Cornered by a theist.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

I just thought the post about his brother reads a bit like. "something bad happened to me, so i wont believe in god because i'm mad at life" not an actual decision based on rational thought which i thought was the basis of athiesm? Obviously I cant read tone of voice so it may not have been the sweeping emotional statement it seemed to be.

Often something bad happening is a event that shakes a person out of the delusion that religion is. They then have a look around, think seriously about religion, and realise that it isn't real even though they really want it to be.

So I wouldn't say that people don't believe in God because bad things happen, bad thinks happen that make people think realistically about the question of gods.

Religion, or faith in God, is at the end of the day the believe that we can control the bad things we fear by doing certain things. It is a sub-conscious reaction to the fear we have of things beyond our control, a sub-conscious act of regaining control over an uncontrollable universe.

We latch on to the promise of a super powerful creature that will ultimately protect us if we act in a certain way, do a certain thing (ie follow the religion). As is often mentioned on this forum there are very few religions that believe this power acts against them.

A tragic events often snap people out of this mind set, force them to look at the universe as it actually is. And more importantly it forces them to face up to them actually doing this, face up to the realisation that just because we really want something to be true doesn't mean it will be.

People don't have to always rationally convince themselves that God doesn't exist. Often it is just enough to realise that the only reason you believed God did exist in the first place was because you really really wanted it to be true, but that has no bearing on if it actually is. This leads to an understanding of why everyone else would gravitate towards a belief in God, a belief that actually has nothing to do with reality but is instead a form of defense mechanism for the human brain.

We ultimately don't have the control religion promises. It is an illusion. This is just the way it is. This is what people realise, and it leads them to be atheists, not because atheism promises anything, but simply because atheism is just the way it is.

Scofflaw

I think it's entirely reasonable that a person going along with a comfortable and unthought-out theism can be jolted into thinking about their "faith" by a major emotional event, or by a realisation that their life is up the creek - and that kind of shock can go either way. We've previously established that many of our more evangelical Christian posters came to their faiths through traumatic circumstances.

However, I certainly don't think it's necessary. I've been an atheist nearly all my life, probably as a result of reading the Bible at an early enough age to see that it described an egotistical and contradictory tyrant. There seemed, after that, to be a huge gap between the god who was publicly worshipped (at my school, for example), and the god who was described in the "source". They were either not the same thing, or people were really kidding themselves.

In particular, the claim that "God is Love" seemed to be borne out neither by the Bible, nor by the world. In fact, any such claim seemed ludicrously deceptive - people trying really hard to convince themselves of something diametrically opposed to reality.

The only times such a claim made me angry, however, was when they came in the aftermath of deaths. In particular, having to have a priest at funerals, blathering on about how it was all good, and the deceased were really much happier, seemed not merely ridiculous, but pathetically false, predatory, and vile - like someone telling you that it was "all going to be alright" when you'd lost a leg.

So, no, I don't think it's necessary for there to be a traumatic event to become an atheist, and if you are in grief, I can understand entirely that theistic "reassurances" are not merely unwelcome, but actually infuriating.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

pclancy wrote: »

I had a Jehovah's witness call to my house a few weeks back when i was home morning. His attitude became allmost offensive when I told him my views that I didnt think there was any divine or supreme being whatsoever and felt comfortable with scientific explanations for life and the universe or that I would take ancient celtic explanations over his. This drove him mad and his attitude was the same, making me feel like I was the lunatic!

He came back a few days later with a book about "is there a creator" which i must read to see his point of view. I will speak to him again if I meet him for debate's sake but i didnt like his attitude at all.

According to Carl Sagan, in the "The Demon-Haunted World", The Jehovah's Witnesses said the world would end in 1917 and were absolutely sure about it. You could get him on that perhaps.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

According to Carl Sagan, in the "The Demon-Haunted World", The Jehovah's Witnesses said the world would end in 1917 and were absolutely sure about it. You could get him on that perhaps.

Yeah you would kinda have thought that theists would have stopped making predictions like that by now ...

stevejazzx

helena.ryan wrote: »

stevejazzx wrote: »

Helena just ask your question directly:

there is absolutely no need to be so confrontational. I asked my question and it was answered if you go back a few comments Dades answered it and I thanked him for it. I do believe it is a valid question though, dont you think?

Hey I wasn't being confrontational, I did ask 'was that it?' afterwards
I'm sorry if you took that way it just seemed to me that we were talking around the real question....

Zillah

spinandscribble wrote: »

actually the church has got rid of papal infallibilty, im not a catholic though so that isnt me trying to question your logic, just something i was made aware of back in my catholic days.

I don't think so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Makes no mention of it being removed. They got rid of Limbo, maybe thats what you're thinking of?

spinandscribble

dunno, just remember questioning my religion/history teacher back in secondary school and she said they had got rid of it, could have been john paul she said, it rings a bell anyway.

Tar.Aldarion

In galway they usually start the conversation along the lines of 'What are you listening to?' to engage me in conversation. I reply 'tool' and carry on. Am I listening to tool oram I insulting you hmm?
I have also been handed a litle pamphety book about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
I thought it was a piss take but it wasn't. It was an hilarious read.
I remember in dublin when a priest freaked because I had a slayer tshirt on, the guy in the shop wanted to give me the stuff for free because it was the funniest thing he had ever seen.

Pompey Magnus

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Makes no mention of it being removed. They got rid of Limbo, maybe thats what you're thinking of?

I'm pretty sure Papal Infallibility is still part of the Catholic Church. To get rid of it the Pope would have to speak ex cathedra, meaning he invokes infallibility, but he would then claim that he is fallible. Catholic heads everywhere would explode as they try to solve that paradox:

"He must be right in saying he is fallible because he is infallible, but he must be wrong about saying he is fallible because he is infallible, but he can't be wrong because he is always right which means he can be wrong, which he can't be because he is infallible....." It would be a bit like the Liar paradox ("This sentence is false").