That being said, it must be incredibly difficult when your entire family is fundamentalist Christian and you’ve been a Christian for many many years.

Tell your friend this: Cultivate courage. Cultivate compassion, love, power, truth, and mental strength. Courage, not fear is the pathway to potential and greatness. It’s the first step to an exciting life! ^_^

I don’t mean to be offensive to any of you, so I appologize if you are offended, I just truly don’t understand…

If you’re a police officer confronted with a violent crime, that happened while you were off duty so you weren’t around to see it.

If you have circumstantial evidence that points you towards a particular suspect and you know that suspect will flee the country (creating a sense of urgency) do you wait until you have concrete evidence and let him escape – or do you let him escape but keep working the case regardless, knowing that you’ll never catch him, but at least you’ll know?

The theist, when confronted with this analogy makes the arrest presumptively and then builds a case using compelling circumstantial evidence.

The atheist waits for the perpetrator to return and commit the same crime over and over again, establishing a pattern, before declaring that they have a suspect, but they won’t do anything about it until the suspect is caught in the act. By the police officer – other people’s experience is likely to be tarnished and can’t be trusted.

Why then is repeatable, testable, observable evidence the standard by which your decisions are made?

That’s my rationale anyway. If evidence presents itself that God doesn’t exist I might jump ship.

So continuing this analogy – I’m pretty convinced of my prime suspect’s guilt, in fact I have faith that he did it. Pretty unshakable faith. It would take significant evidence, probably more than one piece of compelling evidence – such is my standard of evidence – for me to change suspects. I will consider other suspects, but my prime suspect will be my prime suspect.

Onto the next bit…

If you claim something happened that I didn’t observe, but is a mundane event that I could observe – and if I have observed similar events happening before – I’ll be much more likely to believe you. I can go to a McDonald’s and see hamburgers and watch people buying them and buy one myself. I can collect the accounts of other people who have been to a McDonald’s. Or I can simply draw on past experience and find that the claimed event is one I know to be both possible and likely. This is not necessarily scientific, but the whole process is certainly evidence-based. Even your reliability is something I’ll judge primarily on past evidence – have you told me the truth before? Do I know you to be a liar? If I don’t know you well, what do people who do know you say? Do you act in ways similar to people I know to be honest, or people I know to be dishonest? None of these things are proof. But they are all evidence that will sway my decision over whether to believe you.

That’s a big quote. But for the theist (or at least for this theist) once the decision has been made to pursue my line of inquiry – assuming that God is – I must then weigh up the testimony of those claiming to speak for God.

Using the same evidential standard that you do I rule out Xenu, the flying spaghetti monster and others.

I’m left with perhaps 4 religions to consider – I’m sure you’re familiar enough with the other religions to know why it’s rational to rule them out. We’re really close to being on the same page – I rule out all but one God, you rule out all gods – for much the same reason.

Then it comes down to making assessments on testimony from either:

1. A single Desert Nomad/merchant banker/shepherd/prophet
2. A treasure hunter
3. A group of prophets, political leaders and records keepers
4. That same group plus 11 ordinary fisherman, accountants and merchants, following a carpenter and followed by a religious zealot who staged his own Copernican revolution moving from killing believers to producing some of the most theologically significant documents in the religion… where a fair percentage of these men died for their convictions rather than recant.

I’m not going to go into Christian apologetics on the manner – but using the same standard of considering evidence for historical things unseen – I personally am convinced.

Does that make me delusional? Perhaps you think so. But my point is “evidence” is not the objective and decisive holy grail you make it out to be.

“To clarify a bit: Religious beliefs certainly motivated the Crusades and other religious wars – “Since you’re not a Christian, you’re an evil demon who must be put to the sword.” However, atheism didn’t motivate Mao’s career of butchery – his thinking was more along the lines of “Since these people are a threat to my power, they must be destroyed.” You argue that this a symptom of lack of belief, which implies that people who honor a god wouldn’t use such a motivation. Unfortunately, you’re wrong: that is pretty much how Hitler worked, too.”

Oh yes, and which God did Hitler honour? He may have used Christian imagery but he detested the concept of God and used religion purely as a forum to advance his ideas.

If Mao had said “I am butchering these people in the name of atheism” would my criticism be fair?

I think a better methodology for assessing causation is to look at whether the action is directly caused by the philosophy, as I’ve said earlier I think you can directly attribute the behaviour of atheists to their atheism. You may disagree. I’d be interested to hear why…

Again, I understand the nature of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy – I just don’t think it applies when there is in fact a “true Scotsman” and you’re arguing with those who might consider themselves true Scotsman but are clearly, for the sake of the analogy, Irish. They look the same, and sound the same to foreigners – but they’re nothing like Scotsmen and to suggest that they are is offensive to the true scots.

Net effect can only really be judged on outcomes can’t it? What’s the difference for an outside observer? It’s not as significant as you suggest. And it only truly represents the school of apologetics modern atheism subscribes to for logically defending their (un)belief.

My question, and it addresses many of your points, is why is making a decision based on evidence the best way to make a decision? Doesn’t it always put you behind the curve so to speak.

But honestly, I really don’t know what you mean. I mean, just look at your last sentence here:

Without referring too much to the concepts put forward by Pascal’s wager (which I note are not too popular round here) – I’d suggest that the answer to the question of the existence or otherwise of God should probably be made sooner rather than later. That’s my rationale anyway. If evidence presents itself that God doesn’t exist I might jump ship.

Emphasis mine. I’m a little confused here, doesn’t this flatly contradict your previously stated position? Please explain a bit more…

It also presents a large problem. It seems that you don’t want to use evidence as a reason for believing something exists, yet are willing to use evidence to believe that something does exist (correct me if I’m misinterpreting you, please!). This is the reverse of how proving something exists normally works. You can’t provide evidence that things that do not exist do not exist; all you can do is throw doubt on evidence that they DO exist. To use the example of Xenu again: if we could fly all over the galaxy in search of Xenu and found nothing, we wouldn’t have proof that Xenu did not exist. We would simply lack proof that he did exist. If we were to find testimony of L. Ron Hubbard admitting he’d made up the story of Xenu, we would not have proof that Xenu did not exist. It would be entirely possible, if extremely unlikely, that L. Ron had made up a story that was consistent with reality. So we still have not provided evidence for nonexistence; we have simply shown that Scientologists did not in fact give evidence.

So, it seems to me that you have it backwards: one should simply weigh evidence FOR the existence of something, and reject the idea if insufficient evidence exists.

How do you assess any claims of truth that can’t be observed. For example, I could claim that I just ate McDonalds for lunch, and I paid cash… how would you test that statement in a month when any trace of it has left my system?

You’d have to take my word for it wouldn’t you – are at least assess my word on the basis of my character, and decide from there. I suggest that’s how any claim of special revelation should be considered.

Using the reliability of a witness as a measure of whether their statements are true. But I’ll also decide whether or not I believe you based on the nature of your claim. If you claim something happened that I didn’t observe, but is a mundane event that I could observe – and if I have observed similar events happening before – I’ll be much more likely to believe you. I can go to a McDonald’s and see hamburgers and watch people buying them and buy one myself. I can collect the accounts of other people who have been to a McDonald’s. Or I can simply draw on past experience and find that the claimed event is one I know to be both possible and likely. This is not necessarily scientific, but the whole process is certainly evidence-based. Even your reliability is something I’ll judge primarily on past evidence – have you told me the truth before? Do I know you to be a liar? If I don’t know you well, what do people who do know you say? Do you act in ways similar to people I know to be honest, or people I know to be dishonest? None of these things are proof. But they are all evidence that will sway my decision over whether to believe you.

If, however, you make an astounding claim, I will be much less likely to believe you. If you say you went to McDonald’s and received a hamburger that spoke to you and gave you divine commands, I would not believe you. I would probably think you were joking, or if you were sincere, would secretly fear that you were developing schizophrenia. Again, this would be based on my past experiences with hamburgers, others’ accounts of hamburgers, and accounts of hallucinations.

Can we ever be sure? No. We can never even rise above solipsism without accepting some premises about observability. This does not seem to me to be a fatal flaw that necessitates throwing out evidence and reason. If you could explain how you would like us to judge the truth of supernatural claims, please do so. Obviously we can’t just assume that all such claims are true, so if you are correct we need some alternative means of determining whether a claim is consistent with the way the world is.

As for the dictator argument:
I’d agree with what you said earlier, in that trying to paint people with guilt-by-association is always idiotic. People of any worldview can commit atrocities, and have, and it’s wrong to frame the faith in general for their crime.

However:
“Yeah, people have done some terrible things in the name of Christianity … but so have atheists.”

No no no. There aren’t crimes committed in the name of atheism. Again, I’m not saying “all Christians are monsters!” or “all atheists are saints!” or anything like that. I’m not talking about or judging people, but the concepts themselves.

To clarify a bit: Religious beliefs certainly motivated the Crusades and other religious wars – “Since you’re not a Christian, you’re an evil demon who must be put to the sword.” However, atheism didn’t motivate Mao’s career of butchery – his thinking was more along the lines of “Since these people are a threat to my power, they must be destroyed.” You argue that this a symptom of lack of belief, which implies that people who honor a god wouldn’t use such a motivation. Unfortunately, you’re wrong: that is pretty much how Hitler worked, too.

I’d also like to add that “we don’t compare you to Pol Pot or Mao” is completely false. We get accused of that all the time. I am sorry if you’ve been compared to crusaders.

No true Scotsman:
You’re not being corrected because you’re a theist, you’re being corrected because you missed the point. As I understand, you’re claiming that “true” Christians don’t believe in the silly, caricature-like parts. So which ones are the “true” Christians, we ask? You suggest those who are following an accurate interpretation of the Bible. So how can we tell which ones are following the accurate interpretation of the Bible, we ask? Well, they’re the ones who aren’t reading what “Ricky Bob and Sus-Ann [the "caricature Christians," I presume] read in the bible belt”. So, if we look at only the Christians who aren’t acting like caricatures, we find – what was it we were looking for again?
Ah yes, we find that they aren’t looking like caricatures. So, the exercise has shown us that if we look only at Christians who don’t act like caricatures, we find that they don’t act like caricatures. Believe it or not, this argument is not convincing me of anything. That’s the No True Scotsman fallacy. (Here “true” isn’t used in the sense of “correct” but the sense of “right and pure.” He’s a “true” Scotsman in the sense of “real” Scotsman.)

The fact of the matter is, you’re right in one sense – we don’t usually go out of our way to criticize what you call “serious theologians.” That’s because millions of people do not hang on the words of what those obscure theologians say – they listen to Pat Robertson and Rick Warren and James Dobson. We attack the arguments of obvious quacks like the Banana Man because they’re the ones out there shoving bananas in our faces.

Which brings me to another thing:
“Interesting distinction, but probably only for the sake of appearances rather than net effect. The fact that you’re here, arguing with theists, suggests that you’re investing more into the debate than passive dismissal. It’s really a distinction so subtle that it’s rendered irrelevant for the purposes of discussion.”
No. There is a massive difference between stating “I believe that there is no god” and stating “I do not believe there is a god.” The former is making a positive assertion, i.e. “I hold this as a fact: there is no deity.” The latter position is radically different, merely stating: “I do not hold this statement as fact: there is a deity.”

So what’s the difference, you ask? Well, as you noted later on, it’s impossible to prove the former. You can’t prove that any given entity does not exist, whether or not it exists. So, it would be foolish to hold to that assertion – and that, it seems, would be why you are so quick to dismiss our objection that that isn’t what rational atheists believe. It’s much more convenient for you to assume that we are fools, and then attack the straw man while ignoring our actual position.

So what is our position, you may ask? If it isn’t the positive assertion that no god exists, how could it possibly be different? Simple: we don’t believe in your God for much the same reasons you don’t believe in any other entity that does not exist. Neither of us can “prove” that Xenu doesn’t exist. Yet we do not take the word of Scientologists on faith, and we are not Xenu agnostics – we weigh the evidence suggested by people who believe in Xenu, decide that it is a load of rubbish invented by a bad sci fi writer, and discard the notion “Xenu exists” as unsubstantiated. The burden of proof is on the prover.

Please tell me if I’m not making sense here. The distinction between those two views is not intuitive at all – I was an agnostic for years before I really “got” it. Still, it’s there, and to attack the straw man is disingenuous. If you’d like, critique the distinction, and we can defend it more fully than my paltry argument here.

It’s regrettable that you’re unwilling to continue this line of discussion. I too have enjoyed it.

Here is my response to some of your points – do with it what you will…

“Over time, I continued to examine those beliefs, and over time there was less and less evidence, especially as I learned what constitutes evidence in scientific inquiry. It turns out that when I prayed for some future event to unfold favorably, and it did, that owed more to working toward some end, or even just chance, than it was evidence that there was some ineffable spirit with agency in the universe.”

My question, and it addresses many of your points, is why is making a decision based on evidence the best way to make a decision? Doesn’t it always put you behind the curve so to speak.

Without referring too much to the concepts put forward by Pascal’s wager (which I note are not too popular round here) – I’d suggest that the answer to the question of the existence or otherwise of God should probably be made sooner rather than later. That’s my rationale anyway. If evidence presents itself that God doesn’t exist I might jump ship.

“Evidently, it isn’t in for Christians, either, since there are so many denominations insisting they’re the right ones, when you’ve intimated that there actually is a right one, which automatically means that all the other ones (whichever they are) are not the right one.”

See, here’s the thing. I don’t think “denominations” come into it. They’re more much cultural constructs than “right” or “wrong”. Again, I come back to what did Jesus – and as you rightly brought up – the other writers of the established canon – have to say about things. Denominations are just human structures based on interpretations of these things – none get everything right. Does that mean that they’re all wrong? Well yes, and no. I don’t think Episcopalians are any less likely to get into heaven than Baptists – provided they’re trying to follow Jesus.

“Again, I was asking for which theological tradition would provide evidence for the existence of god, not which traditions constitute lack of evidence for the existence of god.”

You sure do care about “evidence” don’t you. Why is it so important to you – surely any piece of information can be interpreted as “evidence” for whatever hypothesis you care to posit… just because consensus is reached on one position does not make it the correct one – every example you cite has been the correction of a previous mistake (often mistakes lead by poor understanding of Scripture… which I guess allows you to ask “but how long can you keep taking that position for”)… evidence is not the objective standard for decision making you hold it up to be.

My understanding is that facts about something operate whether anyone believes it or not.

Which puts you in an interesting position should God become “fact” after your life time – given that he’d no doubt have been operating throughout.

So, it’s irrelevant that “creation science” doesn’t agree with contemporary biological data supporting, for example, evolution in organisms. The evidence is there. The evidence doesn’t need creationists to believe it in order for it to be valid. The evidence doesn’t even need evolutionary biologists to believe it in order for it to be valid. The evidence is independent of belief.

I agree. But my point is more about the ability for anybody with an agenda to create white noise around an issue. Creation Science has no doubt created “white noise” – by using the very tools that atheists base their lives and quest for evidence on. If a creation scientist convinced you of their science would you become a theist? Or just an atheist operating on a different time scale.

I have a theory on that: the hospital, or the morgue. Granted, I don’t have any data, nor am I eager to garner any under the conditions proposed, so it’s possible my hypothesis would be rejected (for further reading on the matter, I direct you to Mark Twain’s A Tramp Abroad). Additionally, how would we have independent verification of results?

Why do we need “independent verification of results” – surely the important people in this particular discussion are you, and me. No doubt it would be useful for everybody else, and it would be great to be able to ask everybody else who has died. But we can’t. If you’re convinced you’re right would you die for that lack of belief?

“I’m not sure the scientific method presupposes the supernatural does not exist.”

It presupposes that the unobservable does not exist… how do you observe, test and measure the unobservable?

Perhaps all gravity is being caused by angels not angles. How can you test anything that falls outside the scope of testing – and how can you definitively refute that which can not be tested?

Your example of telekinesis is well realised – but it demonstrates my point that science can only test the natural – whereby telekinesis in that example is actually something natural held as supernatural. If something is supernatural it defies natural laws – so there is no imperative for repeat performances for the purposes of testing.

Regardless, my question still stands. If you think the scientific method isn’t a good way to examine the evidence for divinity, what method do you propose?

I’m not sure. How do you assess any claims of truth that can’t be observed. For example, I could claim that I just ate McDonalds for lunch, and I paid cash… how would you test that statement in a month when any trace of it has left my system?

You’d have to take my word for it wouldn’t you – are at least assess my word on the basis of my character, and decide from there. I suggest that’s how any claim of special revelation should be considered.

There was plenty of other meaty stuff in your comment, but in the interest of brevity… I’ll stop here.

Nathan, thanks for your reply. You posted:

your comment was long

You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

Interesting distinction, but probably only for the sake of appearances rather than net effect.

Perhaps for you, but not for me. It’s significant enough for me that it’s effect is such that I do not make claims to the existence of god, or the non-existence of god, only make statements as to my lack of belief in god or gods. If clarifying that position amounts, in your perspective, to my saying that I believe there is no god, then I’m unlikely to convince you otherwise, as you’ve already made up my mind for me.

The fact that you’re here, arguing with theists, suggests that you’re investing more into the debate than passive dismissal.

Again, it’s not dismissal of god. It’s non-belief in same. Dismissal would suggest there is proof, one way or the other (for or against), of god, and then a choice based on the evidence was made. I’m still waiting for the evidence. In the meantime, while waiting for the evidence, I didn’t realize there was a proscription on being interested in a topic and desiring to comment on it.

But if you’ve already decided that waiting for the evidence means I have dismissed god, what can I do?

It’s really a distinction so subtle that it’s rendered irrelevant for the purposes of discussion.

As I said above, for you, perhaps, but not for me. I am interested in the discussion, to be sure, especially from the standpoint of asking theists for the evidence of their god.

I was raised Episcopalian (perhaps not on the short list for “true” adherence to Christianity), and most of my family remains sincerely devout. I got a chuckle in another thread where someone said something along the lines of, “It’s hard to reconcile real serious devotion and zealotry with Episcopal churchgoers.” I got a chuckle because those posters haven’t met my parents. That background aside, I believed for a long time. I prayed. I tithed. I served as an acolyte at my church for seven years, as a Sunday school assistant teacher, and as a senior high school representative to the vestry. I had faith that with god, all things were possible.

Over time, I continued to examine those beliefs, and over time there was less and less evidence, especially as I learned what constitutes evidence in scientific inquiry. It turns out that when I prayed for some future event to unfold favorably, and it did, that owed more to working toward some end, or even just chance, than it was evidence that there was some ineffable spirit with agency in the universe.

Ask yourself DesertSon if this question was directed at you – or Santiago. The subject of the post on which this comment sits. Who has since confirmed that he did try to convert his friend Bob…

You are exactly correct, and when I read those posts I saw Santiago did, indeed, aim to “convert” “Bob’s” thinking. I humbly withdraw my accusation that you had posed the relevant query to me; I apologize for ascribing to you an intent unfounded.

I suggest you apply the same standard to yourself.

I remain ever attempting to hold myself to the standards I espouse. I also fail to do so on occasion, and further attempt to hold myself accountable enough to admit my mistakes.

That’s a very good question – and one that has obviously confounded scholars and theologians for years. Does a lack of consensus on the nature of God provide evidence that counters the existence of God? I call shenanigans on that assumption.

I agree with you, and also would call shenanigans, and cheerfully so. Indeed, lack of consensus does not constitute evidence against the existence of god. Again, I was asking for which theological tradition would provide evidence for the existence of god, not which traditions constitute lack of evidence for the existence of god.

Although, as you’ve pointed out, that distinction carries no weight with you, so I’m merely taking up computer screen space by saying so.

But one of them is right.

That’s comforting, I would imagine especially to those who are in the right one, whether they know it or not. Just think how comforting it will be when the world finally figures out which one it is, and the issue will be settled for all time, and everyone will know which path to follow.

Well, comforting, I guess, for the Christians. Less so, perhaps, for the Muslims, and the Jews, and Hindus, and the animists, and the Wiccans, and so forth.

The fact that you can’t tell which doesn’t render the whole excercise a futility.

This may very well be true, but my non-belief remains as the evidence just isn’t in. Evidently, it isn’t in for Christians, either, since there are so many denominations insisting they’re the right ones, when you’ve intimated that there actually is a right one, which automatically means that all the other ones (whichever they are) are not the right one.

you seem to place more emphasis on consensus than is normal.

I’m not sure what “than is normal” means, but I do place some emphasis on consensus in the sense of the scientific method. If, through peer review of the proffered evidence, through testing and gathering of data, through rigorous application of reason and logic, a group of individuals come to a consensus (such as, for example, that the earth revolves around the sun, or that oxygen is consumed during combustion), then yes, I do place emphasis on consensus. If I really wanted to, I could undertake the experiments myself (given enough time and money) and look at the results and independently decide for myself if oxygen is consumed during combustion. Or I can trust the consensus to have undergone that process for me, based on the idea of peer review and controlled experimentation. The consensus is in on many things, from heliocentrism to the speed of light in a vacuum.

If you are not interested in consensus on the idea of god, that’s fine. If that’s the case, though, it seems like the existence of god is something that cannot be proven, because there would be no underlying evidence that would ultimately stand up to peer review and produce the consensus you’re suggesting I rely on too much.

In which case, I am where I was: not seeing any evidence for the existence of god.

I would suggest that the existence of “creation science” throws the idea of consensus on any position out the window.

I’m not sure what point you are making here. That disagreement somehow trumps evidence? Are you suggesting that, in order for science to advance, everyone everywhere in the world must universally and unanimously agree that the speed of light in a vacuum, for example, must be 186,000 miles per second in order for it, in fact, to be 186,000 miles per second? That consensus is, in fact, a priori to the evidence suggesting the nature of something?

My understanding is that facts about something operate whether anyone believes it or not. So, it’s irrelevant that “creation science” doesn’t agree with contemporary biological data supporting, for example, evolution in organisms. The evidence is there. The evidence doesn’t need creationists to believe it in order for it to be valid. The evidence doesn’t even need evolutionary biologists to believe it in order for it to be valid. The evidence is independent of belief.

But to argue that anything is false on the grounds that people adhering to the same principles (a faith in scientific method perhaps) are having a disagreement is also fallacious.

Again, I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that statement. One argues that something is false based on the evidence. I apologize if I’m dim on this point, but I’m not understanding what you’re arguing here.

What Ricky Bob and Sus-Ann read in the bible belt is not the standard by which you should be judging theistic thought. That’s discourteous.

Discourteous to whom? Have you made inroads into reaching “Ricky Bob and Sus-Ann in the bible belt” in an effort to rectify the incorrect biblical standards those individuals have been relying on lo these many years?

Wow, thanks so much for the lesson in logic, of course, by the very nature of being a theist I must lack the cognitive ability to grasp these heady concepts, and should therefore also limit my ability to disagree with your superior wisdom… pfft.

Actually, I made no assumption about what you did and did not know about logical argument. In that case, it seems to me better to default to basic understanding by presenting the definitions in question. I didn’t do it out of an assumption that you didn’t understand. In fact, one of the reasons I wrote it out is that it also helps concretize the understanding in my own mind.

It seems to me the superiority of one’s wisdom would be hard to establish to a reliable degree in the scant pages of discussion we’ve had so far. It wasn’t my intention, by posting those terms and explanations, to demonstrate any kind of superiority. It was my intention to establish the foundations of the discussion, a point you address in your next comment.

You’ll always win this argument providing you’re setting the rhetorical rules.

I’m no more “setting the rhetorical rules” than they’ve already been set by the standards of logical argument. If you don’t wish to have a discussion on the basis of logical argument, what would you like to have the discussion based on?

Good idea. Why don’t we test the supernatural by using a method that presupposes that the supernatural does not exist. That sounds like a fair fight.

I’m not sure the scientific method presupposes the supernatural does not exist. My understanding of the scientific method is that it presupposes nothing, and lets the evidence demonstrate the nature of something. If evidence came along to support, let’s say, telekinesis, and it could be tested and re-tested in controlled conditions, peer reviewed and published, and replicated, then it seems like science would have established the existence of telekinesis. Personally, I would say then, that telekinesis no longer fell under the subject of supernatural, because science would have shown it to be a component of the natural universe. But intellectually honest scientific methodology doesn’t presuppose anything.

Regardless, my question still stands. If you think the scientific method isn’t a good way to examine the evidence for divinity, what method do you propose?

How bout we settle it like men, pistols at dawn. We both shoot ourselves, and see where we end up.

I have a theory on that: the hospital, or the morgue. Granted, I don’t have any data, nor am I eager to garner any under the conditions proposed, so it’s possible my hypothesis would be rejected (for further reading on the matter, I direct you to Mark Twain’s A Tramp Abroad). Additionally, how would we have independent verification of results?

I would argue that Pol Pot and Mao would not have reached the philosophy placing themselves at the centre of the universe had that position been occupied by a God.

Does this suggest that in order for individuals to exhibit morally good behavior, they need to have god?

Since I’m an atheist, would you say I exhibit morally bad behavior, or lack any understanding of morality, not believing (or “having” as the case may be) in god?

I would also propose that were they theists their actions would most probably have been different.

So, if they were theists, you suggest they probably would have acted differently. Religious affiliation, then, does explain behavior? If so, does that open up the possibility of judging Christianity by the behaviors of Christians?

Oh, but wait. You already did that. It’s like the Atheist’s Godwin’s law – you’ll note I did not cite Hitler.

Noted. What’s the point?

I would suggest that given the etymological roots of the word “Christianity” and the fact that Christ himself claimed this – Jesus is the One True Way – measure “Christian” behaviour against that of Jesus. Would Jesus have gone on Crusade? Umm, “blessed are the peacemakers” – probably not… and if you’re going to cite “I came not to bring peace but a sword” remember that it was essentially bookended by the beatitudes and the scene in Gethsemane where one of his disciples did use a sword and was rebuked. Perhaps this was a metaphor for the division caused by Christianity?

Ok, I won’t cite swords vs. plowshares. What if I cite something else? How about 1 Timothy 6: 1-2?

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.”

Since you’ve already accused me of setting terms of the discussion, and then went on to say, “But if you’re going to cite . . . then . . .,” then I’ll just go ahead and say, “But then you could bring up that’s someone’s interpretation, not actually how Jesus would have acted, and again an impasse will arise because I’ll say ‘ah, but we don’t know for sure how Jesus would have acted because the books attributing his words and deeds were set down years after his death (if he actually existed at all) and so there’s no way to verify what he would have felt about slavery,’ or I might say ‘But Jesus also said he came not to abolish the law.’ And a circular argument will begin.

I ask again, from a sociological perspective what’s the harm in people being Christian? Why are we celebrating this deconversion? Why is it a “success”?

Counter question: why is being Christian a success?

are you that honest when you talk to your theistic friends.

Yes.

I think you should change to this worldview that can’t even begin to be scientifically tested… just like the theism that you’d be leaving because it can’t be scientifically tested…

Again, when I talk to my friends, I don’t say to them, “I think you should change.” But again, we’re at impasse, because you think that when I say I don’t ask them to drop a belief, that really, by not having a belief myself, I am asking them to drop a belief. Sort of like when I don’t tell friends who smoke that they should give up smoking, I’m really secretly saying they should give up smoking by virtue of the fact that I don’t smoke. I’m not sure what I’d need to do to act independently of how you’ve already determined I act, but there it is.

So now you care about the original discussion having personalised every criticism I made of the original post. That’s inconsistent.

Fair enough. Since statements about how I behave with my friends is unlikely to change your idea of how I behave with my friends, I shall simply submit that this, then, is my last post trying to engage with you on this issue. You’ve already cited my overly long responses (which I engage in when I’m genuinely interested in something), and my inconsistency in addressing one post versus another. Far be it from me to try and shed my own understanding on a circumstance under discussion in an effort to explain what I saw as inconsistencies in a response to the original issue. Now I’m the one who is inconsistent. Carry on.

Regardless of our disagreement, I have enjoyed this conversation, though as I indicated, I won’t plague you with my thoughts directed specifically to you any longer. Thank you for your time.

No kings,

Robert