(January 12, 2012 at 1:05 am)Godschild Wrote: That's really dumb, first off it is a biased video, next I do not hate you or any other nonbeliever, answer me this why should I hate you, give me a reason, you must have one or you would not have posted that video, stand up and let me know.
Christianity is not about hate though I do admit that some christians come across that way and some probably do hate, that's not my call. Do not lay that stuff at my feet, you have no idea about who I am.
I never thought I would ever agree with a theist regarding anything related to god, but I have to say that the video is quite biased. The narrator makes quite a few good points about the concepts of rejection and feelings associated, nevertheless he makes certain critical errors in his arguments.
1. First of all, the narrator makes certain broad sweeping generalizations about both theists and atheists, which, even if shown to be applicable to most of the people from either category, would still not be universal.
Not all theists view god as a projection of their idealized subconscious self. Actually, other than having some vague ideas about him, most theists do not consider the nature of god at all. The shown representation of a theist would be specific to those who believe in a personal god.
Similarly, not all atheists are skeptics. Some even disbelieve in the idea on grounds of reason - such as if you ask someone to believe in square circles. Still others may reject the idea on different grounds.
2. The narrator makes quite a big leap of logic in saying that when Anthony is rejecting Gloria, he actually rejected an idealized and fictional version of Gloria which actually happens to be idealized and fictional version of Theresa herself. The moral of the story being, unless someone rejects you or the idealized version of you, you would not feel the emotions associated with rejection.
There is more to it than that. The anger and frustration can also be a response to the idea that one is wrong. Imagine if a theist asks himself - "God's existence should be obvious to any rational person and yet here we have a rational, intelligent human being who is an atheist. He's making sound arguments and I can't find a flaw in them. So what if the premise I'm going on is wrong. The assumption on which my daily rituals and habits are based, the assumption which gives me my code of conduct - if that is wrong what would happen to my life?"
The anger and frustration in that case is not so much a response to rejection but more of a fear based response against perceived threat to their lifestyle.
3. The narrator erroneously concludes that belief is not a matter of choice but the only possible consequence of the evidence you have been presented. While he's correct in saying that matters of truth are independent of desiribility, truth and belief are not synonymous.
Evidence does not just walk up to you itself. You have to look for it. Even if it was to be presented on a silver platter, you can still choose not to look at it. Even after looking at it you must choose to understand it. Understanding would not come automatically. You have to ask yourself what concepts does this evidence support, which does it contradict and why. Otherwise it would have no greater effect on your beliefs than a rock put forward. The narrator himself stresses the importance of being honest with oneself.
All these are choices one must make before one rationally holds a belief. This process is not automatic or compulsory. If it was, then because of all the evidence he has been presented, Kent Hovind would have been a evolutionary biologist.
