Other atheists, but mostly religious people, often ask me why I bother with my criticism of faith. It's always the same reason, "You're never gonna change anything" (of course, that's
a load of poppycock).
So why don't conversations about god go anywhere?
Because faith is a zero-sum game. Not only is faith built upon mechanics that purge evidence and reason from the equation, in many cases it prompts believers to view any other position (and often, any other information) as the work of the most evil of demons or a corruption of the intellect.
Yet it's amazing (and not the least bit ironic) how often the religious one gets to be the one slinging about accusations of close-mindedness.
I have a gambit in place to double-check the idea that I'm open-minded: I list some things that could change my mind.
1. If a group prayed over an amputee and his leg regrew.
2. If you could pray to god and recite the thirty-digit number I carry in my wallet (hint to god: it's an even number that's not 471922039847563698909836571268).
3. If you could pray to god and then recite the name of all the books on my bookshelf, in order.
4. If god swung by my house (the door is open, and I have tuna helper).
I could literally go on forever. Some of those would allow me to have my mind changed within a single conversation. For some reason, religious people seem to think others are close-minded for demanding god-like evidence rather than ambiguous coincidence for the claim that the believer is privy to the mind of god. Weird.
Then I always ask the believer, can you think of anything, anything at all, that would convince you that Jesus is not the son of god? The answer is virtually always "no." Unbelievably, they almost all consider that answer to be indicative of the
strength of their faith, rather than the intellectual weakness of closing their minds to any conceivable challenge from the world of evidence (which would it had been if I'd answered similarly to the opposite question?). I find it odd that they never seem to catch that the two are indistinguishable in appearance from each other. And how awesome can faith be if it is a twin to disdain for evidence? Really, for someone looking at faith objectively, can anybody tell me how faith differs in both terms of credibility and appearance from delusion that disdains the most noble of intellectual properties?
I'm really hoping for a comment that goes, "No, but that's how faith works. You just don't understand it." I'm counting on you, LNP.
Comments (39)
It's simple. God hates amputees.
LOL.
I can't wait to see the answers to this.
hahaha. xtians are so dumb.
Good thing you're offering tuna and not, say, mussels.
Hey, instead of tuna, offer gawd some shellfish, or some fried iguana. Heh, heh.
The more deistic God is, the cooler he seems.
@fatal_is_life - Except for the smart ones-- asides from wasted Sunday mornings, they're fairly indistinguishable from the rest of us. =P
I don't care if you believe in God or not. I don't care if you think I'm stupid for having faith or not. That's your right. But I'm curious as to why it bothers you so much what other people believe. So what if they're wrong. Is it hurting you?
It is quite simple really...Faith is irrational. They beleive in something and demand no proof of evidence. Rationality and reason demand evidence and proof.
I have always likened debating with a theist to playing a basketball game where they refuse to play by the rules. They pick up the ball and run with it, They tackle me when I have the ball and even after I have scored 30 baskets to their none....they declare themselves the winner.
They are not restrained by any rules. They are irrational. We try and play by the rules of logic and reason. Theists cannot be hindered as their very being rejects the rules.
Oil and water.
with the two last comments i'd like to say...
what?
I think you should offer him a bagel. Becuase they taste good.
On a side note, this 'Pat Robertson character seems a bit narrow minded- i remember a priest telling me that he thought the content of the bible shouldn't be taken literally, as the stories themselves are there to instill moral fibre. He became a priest as a means of helping the community, rather than instill belief in 'magic tricks' (*hides from the devout*).
He was a priest, generally considered a 'moral core' of christian faith.
Congratulations on delivering an eloquant and succint speach, it's nice to see a rational and well thought addition to the endless debate.
@radicalramblings - I explain why on both counts here and here.
But the short answer is, I care because there are consequences on the societal level to unreason, and you are helping spread the idea that unreason is a good thing.
I realize you probably don't care, but that's the whole point of this post.
And the short answer to your last question is, yes, it is hurting me. We just had a president the last eight years who got elected by conforming to the unreasonable ethical standards of people who think unreason called "faith" is a good thing. This president ran our country into the ground. This is one example out of many.
Even if the crapshoot of faith has landed you on a wrong belief that happens to be benign, who finds that to be a good thing? I can't criticize unreason without criticizing all of it, and that fact that someone's faith can make them attached to unreason (even under their own admission) is really worriesome.
JT
@radicalramblings - Though cute and cuddly, the tendrils of Evangelical Christianity extends far and deep. Influencing policy making, the education system, and public discourse-- Christianity is splashed on the rest of us. A push back is not only expected but fair.
America-- religiously and culturally diverse-- isn't a Christian nation. And in the marektplace of ideas, we address our differences.
@radicalramblings - Sure. But that's not what I'm doing.
Are you saying you can establish that your belief in god is reasonable, even after you just implied that we shouldn't really care if beliefs are wrong?
JT
And as the conversation never going anywhere...With some stauch defenders of faith...it isn't. But I resently had a conversation with a golf buddy. (he is like 55 and I talk religion on the Golf course). Dunno how we even got on the conversation...he prolly had to go to Church or something instead of golfing and I asked him if he was devout. He said he goes for his kids and isn't really into it...when I mentioned i think it is all nonsense...he really opened up and said...ya know what I beleive just in case...just in case...but I would like some proof and went on and on about it. It was like a relief that he wasn't crazy for thinking this stuff is nuts. These are just his own rationality at work. I am sure he hasn't read or studied like many here on xanga....
Figure there are probably alot of people like this.....That is why it is important to have the conversation. Even if that person won't listen...maybe an evesdropper might just learn something.
@CelestialTeapot - "Cute and cuddly." LMAO.
@Zerowing21 -- Exactly how has The Barack explicitly disavowed the idea of faith-based government? Has The Great One offered to shut down the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives? Not that I can see.
@CelestialTeapot -- Demographically and culturally, America IS in large part a Christian nation. I dispute (and actively oppose) the notion put forward by the Falwell Followers that America is a Christian nation in the legal sense, in that "Christianity"-based regulations upon peoples' choices involving sex, drugs, music, etc., are asinine. Still, the Ten Commandments does have some valid points to make -- "Thou shall not steal" are "Thous shall not murder" my favorites.
@mikewb1971 - I fail to see how that question remotely relates to the content of this post. I don't recall ever mentioning President Obama.
JT
@mikewb1971 - Demographically and culturally, America IS in large part a Christian nation.
Demographically: Sure. Demographically, America also has more women than men-- so it must be a nation of women. By this meaning, America is also a nation of whites. None of these, however, mean that the statistical majority should enjoy more rights or more consideration than the minority.
Culturally: What does this even mean? Christianity is diverse with Protestnatism, the Roman Catholic church, the Easter Orthodox Church, and a variety of smaller traditions-- each very different from the others. It seems inaccurate to grossly lump.
Still, the Ten Commandments does have some valid points to make -- "Thou shall not steal" are "Thous shall not murder" my favorites.
English common law more relevently molded our legal system than Old Testament morality.
You rock.
Then I always ask the believer, can you think of anything, anything at
all, that would convince you that Jesus is not the son of god? The
answer is virtually always "no." Unbelievably, they almost all
consider that answer to be indicative of the strength
of their faith, rather than the intellectual weakness of closing their
minds to any conceivable challenge from the world of evidence...
Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you are not giving them ample time to think of such evidence? I'm sure there are several things that could convince me Jesus is not the son of God... but none of them I can think of right off the top of my head. Furthermore, even in the light of strong evidence- I would never entirely close off the possibility that he is not the son of God.
In the same way, it would also be wrong to assume that just because I believe in something that means I am also entirely convinced of it. I use a saying for this statement: the man that says "God does not exist"- he is a fool, but so also is the man at the pulpit who says "I know God exists". The first statement fails to recognize that physical evidence does not equal fact when concerning a spiritual entity and second fails to acknowledge that belief does not equal knowledge or even certainty.
Coincidentally, I have always wondered (this is a respectful question) if an Atheist was better defined as someone who holds that God cannot exist or someone who simply believes that God does exist.
@Zerowing21 -- Ah, but you specifically discussed the Bush Administration --
And the short answer to your last question
is, yes, it is hurting me. We just had a president the last eight
years who got elected by conforming to the unreasonable ethical
standards of people who think unreason called "faith" is a good thing.
This president ran our country into the ground. This is one example
out of many.
How is The Great One not furthering and worsening the Bush Doctrine on the domestic scene?
I think it totally is a faith thing, and lots of times the greatest faith in the world is unreasonable. "Everything is going to be okay." It takes faith to say that in a world like this. Regardless of it being a theistic faith or not, it entirely unreasonable, considering how the world is. There's plenty of evidence to support the idea that everything will NOT be okay. It is what is keeping them alive, though: faith. We really have no physical proof to prove each other wrong in that sense. I can't prove physically to you that there is a God, you cannot prove physically that there isn't one. I have faith in that there is one, you have faith that there isn't one.
Faith is something that is hard to explain a lot of the time. For me, that faith is currently what is keeping me alive. Yes, I am weak. I perfectly acknowledge that. It is only through that faith at this point that I can be strong at all.
For the record, here, I believe Darwin was an extremely intelligent man, but Natural Selection is cruel B.S. for a chaotic world.
@TheWorldsOfficialCritic -
Natural Selection is cruel B.S. for a chaotic world.
What? Care to explain why you think this is the case?
@mikewb1971 - I figured perhaps I would jump in. For one...Obama demonstrates here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801476.html that he wants to insulate science from politics. I this as a bold statement that we are not going to act irrational and unreasonable as the Prior administration and reason would rule the day.
Bush ruled from unreason. He did what his gut told him...what he felt. Not what the evidence showed. He ignored evidence he didn't like or created fraudulent evidence if needed. The more I look back...he was a theocrat in he was utterly unreasonable. Logic and reason were a hinderance to his administration and what he wanted to accomplish.
To be honest I am surprised that the tide has changed but you can only live in an unreasonable and illogical world for so long till reality bites your ass. I assume people losing their jobs, the economic calapse had most to do with waking people up from their slumber...but being unreasonable got us to that point.
There is hope...and reason is at the helm.
@radicalramblings - I'm sure the people in the World Trade Center on 9/11 got hurt plenty by somebody else's crazy beliefs.