Convince and Convert an Atheist

[RandFan]

Regarding the Lewis quote.

I don't think that a sense of justice is something that we are born with. Infants are self centered. They are their world. Their needs and wants come first. When my son was young and we had friends over he refused to share his toys. Later when we went to our friends home my son wanted to play with the other child's toys. Funny thing happened. A light bulb went off in my son's head. It was like when he figured out how to maneuver the chair to the counter to get a cookie. He wanted something and devised a strategy as to how to get it. As to sharing, my son figured out that such a strategy was an equitable way to maximize benefits. Ok, he didn't really see it that deep but he got it at an intuitive level. It works. After that he started thinking in terms of fairness. If you want to borrow your friends things it's only fair to share your things.

How this happens is not complicated at all. Humans have wants. We also are capable of realizing that other humans have wants. From there it is no great leap to develop a sense of fairness. It's a simple process of devising strategies to improve our lives through cooperation. No Deity needed. It's how our brains are wired, not necassarily for fairness but simply to solve problems. Game theory objectively shows us that cooperation is the best strategy to maximize benifits over the long run.

Of course, some people are not born with the ability to understand that other people have wants and desires or they have some degree of limitation in this regard. Autistics are such individuals. They are often, AIU, not very good at devising such strategies.

That said, I really don't get the quote by Lewis. It seems post hoc and a non sequitur. How do you go from justice to god? You first have to assume that god is just. Not all religions believe or have believed that god or gods are just. So it would also seem to beg the question. A lot of fallacies in that quote it seems to me.

In the end, I think justice can be said to be the result of wants and of comparison. "You can't know the sweet unless you have tasted the bitter".

 

[SimonD]

Beanbag, if your interest is genuine, then feel free to PM me and we can have a discussion via that route.

If you are going to converse with RR, be warned, if you ask hard questions he will ignore or insult you.

He is a rude little man

 

[Lonewulf]

If you are going to converse with RR, be warned, if you ask hard questions he will ignore or insult you.

He is a rude little man

Yeah, I got that impression myself, and I'm new here...

 

[Mr Clingford]

Says who? I've "field-tested" a number of variables in my life. Some I've kept, others I've discarded. Data sets are never complete. That's why I am willing to adapt to new information.

Response has been heartwarming, but for the most part the major theme has been "believe, because that's what god wants you to do." With the exception of Darth Rotor, who for whatever reason frequents this thread that he insists is a waste of time, it's stayed on target and intellectually genial.

Beanbag

Let me try again. Say you are aged 20. You have a number of choices of career - it is not possible to let each course run and then try again aged 20. Also say you are interested in 2 women - you can't marry one at 20 and then the other at 50 and say that you and the circumstances are exactly the same. You have to do a 'believe' and step out.

Also, are you a materialist, because if so, you would have no reason to ask why you should start something that you think is in error?

 

[Darth Rotor]

As for missing the point, I was rather making the point that faith should not be something that is judged beyond scientific merit. I'm sorry if your poor reading comprehension/reactionary mindset prevented you from observing such.

Nice oxymoron.

Did you read what you wrote before you hit the "submit reply" button?

Also, nice resort to ad hom.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

But what is present in the in-person encounter that is missing from internet interaction?

You are kidding, right?

Why is the integrity of the witness really important when it's technically God's spirit that imparts faith? (And yet: "Let your light shine before men that they may see the good you do and give glory to God")

How does that cherry pick relate to person to person interaction? Last I checked, RL is what most people live in. RL requires, and is both enhanced by and made troubling by, human interaction in the flesh.

DR

 

[Humphreys]

Did you actually read the quote? It doesn't sound like you did.

So you believe the universe is objectively meaningless?

Great, if the universe is meaningless, the words you have used, which are part of this universe are just as meaningless.

In effect you have really said nothing.

The Universe has no property called "meaning", just like it has no property called "wet" or "dry", these are all creations of our brains.

 

[phildonnia]

You are kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding. It seems very odd if something in the body language is needed to win souls, since
1. The scriptures do not include body language,
2. We have no way of observing the body language of God, Jesus, or the prophets,
3. Professional actors can mimic this stuff pretty easily,
4. Blind people can be converted (I would assume),
etc.

 

[Tony]

Sorry, you're dangling the wrong bait. A well-equipped machine shop, limitless stock to machine with, and a decent level of intellectual conversation would make me consider signing on.

I'm still developing my theology.

 

[Jekyll]

No, I'm not kidding. It seems very odd if something in the body language is needed to win souls, since
1. The scriptures do not include body language,
2. We have no way of observing the body language of God, Jesus, or the prophets,
3. Professional actors can mimic this stuff pretty easily,
4. Blind people can be converted (I would assume),
etc.

However:
1) Arguments put forward tend to get buried under objections from all sides.
2)The conversation gets side tracked all the time (we're now having a meta discussion )
3)There is very little feedback to see how ideas are being received and which avenues should be followed.
4) Derren Brown type mind control doesn't work over the internet, unless your PIN is 8654.

I was talking to one of the guys from my department about religion while we were waiting for a bus and on the internet, I'm sure, it would have deteriorated into a deitist vs. atheist slanging match that would have lasted 3 days. Instead it turns out that we believe basically the same thing, it's just that he'd rather use the word god when I wouldn't, to represent nature / the universe / what ever.

 

[Lonewulf]

I was talking to one of the guys from my department about religion while we were waiting for a bus and on the internet, I'm sure, it would have deteriorated into a deitist vs. atheist slanging match that would have lasted 3 days. Instead it turns out that we believe basically the same thing, it's just that he'd rather use the word god when I wouldn't, to represent nature / the universe / what ever.

Dawkins refers to that as an Einsteinien type of atheism; it sounds religious, when it really is not.

 

[Beanbag]

As a former technical telephone support person, and a direct, face-to-face customer support rep, I can tell you that (most) people are more polite and respectful when they are in the same room and within touching distance. When insulated by a technological barrier (telephone, internet, etc.), the social restraints such as respect and politeness go away. I have been repeatedly insulted and chewed out while handling relatively trivial matters over the phone, whereas I've never been griped out or mistreated when I had to deal with an irate customer in person (we're talking high-end expensive watches here, where $2k USD is considered a cheap watch). It might have something to do with the fact that my whole body language and demeanor projects that I really DO give a rat's patootie and will do everything within my influence to take care of the problem. It can be seen, whereas over the phone, all they have to work on is tone of voice and whatever the words might be. Internet, it's even worse. No tone at all, just words and whatever emoticons are available.

The most successful evangelists are the ones with presence. It's one thing to read a sermon from a revival meeting, compared with actually being there and seeing the delivery.

Beanbag.

 

[Beanbag]

If you are going to converse with RR, be warned, if you ask hard questions he will ignore or insult you.

He is a rude little man

For now, I'm keeping things public. Thank you for your advice. Sometimes, though, hard questions get hard answers.

If you ask a man for bread and he gives you a serpent, it may be that he only has serpents to give, and his gift is therefore a blessing.
(Loosely paraphrased from Gibran).

Beanbag

 

[Beanbag]

Also, are you a materialist, because if so, you would have no reason to ask why you should start something that you think is in error?

My personal philosophy is that the process of "growing up" is earning the right to make your own mistakes. If I was truly worried about making a mistake, I'd be paralyzed, unable to commit to even the smallest detail in fear that it might set off a cascade of disasters.

One of the more delightful experiences I have in life is discovering I've been "wrong." Some decision or opinion I've formed doesn't pan out. It's irritating at times, like when I discover a judgment call I made didn't give the desired result and I have to redo something; however, I learned something.

Beanbag

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Nice oxymoron.

Very well, I'll clarify it. I was not missing your point, rather making an entirely different one, as explained above.

Did you read what you wrote before you hit the "submit reply" button?

Yes.

Also, nice resort to ad hom.

DR

Which is the point, and of course, you and your ilk aren't even clever enough to look up into the sky and watch it sail over your heads.

Thanks, yours, too.

ETA: I apologize for the reading comprehension bit of that last post. It was wrong of me. I believe, though, that your own inflammatory diction is in part responsible. As for reactionary tendencies, you have, in fact, exhibited them towards the non-religious, and that is a relevant part of the discussion at hand.

Also, in my initial post, I fully understood what you were saying regarding the inapplicability of argument. I therefore asked what it was, precisely, that made personal testimony, or witnessing, or whatever you want to call it more effective than argument. You have not, to date, answered that question, save through a scathing line of the ad hominem you condemn.

 

[jimecallaw]

I'll try to take up the original challenge of this post.

It seems clear that religious people and scientists are really both trying to do the same thing, make sense of the universe around them.

I could create an ant farm with one way mirrors and observe the Ants therein. If the Ants inside the farm took separate views, it would be likely that the scientific Ants would not suspect my existence, whilst the religious ants might.

In this specific case the scientist ants would be wrong, as their universe did have a creator.

 

[Beanbag]

I'll try to take up the original challenge of this post.

It's not a challenge -- it's an invitation.

Beanbag

 

[RandFan]

4) Derren Brown type mind control doesn't work over the internet, unless your PIN is 8654.

I'm not so sure. Have you seen his telephone stunt where he controls strangers over the phone?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'll try to take up the original challenge of this post.

It seems clear that religious people and scientists are really both trying to do the same thing, make sense of the universe around them.

I could create an ant farm with one way mirrors and observe the Ants therein. If the Ants inside the farm took separate views, it would be likely that the scientific Ants would not suspect my existence, whilst the religious ants might.

In this specific case the scientist ants would be wrong, as their universe did have a creator.

It's fun how in the Elder Scrolls Series, when you run into atheists, how silly they are.

For instance:

"The gods, they don't do anything. You pray and pray and nothing ever happens. Now the daedra, they actually effect reality. Just usually in bad ways; but they still affect it."

Yet if you go into a chapel and pray, not only are you healed or magically boosted, you're also surrounded by this glowing magic thingy. Sure, you might be able to question Creation (I actually have a fantasy world where evolution is how life came about, but there are still gods; yet they claim they created the world, making things confusing!), but as for their existance, you can't really question that. It's even a repeatable experiment... line up good men in front of an altar, and they're surrounded by blue light and get boosted magically. No brainer.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Very well, I'll clarify it. I was not missing your point, rather making an entirely different one, as explained above.


Yes.



Thanks, yours, too.

ETA: I apologize for the reading comprehension bit of that last post. It was wrong of me. I believe, though, that your own inflammatory diction is in part responsible. As for reactionary tendencies, you have, in fact, exhibited them towards the non-religious, and that is a relevant part of the discussion at hand.

Also, in my initial post, I fully understood what you were saying regarding the inapplicability of argument. I therefore asked what it was, precisely, that made personal testimony, or witnessing, or whatever you want to call it more effective than argument. You have not, to date, answered that question, save through a scathing line of the ad hominem you condemn.

Not reactionary, sarcastic and in some cases dismissive. Reactionary is a political descriptive, in which category I do not fit.

The rare JREF anti or non theist who doesn't post from on top of a high horse doesn't get such snide remarks.

No need to apologize to me, Glen. I am fully aware that counter battery fire is due when rounds are sent down range.

Scathing, eh? Glad to see the site line and the targets lined up in a few cases.

Y'all enjoy the thread. It's bound to result in a breakthrough in understanding.

DR