dogma we'd have just one church, the Roman Catholic, right?

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not surprised you have trouble accepting that The Dude genuinely wants to believe what is most likely to be true. But, from all appearances, he genuinely does! And I don't think you have any justification to doubt him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this portion, (and the rest of the post), were directed at another poster I want to be clear that I in no way doubt the sincerity of The Dude and I do appreciate him sharing this with us.

You may think you understand my faith or what christians believe in general, but from the ideas you've written above you clearly don't.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Your missing a distinction that evades non-christians. Blind faith is not a requirement to believe Christianity. In fact a reasoned faith is encouraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire! And I quote, "Faith, then, is not a lesson for slow learners in the sphere of intellectuality, an asylum for dullards. But faith is a sphere of its own, and the immediate identifying mark of every misunderstanding of Christianity is that it changes it into a doctrine and draws it into the range of intellectuality." (Kierkegaard, Postscript, Copenhagen, 1846 [emphasis mine.])

It is heretical to suggest the foundation of Christian belief is anything but faith; or to claim that belief has justification in reason.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, if Christians never challenged dogma we'd have just one church, the Roman Catholic, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider these doctrinal differences to be meaningfully different for the average Christian. Except that non-Catholics bear a considerable loss by rejecting the rich tradition and ritual of the mother church.

[ QUOTE ]
You may think you understand my faith or what christians believe in general, but from the ideas you've written above you clearly don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I have no interest in understanding what you believe, or what the average Christian believes. My interests in Christianity are confined to the teachings of its exemplary theologians.