Why The Dude Converted

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
NR,

Do you find validation in convincing others to believe what you believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

The back and forth criticizing people on opposite sides for trying to convince others of their beliefs is silly. Many atheists say they are turned off by Christians' evangelism, but then attempt to convince religious persons that their beliefs are crazy.

The nature of this thread, this website, and the internets is to encourage argument and debate.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Many atheists say they are turned off by Christians' evangelism, but then attempt to convince religious persons that their beliefs are crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Some of the most enthusiastic evangelists operating today are atheists like Dawkins, Harris, et al. I think debate and discussion are important for many reasons. Of course, I think I am presenting the truth and hope that people are convinced of the truth whether through my arguments or otherwise.

There are obviously distinctions to be made between forcing someone's view, discussing with willing participants, writing books, propagandizing, etc. Nobody is forced to read posts on an internet forum. No one can force their opinions on me here, nor me on anyone else. And my motive for making posts is screamingly irrelevant.

[bernie]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Toothfairy and santa don't exist. There are origins for how they came about.

Goblins(or something like them) could be on another planet.

A ghost could be much the same as a higher power to some degree.

Difference? Wars and atrocities haven't been done over toothfairies, santas, ghosts and goblins. And none of those even come close to comparison of the creation of the universe. Or do you really hold those in the same light?

b

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Your personal taste in literature is irrelevant and off point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find me one relevant literary critic who has any interest in Lewis's fiction. It's heavy-handed and trite except to religious readers who delight in the Christian metaphors.

[ QUOTE ]
yet we are supposed to undo religion based on the personal views of contemporary academe in a decadent culture whose contributions pale in comparison and are not without critics in their own community?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Whose contributions pale in comparison?" Are you kidding me? Unbelievable.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that any scientist who believes in God cannot be objective in his work, and then describing a scientist with an agenda for disproving God as objective is incongruous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, reading comprehension? I said:

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed that theism and science are qualitatively incompatible.

[/ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, if you are a top-level scientist (i.e., you are intelligent and pursuing objective truth), you are not likely to be a theist. This is fact.

Edit - oh, and I forgot...

[ QUOTE ]
...contemporary academe in a decadent culture...

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been around enough Christians to know that "decadent" in this context is codespeak for "tolerant." So I'm going to have to make a token objection to your condemnation of modern culture.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Like Subfallen notes, NotReady's position is objectively meaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if theism is true can objective meaning make sense at all. Theism saves objectivity from the deadly subjectivism of atheistic worldviews, especially since Kant's claim that the universe is man's own mental invention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case. NR, the indurate Christian, asserts truth is a Christian patent; and then reminds us he's only here to rescue objectivity.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro. And I'm pretty sure Kant wasn't a solipsist. But then, you don't actually bother to read anybody but contemporary Calvinist philosophers, do you?

[Transference]

El duderino et al:

Reading the OP reads more like a psychological narrative to me than a sort of logical procession. To me presenting your development in terms of logical growth feels like forced round hold square peg [censored].

I’ll digress for a moment.

The necessary and sufficient component of belief is motivation. I’m saying you have to be motivated to have faith, x-files style: you must want to believe.

Why? The brain draws its concept of the real world around it very much unlike a video. A camera gets everything it its lens, and it gets it right. The brain is limited, by necessity it focuses on what is important and relevant. Those things that don’t matter vastly outnumber the few, so only those things (stimuli) that matter are actually taken into the worldview (perceived).

There is just no room for god if god is not helpful (significant) to us in someway. Many people find god helpful in making sense of the world, relieving anxiety, feeling justified and important etc. (Hence if god did not exist man would have to invent him (paraphrased)). Others, perhaps the OP, don’t, didn’t, or no longer require the comfort that belief gives. The person is satisfied with themselves and their position in the world. The mind no longer is motivated to see the world in a way that makes room for a god.

Quick analogy. Someone throws a baseball at your head. You immediately perceive it, focus directly only on it and react because right now it is the most important thing in your world. The motivation is clear and tangible. Religion, not so much. Death happens all around and the thoughtful person might wonder or fear what happens after death, but if the person is relatively happy, safe and comfortable, death does not warrant immediate or even secondary attention (no atheists in a foxhole etc). Furthermore death is just an offshoot of the religious theatre, I’ve never heard of any credible evidence of god swooping down and punching someone in the face.

The point I’m making is not that religious people are unhappy or in someway dysfunctional. But consider that they might be functional because of religion, that if they were to imagine a world without god it would be cold, dark lonely and depressing, almost unbearable.

If one starts to see a world without god as just fine, he might no longer look for faith but instead look for evidence or logic, a complete 360 degree shift for the brain.

Do you really really want to believe? Do well fed people really really want food?

Just a theory but it makes sense to me.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
You should start a thread, that would be an excellent topic. I grew up in a socio-economic environment with the following priorities: money, drugs, gambling, criminality, violence>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> academics, sports, honest work.

I think a thread on the choice of direction would be very interesting and, if you are in a place where you are making some version of that choice, it could be helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to start it, as I wouldnt mind getting some input from an objective party, as anyoen I talk to know is going to be pretty unobjective about it (ie, very adamant on going that route, or totally against it), but I really cant figure out a way how to get the discussion going without getting into specifics.

[diddle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Toothfairy and santa don't exist. There are origins for how they came about.

Goblins(or something like them) could be on another planet.

A ghost could be much the same as a higher power to some degree.

Difference? Wars and atrocities haven't been done over toothfairies, santas, ghosts and goblins. And none of those even come close to comparison of the creation of the universe. Or do you really hold those in the same light?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I understand your point.

The second part of my post is my real objection with religion. "Just because something cannot be disproved does not mean both viewpoints are equally valid."

[inside??]

If everyone's religion was science we would have advanced much faster as a civilization.

[J.A.K.]

Ok you reeled me back in. But this is IT!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Your personal taste in literature is irrelevant and off point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find me one relevant literary critic who has any interest in Lewis's fiction. It's heavy-handed and trite except to religious readers who delight in the Christian metaphors.

<font color="blue">This is getting silly...relevant to what/who?
From Wiki: "Lewis's works have been translated into over 30 languages and continue to sell over a million copies a year; the books that comprise The Chronicles of Narnia have sold over 100 million copies. A number of stage and screen adaptations of Lewis's works have also been produced..." </font>

[ QUOTE ]
yet we are supposed to undo religion based on the personal views of contemporary academe in a decadent culture whose contributions pale in comparison and are not without critics in their own community?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Whose contributions pale in comparison?" Are you kidding me? Unbelievable.

<font color="blue">You're seriously not equating Dawkins and his ilk with Boyle, Newton, etc. are you? From Wiki:In 2005, the Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission ceased publication and published a set of "obituaries" for memetics. This was not intended to suggest that there can be no further work on memetics, but that the exciting childhood of memetics, which began in 1996, is finally drawing to a close, and that memetics will have to survive or become extinct in terms of the results it can generate for the field of cultural evolution. Memetics as a social, Internet-fuelled popular scientific movement is now probably over. Many of the original proponents have moved away from it. </font>



HOWEVER, if you are a top-level scientist (i.e., you are intelligent and pursuing objective truth), you are not likely to be a theist. This is fact.

<font color="blue">The first part insinuates that a theist cannot be top-level but you leave yourself an out by saying "not likely". Again...the guys who came up with natural and scientific "LAWS" not top level??? </font>

Edit - oh, and I forgot...

[ QUOTE ]
...contemporary academe in a decadent culture...

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been around enough Christians to know that "decadent" in this context is codespeak for "tolerant." So I'm going to have to make a token objection to your condemnation of modern culture.


[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">Yes I am spinning the word decadent because at our last clandestine Christian code-word meeting this one was flagged. </font>