Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Convert me II

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe? "Persuade" being an operative word in the process.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:15:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe? "Persuade" being an operative word in the process.

Ordinarily I wouldn't, faith is a beneficial thing that I envy.

But if you insist then I'd simply ask them that if God wiped their memory, what facts or clues would lead them back to faith.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:19:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:15:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe? "Persuade" being an operative word in the process.

Ordinarily I wouldn't, faith is a beneficial thing that I envy.

Wow! Are you being serious?

But if you insist then I'd simply ask them that if God wiped their memory, what facts or clues would lead them back to faith.
Spiritual hunger.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:23:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:19:58 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:15:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe? "Persuade" being an operative word in the process.

Ordinarily I wouldn't, faith is a beneficial thing that I envy.

Wow! Are you being serious?

Yes.


But if you insist then I'd simply ask them that if God wiped their memory, what facts or clues would lead them back to faith.
Spiritual hunger.

How can you tell the difference between spiritual hunger and just the normal psychological desire for religion?

In addition how do you determine what is the true religion?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:25:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You're trying to be converted to an atheist? Why a person with faith would willingly want to give it up I do not know. Oh well.
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:26:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wouldn't force anyone to join us.
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:30:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:25:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
You're trying to be converted to an atheist? Why a person with faith would willingly want to give it up I do not know. Oh well.

I think it's just an intellectual challenge, like I don't really want to be converted to Islam!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:31:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:23:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:19:58 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:15:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe? "Persuade" being an operative word in the process.

Ordinarily I wouldn't, faith is a beneficial thing that I envy.

Wow! Are you being serious?

Yes.

I am thoroughly impressed. You just jumped a few notches in my esteem for you, not that it's worth much.


But if you insist then I'd simply ask them that if God wiped their memory, what facts or clues would lead them back to faith.
Spiritual hunger.

How can you tell the difference between spiritual hunger and just the normal psychological desire for religion?

Desire for religion is more about wanting to follow something, and be part of a group. Spiritual hunger is when you ask is there more, and in your gut you feel there is something more. When you cannot be satisfied by your ordinary day to day interactions and understandings. Hard to explain unless you have felt it. Some say it's like a black hungry hole in you that just cannot be satisfied.

In addition how do you determine what is the true religion?

I'm not real big on religion per se, i mean its fine as a means to an end, but I'm talking faith in God. I don't really care too much if some religion is true, we just do our best in this stuff.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:32:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:30:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:25:36 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
You're trying to be converted to an atheist? Why a person with faith would willingly want to give it up I do not know. Oh well.

I think it's just an intellectual challenge, like I don't really want to be converted to Islam!

Well maybe you will be. xD Haha that would seriously be ironic if you actually converted.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:36:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:31:23 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:23:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:19:58 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:15:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe? "Persuade" being an operative word in the process.

Ordinarily I wouldn't, faith is a beneficial thing that I envy.

Wow! Are you being serious?

Yes.

I am thoroughly impressed. You just jumped a few notches in my esteem for you, not that it's worth much.

Hehe, okay.



But if you insist then I'd simply ask them that if God wiped their memory, what facts or clues would lead them back to faith.
Spiritual hunger.

How can you tell the difference between spiritual hunger and just the normal psychological desire for religion?

Desire for religion is more about wanting to follow something, and be part of a group. Spiritual hunger is when you ask is there more, and in your gut you feel there is something more. When you cannot be satisfied by your ordinary day to day interactions and understandings. Hard to explain unless you have felt it. Some say it's like a black hungry hole in you that just cannot be satisfied.

Isn't that just the normal human condition?


In addition how do you determine what is the true religion?

I'm not real big on religion per se, i mean its fine as a means to an end, but I'm talking faith in God. I don't really care too much if some religion is true, we just do our best in this stuff.

Okay, how do you know what is the best angle of approach to God... or even if God exists?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:41:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:36:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Hehe, okay.
I'm quite serious.



But if you insist then I'd simply ask them that if God wiped their memory, what facts or clues would lead them back to faith.
Spiritual hunger.


Desire for religion is more about wanting to follow something, and be part of a group. Spiritual hunger is when you ask is there more, and in your gut you feel there is something more. When you cannot be satisfied by your ordinary day to day interactions and understandings. Hard to explain unless you have felt it. Some say it's like a black hungry hole in you that just cannot be satisfied.

Isn't that just the normal human condition?

Yes it is. Your point?


In addition how do you determine what is the true religion?

I'm not real big on religion per se, i mean its fine as a means to an end, but I'm talking faith in God. I don't really care too much if some religion is true, we just do our best in this stuff.

Okay, how do you know what is the best angle of approach to God... or even if God exists?

By looking at yourself without fear, and with complete honesty (or as much as possible). By finding your imperfections, an honest acceptance of the imperfections of who you are, you can approach God.

but wait, you are supposed to bring me to you.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:43:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe?

I have different strategies depending on if I'm dealing with a fundamentalist or someone sophisticated. I might use these arguments to start.

The existence of the God of classical theism (i.e. an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God) is improbable on both evidential and a priori grounds. This assertion is supported by two basic contentions. Firstly, the suffering resultant from animal predation and natural selection are much better explained under naturalism than theism. Secondly, the hiddenness of God and the weak evidence surrounding theism actually represents the foundation of a strong atheistic proof. When these arguments are combined and viewed in light of the absence of evidence for God, they provide a strong cumulative case for atheism.

C1: The Evidential Argument From Evil

The predictive power of metaphysical naturalism to account for natural evils makes atheism objectively more likely to be true than theism. Consider, for instance, the clumsiness with which evolution has assembled all living organisms. The development of life on Earth was engineered by natural selection – a mechanism that has left 99.9 percent of all of the species that have ever lived on Earth extinct. [1] Likewise, the struggle for survival in nature guarantees that most animals will suffer horribly as they get outcompeted for resources and die from lack of sustenance or from being eaten. In a very real way, evolution is advanced by the grinding of teeth upon bone. And even if a creature can avoid being preyed upon, they will still suffer and languish in their old age. Of course, all of this suffering is much more likely to occur given naturalism than it is given theism. Thus, all things being equal, naturalism is a much better and more parsimonious hypothesis than theism.

Paul Draper takes this theme and uses it to create his version of an argument from evil. It is slightly divergent from other arguments from evil, but it still touches upon the same key points. And he bases his argument on the following evidence statement:

E: For a variety of biological and ecological reasons, organisms compete for survival, with some having an advantage in the struggle for survival over others; as a result, many organisms, including many sentient beings, never flourish because they die before maturity, many others barely survive but languish for most or all of their lives, and those that reach maturity and flourish for much of their lives usually languish in old age; in the case of human beings and some nonhuman animals as well, languishing often involves intense or prolonged suffering.

P1: We know that E is true.
P2: Naturalism has much more predictive power with respect to E than theism does (i.e., E's truth is antecedently many times more probable given naturalism than it is given theism).
P3: Naturalism is more plausible than theism (i.e., naturalism is more probable than theism independent of all evidence).
C: So, other evidence held equal, theism is very probably false. (Draper [2])

Naturalism is, by its very nature, a simpler hypothesis than theism, and it has at least the same explanatory scope as theism (i.e. there is no observable phenomena which must necessarily be subject to a supernatural explanation). Ergo, the weight of the evidence regarding evil points strongly to naturalism, which if true entails that theism is false. While it is possible that a God – for reasons unbeknownst to humans – has morally sufficient reasons for allowing such a barbaric system of creation: it is highly unlikely given the predictive power of naturalism to account for natural evils. In light of this data, theism is very likely to be false.

C2: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness

The hiddenness of God from human perception provides strong grounds to suppose that the God of theism isn't actually real. For example, if God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. Therefore, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. In other words, the central concepts about God's nature necessarily entail a contradiction. Logically, it then follows that God cannot exist since his properties are irreconcilable.

John Schellenberg was one of the original pioneers behind the argument from divine hiddenness. And he surmises this argument in the following syllogism:

P1: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
P2: No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
P3: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
P4: It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden.
P5: It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
P6: If God exists, God is perfectly loving.
C: It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6). (Schellenberg [3])

Of course, there are some who argue that free will would be compromised if every single person actually did believe in God. But this objection cannot be valid – for there are certainly ways in which an omnipotent God could reveal himself to the world so that every person capable of believing in him actually did believe in him. Surely, a sufficiently persuasive display of magical powers from a deity would be enough to convince any skeptic. As a result, God's failure to reveal himself clearly and unambiguously provides strong grounds to conclude that He isn't real.

Conclusion::

Given the paucity of evidence for theism and the strong evidential grounds for atheism, the God hypothesis is simply untenable. As was demonstrated earlier, naturalism has more predictive power than theism in accounting for evils that can be found in nature. Consequently, the occurrence of natural evils makes it reasonable to doubt the truth of theism. Likewise, the hiddenness of God provides an equally compelling reason to suppose that the God of theism doesn't exist. Given the current evidence, if a theistic God did exist, then that God wants us to believe in him based almost entirely on faith. Unfortunately, this faith based system leads billions of different people to have radically divergent beliefs about God. But this whole scenario just can't be right - for it is a very strange sort of loving God, indeed, that would set up an arbitrary salvation scheme in which an accident of a person's birth would largely determine their fate for eternity. Therefore, on balance, the weight of the evidence leans heavily in favor of the proposition that God isn't real.

Sources:
1. The Earth's history of mass extinctions [A-B]
A. http://www.lassp.cornell.edu...
B. Raup, David M. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991. (pp. 3-6) http://books.google.com...
2. http://www.infidels.org...
3. http://www.infidels.org...
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:47:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:43:24 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe?

I have different strategies depending on if I'm dealing with a fundamentalist or someone sophisticated. I might use these arguments to start.

The existence of the God of classical theism (i.e. an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God) is improbable on both evidential and a priori grounds. This assertion is supported by two basic contentions. Firstly, the suffering resultant from animal predation and natural selection are much better explained under naturalism than theism. Secondly, the hiddenness of God and the weak evidence surrounding theism actually represents the foundation of a strong atheistic proof. When these arguments are combined and viewed in light of the absence of evidence for God, they provide a strong cumulative case for atheism.

C1: The Evidential Argument From Evil

The predictive power of metaphysical naturalism to account for natural evils makes atheism objectively more likely to be true than theism. Consider, for instance, the clumsiness with which evolution has assembled all living organisms. The development of life on Earth was engineered by natural selection – a mechanism that has left 99.9 percent of all of the species that have ever lived on Earth extinct. [1] Likewise, the struggle for survival in nature guarantees that most animals will suffer horribly as they get outcompeted for resources and die from lack of sustenance or from being eaten. In a very real way, evolution is advanced by the grinding of teeth upon bone. And even if a creature can avoid being preyed upon, they will still suffer and languish in their old age. Of course, all of this suffering is much more likely to occur given naturalism than it is given theism. Thus, all things being equal, naturalism is a much better and more parsimonious hypothesis than theism.

Paul Draper takes this theme and uses it to create his version of an argument from evil. It is slightly divergent from other arguments from evil, but it still touches upon the same key points. And he bases his argument on the following evidence statement:

E: For a variety of biological and ecological reasons, organisms compete for survival, with some having an advantage in the struggle for survival over others; as a result, many organisms, including many sentient beings, never flourish because they die before maturity, many others barely survive but languish for most or all of their lives, and those that reach maturity and flourish for much of their lives usually languish in old age; in the case of human beings and some nonhuman animals as well, languishing often involves intense or prolonged suffering.

P1: We know that E is true.
P2: Naturalism has much more predictive power with respect to E than theism does (i.e., E's truth is antecedently many times more probable given naturalism than it is given theism).
P3: Naturalism is more plausible than theism (i.e., naturalism is more probable than theism independent of all evidence).
C: So, other evidence held equal, theism is very probably false. (Draper [2])

Naturalism is, by its very nature, a simpler hypothesis than theism, and it has at least the same explanatory scope as theism (i.e. there is no observable phenomena which must necessarily be subject to a supernatural explanation). Ergo, the weight of the evidence regarding evil points strongly to naturalism, which if true entails that theism is false. While it is possible that a God – for reasons unbeknownst to humans – has morally sufficient reasons for allowing such a barbaric system of creation: it is highly unlikely given the predictive power of naturalism to account for natural evils. In light of this data, theism is very likely to be false.

C2: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness


The hiddenness of God from human perception provides strong grounds to suppose that the God of theism isn't actually real. For example, if God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. Therefore, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. In other words, the central concepts about God's nature necessarily entail a contradiction. Logically, it then follows that God cannot exist since his properties are irreconcilable.

John Schellenberg was one of the original pioneers behind the argument from divine hiddenness. And he surmises this argument in the following syllogism:

P1: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
P2: No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
P3: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
P4: It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden.
P5: It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
P6: If God exists, God is perfectly loving.
C: It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6). (Schellenberg [3])

Of course, there are some who argue that free will would be compromised if every single person actually did believe in God. But this objection cannot be valid – for there are certainly ways in which an omnipotent God could reveal himself to the world so that every person capable of believing in him actually did believe in him. Surely, a sufficiently persuasive display of magical powers from a deity would be enough to convince any skeptic. As a result, God's failure to reveal himself clearly and unambiguously provides strong grounds to conclude that He isn't real.

Conclusion::

Given the paucity of evidence for theism and the strong evidential grounds for atheism, the God hypothesis is simply untenable. As was demonstrated earlier, naturalism has more predictive power than theism in accounting for evils that can be found in nature. Consequently, the occurrence of natural evils makes it reasonable to doubt the truth of theism. Likewise, the hiddenness of God provides an equally compelling reason to suppose that the God of theism doesn't exist. Given the current evidence, if a theistic God did exist, then that God wants us to believe in him based almost entirely on faith. Unfortunately, this faith based system leads billions of different people to have radically divergent beliefs about God. But this whole scenario just can't be right - for it is a very strange sort of loving God, indeed, that would set up an arbitrary salvation scheme in which an accident of a person's birth would largely determine their fate for eternity. Therefore, on balance, the weight of the evidence leans heavily in favor of the proposition that God isn't real.

Here's a career tip: don't go into sales. I wouldn't mind debating you on certain aspects of your approach, but this would persuade no person of faith, just create an argument.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 11:53:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:47:19 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:43:24 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe?

I have different strategies depending on if I'm dealing with a fundamentalist or someone sophisticated. I might use these arguments to start.


Here's a career tip: don't go into sales. I wouldn't mind debating you on certain aspects of your approach, but this would persuade no person of faith, just create an argument.

I bet you're wrong.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 12:07:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 11:53:46 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:47:19 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:43:24 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe?

I have different strategies depending on if I'm dealing with a fundamentalist or someone sophisticated. I might use these arguments to start.


Here's a career tip: don't go into sales. I wouldn't mind debating you on certain aspects of your approach, but this would persuade no person of faith, just create an argument.

I bet you're wrong.

I've been a salesman for a long time, so let's just say you need to modify your approach.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 12:18:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 12:10:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
Do you consider abolishing your faith, or do you want to see how much the arguments of atheists can affect your belief?

Atheists have already affected my belief system. In everything there is purpose. I am grateful to atheists for helping me test my faith and show me some of the silliness of my earlier doctrine. No, i don't think that i am considering any sort of abolition of faith on my part, but rather am seeking a greater understanding of what benefits lie in atheism for atheists.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 12:48:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 12:07:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:53:46 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:47:19 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:43:24 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/11/2010 11:03:52 AM, innomen wrote:
So, to the atheists, how would you persuade a person of faith that they should abandon what they believe?

I have different strategies depending on if I'm dealing with a fundamentalist or someone sophisticated. I might use these arguments to start.


Here's a career tip: don't go into sales. I wouldn't mind debating you on certain aspects of your approach, but this would persuade no person of faith, just create an argument.

I bet you're wrong.

I've been a salesman for a long time, so let's just say you need to modify your approach.

Well... Like I said, I adopt a different strategy depending on who I am talking to. I generally don't try to speak or write like an aspiring academic philosopher when I'm dealing with evangelical Christians.

When I am dealing with fundamentalists, I just use the Socratic method. Basically, I just keep asking them questions until I can get them to contradict themselves.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 1:10:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I do not envy faith. It's the largest disease to human progress in existence. I'd probably start off by saying how the very concept of faith is illogical.
I don't actually have any beliefs what so ever. Just ideas.
Which is why I seem to change my mind so often.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 1:12:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 1:10:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I do not envy faith. It's the largest disease to human progress in existence. I'd probably start off by saying how the very concept of faith is illogical.
I don't actually have any beliefs what so ever. Just ideas.
Which is why I seem to change my mind so often.

Ridiculous. You have no belief in yourself?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 1:12:06 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 1:10:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I do not envy faith. It's the largest disease to human progress in existence. I'd probably start off by saying how the very concept of faith is illogical.
I don't actually have any beliefs what so ever. Just ideas.
Which is why I seem to change my mind so often.

Ridiculous. You have no belief in yourself?

??

what do you mean?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:07:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 1:59:23 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Ridiculous. You have no belief in yourself?

??

what do you mean?

No one can operate a normal life without believing in something. You must have some faith in your own ability and intellect or else you'd be a quivering mess. Most atheists here have some belief in themselves at least to some extent (most to a huge extent). To say you have no belief, perhaps in a formalized ideologically categorized way, but trust me, they have some belief.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:10:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:07:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 1:59:23 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Ridiculous. You have no belief in yourself?

??

what do you mean?

No one can operate a normal life without believing in something. You must have some faith in your own ability and intellect or else you'd be a quivering mess. Most atheists here have some belief in themselves at least to some extent (most to a huge extent). To say you have no belief, perhaps in a formalized ideologically categorized way, but trust me, they have some belief.

see... but there's at least two meanings of Belief floating around here.

Belief like: I BELIEVE that I exist...

and belief like: I BELIEVE IN YOU... I BELIEVE in ME
like some kind of a belief in your inherent/spiritual righteousness and ability.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:15:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have opinions... those opinions are mine.

I act upon them b/c I care to.

I don't think what I think is Necessarily the way things ARE...

I don't have such Faith.

But what I think IS what I think... and I act on it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:16:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:10:28 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:07:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 1:59:23 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Ridiculous. You have no belief in yourself?

??

what do you mean?

No one can operate a normal life without believing in something. You must have some faith in your own ability and intellect or else you'd be a quivering mess. Most atheists here have some belief in themselves at least to some extent (most to a huge extent). To say you have no belief, perhaps in a formalized ideologically categorized way, but trust me, they have some belief.

see... but there's at least two meanings of Belief floating around here.

Belief like: I BELIEVE that I exist...

and belief like: I BELIEVE IN YOU... I BELIEVE in ME
like some kind of a belief in your inherent/spiritual righteousness and ability.

I'm fairly certain in this context we are not referring to I believe in as a cognitive understanding, but rather "i believe" a in i have faith in. As i said, most atheists believe in themselves, have faith in themselves.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:17:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:15:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have opinions... those opinions are mine.

I act upon them b/c I care to.

I don't think what I think is Necessarily the way things ARE...

I don't have such Faith.

But what I think IS what I think... and I act on it.

Do you have confidence?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:19:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:17:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:15:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have opinions... those opinions are mine.

I act upon them b/c I care to.

I don't think what I think is Necessarily the way things ARE...

I don't have such Faith.

But what I think IS what I think... and I act on it.

Do you have confidence?

lol... sure.

It would appear I'm pretty good at some things.
and I think I am competent enough to pick up new things fairly well.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:23:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:19:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:17:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:15:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have opinions... those opinions are mine.

I act upon them b/c I care to.

I don't think what I think is Necessarily the way things ARE...

I don't have such Faith.

But what I think IS what I think... and I act on it.

Do you have confidence?

lol... sure.

It would appear I'm pretty good at some things.
and I think I am competent enough to pick up new things fairly well.

Will you take calculated risks as a result of that?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:24:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:23:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:19:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:17:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:15:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have opinions... those opinions are mine.

I act upon them b/c I care to.

I don't think what I think is Necessarily the way things ARE...

I don't have such Faith.

But what I think IS what I think... and I act on it.

Do you have confidence?

lol... sure.

It would appear I'm pretty good at some things.
and I think I am competent enough to pick up new things fairly well.

Will you take calculated risks as a result of that?

sure.

(don't tell me God's a calculated risk)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:27:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:24:55 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:23:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:19:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:17:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:15:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I have opinions... those opinions are mine.

I act upon them b/c I care to.

I don't think what I think is Necessarily the way things ARE...

I don't have such Faith.

But what I think IS what I think... and I act on it.

Do you have confidence?

lol... sure.

It would appear I'm pretty good at some things.
and I think I am competent enough to pick up new things fairly well.

Will you take calculated risks as a result of that?

sure.

(don't tell me God's a calculated risk)

No no, i'm telling you that you have faith in yourself. It's not a bad thing, unless its absurdly so. Everyone believes in something, and usually a few things. Are you in a relationship (don't need to answer if you don't want to).