Atheist conversion

[rvilbig]

rvilbig: Well, assuming we treat evolution as a metaphorical term and apply it to ideas, yes, Christianity – and religion in general – is a very effective meme that succeeds in self-propogating.

But the question of whether an idea can survive in an environment is a different question than whether or not an idea is true. Anti-Semitism existed (and still exists) for a very long time among widely diverse groups of people…that’s not an indication that it is true.

According to Saint Teresia Benedicta’s (who herself was victim of the anti-semitic Nazi regime) theory of culture, Catholics must continue to work to demonstrate the fitness of their religion:

“The ’core’ of a community, from which its character is shaped and which guarantees its enduring being - this is what the carriers of the communal life are, insofar as their personal being is devoted to the community. The more carriers a community has to support it, and the further their devotion to it extends, the more secure its substance and the more assured its outward demeanor.” (Philosophy of Psychology and Humanities, p. 281).

Personally, I think that the current state of Catholicism already demonstrates the “security of its substance” and “assurance of its demeanor,” but that does not mean that we don’t need to continue to work for the propagation of the faith. We all have to contribute to the building up of the church. Fortunately though, scripture assures us that our efforts are not in vain, and that Christianity will differentially thrive compared to the surrounding pagan cultures:

“[The faithful] are like a tree planted near streams of water, that yields its fruit in season; Its leaves never wither; whatever they do prospers. But not the wicked! They are like chaff driven by the wind.” (Psalm 1:3-4)

The theory of cultural evolution provides a useful language for describing the relative success of different religions, and can’t exclude any categorically as being a true or false religion. Nonetheless the sheer size of Christianity stands as a poignant testimony to its preponderance.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[AntiTheist]

jam:

Your opinion is just as subjective as the people you point the finger at.

So is that a no, you can’t name even one example of personal, subjective feelings or emotions being reliable indicators of the world outside of a person’s head?

All you have left is this weak cry, “everything’s subjective! It’s all what you want to have faith in.” No, it’s not. Not everyone’s opinion is equal or equally based on faith, feelings, and random guesswork. Some of us actually form opinions by measuring our thoughts about the external world to evidence drawn from the external world.

Shannon:

what it would take for Mr. Dawkins to have that type of conversion experience.

Well, I don’t know, but I presume an all-knowing god would know exactly what kind of evidence Dawkins would require. It’s a wonder that this god hasn’t done so yet, since he apparently is in the business of giving conversion experiences to random atheists who don’t have the influence of Dawkins.

 

[AntiTheist]

As I have repeatedly stated, there are things within our reality whose existence cannot be proven through the scientific method. Therefore, the scientific method cannot be the sole means for discerning truth. Do things that exist provide evidence? Yes. Can all evidence be measured, quantified and subjected to repeated experimentation, which is what the scientific method entails? No. And in terms of empirical evidence, does its presence always clearly reveal the origins of the evidence? No. And even if the scientific method can tell us what something is, can it always tell us what something is for? No. So once again, as great as the scientific method is, it has its limitations.

 

[AntiTheist]

Continued…

I believe that God affects the universe in ways that are measurable and immeasurable. But the mere presence of evidence is not enough to conclude his existence. For example, let us say that there is a drought and a farmer prays for rain. After he prays, a thunderstorm happens and his crops are saved. So the farmer says, “It was God”, and the fact that the storm happened after his prayer gives him a belief based on the simple principle of cause and effect. But the meteorologist on TV says, “It was weather patterns”, and the meteorologist can likewise cite cause and effect, but from a scientific viewpoint. If God exists and if he, indeed, created the thunderstorm in response to the prayer, then he impacted the physical universe in a measurable way (because the formation of a thunderstorm is measurable). But the explanations of the cause of the thunderstorm are open to debate. If a skeptic wants to go with the meteorologist’s account then obviously he has a rational reason for doing so. But if the farmer wants to keep praying to God then he has a rational reason for doing so as well.

Ah, here we go. I know that you just admitted that this so-called “evidence” does not demonstrate that a god exists, but I want to spell it out for some of our readers:

Both of these characters – the meteorologist and the farmer – indeed have reasons to do what they’re doing. Just about everyone comes up with reasons for doing the things that they do. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about whether gods exist or not.

We know that weather patterns exist and cause storms – we can observe them doing so, and we can collect data that indicates that this is the case. But prayer…?

I totally agree that it is a rational argument to make a syllogism that goes 1) I prayed to god for X to happen; 2) X happened; 3) therefore god is real.

It’s an invalid argument that doesn’t work, but it’s an argument.

Watch, I’ll demonstrate that it’s invalid: 1) I did a rain dance for the rain to fall. 2) It rained. 3) Therefore, rain dances cause rain.

It’s an invalid argument. Just because it happened to rain right after you did a rain dance doesn’t at all demonstrate that the rain dance had anything to do with it raining. Now, if you could do a large number of repetition of tests in which you did lots of rain dances all over the country, with control groups (maybe have some people do a different, false rain dance), and could demonstrate a statistically significant higher rate of rainfall in areas that used the proper rain dance, then you’d really be on to something! [Remember, questions of causality have to do with the world outside of our heads, so evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads is essential]

So do it with prayer. Have Christians pray for thunderstorms all over the country. Have a couple of groups of Hindus randomly praying to their gods in a few places as well so that you have a control group. Do it over very long periods of time. Measure the results. I’ll bet you that the results will be well within the average statistical variance of rainfall for the area in which the “experiments” are conducted.

And that’s because statistics – unlike some other things I could mention – are real.

And with that, I think that it is good to keep in mind that all I’ve been saying in this discussion is to recommend that people accept the limitations of what the scientific method can do.

And I agree. I certainly wouldn’t want to use science to determine how I feel. But I also most certainly would not want to use how I feel to determine what is or is not likely to be true about the world outside of my head.

Now, to be fair, you’ve been perfectly pleasant and reasonable in this discussion, and I bear you no ill-will. A confusion of terminology has made us take longer than usual to get to the inevitable stopping point of all of these discussions: there’s no good evidence for the existence of gods, and religious people just believe because they want to or because they’ve had some deep and meaningful experience that’s indistinguishable from a really pleasant daydream infused with the mythology of their childhood (or at least a mythology they find cool).

 

[EricFilmer]

I totally agree that it is a rational argument to make a syllogism that goes 1) I prayed to god for X to happen; 2) X happened; 3) therefore god is real.

It’s an invalid argument that doesn’t work, but it’s an argument.

Watch, I’ll demonstrate that it’s invalid: 1) I did a rain dance for the rain to fall. 2) It rained. 3) Therefore, rain dances cause rain.

It’s an invalid argument. Just because it happened to rain right after you did a rain dance doesn’t at all demonstrate that the rain dance had anything to do with it raining.

I agree. I called it a weak argument and you called it invalid, but the point is the same. Even if the statement is true, 3 does not necessarily flow from 1 due to a range of other plausible explanations. In terms of scientific inquiry, all the statement can do is serve as a hypothesis for further examination under a variety of controlled conditions, such as what you then suggested.

So do it with prayer. Have Christians pray for thunderstorms all over the country. Have a couple of groups of Hindus randomly praying to their gods in a few places as well so that you have a control group. Do it over very long periods of time. Measure the results. I’ll bet you that the results will be well within the average statistical variance of rainfall for the area in which the “experiments” are conducted.

And that’s because statistics – unlike some other things I could mention – are real.

This is an interesting concept, but what if rain did increase in conjunction with Christian prayer? I agree that your suggestion is one way of testing the hypothesis in a scientific method (so I am not criticzing your suggestion), but I doubt if the results would really convince anybody except as an affirmation to the group who got wet. The other religions would probably explain it away (“God is using this as a test of our faith”) and atheists could say that, at best, the statistics suggest a correlation between prayer and rain, but this does not prove the existence of God. It could still be random chance. And proponents of psychic ability could suggest that to be the cause for the rainfall rather than God.

But that’s just me pondering this idea further. Once again, I have no objection to your statement concerning the faultiness of the farmer’s logic in my earlier example. What serves for credible belief on a personal level may not actually be true, and even if true it may not be applicable beyond a personal level.

Now, to be fair, you’ve been perfectly pleasant and reasonable in this discussion, and I bear you no ill-will.

I appreciate that, and I likewise bear you no ill will.

A confusion of terminology has made us take longer than usual to get to the inevitable stopping point of all of these discussions: there’s no good evidence for the existence of gods, and religious people just believe because they want to or because they’ve had some deep and meaningful experience that’s indistinguishable from a really pleasant daydream infused with the mythology of their childhood (or at least a mythology they find cool).

You comment associating religion with daydreams has suddenly led me down the road to true enlightenment. Based on my own personal experience, I can give to this discussion concrete, conclusive evidence in the existence of a divine being: Jennifer Lopez.

(And I hope that that sounded more like the dumb joke I intended rather than a sarcastic comment - expressing humor in text can be a tricky thing)

 

[rpp]

{edit}
In Post #86 rpp spoke of his evidence for the existence of God. Does his description of a mystical experience count as credible evidence for others to believe in the existence of God? Obviously not. After all, you’re not convinced are you? And if I were an atheist it would not convince me either. I am not saying that the concept of personal testimony lacks any value (so I appreciate rpp’s comments and therefore I am not criticizing him). However, I will say that rpp has a credible reason for believing in God, even if his experience does not provide evidence that can be credibly shared with others.

This is true. Personal experiences are difficult to express in any kind of believeale way to others. I can only say that those who knew me before my conversion have observed the dramaic change my life has take. Not that I was a bad guy or anything, I was not not. I have never been into drugs, booze, crime., etc. But I was into women and profanity, bith of which vanished instantly. This noticeable change in me got their attention and a few people have also made some changes to serve and honor God. Whether these changes were a result of the changes they observed in me I cannot say. I will say this. My dedicated atheist friends instantly abandonded, one even tried to get me committed to a mental institution on the sole basis that belief in God is proof of dangerous mental illness. Those friends who were not atheists, had their faith strengthened. My (former) muslim friends abandoned me as well.

 

[AntiTheist]

This is an interesting concept, but what if rain did increase in conjunction with Christian prayer? I agree that your suggestion is one way of testing the hypothesis in a scientific method (so I am not criticzing your suggestion), but I doubt if the results would really convince anybody except as an affirmation to the group who got wet. The other religions would probably explain it away (“God is using this as a test of our faith”) and atheists could say that, at best, the statistics suggest a correlation between prayer and rain, but this does not prove the existence of God. It could still be random chance. And proponents of psychic ability could suggest that to be the cause for the rainfall rather than God.

Certainly, if rainfalls dramatically increased in these areas, it wouldn’t conclusively demonstrate that god exists…but what an incredible discovery this would be and an amazing jumping off point for further research.

Imagine if the act of human beings sitting down and quietly intoning prayers could actually increase to a stastically significant degree the amount of rainfall in a given area – and maybe even drastically alter weather patterns only in the areas where prayers were conducted (and not in the surrounding areas!). This would be, probably, the most incredible discovery ever.

First of all, there would be nobel prizes all around and tons of government grant money to study this phenomenon further. Does it only work when praying to a specific deity? To any deity? To any concept the praying folks hold in reverence?

How long do they have to pray for? How often? What’s the minimal amount of prayer they have to conduct? Does simply thinking hard about their desire (a la “The Secret”) have an equal result?

I’m not trying to be funny here…these are a small sample of the serious research work that would have to be launched if anyone could ever actually demonstrate that prayer has a real effect on the world. Sure, it wouldn’t prove that gods exist – but it would at least start making some of those god claims a lot more plausible…and if you could start demonstrating that only one religion had effective prayers, the evidence would start to mount.

If these prayers only worked to a statistically significant degree when they were conducted by members of a single religion, and/or only when praying to a specific deity, it would really, really, really start looking like there’s something special about this one religion and/or this one deity.

But let’s flip it around: let’s say that all these prayers happen, and the weather is perfectly within the variation we would expect from its natural pattern. If praying to god(s) produces the exact same effects as we would get if no one prayed to god(s), then it’s exactly the same as no one praying. It’s exactly as if no gods exist.

And that’s my point: none of these supernatural things – whether gods or psychic powers or ghosts or anything else – appear to have any discernable effect on the world outside of our heads. In what sense, then, do people claim that these things “exist” (assuming that things that exist outside of people’s heads affect the world outside of people’s heads in some actual way)?

You comment associating religion with daydreams has suddenly led me down the road to true enlightenment. Based on my own personal experience, I can give to this discussion concrete, conclusive evidence in the existence of a divine being: Jennifer Lopez.

Well, at least you’re looking in the right direction. I’ve always had an intuitive feeling that there’s something to the “divine feminine” idea. Something Jungian, maybe…

 

[Shannon9791]

Shannon: Well, I don’t know, but I presume an all-knowing god would know exactly what kind of evidence Dawkins would require. It’s a wonder that this god hasn’t done so yet, since he apparently is in the business of giving conversion experiences to random atheists who don’t have the influence of Dawkins.

But you left the first part of my question unanswered and dove right into the God bashing. One can recount the events in their lives and consider if those things happened “seredipitously” for lack of a better word, of if those things can be quantified. God may have already tried to knock Dr. Dawkins on his backside in an attempt to get him to believe, but because he believes the way he does, he just blew that off. I don’t know if that’s happened, I don’t know Dr. Dawkins, but I’d be willing to be that even he’s had something happen in his life that is unexplainable.

I think you miss the point entirely about how we say God works. I would go as far as to say that God is not in the business of tossing out mind blowing conversion experiences. That’s not to say that He doesn’t, I just think their few and far between. It seems to me that if He just went around blowing people’s minds that would violate His nature and take away people’s free will. If Jesus rode down on a cloud tomorrow, landed in your driveway and slapped you across the face til you agreed to believe in Him that wouldn’t exactly be considered free will, but more like mafia style coercion. God wants us to seek Him and come to our conclusions regarding our findings.

 

[jam070406]

All you have left is this weak cry, “everything’s subjective! It’s all what you want to have faith in.” No, it’s not. Not everyone’s opinion is equal or equally based on faith, feelings, and random guesswork. Some of us actually form opinions by measuring our thoughts about the external world to evidence drawn from the external world.

Really? Have you personally done every single scientific experiment known to man to verify it is true? Sorry, you are putting faith in other people to believe what you want to believe and what you* feel *may be right. So quit calling the kettle black and just admit there is a phenomenom all around you that you cannot explain. To just dismiss it does not prove the opinons of this phenomenom in your head are correct. There are BILLIONS in the world outside your head that worship a Divine creator. There HAS to be something to that, other than, all these people are just dumb or brainwashed and you’re so much smarter.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)