Dannydugster Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 I have a few questions at the end but I suppose I am mostly making this post to vent online instead of at my friends. It just pisses me off that people set up this mind paralyzing doublethink death trap to control other people. I thought it would be easier. I talked to three of my fundie friends yesterday about god, this was at the end of our churches youth conference, at one of the largest and oldest fundamental churches in America. First of all I was surprised by how much they were surprised and second I was surprised how they thought the word "faith" was an answer after they admitted they had no evidence. They would say I just had to have faith. Why? I would ask, You have to have faith," they would repeat. Why? It comes down to faith, they said. "Muslims say the exact same thing, how do they know that they are wrong and you are right?" "They have to have faith," they would say, which would make me so damn frustrated My judgmental friend asked me if I was afraid of death, of course I said yes, and he said that was because I am afraid of hell. So I asked him if he was afraid of death and he said no. I asked him if someone pulled a knife on him if he would run, he said yes. I said he's afraid of death he said no he wants to stay alive to help me because he doesn't want me to go to hell. He also asked me if I knew where the world came from and life and all that and I said no but we can and have investigated those questions scientifically. He said he knew exactly how everything got here because god did it, and some how he expected that to impress me? It was so fucking pathetically silly, and I felt like saying that, thank god I didn't. Statements of total madness that he made like these just blew my mind! I don't understand why it is considered so outside the norm to doubt something that you can't even fucking see! I know it is better if I have patience when talking to them because calling them out could just alienate them, and also it took me years to even recognize my doubts for what they were and then a year to even allow myself to listen to Stef's podcasts on religion, but it is so hard to have patience with them, I think I was more confrontational than I needed to be, especially with the quiet one who admitted he had no evidence and it was to teach people something that had no evidence he said he would still believe it and it seemed like he was being sarcastic because he was smiling the whole time he repeated that even though he had no reason to he was still going to believe it. After he admitted he had no evidence it felt like I was talking to a statue because he wouldn't budge. I suppose it is irrational to expect what took years for me to happen immediately which is why I'm not mad at him and I'm posting this instead. My judgmental friend accused me of not having enough faith and said that I should read at least one book of the Bible for every “evolution” book I read. He said I was doubting because I wasn't reading enough of the Bible. I seriously doubt he knows more about the Bible than I do. I'm going to talk to the understanding one on Saturday at “soul-winning”. I know he will want to talk about it again. But I don't know about my judgmental friend, and the quiet one. The judgmental one doesn't like talking about ideas, he only likes trivia and boring small talk and stupid jokes. He and I became friends after talking about becoming pilots a few years ago. Now flying is not as important and ideas are more important. We'll be going to the Oshkosh airshow together but I don't know if he will want to talk about the metaphysical question of deities, he'll be more concerned for my “soul”. Which is strange, because I was saved at an early age, and he believes you can't lose salvation no matter what, but for some reason he is still concerned. One of my friends, who is perhaps the most traditional non “worldly” friend I have, who I have talked to about ancap principles, at first he defended the state on a biblical basis, but after about two hours realized that it is bad for the government to force people to do things. When my judgmental friend was busy condemning me he actually stopped him and said that he thought I was just searching for answers and that's not a bad thing. Should I try to deconvert my friends or just let them believe what they want? Was it a mistake to bring this up to them? I don't regret it but is there some other reason I shouldn't have talked about it? I don't suppose I included much about my attitude towards them but any advice as to the ideal attitude or even the ideal goals to have in these conversations would be much appreciated. I don't even know what else to ask so just go ahead and give any input you want.
DaVinci Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 I've found it can be difficult to talk to someone who has opinions that are the polar opposite of yours especially when you are talking to multiple people who have the same opinion. The group of people who share the same opinion don't want to single themselves out, even if they might be considering what you are saying in their head, or actually agree with you. They will also back each other up if you make a good point that someone can't respond to, and the person who gets backed up will then thank his friends for finding the words he forgot, and they will thus reinforce each other even more. Look up Group Think for more info on this. There is also the issue that when someone holds a very firm belief it becomes part of their identity. "I'm a good person because of my belief in God!" So when you say that belief might be wrong, or misplaced, that person will take it as an attack on their identity. They probably won't say that, but they are thinking it. So the harder you push, the more they see you attacking their identity, and eventually if cornered they might blow up at you, and call you names and say you are a bad person. As for your friend who is so concerned about your soul even though you are saved, well, that doesn't sound like a friend. That sounds like someone who is trying to play a game of moral positioning with you. "I'm just so concerned for your soul because I'm a caring person who cares about people in trouble. Care care care hearts love" I'm not going to tell you not to hang out with these people, because I don't know all the details of your relationships with them. I will however tell you I spent waaayyyy too much time around people who weren't really my friends. I let people into my life who weren't right for me. I don't do that anymore. Maybe this sounds like a jerk thing to say but I'll be alone before I spend one more second with someone who isn't exactly right for me. 1
A4E Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 You start by saying: "God made our world, but god is a servant, and is the creation of Entirah. Entirah is the supreme creator. All this time you have been worshiping a servant." Then you wait for any combination of: "Where is your evidence of...? / How do you know...? / What are you blabbering about? / Huh? / But this is not in the book, so how...? / What is this, are you ok? / Where are you getting this from? / How can this be true? / (Frowns and walks away) / (rolls eyes) / (inhales and exhales while looking upwards)" And then you bottom line with: "You just have to have faith." The target will finally get it, and you can see the shimmer of a light bulb above his head, and he will pass out for around 10 minutes. When he wakes up he will begin to demand evidence of everything. 2
Will Torbald Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Your friends won't be deconverted, sorry to break it to you like that. I don't think it was a mistake to bring it up, you have to be sure and try it at least once. The pleasure of absolute certainty through fantasy is something they will have to learn to give up themselves. The world is uncertain and chaotic, which is frightening to them. They need a make belief of perfectly perfect order through a god to even function without fear. The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Your friends won't be deconverted, sorry to break it to you like that. I don't think it was a mistake to bring it up, you have to be sure and try it at least once. The pleasure of absolute certainty through fantasy is something they will have to learn to give up themselves. The world is uncertain and chaotic, which is frightening to them. They need a make belief of perfectly perfect order through a god to even function without fear. The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain. What pain are you avoiding in being an atheist? 1 1
shirgall Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Should I try to deconvert my friends or just let them believe what they want? Was it a mistake to bring this up to them? I don't regret it but is there some other reason I shouldn't have talked about it? I don't suppose I included much about my attitude towards them but any advice as to the ideal attitude or even the ideal goals to have in these conversations would be much appreciated. I don't even know what else to ask so just go ahead and give any input you want. Accept that you cannot always reason someone out of a position they have not been reasoned into. If you are going to try anyway, then: You were shooting for something clear and concrete, but your post contains material that detracts from your message. Less adjectives, less metaphors, and simple clear arguments are often the best, and more importantly, they will be far more engaged if you ask them questions and take the time to listen to their answers. You had a good start with comparing their certainty with that of a Muslim, but I think you missed the key element of "How do we decide who is right?" Involve them in the discovery and they will have more ownership of the conclusion. From your description, I felt there was a missing discussion of objectivity. How do you identify someone that doesn't bring their own bias towards answering a question? How do you present your arguments to such a person? How would that person be swayed one way or the other. Now, replace that person with another... do the conclusions change? What if you filled an auditorium with people and presented the same case... which argument would be more compelling? Also, your use of terms like "judgmental" and "madness" should not be in play in such a discussion unless you are portraying drama instead of a debate. Never get called into name-calling if you can help it. Even avoid labels unless it's very clear, understood, and widely agreed that a certain label applies to a situation or person. A4E gave some nice examples of a positing a hypothetical, or playing devil's advocate. This is not as effective, in my experience, as positive claims. (And, part of my personality, they are too tempting to end up as snark coming from me.) The soul discussion can be tough, but it can be interesting to delve into. What is a soul worth to God or the Devil? Why? Why can't you be the owner of your own soul like you can be the owner of your own works and accomplishments? What is the value of a soul to you other than an ephemeral essence that apparently explained consciousness and personality? Is that explanation really valid any more knowing what we do now about the brain and it's functions? There's a George Carlin skit called "Heavy Mystery Time". You and our friends might get a kick out of it: 3
dsayers Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I was surprised how they thought the word "faith" was an answer after they admitted they had no evidence. They would say I just had to have faith. Why? I would ask, You have to have faith," they would repeat. Why? It comes down to faith, they said. "Muslims say the exact same thing, how do they know that they are wrong and you are right?" "They have to have faith," they would say, which would make me so damn frustrated Imagine you spoke only French and they spoke only German. How could you communicate? You couldn't verbally because you have no shared standard from which to build off of. If you accept that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence and they think faith is an answer, then you have no shared standard from which to build off of epistemologically. It can be frustrating for sure because anybody that puts forth and objective claim is also saying that truth is preferred to falsehood. lol @ A4E I like your Socratic method / Judo, "use their momentum against them" approach. 2
Will Torbald Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 What pain are you avoiding in being an atheist? The pain of gullibility.
AccuTron Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 What pain are you avoiding in being an atheist? Having to explain how Noah put well over a million land beetles on the Ark, for one. I've been exposed to the Bible over a few years now, and it's high value. There are a jillion stories and they are much about morality and controlling behavior and thoughts. (And much more but gotta keep it brief.) There is huge opportunity for self-improvement if one is open. Very good for the mind. I like the morning preachers on Christian radio. But don't dismiss evolution to me, or say everyone spoke the same language until a labor dispute erupted at the Tower Of Babel. Danny, you made no mistake in asking; you learn about people and this will pay off increasingly over time. Others on this page have supplied very good insights. For me, instead of quoting Aristotle or Confucius, it's the guy who used to work at the BBQ place: "People are idiots." There it is. The Holy Grail. All you need to know; the rest is icing. Sit back and contemplate your navel with this knowledge, but not for too long. Then raise your head and roll your eyes. But careful what you say about Entirah, because he cleared up my adolescent acne, after a few years. Got the dandruff too -- that is a powerful god. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The pain of gullibility. If "The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain," then why would gullibility be painful? 1
Dannydugster Posted July 17, 2016 Author Posted July 17, 2016 I had a talk a couple of hours long with my friend. He seems to think he can convince me. He also says that he thinks I am searching for answers and that what I find will be the truth. I've told him that other religions use faith just like he does, but he thinks they are wrong because they can't actually be using "real" faith since they have false gods? He agreed that it is hard to know what religion is right just by faith, but thought it was still fair to those unfortunate souls not born to Christian parents that they should go to hell. When asked about how to find the right religion his favorite thing was to find one that "fills the void". He says that all nonchristians have a void and thay are still searching for something to fill it but he is not searching other religions because he apready knows what he believes. He has a sense of superiority because he "knows" where everything came from. I gave a middle ages hypothetical about retrograde planets and what would he have said about them if he were a scientist but I don't even know how he vaporized that question. He seems utterly convinced and at the same time desperately grabbing more and more bricks for his castle in the sky. Its like he has a levitating mechanism at the core of it but I can't get to it. Is the mechanism faith? What will teach him that willpower does not have a place in any discussion including the "sacred"? Am I to have an epistemological lecture with him? If so how? 1
dsayers Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 With all due respect, it appears as if you're not willing to accept the logic, reason, and empirical evidence in front of you. What is his null hypothesis? If he does not provide for you what it would take to convince him, you are literally wasting your time. He says that all nonchristians have a void and thay are still searching for something to fill it but he is not searching other religions because he apready knows what he believes. This is probably the most accurate thing he's said. People do use religiosity to fill the void. Usually the void left from neglectful/unloving parents, which manifests in a lack of self-knowledge. He also did well in explicating one of the dangers in religiosity: That once you think you've found the answer, you stop searching for the RIGHT answer. This is why sound methodology is so crucial: It is the only way you can know you've found the right answer. "Faith" is a cop out and he knows it because there is no other area in his life where he would accept that as an answer. Only in the realm of the bogeyman promised he would win the lotto. It gives him an excuse to increase the value of his own life because he believes it already has value. Riches and no responsibility... who wouldn't want that?
tfwoods3 Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Saying you have to have faith is just too easy of an escape answer, you have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself. What is easier to believe, that everything you see before you now was a random accident or does it have a creator? Everyone has different answers to that question, but I lean on the side that finds it very hard to believe that everything was a result of chance and that there is no real meaning in any of this, we will just be a forgotten random event at some point in the future. So a person like me then has to ask himself, well, if there is a creator, is he silent and never reveals himself, or has he revealed himself in the past? Then you have to look for any signs that may have happened. It could be that he did, and men wrote down what they witnessed as best they could and threw in a lot of their own views in there, or who knows. When looking at religions, what do they claim, what contradictions do they have, what did they get right? You can't know for sure, so at that point you have to have faith. It's frustrating as hell because I go up and down the chart of belief and doubt all the time.
junglecat Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 If "The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain," then why would gullibility be painful? Brilliant point. All I hear is crickets.
EclecticIdealist Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 If "The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain," then why would gullibility be painful? Gullibility itself is not painful. The results which often come from gullibility can be. And actually, the brain did in a sense evolve for truth. Accuracy in conception (correct thinking) is an advantageous trait enabling one to pass on one's genetic information.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Gullibility itself is not painful. The results which often come from gullibility can be. And actually, the brain did in a sense evolve for truth. Accuracy in conception (correct thinking) is an advantageous trait enabling one to pass on one's genetic information. Given that gullibility on a national or species-wide level is also genetically disadvantageous, do you hold out any hope for the human brain having evolved a large-scale gullibility defense? 1 1
EclecticIdealist Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Given that gullibility on a national or species-wide level is also genetically disadvantageous, do you hold out any hope for the human brain having evolved a large-scale gullibility defense? I would say that general skepticism is a large-scale gullibility defense, but also that this trait must be "fine tuned" and is still "evolving".
shirgall Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Evolution downgrades effects that affect the ability to have viable offspring. Gullibility can take a long time, lowering the chances it will kill you before you breed and rear children. It's not perfect, it's "good enough".
whirlingmerc Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 The choice is not really faith vs no evidence, like a leap in the dark. Biblical saving faith, I believe, involved a leap toward the light - not a blind leap in the dark. Jonathan Edwards asked how you tell if honey is good? you put it on your tounge and it is possible in various ways to 'taste and see that the Lord is good' whith His help.
neeeel Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 it is possible in various ways to 'taste and see that the Lord is good' whith His help. How?
rosencrantz Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 If "The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain," then why would gullibility be painful? The brain evolved to pass on genes to the next generation. Fortunately, you can find the different stages of evolution in the human brain itself https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/72331b13693699.5627706774d58.jpg
A4E Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 The brain evolved to pass on genes to the next generation. Fortunately, you can find the different stages of evolution in the human brain itself https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/72331b13693699.5627706774d58.jpg It is not so accurate to say that our brain originates from lizards. More accurate would be some life in the ocean as life with electric nerves, thus also brains, likely started out there.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I would say that general skepticism is a large-scale gullibility defense, but also that this trait must be "fine tuned" and is still "evolving". Wouldn't scepticism and faith be a mutually evolving balanced pair? People with zero faith and total scepticism would be insane with fear their chairs and automobiles would fall apart using them, that their senses were constantly deceiving them, that other people lacked minds. So evolution must select for a certain level of faith which translates into a level of gullibility. 1 1
dsayers Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 evolution must select for a certain level of faith Biased assertion. Skepticism indicates a reluctance to accept something without proof. Faith is the acceptance of something without proof. They are opposites. Meanwhile, somebody who is skeptical of X isn't powerless or refusing to accept X. Once proof for X is provided, they are now convinced and in fact enlightened. Being able to accurately identify the world around you is paramount to your survival. As such, faith is antithetical to survival and would not be selected for.
shirgall Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Wouldn't scepticism and faith be a mutually evolving balanced pair? People with zero faith and total scepticism would be insane with fear their chairs and automobiles would fall apart using them, that their senses were constantly deceiving them, that other people lacked minds. So evolution must select for a certain level of faith which translates into a level of gullibility. Unified groups better protect offspring and grow. Tribe, pack, village, whatever... it's a model that works well enough to grow a population. Whatever mechanism unifies a tribe works well enough to drive this, whether or not they make sense or are moral. With verbal communication, the written word, the Internet and large databases we have constantly extended our ability to compare mechanisms and be more selective, which is combating gullibility. Took a long time to get there.
EclecticIdealist Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Wouldn't scepticism and faith be a mutually evolving balanced pair? People with zero faith and total scepticism would be insane with fear their chairs and automobiles would fall apart using them, that their senses were constantly deceiving them, that other people lacked minds. So evolution must select for a certain level of faith which translates into a level of gullibility. Scepticism is merely another word for "doubt" or "disbelief". Faith, on the other hand is not mere belief, it is expectation of that which is desired. Fear is the other side of the coin of faith. Fear is the expectation of that which is abhorred. Both faith and fear may be rational, based on such premises as the consistency of natural phenomena, or the proven trustworthiness (or lack of trustworthiness) of an individual; or it may be irrational (e.g.., contrary to such rational premises, or predicated on superstition, etc.). Faith, properly understood is not suspension of disbelief, or a belief without evidence. These are merely a misuse of the term faith when what is meant is "unfounded belief" or "irrational belief" or "superstitious belief", or in some cases, "unfounded faith", "irrational faith", or "superstitious faith". Faith, like fear, is neither inherently irrational or rational; it may be either.
whirlingmerc Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 I disagree that faith is the acceptance of something without proof and I don't see that in the Bible Acts 1:3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Scepticism is merely another word for "doubt" or "disbelief". Faith, on the other hand is not mere belief, it is expectation of that which is desired. Fear is the other side of the coin of faith. Fear is the expectation of that which is abhorred. Both faith and fear may be rational, based on such premises as the consistency of natural phenomena, or the proven trustworthiness (or lack of trustworthiness) of an individual; or it may be irrational (e.g.., contrary to such rational premises, or predicated on superstition, etc.). Faith, properly understood is not suspension of disbelief, or a belief without evidence. These are merely a misuse of the term faith when what is meant is "unfounded belief" or "irrational belief" or "superstitious belief", or in some cases, "unfounded faith", "irrational faith", or "superstitious faith". Faith, like fear, is neither inherently irrational or rational; it may be either. You've got a good polar definition of fear and faith. I meant faith as belief. One needs to have some belief in order to function in life and not be perpetually gripped by fear that one will fall through the centre of the Earth, etc.. 1
dsayers Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 I disagree that faith is the acceptance of something without proof and I don't see that in the Bible Acts 1:3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. So your proof is that a 3rd party wrote down that a 4th party had once been provided proof? THAT is faith! You have no proof, but believe it to be proof. One of the definitions on dictionary.com is verbatim: belief that is not based on proof.
Recommended Posts