Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare ..
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 297 (138927)
09-01-2004 8:12 PM


Since this site is focused more on professed materialism I will focus my discussion of professed atheists on these individuals.
First of all, I would suggest that most and perhaps all professed atheists are doubleminded and that atheistic thoughts are hard to consistently maintain in the human mind - especially a human mind that is in quest of truth. I realize that these are fighting words but you must admit that I now have your full attention!
Next, one must consider that to my knowledge there are no materialist martyrs so it is at least a valid question on whether or not a specific professed atheist truly lacks a belief there is a God (Fox's Book of Martyrs offers sufficient evidence regarding the sincerity of Christians. If a professed materialist wishes to dispute the sincerity of Christian martyrs, I would suggest they at least offer one materialist martyr with a supporting link first). There is certainly no real empirical evidence that professed atheists truly lack a belief there is no God. Sartre, the most famous professed atheist of the 20th century said he sometimes had the thought that he was the result of a Creator. A website declares Sartre as saying in Harper's magazine:
"As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise."
taken from: Page Not Found - JA Show
I believe the evidence is strong though that Sartre professed to be an atheist. Here is a education website's information below:
"Jean Paul Sartre was a well known French philosopher who lived from 1905-1980. His thought was influenced heavily by philosophers Heidigger and Husserl. He became one of the early proponents of existentialism, which emphasizes among other things, the ultimacy of human freedom. He considered himself an atheist existentialist (as opposed to a Christian existentialist) and eventually included Marxism and humanism in his philosophy."
taken from: Service Down
I realize that a true materialist would have no incentive to become a martyr. At the same time the lack of materialist martyrs does raise the question on whether or not professed atheists truly believe there is no God and I do find Sartre's testimony revealing (Sartre was the most famous professed atheist in the the 20th century). I would also say it appears that the Christians have afforded more tolerance to the atheist when they have been in power if one looks at history (read the history of North Korea, Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, etc I also cite: http://www.persecution.com.au/news/allarticles.asp and http://www.hope-of-israel.org/dobsonps.htm and http://united-states.asinah.net/...cution_of_christians.html).
As a side note, I also offer the fact that some very prominent intellectuals of the skeptical persuasion have become Christians:
Bill Bright Memorial | Cru
I also offer:
"Have you heard of Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who held the Royal Professorship of Law at Harvard? He was a skeptic, often mocking the Christians in his classes. One day they challenged him to take the three volumes he had written on the laws of legal evidence and apply them to the resurrection. After much persuasion he did that. In the proces he became a Christian and went on to write a book about his search. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best established events in history according to the laws of legal evidence."
taken from: Melonie Park Church
(I do not know if Greenleaf was a theist prior to this but it appears the gentleman in the previous link were professed atheist)
Now if my hypothesis is correct regarding professed atheists being doubleminded we might expect professed atheists to have thoughts that are not conduscive to having a healthy thought life in terms of mental health. Is there any evidence that this may be the case? Let us look.
One can see through the work of Paul Vitz that many of leading proponents of atheism have are not exactly paragons of mental health. Professor Vitz did a study of the most prominent professed atheist in the last 400 years and it seems as if those individuals were or are not paragons of mental health.
Here is a synopsis of Professor Vitz's data:
Atheists and Their Fathers
Access forbidden!
Here is sample excerpt of one of the above links:
"Anthony Flew is a philosopher who's an atheist and the son of a well-known English divine. At a party Flew beat on the floor exclaiming "I hate my father!"
Whether of not the group that Professor Vitz studied had bad relationships because of their fathers and because they were rebellious sons seems to me to be an open question. Plus I cannot say I am a strong believer in determinism (your environment determines your future) as I strongly believe in freewill (although your environment can influence you). Ultimately, men have the freedom to reject God or not reject God. Ultimately many societies are beginning to drift away from excessive determinism and demand personal accountability and I think this is a good thing.
Also, one must contend with the extensive meta-study done by the Mayo Clinic showing that there is a positive correlation between faith/faith practices and mental health. Here is a reference to the Mayo Clinics meta-study of 850 studies regarding faith (faith practices)/mental health:
Page Not Found - Site Help - Mayo Clinic
Now some have stated that there are weaknesses associated with meta-studies (statistical studies of the various studies to find significance). To those who assert that meta-studies are often unreliable and that the Mayo Clinic people are not competent to do a meta-study I would simply ask that you provide evidence that atheism is associated or provides superior mental health. Given the history of various atheistic societies (North Korea, Soviet Union, China, etc) I think your case will be hard to prove (If you assert that the Soviet Union was not atheistic I would ask you to state why so many churches were shut down and why there were beauracratic institutions to promote atheism. The case for China and North Korea is easily justified as well and any internet searches will confirm this. We must also remember that the communist leaders chose atheism).
Now I realize that psychology is not as rigorous a discipline as say physics. In fact, I cannot say I am a big fan of psychological counseling. For example, one must ask how effective the various 240 plus conflicting methodologies of counseling psychology are in changing man. Given the social disentegration of the USA post 1960 I think asserting psychology is a pablum for mankind ills would be hard to maintain (I am not saying that the 1950's were a "paradise on earth" and that I long for the 1950's. I am quite happy that God placed me at the time juncture he chose!). I personally believe that pschology is far more effective at diagnosing that people are mentally unstable than they are at changing men's behavior.
Ultimately, I believe that cognitive psychology can be used to increase man's ability to learn information but as a prescription to solve man's societal/personal problems it has failed (an example or pschology helping people would be when a cognitive psychologist showing people how to increase memory ability). The Bible states, "the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it?" I think as a whole where psychologist, including Prof. Vitz who wrote a psychology of atheism, often fail is that they are entirely too deterministic and fail to consider human freedom sufficiently. A weakness I can see in Prof. Vitz's work for example is that he says that one of the reasons perhaps atheist become atheist is that they had a bad or non-existent relationship with their fathers and he offers evidence of this. As I stated before, Vitz's works begs the question was the reason why atheist had bad relationships with the fathers their fault. Were they cantankerous rebel children and their fathers had a hard time dealing with them. Who can really say? I do think that Vitz is too deterministic in that he says that atheism may be a result of bad father relationships and he neglects to say that perhaps they were just rebels who caused the bad relationships with their fathers. The truth may lie somewhere in between in that relationships are "two way streets".
Here is some additional data that supports that professed materialists are doubleminded:
"Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."
taken from: http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html
Here is the exact quote:
"Biologists must constantly keep in
mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (Crick
F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138). "
taken from: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200006/0070.html
Now I believe I have offered evidence that atheism very well may not really exist. At the very least, I would say that professed atheists certainly have not demonstrated that atheism exist. I would say that if professed atheist assert that atheism is a "lack of belief" and that atheism exist the burden of proof regarding their "lack of belief" is upon them. If a professed atheist takes isssue with my essay I would say please provide evidence that atheism exist. Now I would say that an absence of evidence does not always mean a evidence of absence but on the other hand I would have to say that professed atheist have not to my knowledge provided any evidence that atheism truly exist.
Lastly, as a Christian I do believe that people can be spiritually deceived. So atheism may very well exist in some professed atheists. On the other hand, again it is equally true that there is no solid/empirical proof that it does.
I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ISSUE FURTHER AND LATER WROTE:
I found some time so I can tell you acceptable evidence that I would consider to be credible that atheism exist:
1) Several credible sounding ex-professed atheists converting and saying they were really atheists in no uncertain terms. If they were questioned/cross examined regarding their earlier professed atheism this would even be better.
2) A large body of polygraph tests that professed atheists passed where a large proponderance of them passed (I am not sure what I think of the reliability of polygraphs, but I would say that there would have to be a very large body done by very competent polygraphers which would possibly mitigate the somewhat tenuous or tenuous nature of polygraph test).
3) God himself telling me that atheism exist.
My commentary on the above examples:
1) Some people might question if ex professed atheist were really atheist in the first place. I would say, however, that an ex-professed atheist would have less motivation to misrepresenting his alledged atheism because it seems clear he would have less of a personal/vested interest in doing so since he would no longer be an atheist if atheism truly exist.
2) Lie detectors are controversial
3) God cannot lie so this would be uncontrovertible
SUMMARY
I am leaning towards people being in spiritual darkness due to hostility/estrangement from God and atheism existing. I came to this conclusion after reading ex-atheists testimonials on the web just now.
Here is one example:
Forbidden
I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ISSUE AGAIN JUST RECENTLY AND I NOW WRITE:
It seems to me that in addition to spiritual deception that mankind is prone to self-deception which could perhaps be difficult to be self aware of because it becomes propaganda in that people repeat their lies to themselves over and over and perhaps they become convinced of their lies to some degree or perhaps in full. Gamblers for example convince themselves that there next roll of the dice will put them on easy street. Yet, I do think at the same time that on some level that those who try to deceive themselves are often or sometimes never 100% convinced of their lies. So if it is apparent that there is a God (and I believe it is) it would be surprising that some people try to repress the truth that there is a God given human nature.
Lastly, as a Christian I do think that all men and women are at least exposed to the truth and I cite:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
I also cite:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
I recently read a book called The 5 Paths to Persuasion
by Robert B. Miller, Gary A. Williams and Alden M. Hayashi that contained the results of a study which looked at 1,700 decision makers. The authors put decision makers in 5 catagories (Charismatics, Thinkers, Skeptics, Followers, Controllers).
Now I realize that you cannot neatly put people in artificial boxes and there are bound to be people who cannot be neatly put in one category but may fall in several. At the same time, I often see skeptics/professed materialists falling in the skeptic business decision category and displaying some of the negative traits in that category (although I will admit that skepticism has its place if it is not radical skepticism. For example, denying one's own existence).
Now according to Miller, Williams, and Hayashi skeptical business decision makers "are generally highly suspicious of every piece of information and will rarely trust anything that doesn’t fit with their worldview." (please see: Excerpt: The 5 Paths to Persuasion | ZenBusiness Inc ).
Now here are two predominent characteristics of skeptical business decision makers according to the study.
1. Although they do not like brainstorming and prefer to make decisions alone they are absolutely loathe to admit mistakes (the authors called this self-absorbtion).
2. They often commit the appeal to authority logical fallacy and genetic logical fallacy (see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ ) and are very selective in that they only receive information from experts who fit their philosophy/worldview rather than carefully investigate/weigh the underlying facts.
Now while I readily admit that skeptical business decision makers may not all have the same characteristics as those who profess materialism and a skeptical worldview I have found that "freethinkers" have a strong penchant for appeals to authority, genetic logical fallacies, and are loathe to admit their errors or arguments that are poorly reasoned. I also realize that people may not exhibit the same style when making business decisions and when deciding their worldview. I do, however, see a strong concurrence between Miller, Williams, and Hyashi's study and my general experience of professed materialists.
Additional information:
1. The business skeptics had a strong aversion to trusting information that was passed down. They needed to hear it from the horses mouth.
2. The business skeptics tended to be very impolite and undiplomatic. I have found that on the whole boards or live debate chat rooms dominated by skeptics tend to have much more ad hominems and other unneccessary coarse behavior.
3. The business skeptics tended to be mavericks who reveled going against the grain.
Also, conservative business decision makers would tend to be thinker business decision makers who carefully weigh the underlying facts, voraciously consume information regarding the business at hand from a wide variety of sources, etc The skeptic business decision makers did not do this.
Additional data:
One of the prominent attributes of the business decision makers was the quality of self absorbtion according to the aforementioned book in my initial post. I stated earlier that I will tie together the business decision makers and professed materialists. I think a fair question to ask is: "How self absorbed are professed materialists?"
Let us take a look.
First, let us examine the philosophy of objectivism which is a "brand" of atheism. I suggest we have to look no farther than the book the Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism by Ayn Rand.
Second, who is argueably the most prominent professed materialist today or at the very least one of the most prominent professed materialist. The person who first comes to mind is Richard Dawkins. Is Dawkins self absorbed? Let us take a look.
Here is an excerpt from a professed materialist concerning Dawkins efforts at promoting materialism:
"When I first read that leading evolutionary thinkers Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett were trying to get the world to stop calling religious unbelievers "atheists" or "agnostics" and start calling them "brights," I had my doubts....
How could anyone hear the label "bright" and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As ABC News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the "brights" campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant."
From the start, the "brights" label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. Atheists already have a terrible rap for being cold-hearted rationalists who attend Mensa gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools....."
taken from: Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer
Third, let us take a look at a prodigious and well known promoter of atheism Dan Barker.
Here is an excerpt from Dan Barker's personal bio:
When you look at the link below you will see that Dan Barker, an atheist debator, promotes the fact that he has a high IQ.
taken from: Dan Barker, Author at Internet Infidels
Now I would argue that promoting your very high IQ in your bio is like promoting that you have a very handsome face. A high IQ is largely a matter of genetics and how were raised and not a matter of personal development although there is some evidence that it may be raised somewhat later (see for example Bill McGaugh's Thinkfast page which raises the possibility that a person's IQ could be raised via cognitive development software: The Press-Enterprise: Local News, Sports and Things to Do [ to be fair Bill McGaugh is also a member of the Prometheus Society but I would say that he is far more humble based on my personal interaction with Bill McGaugh! ].
Here is another gem from Barker:
"So I dutifully tithed for a while, chopping my salary to 90%. (Christians debate whether tithing should come off gross or net income, but Barfoot assured me it is gross, not take-home pay. I suppose God told him that personally.)...
I'm sure Barfoot and the elders, knowing my tithing was decreasing, thought I was a hypocrite.
taken from: Page Not Found - Freedom From Religion Foundation
Perhaps, Barker is an objectivist!
Next, I would argue that there is evidence that professed materialists as a whole but not always individually are often self absorbed. I cite the following:
Here is some data from the The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research:
"First, the group I refer to as religious are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call secular report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call secular report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to religious causes or non-religious charities over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.....
Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered.
These differences hardly change when we consider them in isolation from the other demographics, using a statistical technique called tobit regression. Religious practice by itself is associated with $1,388 more given per year than we would expect to see from a secular person (with the same political views, income, education, age, race, and other characteristics), as well as with 6.5 more occasions of volunteering."
taken from: Policy Review | Fr die Gesellschaft von Vorteil
I also cite the following webpage regarding altruism and the religious/non-religious:
http://www.taemag.com/.../articleID.17700/article_detail.asp
In addition, often when I debate professed materialist I often get logical fallacies like appeals to authority and genetic logical fallacies (which business decision makers exhibit). I would argue that these fallacies are often committed by self absorbed individuals who only consider THEIR experts. Of course, I recognize that my internet debating is anecdotal evidence. I am not surprised though that "freethinkers" are not exactly free though.
(By the way, I do realize that skeptics can pullout studies that alledgedly show "freethinkers" have higher IQs. I would ask if the studies are truly random and do not exclude people at private religious institutions. Also, if certain atheistic ideologies are more fashionable at certain public institutions and having a higher IQ would make it easier to attend these institutions and students would be exposed to these ideologies then I would argue that the sample is not truly representative).

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 8:54 PM kendemyer has replied
 Message 13 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 10:14 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 57 by contracycle, posted 09-02-2004 6:26 AM kendemyer has replied
 Message 64 by Lindum, posted 09-02-2004 3:43 PM kendemyer has replied
 Message 137 by jar, posted 09-03-2004 12:12 AM kendemyer has replied
 Message 146 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-03-2004 1:09 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 213 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2004 8:29 PM kendemyer has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 297 (138931)
09-01-2004 8:25 PM


A REQUEST:
My sympathies as far as professed atheist offering evidence that atheism truly exist lie with empiricism/science and/or strong credible testimony from a multitude of witnesses.
Please do not use professed atheist communist state soldiers. Here is why:
You are not showing that the reason why the Communist soldiers killed themselves was because of atheism. It could have been nationalism or a belief that capitalism was inherently evil. Now am I saying that it offers zero evidence? No, I am not. I do think, however, that the testimony of ex-professed atheists is the best venue for professed atheists to demonstrate that atheism really exist. Of course, there would have to be a sufficient number of credible ex-professed atheist and they should be questioned/cross examined regarding their alledged genuine atheism. And of course, there would be some debate regarding the "credible" and "sufficient number" regarding ex-professed atheists witnesses since those are not precise terms.
After all is said and done using Communist soldiers is like me using American WWII soldiers who died for God, country, family, and the freeworld as being Christian martyrs. I think this would be poor on my part.
Please do not use babies either:
Here is why:
I see this as another unsupported assertion in terms of empiricism. Just because a baby cannot express a God belief does not mean he does not have one.
I cite the following regarding John the Baptist:
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:41: "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"
Next:
Mathew 18: 10: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven."
I also cite:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Now when does the Spirit first contact or stay in contact with a person as per the Bible? The Scriptures are silent.
Now can I empirically or otherwise demonstrate that the above Scriptures are true with 100% certainty? I would say that given my intial post's title and my initial post's content that I simply do not have to. Remember the title of the post is:
"Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare"
I also believe that my initial post reflects this title and supports it.
I would add, however, that the Gospels of Luke/John/Mathew can be supported to be true but this of course would be a entirely new string.
I would definitely say that in terms of strict empiricism the theism/atheism of babies is an open question. You certainly have not proved that I, kendemyer, was an atheist as a baby. Although, I certainly was not a Christian from birth I would readily concede. In short, we have a empirical stalemate.
More importantly, you are forgetting my initial post where I said I was directing this string towards professed materialists and I certainly hope you are not saying that babies are materialists!
Next, it is still a time honored principle in debate that he who asserts must prove. If a professed atheists wishes to asserts he/she is an atheist he/she must offer some reasonable proof and given the nature of professed atheism it must be very rigorous proof lest the professed atheist be inconsistent. I simply do not believe this has been achieved. I did offer suggestions though on the most reasonable way I think this could be accomplished should someone wish to do so.
Next, I still believe Fox's book of martyrs plus the other links regarding Christian martyrs is satisfactory proof that Christianity exist in the hearts of some men and women.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 297 (138936)
09-01-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
09-01-2004 8:12 PM


Hello, kendemyer. Welcome back to EvC.
Are you posting this here because your debate at TheologyWeb didn't go very well?
At any rate, there seems to be a couple of topics mixed into this. One, you seem to be saying that atheism does not really exist. A second assertian seems to be that atheists are mentally unstable.
quote:
Now I believe I have offered evidence that atheism very well may not really exist. At the very least, I would say that professed atheists certainly have not demonstrated that atheism exist.
To quote Samual Johnson: "I refute it thus." I am an atheist. I exist. Therefore I am empirical evidence that atheism exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 8:12 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 8:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 7 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:15 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 297 (138938)
09-01-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
09-01-2004 8:54 PM


I am an athiest. I exist.
There you go, a second data point to support that atheism exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 8:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2004 9:06 PM Darwin Storm has not replied
 Message 6 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:11 PM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 297 (138941)
09-01-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 8:58 PM


Three times is a charm, they say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 8:58 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 297 (138943)
09-01-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 8:58 PM


to: darwin storm
You wrote:
quote:
I am an athiest. I exist.
You never proved your first premise. You have to show your testimony is unimpeachable. I see no reason why your testimony should be given carte blanche acceptance. I do not consider your testimony to be the gospel truth. Nothing personal. I just do not.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 8:58 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 9:34 PM kendemyer has replied
 Message 15 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:29 PM kendemyer has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 297 (138945)
09-01-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
09-01-2004 8:54 PM


to: chiroptera
First, I will let readers decide how well my debate at TWEB is going. Here the TWEB debate: TheologyWeb Campus
Second, I added material to my TWEB thread.
Third, what is your username at TWEB? LOL
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 8:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 297 (138956)
09-01-2004 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kendemyer
09-01-2004 9:11 PM


Re: to: darwin storm
I can't speak for Darwin Storm, but I assume that your reply to him applies equally to me, since we make the same claims.
Now I am an atheist. I know what I believe and what I don't believe, and where I have no definite beliefs. Now, you are claiming that I am not really an atheist, since you seem to claim that atheists exist. Why should I believe you? I have real, indisputable evidence that atheism exists, namely my own beliefs. What evidence do you have that would compel me to think otherwise?
Edited to add:
I will leave it to you to figure out whether or not I am a member of TWeb, and if so, who I am.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-01-2004 08:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:11 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:37 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 10 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:39 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 297 (138957)
09-01-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
09-01-2004 9:34 PM


Re: to: darwin storm
TO: chiroptera
I have a lack of belief you are a true unwavering atheist. I said what proof I would accept in my original post.
Lastly, what is your username at TWEB?
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 9:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 9:51 PM kendemyer has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 297 (138958)
09-01-2004 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
09-01-2004 9:34 PM


to: chiroptera
I guess you are chsalvia or a chsalvia sympathizer at TWEB.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 9:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 297 (138963)
09-01-2004 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kendemyer
09-01-2004 9:37 PM


Re: to: darwin storm
It really doesn't matter whether you believe or not that I am an atheist. I thought that you might like to convince me that I'm not really an atheist, but if you try you would be at a great disadvantage since I know what I believe.
But I can see why you conservative Christians need to believe that atheism doesn't really exist, or that we unbelievers are willful in our unbelief.
(1) There is no clear, unambiguous evidence that God exists at all.
(2) Therefore, not believing in God is a rational, reasonable, logical belief.
(3) A person's belief is not entirely under their control.
(3) According to some Christian beliefs, God will punish unbelievers with eternal damnation.
By any standard of justice, this makes God out to be unjust, cruel, arbitrary, and evil.
So the way out of the dilemma is to believe that unbelievers must willfull in their unbelief. The evidence is clear, but unbelievers just won't look at it. Or God implanted into everyone an instinctive belief in him, but unbelievers work hard to deny it. Somehow, unbelievers really do believe in God, they just don't want to admit it because of...pride, or lust, or whatever.
This has nothing to do with convincing others that atheism does not exist. What this is about is you trying to create a comfortable belief system for yourself, where you can believe that people will be damned to hell forever, but you can feel good about it because it is their own fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:37 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 297 (138967)
09-01-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
09-01-2004 9:51 PM


Re: to: darwin storm
TO: Chiroptera
You still haven't given any real proof that atheism exist.
Please keep the string on topic and offer less digressions which I do not believe you supported anyways. If you want to digress please open new threads.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 9:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 09-01-2004 10:34 PM kendemyer has replied
 Message 293 by Glen, posted 06-27-2008 2:51 AM kendemyer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 297 (138972)
09-01-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
09-01-2004 8:12 PM


quote:
If a professed materialist wishes to dispute the sincerity of Christian martyrs, I would suggest they at least offer one materialist martyr with a supporting link first).
Invalid comparison.
The existence or nonexistence of materialist martyrs is completely irrelevant to the question of the sincerity of Christian martyrs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 8:12 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 297 (138974)
09-01-2004 10:23 PM


to: ALL
Re: original post
Wanted: empirical studies showing professed atheist as a group give just as much or more to charity than theist. No anecdotal evidence please.
I offered studies which suggest that professed atheist and/or less or non religious give less.
Sincerely,
Ken

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 297 (138976)
09-01-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kendemyer
09-01-2004 9:11 PM


Re: to: darwin storm
Thats fine, I won't consider you a christian, since your testimony should be held to the same standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 9:11 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 10:33 PM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024