Theist's the Hard Truth

[Jollybear]

The ultimate fate of all of us and our works. Bill Gates changed the world, but that sentiment will apply when he dies and when Windows eventually ceases to exist. We remember Julius Caesar, but only as long as there are humans to remember him. A few plays are debated if Shakespeare wrote them, because it's happened to him extensively, and some older texts we don't really know if the author is who the book is credited to or if it was written by multiple people. Even though their work has lived on, the world moved on and time turned the author into a vague and faceless name of little real substance.
Is anything worth doing then?

The universe continuing on as always despite what we believe or do is not a bad thing. Its suppose to do that. Its designed to do it. It be bad if it did not continue on.

But the fundemental assumption of the OP is that this means our conciousness does not continue on after death.

And that......is a BIG assumption. A wrong one too.

 

[shunyadragon]

The kind of people who belong to atheist societies tend to be among the most predictably conformist in their beliefs of any group on earth.

Atheist societies? That is a new one to me. I am not an atheist, but as far as my experience atheists are not predictable conformists, but came to their belief by an independent investigation of why people believe, and reject conformity.

The most predictable conformists that I have experienced are the believers in ancient religions, particularly those that hold a rigid uncompromising exclusive belief like fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know you're not asking me, but I'll respond anyway.

Ohhhh so you are an atheist because of science and reason?

In part. The prime reason why I am an atheist, is because if have no valid reason to believe theistic claims.
When you don't find theistic claims believable, you kind of automatically default to atheism... as atheism literally is "not believing the claims of theism".

What scientific evidence or line of reasoning convinced you that atheism is true?

Atheism is not a thing that can be "true" or "false", since atheism is not a claim.
Instead, atheism is a position on specific claims - theistic claims to be exact.

It's theism that can be true or false.
Atheist, is what you are when you don't believe theism is true.

Theism is the claim here. Theism has the burden of proof.
Atheist is what you are automatically if you conclude that theism hasn't met it's burden of proof.

Atheism is not a claim and has no such burden.

BTW
The reason why I believe that the heliocentric model is true is because I was born in the 20th century....

For real? I dare say that that is not the case.
The actual reason why you accept the heliocentric model as oppose to the geocentric model, is because of the evidence which supports the first and the contradicts the latter.

Before we had that evidence, the only evidence we had was consistent with a geocentric model. We didn't have the data at our disposal to conclude that the earth wasn't stationary in space. And the earth "feels" and "looks" pretty stationary. And when we observe the sun, lacking the evidence/data we have today, what we observe is the sun rising on one side, moving accross the sky and then setting on the other side.

So barring all evidence and data we know of today, what was actually observed before knowing about that data, was a seemingly stationary earth with a non-stationary sun orbitting it.

Going by only the evidence and available data, concluding geocentrism was actually reasonable and rational.

People seem to forget sometimes that "reasonable and rational" isn't necessarily the same as "accurate and correct". It rather just means drawing sensible conclusions based on the data at ones disposal. This conclusion may or may not be correct. Discovering new data later on can then confirm this conclusion, or turn it on its head.

If I would have been born in the 1400s I would probably have been a geocentricist. .... But I am sure you would not accept this argument to support geocentricism.

Indeed I wouldn't, as I explained above.
It is true that in the 1400s you'ld have accepted the geocentric model. But not "because it's the 1400s". Rather, because it was a sensible conclusion given the data available at that particular time.

Data and evidence leads the way here. Lacking the data to justify it, there would be no reason to suggest a heliocentric model. The heliocentric model was only proposed AFTER new data was discovered that was inconsistent with a geocentric model.

And that's what I would call rational, reasonable and justified beliefs: those beliefs that are supported by the data at our disposal, instead of contradicted by it.

In short: in the 1400s, geocentrism would have been a rational and reasonable conclusion.
Heliocentrism wouldn't have been - because there was no data to support it.

Funny right... that it would actually have been irrational / unreasonable to accept the more accurate model.

Rational / reasonable is directly proportional to availability of supporting data and evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

I realized after I replied that I didn't address this question.

Can I convince myself? Well, I'm not sure if 'convince' is the correct word, but my worldview changed as I acquired knowledge and understanding through logic, reasoning, and experience.

I have no interest in convincing someone else of anything as it pertains to religious and/or spiritual matters. For what reason would one want to aside from satiating one's own ego?

If someone tries to convince there child that beating up there little brother is wrong, is that parrents ego gone haywire?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If someone tries to convince there child that beating up there little brother is wrong, is that parrents ego gone haywire?

Is this scenario a religious or spiritual matter?

 

[Augustus]

ndeed I wouldn't, as I explained above.
It is true that in the 1400s you'ld have accepted the geocentric model. But not "because it's the 1400s". Rather, because it was a sensible conclusion given the data available at that particular time.

Data and evidence leads the way here. Lacking the data to justify it, there would be no reason to suggest a heliocentric model. The heliocentric model was only proposed AFTER new data was discovered that was inconsistent with a geocentric model.

And that's what I would call rational, reasonable and justified beliefs: those beliefs that are supported by the data at our disposal, instead of contradicted by it.

In short: in the 1400s, geocentrism would have been a rational and reasonable conclusion.
Heliocentrism wouldn't have been - because there was no data to support it.

Which is also why Copernicus' and Galileo's ideas were initially rejected by many, even though they would turn out to be correct.

With the latter it's often assumed that heliocentrism had been proven and was the scientific consensus, meaning the Church rejected it out of blind dogmatism. However, geocentrism was still the dominant scientific position at that time.

Why did those astronomers who first mastered Copernicus’s Revolutions re- fuse to accept the truth of heliocentrism? Because the evidence that could be marshaled in the middle of the sixteenth century in support of the heliocentric model as physically true was not convincing. No observation, taken by itself, could prove that the Sun rested and the earth moved. Predictions using the new system (in the form given it in the Revolutions) were no more accurate than those offered by the old...

Alongside these advantages of the heliocentric model were several powerful disadvantages. First, putting the earth in motion represented a massive violation of everyday common sense. Second, removal of the earth from the center of the cosmos represented a destructive attack on Aristotle’s physics—the only comprehensive system of physics in existence—and therefore represented a serious violation of scientific common sense. Third, to put the earth in motion was to put it into the heavens, thereby destroying the dichotomy between the heavens and the earth, which had served as a fundamental cosmological premise wherever Aristotelian philosophy prevailed for the previous two millennia. Fourth, the absence of stellar parallax (apparent change in the relative positions of a pair of stars, expected if those stars were viewed from a planet conceived to be moving through an orbit with a diameter of ten million miles) offered powerful empirical evidence against heliocentrism (fig. .).8

As a result, few people in the half century after publication of the Revolutions took the system seriously as a description of physical reality. Those astronomers and natural philosophers who rejected heliocentrism did so not because of blind conservatism or religious intolerance, but because of their commitment to widely held scientific principles and theories. Indeed, the first serious critics were young astronomers in the German universities, who perceived the simplicity and intelligibility of the heliocentric theory and used it for calculations, but regarded it as physically impossible. They understood that simplicity and intelligibility do not guarantee truth...

Galileo apparently counted himself a Copernican from the mid-1590s; but it was the publication of an account of his telescopic observations in two small books, the Starry Messenger and Letters on Sunspots , that propelled him into a serious heliocentric campaign. Galileo’s telescopic observations certainly did not demonstrate the truth of the heliocentric model. However, they did, when deployed in his arguments, undermine some of the more powerful objections against heliocentric cosmology—a far cry from proving that heliocentric cosmology is true.

David C Lindberg- Galileo, the Church and the cosmos

 

[leroy]

I know you're not asking me, but I'll respond anyway.



In part. The prime reason why I am an atheist, is because if have no valid reason to believe theistic claims.
When you don't find theistic claims believable, you kind of automatically default to atheism... as atheism literally is "not believing the claims of theism".



Atheism is not a thing that can be "true" or "false", since atheism is not a claim.
Instead, atheism is a position on specific claims - theistic claims to be exact.

It's theism that can be true or false.
Atheist, is what you are when you don't believe theism is true.

Theism is the claim here. Theism has the burden of proof.
Atheist is what you are automatically if you conclude that theism hasn't met it's burden of proof.

Atheism is not a claim and has no such burden.



For real? I dare say that that is not the case.
The actual reason why you accept the heliocentric model as oppose to the geocentric model, is because of the evidence which supports the first and the contradicts the latter.

Before we had that evidence, the only evidence we had was consistent with a geocentric model. We didn't have the data at our disposal to conclude that the earth wasn't stationary in space. And the earth "feels" and "looks" pretty stationary. And when we observe the sun, lacking the evidence/data we have today, what we observe is the sun rising on one side, moving accross the sky and then setting on the other side.

So barring all evidence and data we know of today, what was actually observed before knowing about that data, was a seemingly stationary earth with a non-stationary sun orbitting it.

Going by only the evidence and available data, concluding geocentrism was actually reasonable and rational.

People seem to forget sometimes that "reasonable and rational" isn't necessarily the same as "accurate and correct". It rather just means drawing sensible conclusions based on the data at ones disposal. This conclusion may or may not be correct. Discovering new data later on can then confirm this conclusion, or turn it on its head.



Indeed I wouldn't, as I explained above.
It is true that in the 1400s you'ld have accepted the geocentric model. But not "because it's the 1400s". Rather, because it was a sensible conclusion given the data available at that particular time.

Data and evidence leads the way here. Lacking the data to justify it, there would be no reason to suggest a heliocentric model. The heliocentric model was only proposed AFTER new data was discovered that was inconsistent with a geocentric model.

And that's what I would call rational, reasonable and justified beliefs: those beliefs that are supported by the data at our disposal, instead of contradicted by it.

In short: in the 1400s, geocentrism would have been a rational and reasonable conclusion.
Heliocentrism wouldn't have been - because there was no data to support it.

Funny right... that it would actually have been irrational / unreasonable to accept the more accurate model.

Rational / reasonable is directly proportional to availability of supporting data and evidence.

Well let's be more specific. Ether the fine tuning of the universe was caused by a designer or by some natural cause.... What science or line if reasoning lead you to conclude that a natural mechanism is the cause?

My reasoning is this:
1 I take for granted that the existance of God is at least possible (given that nobody has disproved his existance)

2 all the potential naturalistic explanations that are discussed inithe literaturel for the fine tuning of the universe are demonstrably wrong

3 nobody has show that the design hypothesis is wrong

Therefore design (God) us the best explanation for the FT of the universe .

Note that I am not saying that design is the only and absolute explanation, I am simply saying that is the best explanation of all those that have been proposed.

What is wrong with my reasoning?

Do you think that there is a better explanation than design?

.......

All I am saying is that there are arguments that have been proposed for the helocentric model and for the Christian God. Wether if I would have been a geocentricist or a Muslim if I would have been born in a different context does nothing to refute the arguments that have been proposed in support of the heleocentric model or the christian God.

This is why the claim "if you would have been born in Afganistán you would have been a Muslim " is a terrible and stupid argument against Christianity.

 

[dybmh]

My parents are atheist American right wing conservatives. I turned out to be the opposite.

Don't forget about the desire for children to rebel against their parents.

 

[Erebus]

It's annoy a Theist week, or, on the road to becoming a militant atheist.

So the idea is that you believe because you were train to believe. Can you convince yourself or someone else otherwise?

As a kid many get trained to think in terms of a God. Even if raised as an atheist it's hard to escape being taught what God is, even as someone else's belief.

So you convert from one religion to another, still thinking in terms of God. Or maybe as a atheist convert to some belief, thinking in terms of a God you were taught not to believe in.

I'm not saying atheists don't have their own issues with being trained in how to think. but, does the belief in God persist because it's is how we were trained to think?

It certainly is a delightful article that's guaranteed to open up polite discussion!

Putting the article aside though, I think you've raised a good point here. It's undoubtedly true that many people stick with the religion they were brought up with. It's also true that a person's culture heavily influences how you perceive deities. I've seen plenty of occasions in which perfectly intelligent people nonetheless struggle to conceive of a notion of deity different to the one they grew up around.*

So, a few thoughts on why people typically stick with the religion they were brought up with. I suspect that the majority of people have only a passing interest in religion (and politics for that matter. The same principles tend to apply to choice of political party) and so just aren't all that interested in fully dissecting and analysing their religious upbringing. There are other things that take up their attention and so saying your prayers and attending [insert religious institution of your choice] is just something that you do. People on the whole typically stick to what's familiar far more regularly than they're consciously aware of. To give a bit of a frivolous personal example: My wardrobe is packed with clothes that are virtually identical to one another. It's what I know and I'm just not interested enough in clothes to make a radical change.

This doesn't mean that there aren't people who were virtually brainwashed. Nor does it mean that there aren't people who won't change religion because they're terrified of some divine punishment. Those people certainly exist but I suspect they're the minority.

The other component to this is that culture definitely does shape perception. There's often a feeling (among theists and atheists alike) that concepts of deity that don't quite gel with their own cultural background are in some way "not proper gods." For example, on this very forum I've seen some fairly heated debates over whether pantheism and deism really count as theism. In my experience, the people who view them as "not proper gods" invariably come from a background in which the dominant god concept is Abrahamic monotheism.** Such people are probably unlikely to adopt a form of theism that doesn't mesh with their own cultural background.

Okay, so there's probably a lot more to be said on this topic but I'll leave it there for now. Hopefully didn't waffle too much



*I'm definitely not the only Pagan who has had to explain to people, "No, I don't view gods as omnipotent, omniscient beings who made humans out of clay."

**Somebody once accused me of cheating since I'm a theist who doesn't believe in an omnimax god.

 

[Jollybear]

Is this scenario a religious or spiritual matter?

It can be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well let's be more specific. Ether the fine tuning of the universe was caused by a designer or by some natural cause....

What makes you think a "designer" is even a valid or plausible option to begin with?

What science or line if reasoning lead you to conclude that a natural mechanism is the cause?

What makes you think that that is what I believe (ie: accept as true)?
I don't know what caused the universe or why it exists the way it does.

Do I consider it more likely to have a natural cause as opposed to a supernatural magician? Yes, obviously. Not because I have any knowledge about the origins of the universe, but simply because of some Occam Razor thingy: there is exactly zero evidence that such entities exist. So a "designer", right out of the gates, requires more unjustified assumptions. For that reason alone, a natural cause is more likely. So if I would have to put my money on it, I'ld invest in the research that will look for a natural cause instead of research that will look for a designer.

My reasoning is this:
1 I take for granted that the existance of God is at least possible (given that nobody has disproved his existance)

No. The "reasoning" you added that "since nobody has disproved it", sets you up with a ginormous argument from ignorance straight out the gates.

It's an invalid assumption. You might as well grant that invisible pink graviton fairies are possible as an explanation for gravity - since nobody has disproved the existance of such.

Nobody has disproved such, because there is nothing there to disprove...........

Things aren't plausible simply because you declare it and even less because of appeals to ignorance.

2 all the potential naturalistic explanations that are discussed inithe literaturel for the fine tuning of the universe are demonstrably wrong

False again.
First of all, the literature does not contain "all the potential" naturalistic explanations. For starters, it doesn't include those that physicists haven't come up with yet. So your "all" is just as wrong as can be.

Secondly, it's also false that they are all demonstrably wrong. Take for example the idea of a multi-verse that constantly craps out universes ad infinitum. If you have an infinity of potential universes, then a universe with the parameters of ours is bound to pop-up at some point. No, there is no (direct) supporting evidence of this, aside from a few theoretical interpretations of quantum physics and some even more theoretical (and currently unfalsifiable) ideas in string theory. As I understand, a multi-verse is also a prediction of inflation theory. So it's not something that was dreamed up by some physicist who had too much coffee late at night... It's something that is rather suggested/predicted by the theories of science itself.


The point however, is that your statement of all of them being "demonstrably false" is.... ironically, demonstrably false.

3 nobody has show that the design hypothesis is wrong

Nobody has shown that bigfoot doesn't exist.
Nobody has shown that I'm not a time traveler from the future.
Nobody has shown that Mohammed didn't fly to the moon on a winged horse.

This is called failing at the buren of proof.
Ideas aren't valid or plausible by default until they are shown wrong.
Ideas are valid or plausible, in proportion to the actual verifiable and demonstrable evidence that supports those ideas.

So far, you haven't shared such evidence at all. All you have are bare assertions and declarations, "validated" through appeals to ignorance.

Therefore design (God) us the best explanation for the FT of the universe .

/facepalm

"therefor pink graviton fairies is the best explanation for gravity".

"therefor, bigfoot existing is the best explanation for the sightings"

Same "logic".

Note that I am not saying that design is the only and absolute explanation, I am simply saying that is the best explanation of all those that have been proposed.

Something that is simply asserted without evidence, doesn't even qualify as an explanation - let along "the best one".

It's just an assertion. And in this case, even a religious one at that.

What is wrong with my reasoning?

It fails from top to bottom in terms of logic, reason and rationality.
The exact same logic can be used to take ANY phenomena of reality that isn't figured out, make ANY unsupported claim about it and declare that bare claim to being the "best explanation".

It makes zero sense.
It's how you end up with Thor smashing a hammer as an "explanation" of thunder.

Do you think that there is a better explanation than design?

Any explanation that doesn't include assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities will be better then one that does.

Having said that, your "design" thing is not an explanation. It's just a claim.

All I am saying is that there are arguments that have been proposed for the helocentric model and for the Christian God

The difference being that the model of geocentrism / heliocentrism is a proposed testable explanation for very real phenomena based on very real and verifiable data and observation.

Whereas religious arguments are rooted in superstition, unsupported premises and magical thinking.

Wether if I would have been a geocentricist or a Muslim if I would have been born in a different context does nothing to refute the arguments that have been proposed in support of the heleocentric model or the christian God.

Except, off course, that acceptance of a heliocentric model isn't determined by the geographic location or culture you are born into.

This is why a hindu and a christian can agree on heliocentrism, but not on their god beliefs.

This is why the claim "if you would have been born in Afganistán you would have been a Muslim " is a terrible and stupid argument against Christianity.

Completely disagree.

Like I said in that other post earlier today concerning Ricky Gervais' take on religions...
If you remove christianity from our collective memory, including any and all references to it - it will never resurface. But if you remove heliocentrism from our collective memory, then it is only a matter of time before the same facts and data are rediscovered and we once again conclude that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way round.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It can be.

How so?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So the idea is that you believe because you were train to believe. Can you convince yourself or someone else otherwise?

"Hard truth?" Many are born into religions, but I have seen several people convert to Christianity who were atheists. They all gave me similar reasons in their own words. I know some people who have converted to Buddhism, too and remained atheists. I know some Quakers from various pasts. People convert every day, and in my experience the reason they convert is to soften and warm the world. They don't like how hard and cold it is, how unfriendly and cutthroat people are. They sense there is something wrong with that, and an inner voice leads them to reject it. Obviously people can also convert for other reasons such as business networking, but the primary reason I think is the above.

What about when someone leaves religion? It doesn't mean they want to world to become worse. Being reared as a religious person certainly is different from converting, and people come in different varieties. Religions often are not perfect, and they have problems. People leave them. Its just how things are. Sometimes you have to leave, and sometimes you can't believe.

 

[Jollybear]

How so?

Many Religion and spirituality teaches to not bully or hurt others.

So, a parrent teaching a child not to beat up there little brother, does the parrent have a inflatted ego in doing that?

 

[leroy]

What makes you think a "designer" is even a valid or plausible option to begin with?



What makes you think that that is what I believe (ie: accept as true)?
I don't know what caused the universe or why it exists the way it does.

Do I consider it more likely to have a natural cause as opposed to a supernatural magician? Yes, obviously. Not because I have any knowledge about the origins of the universe, but simply because of some Occam Razor thingy: there is exactly zero evidence that such entities exist. So a "designer", right out of the gates, requires more unjustified assumptions. For that reason alone, a natural cause is more likely. So if I would have to put my money on it, I'ld invest in the research that will look for a natural cause instead of research that will look for a designer.




No. The "reasoning" you added that "since nobody has disproved it", sets you up with a ginormous argument from ignorance straight out the gates.

It's an invalid assumption. You might as well grant that invisible pink graviton fairies are possible as an explanation for gravity - since nobody has disproved the existance of such.

Nobody has disproved such, because there is nothing there to disprove...........

Things aren't plausible simply because you declare it and even less because of appeals to ignorance.



False again.
First of all, the literature does not contain "all the potential" naturalistic explanations. For starters, it doesn't include those that physicists haven't come up with yet. So your "all" is just as wrong as can be.

Secondly, it's also false that they are all demonstrably wrong. Take for example the idea of a multi-verse that constantly craps out universes ad infinitum. If you have an infinity of potential universes, then a universe with the parameters of ours is bound to pop-up at some point. No, there is no (direct) supporting evidence of this, aside from a few theoretical interpretations of quantum physics and some even more theoretical (and currently unfalsifiable) ideas in string theory. As I understand, a multi-verse is also a prediction of inflation theory. So it's not something that was dreamed up by some physicist who had too much coffee late at night... It's something that is rather suggested/predicted by the theories of science itself.


The point however, is that your statement of all of them being "demonstrably false" is.... ironically, demonstrably false.



Nobody has shown that bigfoot doesn't exist.
Nobody has shown that I'm not a time traveler from the future.
Nobody has shown that Mohammed didn't fly to the moon on a winged horse.

This is called failing at the buren of proof.
Ideas aren't valid or plausible by default until they are shown wrong.
Ideas are valid or plausible, in proportion to the actual verifiable and demonstrable evidence that supports those ideas.

So far, you haven't shared such evidence at all. All you have are bare assertions and declarations, "validated" through appeals to ignorance.



/facepalm

"therefor pink graviton fairies is the best explanation for gravity".

"therefor, bigfoot existing is the best explanation for the sightings"

Same "logic".



Something that is simply asserted without evidence, doesn't even qualify as an explanation - let along "the best one".

It's just an assertion. And in this case, even a religious one at that.



It fails from top to bottom in terms of logic, reason and rationality.
The exact same logic can be used to take ANY phenomena of reality that isn't figured out, make ANY unsupported claim about it and declare that bare claim to being the "best explanation".

It makes zero sense.
It's how you end up with Thor smashing a hammer as an "explanation" of thunder.



Any explanation that doesn't include assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities will be better then one that does.

Having said that, your "design" thing is not an explanation. It's just a claim.


The difference being that the model of geocentrism / heliocentrism is a proposed testable explanation for very real phenomena based on very real and verifiable data and observation.

Whereas religious arguments are rooted in superstition, unsupported premises and magical thinking.




Except, off course, that acceptance of a heliocentric model isn't determined by the geographic location or culture you are born into.

This is why a hindu and a christian can agree on heliocentrism, but not on their god beliefs.



Completely disagree.

Like I said in that other post earlier today concerning Ricky Gervais' take on religions...
If you remove christianity from our collective memory, including any and all references to it - it will never resurface. But if you remove heliocentrism from our collective memory, then it is only a matter of time before the same facts and data are rediscovered and we once again conclude that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way round.

I think I can make a positive case that shows that design is a better explanation for the FT of the unicerse than the multiverse explanation.

Do you afirm de opposite ? Do you afirm that the multiverse explanation is a better explanation than God?


.....

For example the truth of Christianity is largely dependant on wether if Jesus rose from the dead or not, and arguments supporting the resurrection have been proposed........ Wether if I was born in Afganistán, India or In a Christian country is irrelevant to wether if the evidence for the resurrection is valid or not.

 

[Quintessence]

It's unfortunate this discussion was kicked off with such a trashy article. Apparently this "Atheist Alliance International" is filled with the worst sort of scum sucking bottom feeder that gives others who identify as atheist a bad name. One would think that they would be smart enough to not behave like uncivilized $#@% hats that garners more hatred in their direction. Minorities can't afford to evoke more ire. Citing this trash does both atheists and theists a disservice.

In any case, it isn't exactly news that all humans are shaped by their environment (which includes cultural environment). This applies to everyone, without exception, as every human has a culture. In any culture, most follow the prevailing cultural norms and there are also a myriad of subcultures and countercultural movements. It also isn't exactly news that humans are animals; their participation in culture, subculture, and counterculture is always driven by environmental (cultural) conditioning more than any other factor. Want to talk about hard truths? Apparently someone needs to inform these AAI folks that they aren't any more rational than any other human and they're no better than dogs either.

But so what? We all think inside boxes. All of us, no exceptions. And we like thinking in boxes, because it gives our lives structure and meaning. That's what culture does - it helps provide a common set of values and practices to create a cohesive way of life for ourselves. Such cohesion is especially necessary for social animals like humans, even at a small group (tribal) level. It becomes even more important with larger groups (civilizations).

Groups like this AAI tell themselves the stories they do because that's part of their culture. I'd hazard to say that like my own religious demographic, non-theism is inherently countercultural, though for different reasons. Those in countercultural movements often tell the story that they "think for themselves" even though this is not precisely the case. You still have to be introduced to that countercultural idea at some point, and that comes from your environment. Then, as you start embracing the counterculture, you start talking with others in that culture and are inspired by the boxes they think in. Shifts in culture are not really that uncommon especially in our modern, multicultural, information age society. This include shifts within various types of theism or atheism. At the end of the day, you're still thinking a box and it ain't about reason one way or another. Culture is about cohesion, not reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Hard truth?" Many are born into religions, but I have seen several people convert to Christianity who were atheists. They all gave me similar reasons in their own words. I know some people who have converted to Buddhism, too and remained atheists. I know some Quakers from various pasts. People convert every day, and in my experience the reason they convert is to soften and warm the world. They don't like how hard and cold it is, how unfriendly and cutthroat people are. They sense there is something wrong with that, and an inner voice leads them to reject it. Obviously people can also convert for other reasons such as business networking, but the primary reason I think is the above.

Conversion, deconversions, reconversions,... most definatly happen all the time.

However, it's also a fact that the vast majority of people stay within the religion they were indoctrinated into as a child. This is why christianity has been the dominant religion in the west for millenia. This is why islam has been the dominant religion in arabia and elsewhere in the middle east. This is why hinduism is very present in India.

In short: this is why you can very much draw a connection between geographic location and religion. This is why you can pretty accuratly guess the religion of somebody while the only intel you have is the country they originate from.

If I meet a Morrocan in the streets of Antwerp in Belgium, I can assume that person being muslim and more often then not, I'ld be correct.

Sometimes you have to leave, and sometimes you can't believe.

And most of the time, they just stick to their religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think I can make a positive case that shows that design is a better explanation for the FT of the unicerse than the multiverse explanation.

Why isn't that case and explanation dominating the scientific narrative?

Do you afirm de opposite ? Do you afirm that the multiverse explanation is a better explanation than God?

Both better and more likely.

For reasons I already shared:
1. it doesn't require the assumption of unsupported, undemonstrable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable supernatural things

2. the idea of a multi-verse is well motivated, as it is a prediction of things like Inflation Theory, which is a scientific theory that actually has supportive evidence. It is not dreamed up by some dude with too much imagination who saw it in a "vision" or "dream" or "revelation" or some other "religious methodology" indistinguishable from imagination. Instead, a multi-verse is a prediction that naturally flows from the math models that describe things like inflation theory. Note that the multi-verse idea is NOT a theory by itself. It is a scientific prediction of inflation theory.

For example the truth of Christianity is largely dependant on wether if Jesus rose from the dead or not, and arguments supporting the resurrection have been proposed........

No amount of mere words is EVER sufficient to establish the actual occurance of "miracles".

Wether if I was born in Afganistán, India or In a Christian country is irrelevant to wether if the evidence for the resurrection is valid or not.

But it does seem to be so that only believing christians consider this evidence to being valid. And even that is not entirely true... as I am also well aware of believing christians that consider such apologetics to being invalid nonsense.

Not so much when it concerns the evidence for heliocentrism though.... Considering that evidence to being valid or not, is not dependend on a priori religious beliefs.

So how convincing is this "resurection evidence" to non-christians?

Also note that while we are talking about this supposed evidence - you still haven't presented any.

 

[Erebus]

It's unfortunate this discussion was kicked off with such a trashy article. Apparently this "Atheist Alliance International" is filled with the worst sort of scum sucking bottom feeder that gives others who identify as atheist a bad name. One would think that they would be smart enough to not behave like uncivilized $#@% hats that garners more hatred in their direction. Minorities can't afford to evoke more ire. Citing this trash does both atheists and theists a disservice.

There are some fantastic statements on that site. My current favourite comes from the article, Six things atheists do wrong.

Atheists, if you aim to help believers reconsider and, perhaps, revise their unwarranted beliefs, there are some things you should be aware of.

1. Insulting believers will not make them realize they are a dick, it will make them think YOU are a dick.

Love it.

The other five are, predictably, about how the Bible is wrong. Spoiler alert: it turns out telling theists the Bible is wrong won't make them change their mind. Again, culture definitely informs people's perception of what a god is.

*edit* Oh yeah, for extra points here's one of the things an atheist should do:

Explaining to believers how their logic is faulty doesn’t work. Your task is to guide them so they discover their faulty logic for themselves, and then give them quiet time to contemplate. The best way to do this is not to tell them what YOU believe but to ask them how they arrived at their beliefs. If you do this carefully there is a reasonable chance that they will eventually discover their errors.

So, my advice to atheists is:

1) Be scrupulously polite no matter how infuriatingly irrational believers appear to be. Remember, you are talking to a victim of childhood indoctrination so you should be sympathetic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I remember when I used to be a non christian, one day while sitting there, I suddenly realized that these are just people in a room talking about their non beliefs and going to secular concerts. There was nothing special nor unique to show for it all that would set non Christians and non Christianity for that matter apart from anybody else out there.

You just walk into the room discuss and / or sing along at a concert the topic at hand and walk out of the room when it concludes with nothing more better or worse to show for it in comparison with anybody else. The world along with the universe just continues on as it always has.

Your point?

Are you implying that, now that you are a Christian, that there is something "special [or] unique to show for it all?"

Or that, now that you are a Christian, the universe does not "just [continue] on as it always has?"

I guess I am having a really hard time deciphering your point.