If you were ever a theist...

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So then you are a deist, which is fine, except for I don't see the necessity for the preconceived presumptions which deism carries when it approaches the big question. There may be one god, there may be thousands of gods, and we don't know the names nor one single word on the bio on even one of whoever he, she, it, or they are. A real god would necessarily have intelligence, but science reveals only a universe which has been unfolding without any to drive its changes.

So why do you think any intelligent being who is capable of intervening in our lives would care about us, when it is in no way plain to see that he ever has done anything for anybody? Why do you think he would waste 13.5 years waiting for stupid humans to arise and fuck with it all? What was the point in the existence of billions of other species which are no more?

The more you think about it, the more silly the whole idea that there would be any super-being or any intelligence at all involved in our existing the way we are. What you may not be aware of when you say you want to leave open the possibility of one existing all the same is that atheism is not dogmatically nay. On the Dawkins scale of weak to strong (1-7), I admit my infinitesimally small gap down from 7 doesn't leave much of a possibility, but I it still think that's more than the question deserves when theists and desits never fail to fail at providing valid evidence for the assertions they make, and are logically unable to. The problem I see with the full 7 is that I don't believe in doctrines, and the difference between a 6.9999999 atheist and a 7 on an unfalsifiable claim is no doctrine vs. doctrinary. The former is scientific, while the latter is not.

Because I've seen every argument which anyone can make for theism or even deism 1000 times, I will not apologize nor will I answer to charges of atheistic religiosity when I choose not to entertain attempts to show there is a god, and the only reason why I do it here is for the benefit of those who are seeking their freedom from the mental bondage of their religion. So if you (anyone) is reading this and you may have worried there may be an unknown and jealous god out there who you have not been pleasing because you followed the cult of your culture, I hope now you understand why that's really nothing more to worry about than the popular doctrines which you may already know for the crap they are. How could you even possibly address an unknown? It's just unknown, it's existentially unknown. Most importantly, and bleak as this thought may sound, the chances of an existing superbeing in a capacity, willingness, and intention to help bail this world out of it's problems are so close to nonexistent that we really all need to start living as if there will be no such future intervention - we're on our own, and our lives and our children's future is our responsibility.

I more or less agree.

And I'm not Deist.

I'm Agnostic.

I lean heavily toward Atheism, but I leave a narrow margin of possibility that there may be a God, as such.
And in any event, I am stringently Anti-Theism (anti-dogma).

I take my position of Agnosticism because, if nothing else, it is practical:

If you say to a Theist that "God doesn't exist"
then you begin with an impasse.

The reasons why god may, or may not be likely to exist are a bit of a moot point,
since neither can be conclusively proven,
so I don't waste my time giving Theists reasons to abandon their belief in God;
simply because, even if your logic is unassailable,
such an endeavor consumes a huge amount of energy for very little result.

You can argue with the same Theist for your entire life
about all the reasons God probably doesn't exist...and easily get nowhere,

because you are not going to argue a person away from a position that they arrived at, illogically,
by using logic.


But, by contrast:

If you begin a discussion on the subject, with a Theist,
by allowing that it's possible a God may exist,
and then proceed to point out the evils of Religion,
and you may make real progress;

You may at least get them started along the path towards
the realization that just because they have Faith,
does not mean that they necessarily need Religion,

...and in fact, as a person of Faith,
there are plenty of reasons to shun Religion.

I liken Faith in God to planting a seed in good soil, and leaving it up to Nature to see if it grows;

But I compare Religion to heaping manure, six feet deep, on top of that seed,
ostensibly with the purpose of fertilizing the seed, and helping it along towards the Sun,

...but in essence,
really just smothering it in vast quantities of utterly needless, and potentially damaging, shit.


I am personally NOT a Deist. 

Deists believe God exists.

What I said was that I don't mind  Deism...it isn't noxious the way most religions are.  I see it as relatively harmless.

And Deists do NOT assume that God cares about us;
Deists believe there is a God...but they presume to know nothing about that God,
and they reject religious dogma.

Deists observe that there is no evidence that God has taken any discernable interst in mankind
for better or worse, since creating us....to the best of my knowledge.


I find the idea of an Earth filled with Deists
far less noxious than an Earth filled with devoutly religious, dogmatic believers,
from a pragmatic point of view.

Your approach is a little unusual, and I'm sorry that I allowed the way you address "God" with capital "G" and "search for Truth" to lead to the presumption that you are decidedly deist.

What I agree thoroughly with is that there is no good point in telling a theist there is no god when your purpose is to change the theist's mind. To argue with them at all is counter-productive, and that's why I'm not sure it's a good idea to attack "God" as they believe it to be either. That won't stop me from doing both when I know I'm dealing with a troll or a person who is simply unreachable, but it's not for their benefit, it's to fight the confusion they may be causing those who are looking on and reading these threads.

The more you attack a believer's creed, the more they tend to double down, throwing back increasingly inane and nasty insults the more you stick around. They are that much personally entangled in the whole scam - that god, no matter what you say and no matter how truly you point out its evil nature, is their personal identity, their beloved parents, their children, their whole community and friends, and quite often it's also their stock in trade. When this is the case for said believer, as it most often is, it may be impossible for them not to take anything you say on their faith ideas as a personal attack, and from that point they won't care how right you are.

My preferred approach, if it's the person I'm addressing who I want to think differently is to put argument aside and just ask questions.

"Why do you believe..." is good for starters. If they care enough to be honest, they will think it over, although this has not been the case with the trolls this past week.

Usually they cannot answer that first question adequately, or they attempt to substitute an answer to the wrong question. To the robobeliever, "why" means "why I choose to insist (what can't be so must be)".

So I point out the difference between prescriptive and descriptive reasoning, that it must be understood that you may understand what your problems in life are, and you may have a prescription for dealing with them, but what good is that prescription if you don't have a decently descriptive assessment of it? You treat the disease, not the symptom, and their description to explain why we have our social and mental diseases comes from stone tablets and 2000-year-old papyrus etchings by goatherds on hallucinogenic mushrooms and opium poppies!

So why do you think that's better than scientific approaches to "spiritual" health, while I try to dispell their wooful notions that the spiritual and the mental are anything other than synonymous in educated culture.

Well, now here I am at the point of attacking them from a different angle, maybe this too is just a waste of time! But if they will evaluate their own position, I think it's best to ask more questions which would trigger this, and criticize less.

[MTL]

Your approach is a little unusual, and I'm sorry that I allowed the way you address "God" with capital "G" and "search for Truth" to lead to the presumption that you are decidedly deist.

What I agree thoroughly with is that there is no good point in telling a theist there is no god when your purpose is to change the theist's mind. To argue with them at all is counter-productive, and that's why I'm not sure it's a good idea to attack "God" as they believe it to be either. That won't stop me from doing both when I know I'm dealing with a troll or a person who is simply unreachable, but it's not for their benefit, it's to fight the confusion they may be causing those who are looking on and reading these threads.

The more you attack a believer's creed, the more they tend to double down, throwing back increasingly inane and nasty insults the more you stick around. They are that much personally entangled in the whole scam - that god, no matter what you say and no matter how truly you point out its evil nature, is their personal identity, their beloved parents, their children, their whole community and friends, and quite often it's also their stock in trade. When this is the case for said believer, as it most often is, it may be impossible for them not to take anything you say on their faith ideas as a personal attack, and from that point they won't care how right you are.

My preferred approach, if it's the person I'm addressing who I want to think differently is to put argument aside and just ask questions.

"Why do you believe..." is good for starters. If they care enough to be honest, they will think it over, although this has not been the case with the trolls this past week.

Usually they cannot answer that first  question adequately, or they attempt to substitute an answer to the wrong question. To the robobeliever, "why" means "why I choose to insist (what can't be so must be)".

So I point out the difference between prescriptive and descriptive reasoning, that it must be understood that you may understand what your problems in life are, and you may have a prescription for dealing with them, but what good is that prescription if you don't have a decently descriptive assessment of it? You treat the disease, not the symptom, and their description to explain why we have our social and mental diseases comes from stone tablets and 2000-year-old papyrus etchings by goatherds on hallucinogenic mushrooms and opium poppies!

So why do you think that's better than scientific approaches to "spiritual" health, while I try to dispell their wooful notions that the spiritual and the mental are anything other than synonymous in educated culture.

Well, now here I am at the point of attacking them from a different angle, maybe this too is just a waste of time! But if they will evaluate their own position, I think it's best to ask more questions which would trigger this, and criticize less.

Sorry for the confusion.  I may use a capital G or a lower-case g for the sake of clarity;
god being generally meant as a noun, God being meant more as a the name of a specific entity
...but ultimately I just don't care that much, lol.  Whatever.

And again, I agree pretty much with what you've said, here,
but I should clarify again that I don't really "attack" Theist reasoning, AT ALL,
unless I'm given a real reason to.

A Theist REALLY has to persevere and push me hard, before I will even really engage with them on the subject.
I know most of them mean well, and I don't think combativeness helps my cause.

But those Theists that aggressively seek me out,
to add me to their collection of souls,
...like a child who seeks to add my light to their jar full of imprisoned fireflies...
it is those with whom I will engage,
and only if they pursue me hard enough.

They won't experience a strike from me, unless they pursue me, first.

In that sense, I confess that I am a bit like the Angler Fish:



But even that analogy conveys far more aggressiveness than I actually utilize.

Like you, I prefer the questioning approach.

(but my point is that I won't even begin a line of questioning unless I am first questioned,
and I must first be questioned rather relentlessly, at that).

There are, as you have observed, different types of Theists...and I don't refer to their differences of dogma;
but rather the type of mind and attitude that they have.

As you said, some, when engaged, will only double-down,
and they are too far gone, IMO...they are a waste of time.
They don't really belong to their Religion because they want Truth,
They just want Religion.

But the Theist who sincerely seeks Truth, and is merely misguided into following Religion,
they ARE worth the time...very much so;
and I don't seek to destroy their Faith in God,
but rather encourage them to realize that Religion is a red herring.

And it is with such a Theist that my "unusual approach" rears its head:

It is then that you'll hear me talk like a Theist,
as if I believe in God, making Biblical references, etc,

because with such a Theist,
my tack is not to destroy their Faith at all,
but rather awaken to the reality that their Religion is superfluous to their Faith and even a danger to it.

I think it requires a HUGE investment of energy to endeavor to convert ANY Theist to Atheism,
and with a very low likelihood of desired result,

but it seems like a far more realistic and practical objective to illustrate to a relatively open-minded Theist
the option of Deism, which is far less harmful than their Religion, is.

I consider such Theists to be worth the time,
because if I can eventually shift their thinking toward Deism,
they may do the same to other Theists of their acquaintance;
Deism has more of a chance to "go viral" amongst a circle of Theists.

[robvalue]

I miss DeistPaladin. He took a pragmatic approach, and declared himself a deist partly for practical reasons.

In debate, he could then skip all the nonsense about "God does exist" and go straight to "What's this got to do with a character in a story book". I've since copied his approach and sometimes just "give" people a deist God for the sake of argument, although I don't identify as a deist myself.

Of course, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean believing there is no God. Just being as yet unconvinced that there is, is still normally called (weak) atheism. Although I understand some people feel more comfortable referring to this as "just agnostic". Weak atheism goes along with my ignostic position, because I can't believe something doesn't exist if I don't even understand what the fuck you're even talking about. But neither can I be convinced it exists, hence weak atheism.

[*Deidre*]

Why is it necessary to label ourselves anything? Labels are what get us in trouble. lol If I had returned here, and kept my 'atheist' label by my religious views tagline by my avatar, and just didn't say a word...everyone wouldn't question me, and no one would be the wiser. It's when I changed my religious views 'tagline,' and shared that I returned to faith, that some people treated me differently. I'm still the same person, but that's the problem with labels. Human nature, I reckon.

[MTL]

Why is it necessary to label ourselves anything? Labels are what get us in trouble. lol If I had returned here, and kept my 'atheist' label by my religious views tagline by my avatar, and just didn't say a word...everyone wouldn't question me, and no one would be the wiser. It's when I changed my religious views 'tagline,' and shared that I returned to faith, that some people treated me differently. I'm still the same person, but that's the problem with labels. Human nature, I reckon.

Ironically enough, today I took a couple of self-adhesive labels and plastered them over my heels to prevent blisters.

Today, labels saved my life. 

[*Deidre*]

Why is it necessary to label ourselves anything? Labels are what get us in trouble. lol If I had returned here, and kept my 'atheist' label by my religious views tagline by my avatar, and just didn't say a word...everyone wouldn't question me, and no one would be the wiser. It's when I changed my religious views 'tagline,' and shared that I returned to faith, that some people treated me differently. I'm still the same person, but that's the problem with labels. Human nature, I reckon.

Ironically enough, today I took a couple of self-adhesive labels and plastered them over my heels to prevent blisters.

Today, labels saved my life. 

hahahaha!!! Okaayyyyy smartie...you have a point! 

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I love that anglerfish!

Far as converting anyone goes, don't care about that. What matters to me is getting people to reconsider bad ideas when they express them, and helping when I can those who are seeking better answers than those which they've been handed.

[MTL]

I love that anglerfish!

badass, isn't he?

It perfectly conveys my approach to the debate.

[*Deidre*]

MTL, I hear you about theists who actively seek to evangelize (putting it mildly) and it bugs me as well. I'm not a pushy type of person in general, and feel that everyone who leaves faith, should do so after serious reflection and on their own...and same for identifying with a particular faith. It should be something private, and moving, and not at all coerced by others. There are dogmatic theists out there, but also dogmatic atheists, as well...and both sides sometimes forget that while you can plant a seed to share with someone, that person has to decide for themselves what fits with their own worldview, their own experiences, etc. I used to say as an atheist that the greatest weapon against Christianity will be Christians, themselves, for some (many) don't realize how offensively they come across.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I love that anglerfish!

badass, isn't he?

It perfectly conveys my approach to the debate.

Well, I don't quite identify with the predator position - I'd just like to get people to re-think bad ideas, and when I can help those who are questioning those which they've been handed. But it's still a badass pic.

I know those things really exist, but that isn't really a photo...is it? If an artist did that, I'd love to know where I could see more from him.