Atheism

[gord44]

Religious conversion testimonies are especially dubious in my experience; when I briefly began returning to Christianity after paganism I was asked by a pastor to make my testimony more dramatic. He said "I know paganism isn't really like this but could you please sprinkle in some satanist ideas to make your conversion more powerful?"

That's wild. I can't imagine any pastor I have ever met doing that. Pentecostal or Charismatic i am guessing?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I know people have real conversion testimonies but honestly they only have meaning to the people who had them. I can't trust them as anything past a story.

I wonder how far things can go when seeing the actual content of a testimony - just as someone who divorces notes "There was domestic violence occurring and my children were in danger." Someone can say "Well that sounds good but it's just a story" - until you actually see the bruises and research the facts concerning the cases of domestic violence, shelters for battered women and children and realize it is a real issue. It's the same with conversion stories - beyond the emotion of them, the focus should always be the facts (what was compelling as evidence for why something was or wasn't true - or what convinced them to change)...and then seeing, for themselves, what is actually present.

 

[Zoness]

I wonder how far things can go when seeing the actual content of a testimony - just as someone who divorces notes "There was domestic violence occurring and my children were in danger." Someone can say "Well that sounds good but it's just a story" - until you actually see the bruises and research the facts concerning the cases of domestic violence, shelters for battered women and children and realize it is a real issue. It's the same with conversion stories - beyond the emotion of them, the focus should always be the facts (what was compelling as evidence for why something was or wasn't true - or what convinced them to change)...and then seeing, for themselves, what is actually present.

Yes, the facts. None of which are observable in a religious testimony. A domestic abuse case has the ability to go through a court to be examined and vetted where everyone listening to a religious testimony takes it on face value. Another anecdote (I recognize that it just is an anecdote) was our youth pastor saying that the Lord's light was in him and he was an absolute true Christian. Then a year later he is convicted of possessing child pornography.

Nobody thought about it the first time "wow he said he was a true Christian and true Christians never lie!". A religious testimony is just a story, you can't verify the integrity of the person or their story immediately from it. You want to assume the best, but personally I'd rather prepare for the worst.

 

[bhsmte]

Technically - and this is a point of irony, IMHO - everything that has ever taken place here in this planet when it comes to viewpoints is a matter of testimony. One side sharing their perspective on why they came to believe what they believe and how that differed from where they were before - be it on religious views or on views of politics and many other things. It is not always an emotional ordeal nor does it have to be one since for many it is and will always be simply about the facts being addressed as they understand it.

And of course, as there will be others outside of the position one holds to who disagree, they will share their perspective (be it one where they converted or not) - it is always a matter of perspective. Someone divorcing another because of an affair their partner had and then remarrying (if using the love example) is logically going to have strong feelings - and on the issue, having strong feelings/conviction DOES NOT make the choice automatically wrong or something to be dismissed.....just as others critiquing (be it those who felt the marriage should have continued or those supporting the decision to leave) are going to have feelings on it. Of course there are unconscious desires at work - and that's basic to humanity. But being vocal as a convert or supporting a change intensely doesn't take away from the logic of what is being supported - even the most vocal converts can tend to stick to their newfound faith because of the superiority of its arguments, or the plain logic of its core principles.

And if core principles are being dismissed because of others having strong feelings, that's dismissing/avoiding dealing with the issues - no different than someone saying that it's wrong for Bill to feel that Susan is a hard worker (counter to his ex-wife who was bad with money and didn't have good credit like Susan) because of how intensely he thinks the world of her. One may wish to focus on saying "Bill shouldn't feel the world revolves around Susan" - but that has nothing to do with showing whether or not Susan is a hard worker.....and if he's right on Susan being a hard worker, it matters little whether or not he is also zealous for praising her as well.

I have an Aunt and Uncle who divorced after 24 yrs of marriage. They came close to divorce on multiple occasions - my uncle, however, still has a picture in his house of him and my aunt as well as pictures of them and my cousins from their marriage. Of course he is dating and seeking remarriage as my aunt is - and of course, they had their reasons for divorcing (financial and strife more so) - but that doesn't logically mean they vilify every single thing they did when they were previously married. They appreciate new partners for who they are and obviously feel they are superior in certain ways - just as family members do, even if those family members don't really like the new partners more so than the new...but newfound convictions are natural. Some of them will be good/true and others won't be accurate - but it's a part of development. And many of them live happy lives till their deaths and are quite stable. That has happened for a long time.

Likewise - it is the same with convert testimony or stories of others sharing why they grew up as they did. And if the emotion/strong conviction is wrong, so is the act of speaking on this forum anytime something comes up one disagrees with.

The great equalizer in regards to individual testimony:

Objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, the facts. None of which are observable in a religious testimony.

Not an observable comment - seeing that no one can verify it by what you said alone. And of course, the same goes for both religious and non-religious testimony. Someone saying that atheism as a system of belief making sense is in the same category as someone saying a religious stance makes sense - they both give what they see as evidence based on what is observed. Someone saying they ceased being an Evangelical Christian because of how there didn't seem to be evidence for YEC or claiming that all who were non-believers were not rational (which is true with many facts) is no different than someone who grew up Atheists (knowing all of the scholars on atheism and the system of belief) and saying why they believed in that system - and then sharing why they changed when seeing some of the flaws in logic, as well as a lack of evidence for saying things like "The Bible is not historically verified on multiple points" or claims of "All Christians are oppressive!!!" when there was already evidence of Christians who were FAR from that and could easily be referenced.

And of course, what one considers to be "facts" makes a difference as well - epistemology and studying what is real as well as determining how we actually know what we know. Is it a matter of what we can taste, see, feel or touch - or if there are deeper things beyond that....and thus, you're back at square one on why others disagree.

A domestic abuse case has the ability to go through a court to be examined and vetted where everyone listening to a religious testimony takes it on face value. Another anecdote (I recognize that it just is an anecdote) was our youth pastor saying that the Lord's light was in him and he was an absolute true Christian. Then a year later he is convicted of possessing child pornography.

Domestic abuse cases don't have everyone listening - seeing that many are left OUT of the case as well, in regards to the common public. Moreover, taking the case outside to everyone, you will STILL get a myriad of opinions on the matter. Someone is ultimately making the final say - and it's not the common public....even though there is examination. All things are taken on face value on some level...

Nobody thought about it the first time "wow he said he was a true Christian and true Christians never lie!". A religious testimony is just a story, you can't verify the integrity of the person or their story immediately from it. You want to assume the best, but personally I'd rather prepare for the worst.

With the anecedote of the youth pastor, him falling into child pornagraphy isn't the same as showing that Jesus supported it - just as an atheist saying they are more rational and moral for not believing in God and then committing murder doesn't mean that all atheists will go to that same action - or that the action is symbolic of the belief system itself and it's validity. The bottom line being that religious stories are NOT just stories just as what you're saying online here - in this moment - isn't simply something made up because no one can verify immediately from it.

 

[LoAmmi]

Not an observable comment - seeing that no one can verify it by what you said alone. And of course, the same goes for both religious and non-religious testimony. Someone saying that atheism as a system of belief making sense is in the same category as someone saying a religious stance makes sense - they both give what they see as evidence based on what is observed.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too or speak out both sides of the mouth

An opinion, which is what religious testimony is, is only as reliable as you put trust in the person making it. Someone who says that water is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules is stating a fact and not an opinion. It can be verified.

That you think Christianity is really special and has helped you is great, but doesn't do anything for me because I don't put faith in your experience to guide me.

 

[gord44]

An opinion, which is what religious testimony is, is only as reliable as you put trust in the person making it. Someone who says that water is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules is stating a fact and not an opinion. It can be verified.

That you think Christianity is really special and has helped you is great, but doesn't do anything for me because I don't put faith in your experience to guide me.

Well put. WHen I see some wild testimony on youtube, i don't know the person. Plus I know from experience how the mind can embellish a story as time passes almost without knowing it.

 

[LoAmmi]

Well put. WHen I see some wild testimony on youtube, i don't know the person. Plus I know from experience how the mind can embellish a story as time passes almost without knowing it.

To be honest, when you break it down almost all conversion stories are a person who had an emotional response to something and decided to go after it. I very rarely come across someone who had a purely intellectual conversion. The emotion comes first and the justification for it comes later.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but if I don't experience that emotion it doesn't matter what they felt.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

An opinion, which is what religious testimony is,
is only as reliable as you put trust in the person making it..

You already gave an opinion - and religious testimonies are never opinion alone while non-religious testimonies are automatically beyond opinion. One must be consistent before speaking if trying to do equivocation - paticularly if claiming Judaism as something to believe in when others have already noted that is pure opinion in a group sense.

Someone who says that water is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules is stating a fact and not an opinion. It can be verified.

One must assume that what they deem to be an opinion is already divorced from fact - just as it is a fact that the world was created at some point and that one cannot make a moral stance on life being insignificant based on the fact that it exists alone - when you bring morality into it (i.e. don't kill, show respect, etc.) and the metaphysical, you've already implictly shown that physical facts also deal with facts of different kinds as well.

That you think Christianity is really special and has helped you is great, but doesn't do anything for me because I don't put faith in your experience to guide me

It doesn't matter whether or not you put faith into the experience - as that was not the basis for why others feel the system was logical and verifable when it comes to dealing with the facts of reality. What mattered was that people saw the facts and in regards to expressing how to explain them, each person differs in what they feel is the best position. That you don't feel Christianity is good is of little consequence - if you cannot verify your own position is the best or logical, it makes little difference speaking about it to others who disagree when they share why they believe as they believe and you feel compelled to say "I think you're wrong!"

 

[Zoness]

LoAmmi put it best: I've had more than one experience where people expected their testimony to convert me. Great for them, but it doesn't provide anything to me personally.

Besides if I were to come up with a testimony about paganism, Christians would lose their minds. Preaching a testimony seems to be only a thing in big evangelical churches.

 

[LoAmmi]

You already gave an opinion - and religious testimonies are never opinion alone while non-religious testimonies are automatically beyond opinion.

I don't understand this sentence. Religious testimonies are opinions. I have no idea what this non-religious thing is you're talking about.

One must be consistent before speaking if trying to do equivocation - paticularly if claiming Judaism as something to believe in when others have already noted that is pure opinion in a group sense.

I understand this sentence even less. I believe in Judaism but have never told anybody on this forum that they should believe it. So, I have no idea why you're making up a claim that I have.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't understand this sentence. Religious testimonies are opinions. I have no idea what this non-religious thing is you're talking about.

Not a complicated idea when it comes to noting that religious testimonies are not simply opinions - seeing that all testimonies based in atheism or the non-religious would also be opinions as well. One cannot speak on religious testimonies as opinions alone without showing where they don't deal with facts - otherwise they are begging the question. When someone sees the fact of existence - and then proceeds to say there is no God and that no morality is absolute, they have spoken as if it's fact. They have little basis for speaking against others who don't support their ideologies or their concept of self-preservation and what they think to be fair unless they are honest in noting that what they hold to is something that they actually believe to be fact......one cannot have their cake and eat it too.

I understand this sentence even less. I believe in Judaism but have never told anybody on this forum that they should believe it. So, I have no idea why you're making up a claim that I have.

No one said you said others HAD to believe in Judaism - so focus. What was said was that your claim of others feeling Christianity to be special and yet pointless to you is no different than others noting your belief in Judaism as a system is pure opinion in the same way a religious testimony is - and you cannot say you don't believe in religious testimonies since they are opinion and yet expect others to take you seriously on Judaism whenever you wish to speak on why it is valid and why YOU choose to hold to it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'm not saying that every (de-)conversion happens for the wrong reason, or that - to return to the analogy - Jack and Jill aren't a much more harmonious and compatible couple than Jack and Amy ever were.

I'm saying that gushing converts are more annoying than informative - even when they are promoting a world view close to my own.
When they are now adhering to a world view that decides on what to believe by fiat of a council of old men, and are called upon to believe both in the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary on that account, that does not exactly help their case, either.

Nor do intelligence or education play too much of a part in just where a person's journey might be headed. I'm sure you can find gushing testimonies from highly educated people for just about any world view - including more cult-like groups like Scientoogy or Raelism. You can certainly find lots of Ex-Christian muslims denouncing their former faith - and vice versa.

 

[LoAmmi]

Not a complicated idea when it comes to noting that religious testimonies are not simply opinions - seeing that all testimonies based in atheism or the non-religious would also be opinions as well. One cannot speak on religious testimonies as opinions alone without showing where they don't deal with facts - otherwise they are begging the question.

Ok. Someone who became an atheist is likely presenting an opinion. I would consider it a religious testimony as it relates to religion. I am comparing opinion to fact. It is a fact that we have DNA. It is an opinion that Christianity is the correct religion.

Perhaps in the future you may wish to request clarification for people's comments than throwing words in their mouths, yes?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ok. Someone who became an atheist is likely presenting an opinion. I would consider it a religious testimony as it relates to religion. I am comparing opinion to fact. It is a fact that we have DNA. It is an opinion that Christianity is the correct religion.

Atheists who give testimonies don't claim of themselves to be giving religious opinions - thus, if speaking about it, one needs to clarify BEFORE talking against the position of another. It is a fact that DNA exists - and it is also FACT that DNA could not exist without complex design....and it is fact that it is not logical saying DNA and biology cannot exist without being created or that life is insignificant (where one treats it as trash) because of DNA being present.

Perhaps in the future you may wish to request clarification for people's comments than throwing words in their mouths, yes

One can actually do better in the future (before speaking AGAINST a position) to actually ask what another means before speaking on it as if you knew where they were coming from. That'd be consistent with not placing words in the mouth of others and doing for others what you claim you want for yourself. It's not that complicated...

And to note, this already happened way back earlier in the the thread (as seen here and here).

 

[bhsmte]

Atheists who give testimonies don't claim of themselves to be giving religious opinions - thus, if speaking about it, one needs to clarify BEFORE talking against the position of another. It is a fact that DNA exists - and it is also FACT that DNA could not exist without complex design....and it is fact that it is not logical saying DNA and biology cannot exist without being created or that life is insignificant (where one treats it as trash) because of DNA being present.

You are speculating on the complex design piece, which I assume you are talking about ID.

Nothing wrong with you speculating for your own personal edification, but it is not a fact, as you claim, facts are verifiable and objective.

 

[LoAmmi]

Atheists who give testimonies don't claim of themselves to be giving religious opinions - thus, if speaking about it, one needs to clarify BEFORE talking against the position of another. It is a fact that DNA exists - and it is also FACT that DNA could not exist without complex design....and it is fact that it is not logical saying DNA and biology cannot exist without being created or that life is insignificant (where one treats it as trash) because of DNA being present.
One can actually do better in the future (before speaking AGAINST a position) to actually ask what another means before speaking on it as if you knew where they were coming from. That'd be consistent with not placing words in the mouth of others and doing for others what you claim you want for yourself. It's not that complicated...

I do not understand what error in thinking would lead you to make these conclusions on what I have said, but I assure you that you are making errors in what I am saying and what I intent to say.

Every time I have tried to converse with you, you have been incredibly hostile. Why is this?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not saying that every (de-)conversion happens for the wrong reason, or that - to return to the analogy - Jack and Jill aren't a much more harmonious and compatible couple than Jack and Amy ever were.

I'm saying that gushing converts are more annoying than informative - even when they are promoting a world view close to my own.
When they are now adhering to a world view that decides on what to believe by fiat of a council of old men, and are called upon to believe both in the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary on that account, that does not exactly help their case, either.

One, how one defines "gushing" is subjective - someone being confident of what they believe is taken to be "excited" whereas another sees it as being rather calm. Two, whether one takes them to be annoying rather than informative is subjective since not all feel the same. Three, the fact that one already shows bias when trying to make a knock against Christianity (as it concerns reasons for not believing) doesn't really help in showing one wishes to be informative - no more than one saying believing in Mother-Earth worship and paganism is rather pointless since they are all "cannibals" and have been prone to violence. People don't believe in things made by fiat of a council of old men - as goes the stereotype - and those speaking on such show they don't understand what one actually believes.

If one doesn't believe in a stance, that doesn't make the stance wrong - nor does it do anything saying things against it which others don't hold to.

Nor do intelligence or education play too much of a part in just where a person's journey might be headed.

No one is able to say that intelligence and education don't play a part. People continue to value education and study in all decisions they make and it's an active journey - and for those who drop it for things, that doesn't mean all are like that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You are speculating on the complex design piece, which I assume you are talking about ID.

Nothing wrong with you speculating for your own personal edification, but it is not a fact, as you claim, facts are verifiable and objective.

You already did speculation in saying that ID doesn't exist based on the evidence - and thus, it is inconsistent. Facts are interpreted as it concerns worldview - and as it concerns the facts, people disagree on how they see them. I see design clearly when it comes to the facts of creation - as do others in the world of science (Stephen Myers, Francis Collins of the Human Genome project, etc.).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml0FqyFYfrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGu_VtbpWhE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y

And even as it concerns knowing what you know with significance, you already show that what is deemed to be "verifiable" shifts in multiple respects. If one says "Your life is pointless - I have the right to kill you" and you resist saying "That's wrong", you're speaking on the basis of fact from what you know to be verifiable in life. If saying "What I feel about life and its value is speculation", then there's little discussion on whether the facts of creation lead to treating you differently or not.

 

[bhsmte]

You already did speculation in saying that ID doesn't exist based on the evidence - and thus, it is inconsistent. Facts are interpreted as it concerns worldview. And even as it concerns knowing what you know with significance, you already show that what is deemed to be "verifiable" shifts in multiple respects. If one says "Your life is pointless - I have the right to kill you" and you resist saying "That's wrong", you're speaking on the basis of fact from what you know to be verifiable in life. If saying "What I feel about life and its value is speculation", then there's little discussion on whether the facts of creation lead to treating you differently or not.

Evidence Gxg, evidence. I comes in handy when trying to prove a point.

The ID proponents have gotten no where in their journey. I am sure you are familiar with the Dover trial in the United States, where ID proponents much smarter than you and I were put on the stand and they were exposed, big time. Even a conservative Christian judge, put them in their place.

They have no scientific definition of ID, no way of identifying whether ID exists that is falsifiable and until they do, it is all speculation.