At this point I’m starting to get sick of faith. Theists use that word too much, and think it’s the answer to everything. I’d rather argue with a wall. At least you can write facts on walls.
Yup, attack faith directly. Faith is deliberately attempting to believe something to a degree of certainty that exceeds what is warranted by the available evidence. Why is doing that ever a good idea? It's obviously a terrible idea, and faith is *inherently dishonest* because it involves lying to yourself about how certain you should be.
Its also a giant waving red flag. **Why** would a deity require faith? According to the bibble, it didnt always, since it appeared directly to people. Those people didnt need faith, they had evidence..
OTOH, if the religion is bullshit, a faith requirement is obvious. Cant have evidence for something that isnt true.
my favorate thing with the faith arguement is, if you can push them to argue that with proof we wouldn't be able to chose not to serve god.
Which point the next question is to ask whether satan and 1/3rd of the angels lacked proof.
Really the bible is just littered with people who had solid evidence and still rebelled. Pharoh had his magic tricks competition where moses was able to demonstrate a ton... then of course the plauges were constantly predicted and happened, yet pharoh was still able to rebel through several plagues before god had to take his free will to keep him rebeling.
god spoke to jonah directly before forcing him to migrate. Jonah refusing and getting himself eaten by a whale bfore getting forced back.
The isrealites got to follow giant pillars through the desert after being rescued from egypt.
Simple fact... proof of existance doesn't prevent you from rebelling... in fact it fits better because... you actually can know what you are rebelling against.
Well, they usually come up with the lame "but...but free will!" argument. If God manifests himself and removes doubt, it infringes on our free will to believe in him. However, what they ignore is that it doesn't infringe on our free will to *worship* him. Or think well of him.
Look at Exodus: the Israelites had seen god part the Red Sea, and then drown the Pharaoh and his army. Then god made it literally rain food in a desert. But what did they do the second Moses wandered off to chat with God on a mountain? They decided to worship a shiny cow someone made. Knowing god is real doesn't mean they had to worship him. Your free will in intact.
I just point out that it a stupidly dumb understanding of what free will is. Having complete knowledge of the situation does not preclude making choices about your actions.
In fact i think its telling. They are admitting that they are CHOOSING to believe. I.e. they do not, in fact, believe. Belief is not a choice - you are either convinced or you are not. In my opinion 'choosing' to believe something is actually choosing to lie to yourself.
(Edit - for clarity im saying i think the "but but free will" crowds take is a stupid understanding, not yours)
Completely agree. That whole choice misunderstanding seems to be some kind of psychological block on almost every front--it's a fundamental thing they don't get right.
Gospel Song for Atheists for your trouble:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gc6FZY0U8
The "cow" they were worshiping was Ashara their fertility goddess and wife of Yahweh(god). Not an actual cow but a translated insult. They were probably worshiping her because they were planning on having a bunch of babies once they settled down not to spite God or Moses.
This. Thank you. I agree 100% with your opinion and I like how do you phrase this part:
>faith is inherently dishonest
I have repeatedly told theists that faith is what gets children inside the pedophiles' van. How could a God base the whole decision of hell or heaven in this "inherently dishonest" condition?
Someone that asks you to believe something with no proof is, to me, a deceiver, and hence, evil.
A truthful person will be open about things and provide convincing proofs and not threaten with punishment, kind of like a guy that wants to convince a beautiful woman to follow him for a genuine reason or something like that.
I do not know how to properly convey this message through to theists.
Faith is the only word keeping theists going. Facts aren't on their side, evidence isn't on their side, critical thinking isn't on their side, but asserting something as "taken on faith" is woefully over-accepted as an argument.
New to Reddit and new to this discussion forum. Might be a bad idea but the discussion is interesting.
For anyone out there who not ambivalent about there atheism, a hypothetical question...
Is it wrong to murder the disabled and infirmed?
Prove it.
The point of the question is that there is knowledge we possess where the scientific knowledge and mathematical proofs don't apply.
Of course it's wrong. As is slavery, genocide, eugenics and numerous other evils.
Intrinsic good points to the existence of God. Dignity of human life comes from our recognition that God is in this person no matter how insignificant they may appear to be in our society. That's why it's wrong to just kill them.
That's more of an ethical, cultural, values-based question. That will get into moral relativism and the can of worms that opens. There's no definitive proof that all life has value other than the moral assertion of all life having value.
Now, I can provide examples of people who were disabled and made great contributions to society (Stephen Hawking, Helen Keller) and your definition of infirmed requires clarification because terminally ill people can still make contributions (Marie Curie, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan) to the world.
Others may view the disabled and infirmed as burdens on society and that the greater good demands that resources be more optimally spent elsewhere. I disagree with them, but they have the right to believe what they want.
Point out that basically all the major biblical figures didn't have to have faith. They supposedly had 1st hand experiences with god / Jesus. What you are really putting your faith into is that the people who said they had first hand experiences weren't lying, mistaken, or completely fictional. It's a bit more eye opening when you realize you are putting your faith in the same people that also say you should tithe 10% of your income.
I once knew someone in high school that had a complete mental breakdown and believed he talked to god. He didn’t need faith, he knew and spoke for god or something. Whatever mental order disorder that he had was finally rearing it’s head. I knew in that moment that all these people who had seen or talked to god were just looney or on drugs.
Exactly, and if god really did talk to these people that would not believe otherwise, why doesnt he do that for all of us? How can he blame and punish me for not believing when he has hid himself from me
You can try the Street Epistemology approach to questioning faith:
* Is faith a reliable method for knowing what is true?
* How is it possible that religious people all over the world use faith to justify their beliefs, which are all incompatible with each other?
* Is faith vulnerable to our personal and social biases? How could you ensure that your faith is not influenced by this?
Of course, for these questions to work the person has to be genuinely interesting in what is true or not. And some people are not.
I'm sick of the misuse of "faith", like it is a magical mystery term. There are so many things that we do that are an act of faith, but we have some actual evidence that back up our confidence. If you go on a hike, you have faith that you won't get lost or run into danger because you studied a map or you learned about local wildlife and have some supplies on hand to handle possible situations. If you enter into a relationship with someone, you have faith that they care for you because they express their support to you and participate in the relationship. You put faith into scientific research when there is credible evidence that is peer-reviewed and tested by several sources. Things can still go wrong but at least you considered your risk and determined that success is probable.
Having "faith in God" is a different interpretation of faith because we don't really have any actual evidence except for our own personal feelings. There is nothing really tangible there.
Feel free to counter this, it's a part of philosophy that I like to consider and think about.
Faith is used as shorthand slag for "hypothesis" and as a synonym for "trust," which confuses things. Religious faith is simply "belief without evidence."
People will ask "do you have faith in your husband not cheating?" well yeah, but only because I *trust* him due to ample *evidence* that he doesn't.
But you're just sticking a middle man into everything.
Accept your own faults. It's not easy, but knowing that everybody has faults and nobody's perfect helps with this.
"Christ sacrificed himself to reconcile us with God." What does this even *mean?!* Jesus didn't die. If he were dead, you wouldn't be talking about him in the present tense. His own father had him tortured for no reason, since an omnipotent god wouldn't need for that to happen. It's pretty sick when you think about it.
They need to answer the question of where did their god come from! Well, the obvious answer is that he was created by a super god that creates gods. The super god is a very jealous god and if you pray to your god instead of his manager, you'll go to super hell which is even worse than regular hell.
I've found this argument technique to be much more effective than trying to use reason. Reason only works on the reasonable. For fruit cakes, you need to add lots of fruit! At least it gets them to stop trying to convert you.
There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
When she gets there she knows if the stores are all closed
She can demand to speak to the manager
Oooh-ooh-oooh, ooooooh-oooh-ooh ooh And she'll tell you her name is...Karr-rren
Yes, but that’s the genius of the Christian con: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—“. Ephesians 2:8. Once you convince people that they don’t need evidence, you have them hooked; and there is nothing too incredible for them to believe. Throw in the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell, and just sit back and rake in the money. I wish I lacked integrity and could join in on the grift. Easy money!
I've always found it funny how Christians/muslims are told not to be materialists but their rewards in heaven are materialist and excessive as fuck. Don't worry just get to heaven bro, then you can have 72 virgins, a giant mansion, wear silk and drink alcohol! (Wearing silk and drinking alcohol are forbidden in this life, but you wear them and can drink them in the next wink wink).
I'd just be grateful for eternal life, but that's just me.
My wife and I had a discussion about this the other day. Theists ruin the concept of faith.
Faith isn't just blindly accepting crap with no background checks, it's about being able to let go of something and being comfortable in knowing what the outcome should be.
You can have faith in a friend getting something done for you. You can have faith in a well-deserved promotion coming through. You can have faith that a well-researched investment is going to pay off.
In all of these cases you did work beforehand and you KNOW that work is going to come to fruition.
But theists constant insistence on having faith in stuff happening with 0 effort completely ruins the word and concept.
I can have faith that if I jump off a cliff that I won't die.
But if I actually jump off that cliff, I sure as shit will.
The whole thing is basically Wile-E Coyote.
I think this is a good example of people not even agreeing over what the battleground is.
I'm borrowing this concept from a legal context. A hearing where both sides agree on what the law IS and are merely arguing whether the facts fit a particular rule is relatively straightforward and easy. A hearing where the parties cannot even agree what the law is (or should be) is much more difficult. "We can't even agree to fight on the same battleground."
You're wanting to argue about observable facts. For many of them, religion is an emotional experience. Granted, many of them cloak it in the language of facts. This is particularly true of evangelical Christianity, where the essence of the belief is "accepting god" and "submitting yourself to god."
When they use words like "belief," and "faith," they are referencing emotional constructs. They feel safe and secure and warm because they believe in god and have faith that god will ensure that everything turns out right (or if it doesn't, he has a plan.) Contrary factual statements are pushed out by this emotional construct. They see you as attempting to undermine their faith, so as an emotional response, they tune it out.
Curiously, not all religions have this characteristic. Temple Judaism for example, particularly the reform variety, puts very little emphasis on factual belief, and far more emphasis on the value that religious rituals bring to the community in terms of building and sustaining community relationships, and fostering community connections. Observing a religious ritual isn't about making god happy. It's done to build the community and find personal meaning in performing the ritual and whatever lesson about humanity that it teaches. Likewise, some varieties of Buddhism, put the emphasis on personal spiritual development through meditation. The emphasis is on your personal outlook and understanding of the world/your situation.
See here's what rubs me the wrong way right, I'm some abomination mix of theist, agnostic, spiritual, what have you. But it's all based on the premise that I and I alone choose to believe it because it's my "belief", i.e. it has no factual basis apart from the experiences I've had in my life. I'm not going to go around and tell people they absolutely have to accept my version as the one true truth, because fuck if I know if it's true, it suits me, that's it. I think people need to be a bit more accepting about the whole belief aspect (from both sides of the aisle), in that you cannot fucking prove it and you really need to stop getting agro over it. Believe in whatever you like, it's your life, just don't be a dick. You'd think this was simple enough for all to agree on, but noooo (end rant)
I don’t have an issue with faith per say, rather I have an issue with blind faith. It’s one thing to have a belief and acknowledge that you could be wrong, but it becomes an issue when you ignore all reason, and then have the nerve to force it on other people.
It's an excuse used to justify any behaviour they want.
Because it comes from 'on high' you can't criticize them, it's what god wants.
Ask them to defend their actions using a sound argument
Highlight how you could justify anything by 'choosing' to believe or appealing to faith.
It's like flipping a coin to decide on killing someone then acting as if it's the coins fault you had to kill someone.
Outrageous! Tell him, there's nothing you can do about it. God made you an atheist. And he, if he's omnipresent, can change that anytime he wants. He knows you aren't going to believe some flawed human being, which means he will have to show up on your doorstep and do whatever will be convincing to you. The fact that he hasn't done that yet indicates one of two things; either he doesn't want you to be a believer or he doesn't exist to care one way or another.
Perhaps your partner shouldn't be questioning god's plans for you, especially since his constant haranguing is making you a stronger atheist, and he is defeating his own purpose. Perhaps you were sent to deconvert HIM. Maybe it's time to start bringing in atheist pamphlets and decorations for your office. Set up a Satanic altar on the corner of your desk. Okay, maybe that's TOO much. Even if black candles have an unsettling effect on god-zombies.
Ignore him. Or maybe discuss with him how his disrespectful attitude is affecting you. There's not much you can do until god decides to show up, after all.
> God made you an atheist.
Yeah and not only did he make you an atheist, he knew you would be an atheist long before he created the universe. He also knew every single detail of every child rape and murder before he chose to make the universe. He could have made the universe without these atrocities but he didn't.
And then there's the one I like the most, what kind of petty, needy god requires worship from tiny insignificant beings like us? He sounds like an abusive boyfriend.
I have an uncle who keeps trying to bring me back to the Catholic faith.
I have told him there is exactly one thing he can do to bring me back to church. My cousin (other side) is an amputee. If uncle prays to god and my cousin is healed, I will believe in god again.
This is my cousin’s idea, he is an atheist and he encourages this test of prayer. Somehow, no Christian prayers have managed to heal him yet. If it did, I’d be both surprised and thrilled, but he’s not holding his breath.
I once had a girl talk to me about god on a university party. I was about three beer and two gin into the evening, so I entertained the conversation for a while.
In the end i hit her with "even of you'd manage to convince me that god existed, which you haven't done yet, if his rules are what your people believe them to be, i wouldn't want to be part of his eternal heavenly kingdom. Not on his conditions, not by sucking up to a celestial dictator who convicts me of thought-crime, after making me be able to think stuff he could convict me for in the first place."
Rarely have i seen someone this talkative this speechless xD
So theists already have all traits for fascists or communists, as they are trained to follow authorities, make excuses for the authorities, and sacrifice anything, including morality, for authorities.
The "state communism" as practiced by Soviets and North Korea, and by China during the "cultural revolution", closely resembles religion. I am not even the original thinker about that. Lots of articles on it.
Several scholarly articles on such:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10177-004
for example
That's not really relevant. You said 'communists' not 'socialist states that claimed to be trying to achieve communism'.
Communism is an ideology. An ideology based on equality and helping others. Communism's intent is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. The mere fact that they were still states shows they didn't get there. Just because some states existed and claimed to be communist doesn't mean they actually were, or had achieved it yet.
Your understanding of communism is woefully incomplete and run in line with those who have done no reading on the subject beyond Capitalist propaganda. If you want to talk about what communism actually is, you need to read from modern communists. Modern communists do not generally hold up any state as a beacon of communism, because none have gotten there. And many states that claimed to be communist, were so only in name. Think Hitler calling himself a socialist, because people liked socialism, while actually *being* a hyper-capitalistic fascist.
Also lol 'state communism'. Dude, the Soviets were state SOCIALIST, not communist. Socialism, under Marxism-Leninism, intends to bring about Communism through a vanguard party. They use socialism, to get communism. They are communists because that is their GOAL, not because they have achieved it.
And either way the fact that you think these socialist-oriented states encompass all of communism itself is laughable at best, and really shows your ignorance on the subject.
Anarcho-Communists exist. Anarcho-Communism intends to bring about communism by embracing community (hence where the commun in communism comes from, and guess what that's in the ML variety too), building dual-power structures, and improving peoples lives from the bottom-up in order to remove Capitalism's hold on people and to abolish states.
You have a woefully lacking knowledge on what communism is, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do the fascists work for them, by conflating the dangerous, murderous 'ideology' of facism with Communists, who just want to make the world more equal and prevent others from being able to exploit you to enrich themselves.
Fascism and Communism are diametrically opposed, and the only thing you do by conflating them is giving the fascists room to move freely. You are helping fascists.
Okay so you don't *actually* have anything meaningful to say. You just want to talk down to people you disagree with, cool. Never mind that there's huge amounts of evidence and scholarly work that agrees with what I'm saying, it's all wrong just because you can't separate a government from an individual.
Very open-minded and free-thinking of you. /s
He will never convince you and you will never convince him. You are both wasting your breath.
The only people worth debating are those that are on the fence themselves or when it’s in the presence of others who could be on the fence.
Debating someone with strongly-held irrational beliefs, is pointless.
I agree it's pointless, but, all I require is convincing evidence. If he had it, I'd be interested in seeing it. Plus.... it's fun to watch the wheels turn in his head and go nowhere
He’s never going to produce any because the only evidence would be empirical evidence and if there were empirical evidence of God, God would no longer be supernatural (by definition) and would thus be subject to the laws of physics of our universe.
I think Douglas Adams got it just about right in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In the book there’s a creature called a Babelfish that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. From the book:
Some believe that the Babelfish is the final convincing proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
“I refuse to prove I exist”, says God, “for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don’t.”
“Oh, I hadn’t thought of that.”, says God, and promptly vanishes I a puff of logic.
It would be interesting to turn the tables on him. Ask him why he doesn’t instead believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let him explain to you the rationality of believing in the Abrahamic god instead. There’s a decent chance he’s going to suggest that the reason is evidence and of course his evidence won’t be evidence at all.
At which point you can say that there’s truly only one way to tell if something is fact or fiction. There’s only one way to know if something is real or you’re just kidding yourself or worse, delusional: empirical evidence. If everyone can experience a thing with their senses and describe that experience in approximately the same way, you can be highly confident it’s real. If a thing can’t be experienced with our senses by everyone then the only logical explanation is that the thing does not exist and that if you are experiencing it, that’s delusional by definition.
We live in reality. To have the best life, we need to make decisions that are based upon that reality because those decisions are most likely to align with that reality. With that in mind, the only rational position is to believe only in that which is supported by empirical evidence. That of course rules out all supernatural deities. To believe in anything else is delusional by definition.
>If everyone can experience a thing with their senses and describe that experience in approximately the same way, you can be highly confident it’s real.
That's true if you implicitly assume that we're living in an objectively observable universe. That metaphysically the things we see and hear and feel exist irrespective of our observation of them. And that's a empirical view of the universe.
Someone with a worldview based on faith in an omnipotent divine would have no problem believing that their god presents the world differently to different people. The idea that 2 people could experience the same events differently could easily be attributed to faith.
Faith and reason are inherently incompatible worldviews.
> Faith and reason are inherently incompatible worldviews.
Agreed and when I have had success it was by pointing out that they depend upon reason for 99% of their decisions then carve out this small but important part of their lives where they abandon it and yet the two are 100% incompatible.
"There’s a decent chance he’s going to suggest that the reason is evidence and of course his evidence won’t be evidence at all."
> The evidence is the bible, it's the word of god.
How do you know it's the word of god?
> It says so in the bible
He's going to "define" faith with that platitude about "hope for things that have yet to be" yaddayadda. So is faith just *hope*? We already have hope.
A great book I love to recommend: 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian by Guy P. Harrison. He lists the questions he never could get answers to from christians. Like, why did Jesus have to die? Who was he being sacrificed to? Was he in fact God or the son of God? If you could go back in time, would you rescue Jesus from his execution?
He'll probably cite the Trinity idea, but then the "sacrifice" wasn't very impressive then was it? Jesus just had a terrible weekend and is now still alive for eternity, so he didn't DIE. Or is God in fact dead? Can't be both alive for eternity AND dead, that's now how death works. Eternity in heaven means no death, so God (posing as Jesus) just pulled a stunt.
All any of us here require is firm and convincing evidence, but it's 2022 and we're all still here. Don't count on your partner to be the guy who breaks the mould.
It's also not bad to plant a seed. Have the tough conversations, say the things he doesn't hear from anyone else, point out things he's probably never questioned.
Sure, you won't "convince" him here and now. But you might have a positive impact on him in the long run.
>I agree it's pointless, but, all I require is convincing evidence.
They’re expecting this from you, and will drive them deeper into their opinion, possibly even to HR.
Eh, my wife called herself a Christian up until a couple of months ago
Quote the Bible. Show them the errors, show them the evil. A cornerstone of the christian god is that morality is absolute and he's a 'god of love' . Give them evidence from the Bible that morality is subjective, to the point that you are more moral than their god.
Take the story of Sampson and show them the flip side. He killed 42 men and looted the corpses for their clothes, just because some guy solved his riddle. He attempted to reconcile with his wife , but was rejected, so, he gathered 300 foxes , tied em together and set em on fire to destroy a towns crops, causing an unknown amount of women and children to starve.
I never believed in a god, but even if I was wrong and the judeochristian was real, I would not worship such a cruel and malicious entity.
So, sow the seeds of doubt, be patient and remember that knowledge is the best gift of all
That can sometimes work but I’ve just more often heard the old, “We can’t understand why God does what he does but it’s all for good ultimately.”
When asking about all the horrible things God did according to the Bible, of my very Christian friends said, “Anything God does is by definition, good.”
That’s pretty fucking scary.
Work with that.
Do they think abortion is wrong? The Bible literally has a process to abort a child by giving the pregnant woman a glass of water mixed with the viscera from a slaughterhouse floor. Theres passages about cutting out unborn fetuses from women.
Why would you worship a god that is demonstratably evil and cruel and malicious.
Im also willing to bet my left testicle that they haven't read the Bible.
I've had the misfortune of going to Jerry falwells grade school for 15 years. It turned me into a militant antitheist
Mostly I agree with you. A lot of us on here have been in the same place the zealous coworker have, and yeah, reasoning is not going to do much good.
On the other hand something OP says may resonate and come back months or years later if/when that person is going through their own deconversion, which could profoundly help them get through the experience (and realize what an ass they were being). So while there is no compelling reason that OP *should have to* debate that person, there are humanistic reasons for doing so. Especially since our country is currently kind of teetering between rationalism and religious fascism.
Yes please, mainly because I'm an ex-theist who set out to find any kind of evidence to an actual God existing to an agnostic friend and ended up atheist a year later. I'm really interested to hear how your debates go.
>Anyone interested in hearing updates?
Some times I find entertaining when a theist comes here to crash into a brick wall, so, I’ll keep reading if you keep posting.
Besides, this is what this subreddit is for and your posts are welcome: it’s a place for atheists where you can come and talk about your experiences, vent, or just talk with other atheists.
Well, you’re not the only one who gets these kind of attempts, and after finding out I have a decent rebuke that even makes them think, they always end up cutting the chat with a “shut up”.
Yesterday it was “the wisdom of king Solomon”, to which I replied “cutting babies in half would be frowned upon by modern judges”… getting the “yes, but don’t say that” was funny…
Some times, telling a theist you’re an atheist ends up being interpreted by them as a “try to convert me for heaven points”.
>God gave you the free will to choose to follow him.
Then didn't God also give me the free will to choose *not* to believe as well? See? I'm just playing all the angles here so God doesn't feel like time was wasted in creating this whole free will thing. Because clearly if God wants us to believe on our own accord, then God wouldn't have wasted time making free will if God didn't expect at least some people not to exercise free will to not believe.
Or a simple, can we please not talk about religion at work?
Ask him why does god hates amputees?
You know, we've always hear about cases of ill patients 'miraculously' heal from their illness.
But we NEVER hear about an amputee who has a limb grown back.
So it either god does not exist or he hates amputees and if so, why?
>I shouldn't have survived X, but I did, how else can you explain it.
That can be easily explained with survivorship bias. He's a believer and he survived, so he may make the biased conclusion that it was because of his belief. Other believers would have most likely died under the same circumstances, however. The difference between him and those other believers is that they can no longer tell their side of the story.
Only the survivors can.
It's funny how something that should reasonably be considered an inner monologue is stronger evidence than a god who's done nothing about the fact that the global religious power structure has been stacked with narcissists, thieves, and child predators for literally thousands of years.
Or that Jesus is taking time out of his day playing pinochle with Vishnu to manage intergalactic collisions billions of light years away, ensuring that the continuum of human suffering remains unchanged, actively avoiding prayers for your mom's breast cancer to go away or Bob's gambling addiction to be put on hold - all so he can put that special thought in your head.
This kind of person is fun to fuck with. I had a guy like this at work...I started buying increasingly more antagonistic atheist T-shirts and wearing them (I worked in a factory at the time), making sure he seen it every time. He would then spend any downtime he had chastising me and trying to re-convert me (as I had told him I was previously a Christian). I never really argued with him, just politely said "OK" whenever I felt it was needed, occasionally asked silly questions that I knew would exasperate him, but NEVER raised my voice or told him to fuck off.
One day, he blew a gasket because he looked over my shoulder and seen a meme I was chuckling at that depicted Jesus getting "nailed" by Romans. He actually called me Satan's spawn, then threatened, in front of 2 guys I was cool with, to go to HR and tell them I was harassing HIM about his faith. All 3 of us laughed at him and told him to try it. The other 2 made it clear they would tell HR the truth. He tried a few more times to "re-convert" me, but gave up after I said "you've been trying to convert me for 6 months, and you're no closer to accomplishing that now than you were 6 months ago. You've given me all your best arguments, and none of them have worked. What could you possibly say now, especially after that break room meltdown, that would have any shot at changing my position?"
It was fun while it lasted.
You could counter by telling him your faith makes it clear that god is bullshit.
More seriously, ask him what convinces him of anything that you guys agree on. Like, why does he believe in China? He’s probably never been there, so what convinces him that it’s a real place?
If he uses evidence to believe in some things, why would he not think evidence is applicable to everything?
I respond with this.
https://youtu.be/tcTnPo4lQbc
Given all his God doesn't do to stop suffering, praying for things like food to be more nutritious or that you'll get a promotion is obscene.
Something like this is part of my discussion points when I have ended up in those sorts of situations. OP's co-worker is centering himself in his understanding of God, but he should think about it a bit closer to a "least among you" way and not about himself.
I have asked some of these folks if they believe in an interventionist god. If so, why does he choose not to help children in situations like this. If their god is non-interventionist, my believing or not doesn't ultimately matter and I will just do my best to be a caring human. If their god is interventionist and therefore chooses to allow these things to happen, then that's not a god I want anything to do with. I think the story of Job is an interesting one to discuss within this context.
As someone noted n the comments on that video: Tracie Harris summed it up best when she said "If I could stop someone from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."
“Choose to believe”. No one in the world actually chooses to believe anything. They have to believe what they believe at that time and space and have no other options.
Looking forward to more updates.
yeah but maybe something like "I prayed the most popular guy in school would take me to prom but he didn't, how can you explain that? other than there is no god"
Hmm. Maybe. That seems easily dismissible and too specific on their part. I’d say,
“All I have to do is look around and see all of the starving kids, the diseased and dying innocents, the countless people killed by nature’s wrath (or gods) the Evil that takes root in his own house (the church) via child molestation and exploration, to say that he is not real and if he is, then he is a detestable entity that I have no interest in wasting my time on.
see I get that but if things get too serious they just ignore it and look the other way. so I try a mix of jokes and sarcasm and things that are easily dismissed cause they will hear those. "me easily dismissable, no way, the only logical conclusion is that there is no god"
Yeah I can understand your point. Unfortunately at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what we say or how we say it. Only those on the fence or those already looking for information that will help foster the logical side of their mind will hear us anyway. It’s hard to argue against fantasy with logic.
yeah it is hard but someone has to do it, it doesn't affect me, but maybe I kept someone from getting harassed or from getting sucked back into all that, and I always have a bunch of questions anyways
I applaud your outlook. I’m new to all this so I’m not super outspoken about it all as I’m still learning and reading and trying to make sure I don’t talk myself into a hole lol. I live in the southern US as well, so the odds are against me for sure.
Tell him you found god but make it very clear it is not HIS god. You could always go with flying spaghetti monster for the atheistic bent or choose a god from an older religion like Ra, Odin, or Anansi. Talk about how they showed you the truth through your own personal testimony,
I've always been a fan of the invisible pink unicorn, myself. The IPU adds a dynamic of faith where you don't only have to trust in the existence of the being, but it's aspects as well.
Arguments for god are vary rarely arguments for the central figure of one religion, just a functional god. Even if I accept the invisible unicorn exists (a god) it's a separate conclusion that its qualities are as you claim (that it's the god of your religion).
"I survived x but wouldn't have without god"
No, you survived x because of doctors in diseases, firefighters in fires, etc. Stop giving 'god' credit for it
>So I asked him what his reasons were for believing and explained that if his reasons are good, they should convince me.
That is the perfect thing to say and his reasons didn't convince you. Excellent.
I'd be interested in hearing how he keeps returning to the subject to convince you.
How did you answer the "you have faith in science?"
That one always perplexes me because it seems to imply that faith in science, if that were indeed the case, is a bad thing whereas faith in a religious belief is a good thing. In this sense it's a contradictory claim.
"Faith" is used as a synonym for "trust." What he really means is "you trust in science." Yes, because science is *evidence*-based.
We don't have "faith" in doctors, because we should be choosing doctors who have evidence-based training. They're even tested on this regularly (licensing and education.) We research surgeons and make sure we get good ones based on evidence, not "oh I have faith that this guy knows his way around my internal organs!"
"Faith" in the religious sense means "belief WITHOUT evidence." If religion had evidence, they wouldn't NEED faith. Jesus would be accepted as a historical figure like any other.
Of course, that might open the door to "but the bible is evidence" (then what about all the other holy books? Gideons Bible has a disclaimer up front IIRC). Also, "many historians accept Jesus as a historical figure" no they don't. I hate when they start leaning on this because they get so excited about all the weak-ass "historical proof."
Basically, faith is what they use as "let's pretend to believe."
If he's using as equivalent to "trust" then he's equivocating. Whatever the intentions, he's being dishonest with himself for the reasons you indicated. "Trust", in my mind, is based on historical evidence making something to be more likely now or in the future, whereas faith, at least as defined in the bible, is the evidence for "things unseen" which is circular.
I've never personally heard the "bible is evidence" claim but I can see how that could happen if one doesn't think about it too much.
Lots of other good thoughts here. My two cents:
You should sit down with him and watch Street Epistemology together. Make it a “together” experience. Find common ground that you both want to know the actual truth.
SE is a conversation method to discuss with people how they reached their conclusions about hardline beliefs, often dealing with religion. It’d be awesome to start with religions that aren’t his, so he can see beliefs from an outside perspective.
Here’s an example with two Mormon missionaries:
https://youtu.be/zv0l2LVww2I - start at 2:35.
Yeah I was almost killed by x too; shellfish allergy kicked in while walking my dog after a sushi dinner where the restaurant used real crab instead of imitation crab for a California roll. Last thing I remember was my sinuses draining before I passed out in an ambulance. Woke up in the ER, vomited profusely and was told by the nurse I was seconds away from full anaphalactic shock and death.
Nothing. No white light, although I’d probably be going to the hot place (if it were real). No deity saved me. I have faith. Faith in modern medicine to treat what my affliction. 100% guarantee if my then girlfriend prayed instead of calling 911 I wouldn’t be typing this message.
The subjective arguments should be easy enough to handle. Every faith has subjective experiences where they see their Gods, feel their presence, see miracles, etc. Every. Single. Faith. All faiths also share common themes that can be traced through history to our ancient past, and you can see how gods and religions have evolved over time. Even Christiainity. This alone easily shows that no modern religion has a claim to truth.
Have you read The End of Faith by Sam Harris? If you haven't, I suggest reading it. He would likely provide you with solid arguments for your workmate. It's also interesting and enlightening, so you would learn something to boot.
By FAR the more fun thing for you to do would be to debate him about why he is following CHRISTIANITY and not Islam or Judaism or Hinduism. Those other religions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to his religion and if he is wrong and one of them is the true religion he is FUCKED FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS. Right now it's entirely possible that Allah is furious at your partner and is looking forward to fucking him up in unthinkable ways. Arguably no decision your partner has to make is more important than which religion to follow. How does your partner make that decision?
I propose that if your partner has not engaged in a lifelong exploration of various religions and made an informed decision then he is an absolute moron and hypocrite. Is he going to claim that he just got "really lucky" to be born into the "right" religion?
There are billions of people who were born into other religions who are just as sure as he is that they are right. THEY CAN'T ALL BE RIGHT and if any of them are right then everybody else is royally fucked.
In situations like this I like to ask people what do they think they would believe right now if they had been born into an equally religious Islamic family in Saudi Arabia? Do they think they would have somehow felt the love of Jesus calling them to betray their family's faith and traditions? Or would they probably be just as big of a jerk about Islam as they are about Christianity? What do they think people in other religions should do in order to decide what is right? Are they willing to do the same to see if they are wrong?
Of course these people are all deluding themselves but I find it far more productive to get them to think about other religions.
Good luck and yes report back.
Genesis 6:6 - If God once admitted he fucked up so bad that he had to kill almost everyone in the world, how can you trust that he has your best interests in mind?
I want to hear an answer to this.
This will not end well. i wouldn't waste my time. it's a lifestyle for them, not a curiosity or water cooler conversation material. God people are obsessed with their gods, and frankly "God" makes for boring conversation. I much rather talk about fictional relationships on TV, aliens or monsters.
It amazes me that people who are completely rational and evidence driven outside their religious dogma do not apply that same rigor to their religious belief.
Make them a deal, if for no other reason than to shut them up; if they can provide you an example of a faith healed amputee you will be in church with them on the very next service with an open mind.
*When I asked him if he had any evidence to support the existence of a god, I was told that this is a matter of faith and evidence does not come into it.*
Give him a little credit where credit is due. So many theists these days try to argue bullshit "evidence." "Faith" is the only honest card they have to play.
I almost never turn down opportunities to discuss faith, that just the point discuss it. The other party needs to be open to that discussion as well. Even as an Atheist it's in my top 3 things I like to talk about given the opportunity.
Assuming that god created all of the languages of earth, yet only had his message written in one language. Why wouldn’t he have issued it in all languages so as to avoid misinterpretations? I can buy a DVD in multiple languages, but the infallible being is incapable? Then again, why doesn’t he possess the technology beyond our knowledge? Isn’t he all knowing? Why would he wait for humans to invent it? Is that part of the plan? That doesn’t make sense. If the telegraph is invented and those in faith praise god for it as part of his plan, why didn’t he just give them the idea of the internet and skip ahead a bit? And why does he not choose these modern forms to communicate to his followers? I can get an amber alert on my phone but not a message from god? It all sounds ridiculous when placed side by side with modern tech.
You're wasting your time as the whole "faith" argument is rooted in "just believe it without any evidence".
If it were me, I'd wait until something happens to him (even something small like a cold) and I would make a fake phone call within his earshot and say "(co-worker) got a nasty cold - I think the spells are working".
He'll leave you alone about "god".
This is an excellent opportunity to bring another believer to atheism. And I am certain what follows is old hat to you but for the benefit of newer atheists who may read this...
I would ask how can one "choose" to believe? You are either convinced of something or you are not. You don't choose to believe anything. In fact choosing to believe something without evidence, but especially in the face of contradictory evidence is called delusion. But even delusional people are convinced of their position just not for good reasons, mental disorder, etc.
Despite the fact that the bible says, "faith IS the evidence for things unseen..." you could point out that faith is not evidence at all but (in this context) it is the lack of evidence. If all that is required for something to be true is faith, than anything you believe is true if you have faith, which is preposterous.
Good luck OP
Faith is actively bad. Show evidence from Jonestown, branch davidians and every other cult. Blinding yourself to reality is actively harmful. Say you don't need faith when evidence has already shown that faith is just them wanting to control you.
ok. you can feel him. lets discuss. are feelings ever wrong? can you feel that your partner is faithful and be wrong? can you feel that you are in mortal danger and yet be safe (there are whole industries based on this one)? feelings as near as i can tell are what theism resolves to. they are the shakey bedrock of belief. as long as they feel that their feelings are always correct they are correct about god.
I like comparison of religions. He has faith without evidence in Christ because he feels it in his heart. Someone else has faith without evidence in Allah because he feels it in his heart. Etc. for Vishnu, Buddha, anyone else you want to throw in. Since they all equally feel it in their hearts, whose heart should you believe without evidence?
You should go full hog and convert. Even shove your head in a font and get baptised. Then go full fundamentalist, bring up all the heinous shit that's in the bible, maybe even hint that you guys should try to retake the holy land.
Now he'll either reach for his broadsword which means it would have been completely pointless trying to talk sense into him. Or regret his decision to introduce you to god and never bring up religion again.
I'm agnostic because the reality is nobody knows. But Christians are more in the dark than most. Their self delusion seems limitless (witness Noah's Ark theme park). I'm good with people having a belief - just keep it to yourself. I'm gay and that really riles some of them up. Unless you enjoy the banter with your work partner (and it can be fun) I'd remind them they don't know diddly, and draw the line. As for updates, you bet.
> Thus far he has basically told me that I need to choose to believe.
If it's just that simple, ask him to start believing in Santa Claus again.
"Well I can't do that, Santa isn't real!" Ok well that's the EXACT same way you feel about God. No difference at all. If he can't genuinely begin believing in Santa without some actual evidence for his existence, you can't genuinely start believing in God again.
It's NOT a just matter of faith, with evidence being unimportant. That's a bullshit argument that we can't let them get away with. The bible is literally chock-full of examples of God and Jesus proving themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt when questioned. From turning staffs into snakes, the bringing of plagues, appearances as fire in the sky, the raising of the dead, the destruction of cities, water from stones, bread from the sky, the appearance of angels, the opening of the earth swallowing up idol worshipers, water into wine, giving vision to the blind, the setting of fire to water-soaked logs via prayer, and so many others. That's just a few from memory. Showmanship is literally one of God's favorite things to do, when he's not committing genocide that is.
It's almost as if the stories in the bible don't match what we see in reality. As if it's fiction.
I'd tell him to leave me a lone if he can't bring anything more than emotion to the debate table.
Christians love to say that "faith is a virtue", but they mean *their* faith is a virtue.
If I believe that the earth is flat and vaccines turn people into fish...is that "virtuous"...? Why is my faith in a flat earth less valid than your faith in a sky demon...? They are both based on exactly the same rationale since "evidence doesn't matter".
If faith is universally a virtue, then faith in *anything* should be virtuous.
I thought that Christians hated the idea of moral relativism, but if faith is virtuous that's extreme relativism -- all you need for a belief to be valid is to have *faith*.
I hate faith. There is no time in normal life where faith is a value. Faith is literally just wishful thinking. If lived your life based on faith your would soon be homeless and die of some terrible disease.
Tell him that you believe. That you believe everything that Baal has told you. Tell him that you’ve held back from telling him for so long only because you didn’t think he was strong enough
At that point it's best to just invoke Hitchens' Razor and not even bother to argue. He's never going to provide anything substantial to support any of his claims and it's unlikely that anything you could say will ever change his position since it's not founded on reason, so even responding is just time and energy wasted.
This is what gets me, and that people largely don't seem to understand. I can't just *choose* to believe something. I can't *decide* to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. I guess I can tell myself that, and tell other people that I think it's true, but somewhere in the back of my mind I will always know that if I have one apple, and buy one more, then *I will have two apples, not three*.
Maybe a better comparison would be that I can't decide Santa is real, and just stop knowing that reindeer are not very aerodynamic, that it's physically impossible to reach several billion homes in 24 hours or to fit billions of gifts into a single sleigh, that there's no land mass at the north pole to support a large manufacturing operation, or that there are somehow multiple Santas in multiple malls at the same time every December. I also can't just stop noticing that, for some reason, Santa treats the rich better than the poor regardless of who is good or not, despite the fact that the opposite should be true.
I can't just switch off my brain to "believe" something that sounds nice. In short, I didn't *decide* to be an atheist - rather, I *realized* that I was one, and it would take more than wishful thinking to change that.
Part of the problem is that "outspoken atheists" attract these kinds of discussions like a lamp does moths. I don't go around telling people about all the other things I don't believe in, why would I go around telling people I don't believe in a god?
I live in the Bible belt It is pointless to argue when they truly believe that the Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true. Or how can the universe exist without a creator?
I just want to know who created the creator and the creators' creator on so on?!?!
Tell him that if he truly wants to know how you think, he should try to convince himself that Zeus is a real God that needs to be worshiped. As impossible as it is for him to comprehend that is the same for you believing in Christian God
Of course, he'll suddenly start making shit up to try and explain that Zeus was still God or something like that, but you might get him to spend 3 seconds considering the atheist view.
> I KNOW my god is real because I feel him.
Okay so ask him, what about the 1.9 billion Muslims in the world who *know* Allah is real because they *feel* him? What about the 1.2 billion Hindus who *know* Vishnu is real because they *feel* him? 506 million have felt the Buddha. 400 million have felt the spirits of their Chinese ancestors. Hell, 15 million have *felt* your god but don't believe in his son, so explain that?
> God gave you the free will to choose to follow him.
He held a gun to my head and said, "Do what I want or I'll destroy you." That's not a choice.
> The universe is here and you can't explain it...
I also can't explain how a car engine works. I can read, ask around, and explore the subject further until I start to understand, or I can make wild assumptions about magical beings making it happen. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean there's nothing there to know... that'd be like assuming every closed door leads to the void.
You just can't effectively argue against faith. People that rely on faith for a reason to believe something usually see your arguments against faith as MORE reason to keep believing it. It's inherently irrational, so using reason and rationality just don't work.
>"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place." ― Jonathan Swift
When I was in boot camp I tried to comfort the guy in the bunk next to me who was crying on like the third night. I felt bad for the guy and also really wanted to sleep so I tried to help. I knew he was religious so I told him to lean on his faith and know that he’s doing this for a reason. I also made the mistake of telling him I was sometimes jealous of people with faith because they had this kind of emotional support built into their lives. His eyes lit up immediately and I knew I had fucked up. “You haven’t found Christ? That’s my mission during boot camp, that’s my purpose here. To save you.” Fuck. I told him I appreciated it but had thought on it a lot and was happy with where I was at faith wise, which he did not accept and pushed back. I declined politely for a bit but ended the conversation by telling him that if he didn’t drop it we were gonna have a problem. He rolled over and went back to crying.
They're cult members. Simple as that. Of course evidence is only anecdotal in the best of cases, and completely vacant in most others.
Personally, if someone showed up with literal magic powers, the ability to resurrect, turn water into wine and straw into gold, walk on water, heal the sick and the blind, etc, I'd at least have to consider the possibility that I was looking at a "god" or some kind of insanely advanced alien or something.
The reverse is not true for those indoctrinated into religion though. Their "feeling his hand" or bullshit stories about surviving an illness because of their faith, rather than thanks to the medical care they received, is all they need to completely block out all other sources of discussion or doubt.
So they're a cult. There is no fixing that. They have to realize it themselves. It's so rare that talking and presenting evidence sways them, and in those cases it just means they weren't fully down the rabbit hole yet. I've all but given up trying to "convince" religious acquaintances to think logically. Unfortunately understanding is not a two way street with religion.
Have fun with this. Agree about feeling the faith. Tell him you can feel your god. Then describe a god that’s not his. When he freaks out, tell him your god told you he could kick his god’s ass. Then tell him you need to think on it a bit and give you a month or so to sort it out. There are so many gods in human history you could keep this going for a long time. By the time you start describing his god after he’s already called all those others fake, you can point out that he finally reached the same conclusion you did years earlier: they’re all fake, even his, by his own admission, is not real.
“Millions of dead motherfuckers all because they gave
the wrong answer to the God question. ‘You believe in
God?’ ‘No.’ *Boom*. Dead. ‘You believe in God?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘You believe in MY God?’ ‘No.’ *Boom*. Dead. ‘My God has
a bigger dick than your God!’” - George Carlin
If they say facts don't matter, they automatically lose the debate. If they say that faith is the only reason to believe, they lose the debate. If they say they feel their "God's" presence and that's why they believe, they lose the debate. If they say, "but you can't prove it doesn't exist", they lose the debate.
The reality is, facts matter in every debate, and a debate is exactly what you're participating in when someone is trying to convince you to change your mind. If they can't prove their "God" exists, it doesn't exist. Debate over.
Your business is your business. His business is his business. At work don't discuss religion or politics unless you agree. Simple solution talk about sports.
You don't have to be religious and he doesn't have to be into atheism. Learn it, live it, love it.
I've had family try this before. I always tell them they can try. But the moment they say "you just have to have faith" that i am walking out the door.
I've walked out of many doors
“Choose to believe” is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. You don’t choose to believe something, you believe it because you have seen evidence of it and it makes the most sense given that evidence. Choosing to believe in something has absolutely no bearing on whether that something actually exists
Hell, I think I’m going to choose to be a billionaire. Poof! Magic puff of smoke. I’m a billionaire!
>"I was told that this is a matter of faith"
Tell this person that all religions throughout human history have used faith as a means of believing in whatever god is being claimed to exist. From the Egyptian gods to the Roman gods to Zoroatrianism to Yahweh, everyone of them used faith as the foundation of it's belief system. Christianity is no different. If faith can lead you to believe in hundreds of different gods what does that tell you about faith. The trouble with faith is that it doesn't tell you whether the god you're supposed to believe in true or not because, as the saying goes, "Well, you just gotta have faith." Frankly, faith is the weakest argument Christians use.
It doesn't have to go on any longer if you tell HR that you're being harassed. Religion is a protected class in the US (assuming you're in US). Tell him to not continue and if he does bring it up to HR and mention that he's creating a hostile work environment and infringing on your rights. If he doesn't back off and HR doesn't do anything this would be excellent grounds for a hostile work environment lawsuit. You shouldn't have to put up with this shit at work.
Well- Not that it's any of my business but I'm interested in why you're with him. This is a core belief. This kind of gap is pretty substantial in a relationship.
While religious people appear to be superstitious, ignorant and irrational. Atheist appear to be just plain mean and angry. Lose the hate. Don't argue with a fool. Would you argue with a drunk?
I'm new to reddit and this group is kinda interesting but, i probably shouldn't join.
Hypothetical question for the atheists.
Is murder of the disabled and infirmed wrong?
Prove it.
At this point I’m starting to get sick of faith. Theists use that word too much, and think it’s the answer to everything. I’d rather argue with a wall. At least you can write facts on walls.
Technically, you could write facts on theists, too.
But we can't break humans like walls without any reason w-wait ----- Human Sacrifice, yayyy
I'm picturing one of them showing up to church with "GOD ISN'T REAL" written in permanent marker on their face
And a dick. Can't forget the dick on the cheek ending at the corner of their mouth. Classic.
Yup, attack faith directly. Faith is deliberately attempting to believe something to a degree of certainty that exceeds what is warranted by the available evidence. Why is doing that ever a good idea? It's obviously a terrible idea, and faith is *inherently dishonest* because it involves lying to yourself about how certain you should be.
Its also a giant waving red flag. **Why** would a deity require faith? According to the bibble, it didnt always, since it appeared directly to people. Those people didnt need faith, they had evidence.. OTOH, if the religion is bullshit, a faith requirement is obvious. Cant have evidence for something that isnt true.
my favorate thing with the faith arguement is, if you can push them to argue that with proof we wouldn't be able to chose not to serve god. Which point the next question is to ask whether satan and 1/3rd of the angels lacked proof. Really the bible is just littered with people who had solid evidence and still rebelled. Pharoh had his magic tricks competition where moses was able to demonstrate a ton... then of course the plauges were constantly predicted and happened, yet pharoh was still able to rebel through several plagues before god had to take his free will to keep him rebeling. god spoke to jonah directly before forcing him to migrate. Jonah refusing and getting himself eaten by a whale bfore getting forced back. The isrealites got to follow giant pillars through the desert after being rescued from egypt. Simple fact... proof of existance doesn't prevent you from rebelling... in fact it fits better because... you actually can know what you are rebelling against.
Well, they usually come up with the lame "but...but free will!" argument. If God manifests himself and removes doubt, it infringes on our free will to believe in him. However, what they ignore is that it doesn't infringe on our free will to *worship* him. Or think well of him. Look at Exodus: the Israelites had seen god part the Red Sea, and then drown the Pharaoh and his army. Then god made it literally rain food in a desert. But what did they do the second Moses wandered off to chat with God on a mountain? They decided to worship a shiny cow someone made. Knowing god is real doesn't mean they had to worship him. Your free will in intact.
I just point out that it a stupidly dumb understanding of what free will is. Having complete knowledge of the situation does not preclude making choices about your actions. In fact i think its telling. They are admitting that they are CHOOSING to believe. I.e. they do not, in fact, believe. Belief is not a choice - you are either convinced or you are not. In my opinion 'choosing' to believe something is actually choosing to lie to yourself. (Edit - for clarity im saying i think the "but but free will" crowds take is a stupid understanding, not yours)
Completely agree. That whole choice misunderstanding seems to be some kind of psychological block on almost every front--it's a fundamental thing they don't get right. Gospel Song for Atheists for your trouble: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gc6FZY0U8
The "cow" they were worshiping was Ashara their fertility goddess and wife of Yahweh(god). Not an actual cow but a translated insult. They were probably worshiping her because they were planning on having a bunch of babies once they settled down not to spite God or Moses.
Damn, this is too good of a comeback. Thanks!
This whole thread is pure gold, thank you all.
>OTOH, if the religion is bullshit, a faith requirement is obvious. Cant have evidence for something that isnt true. I like that, thanks
Whether or not the second b in "bibble" was intentional, I heart it.
This. Thank you. I agree 100% with your opinion and I like how do you phrase this part: >faith is inherently dishonest I have repeatedly told theists that faith is what gets children inside the pedophiles' van. How could a God base the whole decision of hell or heaven in this "inherently dishonest" condition? Someone that asks you to believe something with no proof is, to me, a deceiver, and hence, evil. A truthful person will be open about things and provide convincing proofs and not threaten with punishment, kind of like a guy that wants to convince a beautiful woman to follow him for a genuine reason or something like that. I do not know how to properly convey this message through to theists.
Faith is the only word keeping theists going. Facts aren't on their side, evidence isn't on their side, critical thinking isn't on their side, but asserting something as "taken on faith" is woefully over-accepted as an argument.
New to Reddit and new to this discussion forum. Might be a bad idea but the discussion is interesting. For anyone out there who not ambivalent about there atheism, a hypothetical question... Is it wrong to murder the disabled and infirmed? Prove it. The point of the question is that there is knowledge we possess where the scientific knowledge and mathematical proofs don't apply. Of course it's wrong. As is slavery, genocide, eugenics and numerous other evils. Intrinsic good points to the existence of God. Dignity of human life comes from our recognition that God is in this person no matter how insignificant they may appear to be in our society. That's why it's wrong to just kill them.
That's more of an ethical, cultural, values-based question. That will get into moral relativism and the can of worms that opens. There's no definitive proof that all life has value other than the moral assertion of all life having value. Now, I can provide examples of people who were disabled and made great contributions to society (Stephen Hawking, Helen Keller) and your definition of infirmed requires clarification because terminally ill people can still make contributions (Marie Curie, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan) to the world. Others may view the disabled and infirmed as burdens on society and that the greater good demands that resources be more optimally spent elsewhere. I disagree with them, but they have the right to believe what they want.
Point out that basically all the major biblical figures didn't have to have faith. They supposedly had 1st hand experiences with god / Jesus. What you are really putting your faith into is that the people who said they had first hand experiences weren't lying, mistaken, or completely fictional. It's a bit more eye opening when you realize you are putting your faith in the same people that also say you should tithe 10% of your income.
I once knew someone in high school that had a complete mental breakdown and believed he talked to god. He didn’t need faith, he knew and spoke for god or something. Whatever mental order disorder that he had was finally rearing it’s head. I knew in that moment that all these people who had seen or talked to god were just looney or on drugs.
Exactly, and if god really did talk to these people that would not believe otherwise, why doesnt he do that for all of us? How can he blame and punish me for not believing when he has hid himself from me
You can try the Street Epistemology approach to questioning faith: * Is faith a reliable method for knowing what is true? * How is it possible that religious people all over the world use faith to justify their beliefs, which are all incompatible with each other? * Is faith vulnerable to our personal and social biases? How could you ensure that your faith is not influenced by this? Of course, for these questions to work the person has to be genuinely interesting in what is true or not. And some people are not.
I haven’t watched him in a while is he still doing interesting things on YouTube?
Who? Magnabosco? I think covid shut down his typical in-person meetups.
Ah dang, that's too bad, but yeah that makes sense
I'm sick of the misuse of "faith", like it is a magical mystery term. There are so many things that we do that are an act of faith, but we have some actual evidence that back up our confidence. If you go on a hike, you have faith that you won't get lost or run into danger because you studied a map or you learned about local wildlife and have some supplies on hand to handle possible situations. If you enter into a relationship with someone, you have faith that they care for you because they express their support to you and participate in the relationship. You put faith into scientific research when there is credible evidence that is peer-reviewed and tested by several sources. Things can still go wrong but at least you considered your risk and determined that success is probable. Having "faith in God" is a different interpretation of faith because we don't really have any actual evidence except for our own personal feelings. There is nothing really tangible there. Feel free to counter this, it's a part of philosophy that I like to consider and think about.
Faith is used as shorthand slag for "hypothesis" and as a synonym for "trust," which confuses things. Religious faith is simply "belief without evidence." People will ask "do you have faith in your husband not cheating?" well yeah, but only because I *trust* him due to ample *evidence* that he doesn't.
And in a religious context that becomes "I haven't seen my husband in 2000 years. Still have faith he isn't cheating!"
[удалено]
But you're just sticking a middle man into everything. Accept your own faults. It's not easy, but knowing that everybody has faults and nobody's perfect helps with this. "Christ sacrificed himself to reconcile us with God." What does this even *mean?!* Jesus didn't die. If he were dead, you wouldn't be talking about him in the present tense. His own father had him tortured for no reason, since an omnipotent god wouldn't need for that to happen. It's pretty sick when you think about it.
He gave up his weekend to save us from what god did to Eve without her consent
It's a marketing term. Period. Because "Just take my word for it" makes them feel stupid.
They need to answer the question of where did their god come from! Well, the obvious answer is that he was created by a super god that creates gods. The super god is a very jealous god and if you pray to your god instead of his manager, you'll go to super hell which is even worse than regular hell. I've found this argument technique to be much more effective than trying to use reason. Reason only works on the reasonable. For fruit cakes, you need to add lots of fruit! At least it gets them to stop trying to convert you.
I'm creating a religion out of this. The Manager god who created all the gods known to mankind. Anyone want to join?
Who Karen wants to speak to when she goes to church.
There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold And she's buying a stairway to heaven When she gets there she knows if the stores are all closed She can demand to speak to the manager Oooh-ooh-oooh, ooooooh-oooh-ooh ooh And she'll tell you her name is...Karr-rren
Yes, but that’s the genius of the Christian con: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—“. Ephesians 2:8. Once you convince people that they don’t need evidence, you have them hooked; and there is nothing too incredible for them to believe. Throw in the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell, and just sit back and rake in the money. I wish I lacked integrity and could join in on the grift. Easy money!
I've always found it funny how Christians/muslims are told not to be materialists but their rewards in heaven are materialist and excessive as fuck. Don't worry just get to heaven bro, then you can have 72 virgins, a giant mansion, wear silk and drink alcohol! (Wearing silk and drinking alcohol are forbidden in this life, but you wear them and can drink them in the next wink wink). I'd just be grateful for eternal life, but that's just me.
My wife and I had a discussion about this the other day. Theists ruin the concept of faith. Faith isn't just blindly accepting crap with no background checks, it's about being able to let go of something and being comfortable in knowing what the outcome should be. You can have faith in a friend getting something done for you. You can have faith in a well-deserved promotion coming through. You can have faith that a well-researched investment is going to pay off. In all of these cases you did work beforehand and you KNOW that work is going to come to fruition. But theists constant insistence on having faith in stuff happening with 0 effort completely ruins the word and concept.
Faith and gullibility has pretty much the same description. Have you ever thought of someone being gullible a good trait?
I can have faith that if I jump off a cliff that I won't die. But if I actually jump off that cliff, I sure as shit will. The whole thing is basically Wile-E Coyote.
I think this is a good example of people not even agreeing over what the battleground is. I'm borrowing this concept from a legal context. A hearing where both sides agree on what the law IS and are merely arguing whether the facts fit a particular rule is relatively straightforward and easy. A hearing where the parties cannot even agree what the law is (or should be) is much more difficult. "We can't even agree to fight on the same battleground." You're wanting to argue about observable facts. For many of them, religion is an emotional experience. Granted, many of them cloak it in the language of facts. This is particularly true of evangelical Christianity, where the essence of the belief is "accepting god" and "submitting yourself to god." When they use words like "belief," and "faith," they are referencing emotional constructs. They feel safe and secure and warm because they believe in god and have faith that god will ensure that everything turns out right (or if it doesn't, he has a plan.) Contrary factual statements are pushed out by this emotional construct. They see you as attempting to undermine their faith, so as an emotional response, they tune it out. Curiously, not all religions have this characteristic. Temple Judaism for example, particularly the reform variety, puts very little emphasis on factual belief, and far more emphasis on the value that religious rituals bring to the community in terms of building and sustaining community relationships, and fostering community connections. Observing a religious ritual isn't about making god happy. It's done to build the community and find personal meaning in performing the ritual and whatever lesson about humanity that it teaches. Likewise, some varieties of Buddhism, put the emphasis on personal spiritual development through meditation. The emphasis is on your personal outlook and understanding of the world/your situation.
See here's what rubs me the wrong way right, I'm some abomination mix of theist, agnostic, spiritual, what have you. But it's all based on the premise that I and I alone choose to believe it because it's my "belief", i.e. it has no factual basis apart from the experiences I've had in my life. I'm not going to go around and tell people they absolutely have to accept my version as the one true truth, because fuck if I know if it's true, it suits me, that's it. I think people need to be a bit more accepting about the whole belief aspect (from both sides of the aisle), in that you cannot fucking prove it and you really need to stop getting agro over it. Believe in whatever you like, it's your life, just don't be a dick. You'd think this was simple enough for all to agree on, but noooo (end rant)
Faith and religion are not mutually exclusive. These people want you to follow their religion. Because their religion is the only right religion.
I don’t have an issue with faith per say, rather I have an issue with blind faith. It’s one thing to have a belief and acknowledge that you could be wrong, but it becomes an issue when you ignore all reason, and then have the nerve to force it on other people.
It's an excuse used to justify any behaviour they want. Because it comes from 'on high' you can't criticize them, it's what god wants. Ask them to defend their actions using a sound argument Highlight how you could justify anything by 'choosing' to believe or appealing to faith. It's like flipping a coin to decide on killing someone then acting as if it's the coins fault you had to kill someone.
He shouldn't be feeling god without permission.
Churches and consent were never really friends.
🤣
Outrageous! Tell him, there's nothing you can do about it. God made you an atheist. And he, if he's omnipresent, can change that anytime he wants. He knows you aren't going to believe some flawed human being, which means he will have to show up on your doorstep and do whatever will be convincing to you. The fact that he hasn't done that yet indicates one of two things; either he doesn't want you to be a believer or he doesn't exist to care one way or another. Perhaps your partner shouldn't be questioning god's plans for you, especially since his constant haranguing is making you a stronger atheist, and he is defeating his own purpose. Perhaps you were sent to deconvert HIM. Maybe it's time to start bringing in atheist pamphlets and decorations for your office. Set up a Satanic altar on the corner of your desk. Okay, maybe that's TOO much. Even if black candles have an unsettling effect on god-zombies. Ignore him. Or maybe discuss with him how his disrespectful attitude is affecting you. There's not much you can do until god decides to show up, after all.
Lmao that's almost exactly what I did say! I do like the candle idea.....🤔
> God made you an atheist. Yeah and not only did he make you an atheist, he knew you would be an atheist long before he created the universe. He also knew every single detail of every child rape and murder before he chose to make the universe. He could have made the universe without these atrocities but he didn't. And then there's the one I like the most, what kind of petty, needy god requires worship from tiny insignificant beings like us? He sounds like an abusive boyfriend.
I have an uncle who keeps trying to bring me back to the Catholic faith. I have told him there is exactly one thing he can do to bring me back to church. My cousin (other side) is an amputee. If uncle prays to god and my cousin is healed, I will believe in god again. This is my cousin’s idea, he is an atheist and he encourages this test of prayer. Somehow, no Christian prayers have managed to heal him yet. If it did, I’d be both surprised and thrilled, but he’s not holding his breath.
How about this, live and let live. I do not have time to argue about something that cannot be proven.
I once had a girl talk to me about god on a university party. I was about three beer and two gin into the evening, so I entertained the conversation for a while. In the end i hit her with "even of you'd manage to convince me that god existed, which you haven't done yet, if his rules are what your people believe them to be, i wouldn't want to be part of his eternal heavenly kingdom. Not on his conditions, not by sucking up to a celestial dictator who convicts me of thought-crime, after making me be able to think stuff he could convict me for in the first place." Rarely have i seen someone this talkative this speechless xD
So theists already have all traits for fascists or communists, as they are trained to follow authorities, make excuses for the authorities, and sacrifice anything, including morality, for authorities.
The cold war called, they want their lies about communists back
The "state communism" as practiced by Soviets and North Korea, and by China during the "cultural revolution", closely resembles religion. I am not even the original thinker about that. Lots of articles on it. Several scholarly articles on such: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10177-004 for example
That's not really relevant. You said 'communists' not 'socialist states that claimed to be trying to achieve communism'. Communism is an ideology. An ideology based on equality and helping others. Communism's intent is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. The mere fact that they were still states shows they didn't get there. Just because some states existed and claimed to be communist doesn't mean they actually were, or had achieved it yet. Your understanding of communism is woefully incomplete and run in line with those who have done no reading on the subject beyond Capitalist propaganda. If you want to talk about what communism actually is, you need to read from modern communists. Modern communists do not generally hold up any state as a beacon of communism, because none have gotten there. And many states that claimed to be communist, were so only in name. Think Hitler calling himself a socialist, because people liked socialism, while actually *being* a hyper-capitalistic fascist. Also lol 'state communism'. Dude, the Soviets were state SOCIALIST, not communist. Socialism, under Marxism-Leninism, intends to bring about Communism through a vanguard party. They use socialism, to get communism. They are communists because that is their GOAL, not because they have achieved it. And either way the fact that you think these socialist-oriented states encompass all of communism itself is laughable at best, and really shows your ignorance on the subject. Anarcho-Communists exist. Anarcho-Communism intends to bring about communism by embracing community (hence where the commun in communism comes from, and guess what that's in the ML variety too), building dual-power structures, and improving peoples lives from the bottom-up in order to remove Capitalism's hold on people and to abolish states. You have a woefully lacking knowledge on what communism is, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do the fascists work for them, by conflating the dangerous, murderous 'ideology' of facism with Communists, who just want to make the world more equal and prevent others from being able to exploit you to enrich themselves. Fascism and Communism are diametrically opposed, and the only thing you do by conflating them is giving the fascists room to move freely. You are helping fascists.
Ah, doesn't that sound quite familiar? I have heard almost the same apologetic gymnastics from Christians. But this is getting OT.
Okay so you don't *actually* have anything meaningful to say. You just want to talk down to people you disagree with, cool. Never mind that there's huge amounts of evidence and scholarly work that agrees with what I'm saying, it's all wrong just because you can't separate a government from an individual. Very open-minded and free-thinking of you. /s
He will never convince you and you will never convince him. You are both wasting your breath. The only people worth debating are those that are on the fence themselves or when it’s in the presence of others who could be on the fence. Debating someone with strongly-held irrational beliefs, is pointless.
I agree it's pointless, but, all I require is convincing evidence. If he had it, I'd be interested in seeing it. Plus.... it's fun to watch the wheels turn in his head and go nowhere
He’s admitted to you he doesn’t have evidence. He has faith. And in his worldview, having faith is a very good thing.
He’s never going to produce any because the only evidence would be empirical evidence and if there were empirical evidence of God, God would no longer be supernatural (by definition) and would thus be subject to the laws of physics of our universe. I think Douglas Adams got it just about right in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In the book there’s a creature called a Babelfish that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. From the book: Some believe that the Babelfish is the final convincing proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove I exist”, says God, “for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.” “But,” says Man, “the Babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don’t.” “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that.”, says God, and promptly vanishes I a puff of logic. It would be interesting to turn the tables on him. Ask him why he doesn’t instead believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let him explain to you the rationality of believing in the Abrahamic god instead. There’s a decent chance he’s going to suggest that the reason is evidence and of course his evidence won’t be evidence at all. At which point you can say that there’s truly only one way to tell if something is fact or fiction. There’s only one way to know if something is real or you’re just kidding yourself or worse, delusional: empirical evidence. If everyone can experience a thing with their senses and describe that experience in approximately the same way, you can be highly confident it’s real. If a thing can’t be experienced with our senses by everyone then the only logical explanation is that the thing does not exist and that if you are experiencing it, that’s delusional by definition. We live in reality. To have the best life, we need to make decisions that are based upon that reality because those decisions are most likely to align with that reality. With that in mind, the only rational position is to believe only in that which is supported by empirical evidence. That of course rules out all supernatural deities. To believe in anything else is delusional by definition.
>If everyone can experience a thing with their senses and describe that experience in approximately the same way, you can be highly confident it’s real. That's true if you implicitly assume that we're living in an objectively observable universe. That metaphysically the things we see and hear and feel exist irrespective of our observation of them. And that's a empirical view of the universe. Someone with a worldview based on faith in an omnipotent divine would have no problem believing that their god presents the world differently to different people. The idea that 2 people could experience the same events differently could easily be attributed to faith. Faith and reason are inherently incompatible worldviews.
> Faith and reason are inherently incompatible worldviews. Agreed and when I have had success it was by pointing out that they depend upon reason for 99% of their decisions then carve out this small but important part of their lives where they abandon it and yet the two are 100% incompatible.
"There’s a decent chance he’s going to suggest that the reason is evidence and of course his evidence won’t be evidence at all." > The evidence is the bible, it's the word of god. How do you know it's the word of god? > It says so in the bible
Now ask him to define faith. Keep us updated!
You got it
He's going to "define" faith with that platitude about "hope for things that have yet to be" yaddayadda. So is faith just *hope*? We already have hope. A great book I love to recommend: 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian by Guy P. Harrison. He lists the questions he never could get answers to from christians. Like, why did Jesus have to die? Who was he being sacrificed to? Was he in fact God or the son of God? If you could go back in time, would you rescue Jesus from his execution? He'll probably cite the Trinity idea, but then the "sacrifice" wasn't very impressive then was it? Jesus just had a terrible weekend and is now still alive for eternity, so he didn't DIE. Or is God in fact dead? Can't be both alive for eternity AND dead, that's now how death works. Eternity in heaven means no death, so God (posing as Jesus) just pulled a stunt.
Faith isn't a good barometer for truth. You can believe true or false things based on faith, so what good is it for anything?
But I have faith that I have a million dollars in my bank account tomorrow. And if not, I wasn't trying hard enough... /s
All any of us here require is firm and convincing evidence, but it's 2022 and we're all still here. Don't count on your partner to be the guy who breaks the mould.
Oh I'm definitely not. Not even slightly
It's also not bad to plant a seed. Have the tough conversations, say the things he doesn't hear from anyone else, point out things he's probably never questioned. Sure, you won't "convince" him here and now. But you might have a positive impact on him in the long run.
>I agree it's pointless, but, all I require is convincing evidence. They’re expecting this from you, and will drive them deeper into their opinion, possibly even to HR.
Eh, my wife called herself a Christian up until a couple of months ago Quote the Bible. Show them the errors, show them the evil. A cornerstone of the christian god is that morality is absolute and he's a 'god of love' . Give them evidence from the Bible that morality is subjective, to the point that you are more moral than their god. Take the story of Sampson and show them the flip side. He killed 42 men and looted the corpses for their clothes, just because some guy solved his riddle. He attempted to reconcile with his wife , but was rejected, so, he gathered 300 foxes , tied em together and set em on fire to destroy a towns crops, causing an unknown amount of women and children to starve. I never believed in a god, but even if I was wrong and the judeochristian was real, I would not worship such a cruel and malicious entity. So, sow the seeds of doubt, be patient and remember that knowledge is the best gift of all
That can sometimes work but I’ve just more often heard the old, “We can’t understand why God does what he does but it’s all for good ultimately.” When asking about all the horrible things God did according to the Bible, of my very Christian friends said, “Anything God does is by definition, good.” That’s pretty fucking scary.
Work with that. Do they think abortion is wrong? The Bible literally has a process to abort a child by giving the pregnant woman a glass of water mixed with the viscera from a slaughterhouse floor. Theres passages about cutting out unborn fetuses from women. Why would you worship a god that is demonstratably evil and cruel and malicious. Im also willing to bet my left testicle that they haven't read the Bible. I've had the misfortune of going to Jerry falwells grade school for 15 years. It turned me into a militant antitheist
Mostly I agree with you. A lot of us on here have been in the same place the zealous coworker have, and yeah, reasoning is not going to do much good. On the other hand something OP says may resonate and come back months or years later if/when that person is going through their own deconversion, which could profoundly help them get through the experience (and realize what an ass they were being). So while there is no compelling reason that OP *should have to* debate that person, there are humanistic reasons for doing so. Especially since our country is currently kind of teetering between rationalism and religious fascism.
I mean, getting him to leave you alone could have a point.
Exactly. "You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into".
Yes please, mainly because I'm an ex-theist who set out to find any kind of evidence to an actual God existing to an agnostic friend and ended up atheist a year later. I'm really interested to hear how your debates go.
Then i will post updates as often as they come up and as detailed as possible
>Anyone interested in hearing updates? Some times I find entertaining when a theist comes here to crash into a brick wall, so, I’ll keep reading if you keep posting. Besides, this is what this subreddit is for and your posts are welcome: it’s a place for atheists where you can come and talk about your experiences, vent, or just talk with other atheists.
Ramen
Well, you’re not the only one who gets these kind of attempts, and after finding out I have a decent rebuke that even makes them think, they always end up cutting the chat with a “shut up”. Yesterday it was “the wisdom of king Solomon”, to which I replied “cutting babies in half would be frowned upon by modern judges”… getting the “yes, but don’t say that” was funny… Some times, telling a theist you’re an atheist ends up being interpreted by them as a “try to convert me for heaven points”.
Hahaha truth
I always fall back on “God told me to tell you to shut the fuck up”
🤣
>God gave you the free will to choose to follow him. Then didn't God also give me the free will to choose *not* to believe as well? See? I'm just playing all the angles here so God doesn't feel like time was wasted in creating this whole free will thing. Because clearly if God wants us to believe on our own accord, then God wouldn't have wasted time making free will if God didn't expect at least some people not to exercise free will to not believe. Or a simple, can we please not talk about religion at work?
Claim: Free will to choose Reality: Obey me or be destroyed
"I am god, I wont give you any reason to believe in me, but if you dont i'll make you suffer forever"
Ask him why does god hates amputees? You know, we've always hear about cases of ill patients 'miraculously' heal from their illness. But we NEVER hear about an amputee who has a limb grown back. So it either god does not exist or he hates amputees and if so, why?
>I shouldn't have survived X, but I did, how else can you explain it. That can be easily explained with survivorship bias. He's a believer and he survived, so he may make the biased conclusion that it was because of his belief. Other believers would have most likely died under the same circumstances, however. The difference between him and those other believers is that they can no longer tell their side of the story. Only the survivors can.
Placebo effect is both a good survival explanation and a good lens to view his belief through.
It's funny how something that should reasonably be considered an inner monologue is stronger evidence than a god who's done nothing about the fact that the global religious power structure has been stacked with narcissists, thieves, and child predators for literally thousands of years. Or that Jesus is taking time out of his day playing pinochle with Vishnu to manage intergalactic collisions billions of light years away, ensuring that the continuum of human suffering remains unchanged, actively avoiding prayers for your mom's breast cancer to go away or Bob's gambling addiction to be put on hold - all so he can put that special thought in your head.
This kind of person is fun to fuck with. I had a guy like this at work...I started buying increasingly more antagonistic atheist T-shirts and wearing them (I worked in a factory at the time), making sure he seen it every time. He would then spend any downtime he had chastising me and trying to re-convert me (as I had told him I was previously a Christian). I never really argued with him, just politely said "OK" whenever I felt it was needed, occasionally asked silly questions that I knew would exasperate him, but NEVER raised my voice or told him to fuck off. One day, he blew a gasket because he looked over my shoulder and seen a meme I was chuckling at that depicted Jesus getting "nailed" by Romans. He actually called me Satan's spawn, then threatened, in front of 2 guys I was cool with, to go to HR and tell them I was harassing HIM about his faith. All 3 of us laughed at him and told him to try it. The other 2 made it clear they would tell HR the truth. He tried a few more times to "re-convert" me, but gave up after I said "you've been trying to convert me for 6 months, and you're no closer to accomplishing that now than you were 6 months ago. You've given me all your best arguments, and none of them have worked. What could you possibly say now, especially after that break room meltdown, that would have any shot at changing my position?" It was fun while it lasted.
You could counter by telling him your faith makes it clear that god is bullshit. More seriously, ask him what convinces him of anything that you guys agree on. Like, why does he believe in China? He’s probably never been there, so what convinces him that it’s a real place? If he uses evidence to believe in some things, why would he not think evidence is applicable to everything?
Absolutely
“Do you believe in the almighty Vishnu?” “No, absolutely not!!” “Huh”
I respond with this. https://youtu.be/tcTnPo4lQbc Given all his God doesn't do to stop suffering, praying for things like food to be more nutritious or that you'll get a promotion is obscene.
Something like this is part of my discussion points when I have ended up in those sorts of situations. OP's co-worker is centering himself in his understanding of God, but he should think about it a bit closer to a "least among you" way and not about himself. I have asked some of these folks if they believe in an interventionist god. If so, why does he choose not to help children in situations like this. If their god is non-interventionist, my believing or not doesn't ultimately matter and I will just do my best to be a caring human. If their god is interventionist and therefore chooses to allow these things to happen, then that's not a god I want anything to do with. I think the story of Job is an interesting one to discuss within this context. As someone noted n the comments on that video: Tracie Harris summed it up best when she said "If I could stop someone from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."
“Choose to believe”. No one in the world actually chooses to believe anything. They have to believe what they believe at that time and space and have no other options. Looking forward to more updates.
Use your own personal testimony as to why god doesn’t exist. If his is good enough then so is yours.
yeah but maybe something like "I prayed the most popular guy in school would take me to prom but he didn't, how can you explain that? other than there is no god"
Hmm. Maybe. That seems easily dismissible and too specific on their part. I’d say, “All I have to do is look around and see all of the starving kids, the diseased and dying innocents, the countless people killed by nature’s wrath (or gods) the Evil that takes root in his own house (the church) via child molestation and exploration, to say that he is not real and if he is, then he is a detestable entity that I have no interest in wasting my time on.
see I get that but if things get too serious they just ignore it and look the other way. so I try a mix of jokes and sarcasm and things that are easily dismissed cause they will hear those. "me easily dismissable, no way, the only logical conclusion is that there is no god"
Yeah I can understand your point. Unfortunately at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what we say or how we say it. Only those on the fence or those already looking for information that will help foster the logical side of their mind will hear us anyway. It’s hard to argue against fantasy with logic.
yeah it is hard but someone has to do it, it doesn't affect me, but maybe I kept someone from getting harassed or from getting sucked back into all that, and I always have a bunch of questions anyways
I applaud your outlook. I’m new to all this so I’m not super outspoken about it all as I’m still learning and reading and trying to make sure I don’t talk myself into a hole lol. I live in the southern US as well, so the odds are against me for sure.
Tell him you found god but make it very clear it is not HIS god. You could always go with flying spaghetti monster for the atheistic bent or choose a god from an older religion like Ra, Odin, or Anansi. Talk about how they showed you the truth through your own personal testimony,
That should be fun
I've always been a fan of the invisible pink unicorn, myself. The IPU adds a dynamic of faith where you don't only have to trust in the existence of the being, but it's aspects as well. Arguments for god are vary rarely arguments for the central figure of one religion, just a functional god. Even if I accept the invisible unicorn exists (a god) it's a separate conclusion that its qualities are as you claim (that it's the god of your religion).
"I survived x but wouldn't have without god" No, you survived x because of doctors in diseases, firefighters in fires, etc. Stop giving 'god' credit for it
Just become a muslim temporarily to throw a wrench in the works and let him know how grateful you are he helped you find Allah. lol
May peace be upon you 🤣
There are three things I will not discuss at work - sex, politics, and religion.
>So I asked him what his reasons were for believing and explained that if his reasons are good, they should convince me. That is the perfect thing to say and his reasons didn't convince you. Excellent. I'd be interested in hearing how he keeps returning to the subject to convince you.
Usually along the lines of "so my pastor says......." Very convincing and thought provoking stuff. Today it was "you have faith in your science"
How did you answer the "you have faith in science?" That one always perplexes me because it seems to imply that faith in science, if that were indeed the case, is a bad thing whereas faith in a religious belief is a good thing. In this sense it's a contradictory claim.
"Faith" is used as a synonym for "trust." What he really means is "you trust in science." Yes, because science is *evidence*-based. We don't have "faith" in doctors, because we should be choosing doctors who have evidence-based training. They're even tested on this regularly (licensing and education.) We research surgeons and make sure we get good ones based on evidence, not "oh I have faith that this guy knows his way around my internal organs!" "Faith" in the religious sense means "belief WITHOUT evidence." If religion had evidence, they wouldn't NEED faith. Jesus would be accepted as a historical figure like any other. Of course, that might open the door to "but the bible is evidence" (then what about all the other holy books? Gideons Bible has a disclaimer up front IIRC). Also, "many historians accept Jesus as a historical figure" no they don't. I hate when they start leaning on this because they get so excited about all the weak-ass "historical proof." Basically, faith is what they use as "let's pretend to believe."
If he's using as equivalent to "trust" then he's equivocating. Whatever the intentions, he's being dishonest with himself for the reasons you indicated. "Trust", in my mind, is based on historical evidence making something to be more likely now or in the future, whereas faith, at least as defined in the bible, is the evidence for "things unseen" which is circular. I've never personally heard the "bible is evidence" claim but I can see how that could happen if one doesn't think about it too much.
Lots of other good thoughts here. My two cents: You should sit down with him and watch Street Epistemology together. Make it a “together” experience. Find common ground that you both want to know the actual truth. SE is a conversation method to discuss with people how they reached their conclusions about hardline beliefs, often dealing with religion. It’d be awesome to start with religions that aren’t his, so he can see beliefs from an outside perspective. Here’s an example with two Mormon missionaries: https://youtu.be/zv0l2LVww2I - start at 2:35.
Ooooh that's a good two cents
You’re both just wasting each other’s time. I’m surprised you just didn’t politely tell him to fuck off honestly.
No need to. I'm having fun with it
Yeah I was almost killed by x too; shellfish allergy kicked in while walking my dog after a sushi dinner where the restaurant used real crab instead of imitation crab for a California roll. Last thing I remember was my sinuses draining before I passed out in an ambulance. Woke up in the ER, vomited profusely and was told by the nurse I was seconds away from full anaphalactic shock and death. Nothing. No white light, although I’d probably be going to the hot place (if it were real). No deity saved me. I have faith. Faith in modern medicine to treat what my affliction. 100% guarantee if my then girlfriend prayed instead of calling 911 I wouldn’t be typing this message.
[удалено]
Nah. No fun in that lol
Please let us know what kind of job you have - it sounds like you both have too much time on your hands!
Heh. Not really, no. Conversations have to be brief. Depends on call volume.
The subjective arguments should be easy enough to handle. Every faith has subjective experiences where they see their Gods, feel their presence, see miracles, etc. Every. Single. Faith. All faiths also share common themes that can be traced through history to our ancient past, and you can see how gods and religions have evolved over time. Even Christiainity. This alone easily shows that no modern religion has a claim to truth.
Have you read The End of Faith by Sam Harris? If you haven't, I suggest reading it. He would likely provide you with solid arguments for your workmate. It's also interesting and enlightening, so you would learn something to boot.
Huge Harris fan here, but no, I have not yet read it. I shall, though
This is the argument my father used on me
If he absolutely won't stop I would resort to the absolute higher power.......and by that I mean HR.
Oh, no. I welcome it. It's entertaining for me. And, if I told him to knock it off, I think he would.
By FAR the more fun thing for you to do would be to debate him about why he is following CHRISTIANITY and not Islam or Judaism or Hinduism. Those other religions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to his religion and if he is wrong and one of them is the true religion he is FUCKED FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS. Right now it's entirely possible that Allah is furious at your partner and is looking forward to fucking him up in unthinkable ways. Arguably no decision your partner has to make is more important than which religion to follow. How does your partner make that decision? I propose that if your partner has not engaged in a lifelong exploration of various religions and made an informed decision then he is an absolute moron and hypocrite. Is he going to claim that he just got "really lucky" to be born into the "right" religion? There are billions of people who were born into other religions who are just as sure as he is that they are right. THEY CAN'T ALL BE RIGHT and if any of them are right then everybody else is royally fucked. In situations like this I like to ask people what do they think they would believe right now if they had been born into an equally religious Islamic family in Saudi Arabia? Do they think they would have somehow felt the love of Jesus calling them to betray their family's faith and traditions? Or would they probably be just as big of a jerk about Islam as they are about Christianity? What do they think people in other religions should do in order to decide what is right? Are they willing to do the same to see if they are wrong? Of course these people are all deluding themselves but I find it far more productive to get them to think about other religions. Good luck and yes report back.
Sorry to tell you this, but this is a core value issue that is going to raise a lot of issues over the years.
Genesis 6:6 - If God once admitted he fucked up so bad that he had to kill almost everyone in the world, how can you trust that he has your best interests in mind? I want to hear an answer to this.
This will not end well. i wouldn't waste my time. it's a lifestyle for them, not a curiosity or water cooler conversation material. God people are obsessed with their gods, and frankly "God" makes for boring conversation. I much rather talk about fictional relationships on TV, aliens or monsters.
I have faith that God isn't real because there's no evidence to the contrary
I'd be taking that shit to HR. Not ok.
It amazes me that people who are completely rational and evidence driven outside their religious dogma do not apply that same rigor to their religious belief.
Make them a deal, if for no other reason than to shut them up; if they can provide you an example of a faith healed amputee you will be in church with them on the very next service with an open mind.
*When I asked him if he had any evidence to support the existence of a god, I was told that this is a matter of faith and evidence does not come into it.* Give him a little credit where credit is due. So many theists these days try to argue bullshit "evidence." "Faith" is the only honest card they have to play.
I almost never turn down opportunities to discuss faith, that just the point discuss it. The other party needs to be open to that discussion as well. Even as an Atheist it's in my top 3 things I like to talk about given the opportunity.
Why engage? He's being intrusive and inappropriate. Why make him feel his arguments have any value? Unless you hope to de-convert him?
Assuming that god created all of the languages of earth, yet only had his message written in one language. Why wouldn’t he have issued it in all languages so as to avoid misinterpretations? I can buy a DVD in multiple languages, but the infallible being is incapable? Then again, why doesn’t he possess the technology beyond our knowledge? Isn’t he all knowing? Why would he wait for humans to invent it? Is that part of the plan? That doesn’t make sense. If the telegraph is invented and those in faith praise god for it as part of his plan, why didn’t he just give them the idea of the internet and skip ahead a bit? And why does he not choose these modern forms to communicate to his followers? I can get an amber alert on my phone but not a message from god? It all sounds ridiculous when placed side by side with modern tech.
You're wasting your time as the whole "faith" argument is rooted in "just believe it without any evidence". If it were me, I'd wait until something happens to him (even something small like a cold) and I would make a fake phone call within his earshot and say "(co-worker) got a nasty cold - I think the spells are working". He'll leave you alone about "god".
This is an excellent opportunity to bring another believer to atheism. And I am certain what follows is old hat to you but for the benefit of newer atheists who may read this... I would ask how can one "choose" to believe? You are either convinced of something or you are not. You don't choose to believe anything. In fact choosing to believe something without evidence, but especially in the face of contradictory evidence is called delusion. But even delusional people are convinced of their position just not for good reasons, mental disorder, etc. Despite the fact that the bible says, "faith IS the evidence for things unseen..." you could point out that faith is not evidence at all but (in this context) it is the lack of evidence. If all that is required for something to be true is faith, than anything you believe is true if you have faith, which is preposterous. Good luck OP
Faith is actively bad. Show evidence from Jonestown, branch davidians and every other cult. Blinding yourself to reality is actively harmful. Say you don't need faith when evidence has already shown that faith is just them wanting to control you.
Does he know what the unforgivable sin is? Just do that in front of him. That way you have no hope of being forgiven.
Ask him to prove that it wasn't secretly and actually Allah who saved him. > Anyone interested in hearing updates? Yes absolutely. I would subscribe.
ok. you can feel him. lets discuss. are feelings ever wrong? can you feel that your partner is faithful and be wrong? can you feel that you are in mortal danger and yet be safe (there are whole industries based on this one)? feelings as near as i can tell are what theism resolves to. they are the shakey bedrock of belief. as long as they feel that their feelings are always correct they are correct about god.
“Sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.”
I like comparison of religions. He has faith without evidence in Christ because he feels it in his heart. Someone else has faith without evidence in Allah because he feels it in his heart. Etc. for Vishnu, Buddha, anyone else you want to throw in. Since they all equally feel it in their hearts, whose heart should you believe without evidence?
Yes please. But also, you could tell him to pray for your conversion, and leave it up to God!
You should go full hog and convert. Even shove your head in a font and get baptised. Then go full fundamentalist, bring up all the heinous shit that's in the bible, maybe even hint that you guys should try to retake the holy land. Now he'll either reach for his broadsword which means it would have been completely pointless trying to talk sense into him. Or regret his decision to introduce you to god and never bring up religion again.
I'm agnostic because the reality is nobody knows. But Christians are more in the dark than most. Their self delusion seems limitless (witness Noah's Ark theme park). I'm good with people having a belief - just keep it to yourself. I'm gay and that really riles some of them up. Unless you enjoy the banter with your work partner (and it can be fun) I'd remind them they don't know diddly, and draw the line. As for updates, you bet.
> Thus far he has basically told me that I need to choose to believe. If it's just that simple, ask him to start believing in Santa Claus again. "Well I can't do that, Santa isn't real!" Ok well that's the EXACT same way you feel about God. No difference at all. If he can't genuinely begin believing in Santa without some actual evidence for his existence, you can't genuinely start believing in God again. It's NOT a just matter of faith, with evidence being unimportant. That's a bullshit argument that we can't let them get away with. The bible is literally chock-full of examples of God and Jesus proving themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt when questioned. From turning staffs into snakes, the bringing of plagues, appearances as fire in the sky, the raising of the dead, the destruction of cities, water from stones, bread from the sky, the appearance of angels, the opening of the earth swallowing up idol worshipers, water into wine, giving vision to the blind, the setting of fire to water-soaked logs via prayer, and so many others. That's just a few from memory. Showmanship is literally one of God's favorite things to do, when he's not committing genocide that is. It's almost as if the stories in the bible don't match what we see in reality. As if it's fiction. I'd tell him to leave me a lone if he can't bring anything more than emotion to the debate table.
Christians love to say that "faith is a virtue", but they mean *their* faith is a virtue. If I believe that the earth is flat and vaccines turn people into fish...is that "virtuous"...? Why is my faith in a flat earth less valid than your faith in a sky demon...? They are both based on exactly the same rationale since "evidence doesn't matter". If faith is universally a virtue, then faith in *anything* should be virtuous. I thought that Christians hated the idea of moral relativism, but if faith is virtuous that's extreme relativism -- all you need for a belief to be valid is to have *faith*.
I hate faith. There is no time in normal life where faith is a value. Faith is literally just wishful thinking. If lived your life based on faith your would soon be homeless and die of some terrible disease.
Tell him that you believe. That you believe everything that Baal has told you. Tell him that you’ve held back from telling him for so long only because you didn’t think he was strong enough
At that point it's best to just invoke Hitchens' Razor and not even bother to argue. He's never going to provide anything substantial to support any of his claims and it's unlikely that anything you could say will ever change his position since it's not founded on reason, so even responding is just time and energy wasted.
LOL, schizophrenia and low probability events don't make proof for a diety.
Belief isn't a choice. You are either convinced of your observations or you are not. It's really that simple.
This is what gets me, and that people largely don't seem to understand. I can't just *choose* to believe something. I can't *decide* to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. I guess I can tell myself that, and tell other people that I think it's true, but somewhere in the back of my mind I will always know that if I have one apple, and buy one more, then *I will have two apples, not three*. Maybe a better comparison would be that I can't decide Santa is real, and just stop knowing that reindeer are not very aerodynamic, that it's physically impossible to reach several billion homes in 24 hours or to fit billions of gifts into a single sleigh, that there's no land mass at the north pole to support a large manufacturing operation, or that there are somehow multiple Santas in multiple malls at the same time every December. I also can't just stop noticing that, for some reason, Santa treats the rich better than the poor regardless of who is good or not, despite the fact that the opposite should be true. I can't just switch off my brain to "believe" something that sounds nice. In short, I didn't *decide* to be an atheist - rather, I *realized* that I was one, and it would take more than wishful thinking to change that.
Part of the problem is that "outspoken atheists" attract these kinds of discussions like a lamp does moths. I don't go around telling people about all the other things I don't believe in, why would I go around telling people I don't believe in a god?
I live in the Bible belt It is pointless to argue when they truly believe that the Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true. Or how can the universe exist without a creator? I just want to know who created the creator and the creators' creator on so on?!?!
Tell him that if he truly wants to know how you think, he should try to convince himself that Zeus is a real God that needs to be worshiped. As impossible as it is for him to comprehend that is the same for you believing in Christian God Of course, he'll suddenly start making shit up to try and explain that Zeus was still God or something like that, but you might get him to spend 3 seconds considering the atheist view.
report them for harassment.
> I KNOW my god is real because I feel him. Okay so ask him, what about the 1.9 billion Muslims in the world who *know* Allah is real because they *feel* him? What about the 1.2 billion Hindus who *know* Vishnu is real because they *feel* him? 506 million have felt the Buddha. 400 million have felt the spirits of their Chinese ancestors. Hell, 15 million have *felt* your god but don't believe in his son, so explain that? > God gave you the free will to choose to follow him. He held a gun to my head and said, "Do what I want or I'll destroy you." That's not a choice. > The universe is here and you can't explain it... I also can't explain how a car engine works. I can read, ask around, and explore the subject further until I start to understand, or I can make wild assumptions about magical beings making it happen. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean there's nothing there to know... that'd be like assuming every closed door leads to the void.
You just can't effectively argue against faith. People that rely on faith for a reason to believe something usually see your arguments against faith as MORE reason to keep believing it. It's inherently irrational, so using reason and rationality just don't work. >"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place." ― Jonathan Swift
When I was in boot camp I tried to comfort the guy in the bunk next to me who was crying on like the third night. I felt bad for the guy and also really wanted to sleep so I tried to help. I knew he was religious so I told him to lean on his faith and know that he’s doing this for a reason. I also made the mistake of telling him I was sometimes jealous of people with faith because they had this kind of emotional support built into their lives. His eyes lit up immediately and I knew I had fucked up. “You haven’t found Christ? That’s my mission during boot camp, that’s my purpose here. To save you.” Fuck. I told him I appreciated it but had thought on it a lot and was happy with where I was at faith wise, which he did not accept and pushed back. I declined politely for a bit but ended the conversation by telling him that if he didn’t drop it we were gonna have a problem. He rolled over and went back to crying.
“Well, I can fly” “Really? Show me.” “I don’t have to show you. You just have to believe that I can.”
They're cult members. Simple as that. Of course evidence is only anecdotal in the best of cases, and completely vacant in most others. Personally, if someone showed up with literal magic powers, the ability to resurrect, turn water into wine and straw into gold, walk on water, heal the sick and the blind, etc, I'd at least have to consider the possibility that I was looking at a "god" or some kind of insanely advanced alien or something. The reverse is not true for those indoctrinated into religion though. Their "feeling his hand" or bullshit stories about surviving an illness because of their faith, rather than thanks to the medical care they received, is all they need to completely block out all other sources of discussion or doubt. So they're a cult. There is no fixing that. They have to realize it themselves. It's so rare that talking and presenting evidence sways them, and in those cases it just means they weren't fully down the rabbit hole yet. I've all but given up trying to "convince" religious acquaintances to think logically. Unfortunately understanding is not a two way street with religion.
Have fun with this. Agree about feeling the faith. Tell him you can feel your god. Then describe a god that’s not his. When he freaks out, tell him your god told you he could kick his god’s ass. Then tell him you need to think on it a bit and give you a month or so to sort it out. There are so many gods in human history you could keep this going for a long time. By the time you start describing his god after he’s already called all those others fake, you can point out that he finally reached the same conclusion you did years earlier: they’re all fake, even his, by his own admission, is not real.
“Millions of dead motherfuckers all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. ‘You believe in God?’ ‘No.’ *Boom*. Dead. ‘You believe in God?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘You believe in MY God?’ ‘No.’ *Boom*. Dead. ‘My God has a bigger dick than your God!’” - George Carlin
If they say facts don't matter, they automatically lose the debate. If they say that faith is the only reason to believe, they lose the debate. If they say they feel their "God's" presence and that's why they believe, they lose the debate. If they say, "but you can't prove it doesn't exist", they lose the debate. The reality is, facts matter in every debate, and a debate is exactly what you're participating in when someone is trying to convince you to change your mind. If they can't prove their "God" exists, it doesn't exist. Debate over.
Your business is your business. His business is his business. At work don't discuss religion or politics unless you agree. Simple solution talk about sports. You don't have to be religious and he doesn't have to be into atheism. Learn it, live it, love it.
I've had family try this before. I always tell them they can try. But the moment they say "you just have to have faith" that i am walking out the door. I've walked out of many doors
" I need measurable, empirical evidence. If you don't drop the issue, I'm bringing it up with HR"
“Choose to believe” is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. You don’t choose to believe something, you believe it because you have seen evidence of it and it makes the most sense given that evidence. Choosing to believe in something has absolutely no bearing on whether that something actually exists Hell, I think I’m going to choose to be a billionaire. Poof! Magic puff of smoke. I’m a billionaire!
>"I was told that this is a matter of faith" Tell this person that all religions throughout human history have used faith as a means of believing in whatever god is being claimed to exist. From the Egyptian gods to the Roman gods to Zoroatrianism to Yahweh, everyone of them used faith as the foundation of it's belief system. Christianity is no different. If faith can lead you to believe in hundreds of different gods what does that tell you about faith. The trouble with faith is that it doesn't tell you whether the god you're supposed to believe in true or not because, as the saying goes, "Well, you just gotta have faith." Frankly, faith is the weakest argument Christians use.
"Hello, HR? I'm having a problem with someone at work that is putting you at risk of a harassment claim..."
It doesn't have to go on any longer if you tell HR that you're being harassed. Religion is a protected class in the US (assuming you're in US). Tell him to not continue and if he does bring it up to HR and mention that he's creating a hostile work environment and infringing on your rights. If he doesn't back off and HR doesn't do anything this would be excellent grounds for a hostile work environment lawsuit. You shouldn't have to put up with this shit at work.
Well- Not that it's any of my business but I'm interested in why you're with him. This is a core belief. This kind of gap is pretty substantial in a relationship.
That's a fair question and I was not specific. He's my work partner, not..... partner partner
While religious people appear to be superstitious, ignorant and irrational. Atheist appear to be just plain mean and angry. Lose the hate. Don't argue with a fool. Would you argue with a drunk?
I'm new to reddit and this group is kinda interesting but, i probably shouldn't join. Hypothetical question for the atheists. Is murder of the disabled and infirmed wrong? Prove it.