God Bless,

David

I’d keep my eye on prophecy. Strain out some solid statistical facts about what is our future, and when enough of it has happened, less doubt should be involved.

…and read the Christ Clone trilogy… just because it’s awesome reading if nothing else.

….sources of information. Choosing to add the bible to your list of trusted sources (man,
I’m a nerd) is how I define faith. From there, it’s logic. And why shouldn’t I trust it?

It went through many, many carriers…
…but it’s digitally signed, and has one heck of a sturdy checksum embedded. The OT, anyway.

Basically, I would describe that as ‘godkind’ instead of ‘mankind’, which may sound like
blasphemy at first, but if anyone wants KJV references and simple logic behind my putting
it like that, ethana2@gmail.com

People act like the Trinity is all mysterious. You and me are man. The Father and Jesus
are God. We are divided as a race in mind and spirit. They are not.

I also hold faith to be simple, acting on information derived from God’s word. I act on
information I get from my eyes, the internet, my other senses all the time. I trust those

But what were you doing being up at 5.03 am?!!!

Go to bed!

Duncan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion

And of course, “it is not a religious war”.

As for these events, I’m only reluctant to share as I don’t think they will sway you at all and some are quite personal so I’d be reluctant to post them on a public blog.

This seems to just have turned into a two-way conversation. If you check out my contact page I’d be more than happy to talk to you about this by email/IRC/Jabber.

I’m sorry that it is hard being an atheist in the US, it certainly seems that way from the limited information I have heard.

So far you have failed to address any of the arguments I have brought up, nor have you actually told me about this event that you found so convincing. You have repeatedly asserted that you have rational reasons for your beliefs, but besides for two fallacies you have not actually presented any of them. You seem to expect me to just accept your assertions when you have not presented anything to back them up. If you can address my points, please do so. If you are acting in a rational manner, please explain how. I would instantly change my position and offer a heartfelt apology if you were to do this. But I am not just going to take your word for it. I would love to be proven wrong. Being an atheist is not easy in this country. If there are good reasons for belief I would be very happy. Having an afterlife is a comforting thought. But I will not just accept it when someone tells me the reasons exist when he or she will not tell me what these reasons actually are. I expect people to back up their statements. I have tried hard to do so with my own statements and would be more than happy to further defend my position if asked to do so.

You may have been religious your whole life but if, by purely self-analysis, your faith fell to pieces then I might suggest it was grounded in irrationality and not rational thought. I feel you are projecting your own embarrassment into assuming that all religious people feel the same. We do not. I don’t “think” there is a God. There is a God or I and a lot of my friends are mentally ill. We may be mentally ill but we haven’t just decided one day to believe in a magical figure.

If you met some of my friends, religious or not, and me discussed with them you’d find out pretty quickly that I frequently get in trouble because I challenge others preconceptions and I frequently reanalyse and reassess my faith.

You may still think I have blind faith and that I’m an idiot. That is fine, I don’t mind. I’m disappointed I have not been able to explain my faith to a point where you at least respect my decision, although wholly disagreeing. I respect your viewpoint perfectly because I was once in your shoes too. I don’t think either of us are changing the other’s mind on this topic.

This is exactly the problem I described earlier. You are saying they are not explained by science, but all that really means is that you do not have an explanation for them. The fact that you cannot explain them does not mean no explanation exists, either now or sometimes in the future. Drawing the conclusion that science cannot explain the, is to claim that you know every explanation science has and that you cannot be fooled either by yourself or by someone else. Obviously that isn’t the case., nobody knows everything and everyone can be fooled (although scientists are notoriously easy to fool, and I say that even though I am one). That is one of the cases where you are abandoning rationality. The rational conclusion when you cannot explain something is merely that you cannot explain it. Saying that because you cannot explain it then it must be supernatural is irrational and routinely wrong, both historically and still today.

“However, this planet has a great many wise minds and respected scientists who would disagree and also the majority of people on this planet believe in a deity.”

Argument from authority fallacy and argument from popularity fallacy. There is a reason I warned you about fallacies earlier. Smart people have believed wrong things, and the majority of people in the planet have believed wrong things. That does not make such things wrong, but it also does not automatically make them right. What matters is the evidence and arguments used by the two sides.

“Accusing them all of abandoning reason to reach that conclusion shows that you haven’t really talked to many religious people about why they believe.”

I’ve already explain at length how your decision is irrational, but besides invoking some logical fallacies you have not addressed any of my points. I was religious my whole life. About two years ago I started studying the arguments for and against religion. The arguments supporting religion, no matter who they came from, where consistently and often admittedly irrational. None of the supposedly rational reasons I could find held up under the slightest bit of scrutiny. But generally people took the same tact you did, stating that their decision was based on ignoring the rational conclusion and picking the irrational one. Obviously they wouldn’t use those words, but it is really the only way to describe the position they took. I know your position very well, I tried to hold it for many years but it ultimately became impossible. I know your arguments as well, I have seen them all before dozens of times and used them myself many times. Lots of smart people are very good at compartmentalizing, keeping the scientific and rational approaches in most situations but abandoning it when it comes to their beliefs. This is precisely the “two mode” approach you described earlier, but it is an inherently irrational approach as I explained earlier.