how to turn a believer

[DrKrettin]

Ofcourse. But this is a thread on "how to turn a believer" and lets not turn it into "was Jesus a real person" thread which is endless BS.

 

 

 

I agree totally. But the point I was trying to make was that his assertion that J existed is a strawman argument and he has to realise it is. Let's all assume he did exist and ask "so what?"

[zapatos]

When I tried to read the bible, I got to the rant about "He who pisseth against a wall" and just fell about laughing.

LOL! I had no idea that was in the Bible!

[John Cuthber]

Now we are having fun! Let's start with this. Forgive my seriosity, my atheist friends. It's good to have you back. Okay! The ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY is not a logical fallacy, genius. It is one form of inductive reasoning.

OK, let's start with that.

In spite of having been informed many times that it is a fallacy, you continue to use it and pretend that it isn't.

 

What do you think that says to us about your grasp of logic, and your ability to learn?

...but the hypothesis that Jesus existed is way more probable than much of mainstream, and you know it.

No we don't- because we "know" things for which there is evidence. But this isn't the thread for you to lose that argument.

Go back to the other one here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-43#entry986934

and be wrong about it there.

[jfoldbar]

well. this has turned into a nice little argument that doesnt go anywhere.

so i'll try to bring it back to the original post by asking,

 

anyone who has changed sides, why did you do it?

[DrP]

 

anyone who has changed sides, why did you do it?

 

I posted this a while back - it wasn't that long ago I described myself as a christian.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92254-a-statement-of-faith/

[koti]

well. this has turned into a nice little argument that doesnt go anywhere.

so i'll try to bring it back to the original post by asking,

 

anyone who has changed sides, why did you do it?

I was a sceptic since I can remember. I come from a non practising christian family, 99,9% population in my country are christians. I considered myself an agnostic untill I was in my mid 30's when something snapped in me

and I realised I gotta stop lying to myself and start to treat my innerself more seriously. It was a gradual process, between the ages of 26 and 35 I travelled 30+ countries and engaged with a variety of cultures and mentalities. I suspect that this might have been a reason but I certainly don't feel that way. I was never directly indoctrinated by religion in my youth, both my parents are very progressive. I have to say that since my "trurning" my life got a little harder. Firstly, I get pissed off more often. Secondly I have to keep my thoughts to myself more often and thirdly, the religious evil which was always around memin my environment became more apparent and noticable.

 

I posted this a while back - it wasn't that long ago I described myself as a christian.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92254-a-statement-of-faith/

Wow, this is some story man. This takes gutts, gotta hand it to you. "Experienced miracles" and "evangelised people" ? Thats some serious shift you went through in your life.

[jfoldbar]

thankyou drp for the link.

 

so it seems, like me, all you had to do to change sides was learn about science, then realise that god/bible could not be true?

 

i wonder then though, why doesnt that work for everyone that learns about science.

 

 

 

 

i was bought up as a jehovah. the information that jehovahs learn is biased. meaning they learn about science from the johovahs books and other jehovahs. so they are taught what the organisation wants them to know. it is very frowned up to learn anything outside what they teach as they teach that everything we need to know is in the bible and correct, and to question that is bad.

it only took me a short time of reading on my own(when internet started) to start to see how brainwashed i was. then the learning just started from there.

 

so im thinking, in this great world of variety, there must be people who were raised as religious, learned about science, but still chose religion anyway.

this totally confuses me. not really the part about them choosing religion, but more the WHY.

 

the science that drp and myself learned that turned us, why didnt that same science turn the believer?

as i said in op, a fact is a fact regardless of who the learner is.

is it because the believer ,

1; chooses to ignore those facts,

2; acknowledges this fact but still decided to believe anyway (what does that say about his intelligence)

3; im sure there are others that i cant think of.

I was a sceptic since I can remember. I come from a non practising christian family, 99,9% population in my country are christians. I considered myself an agnostic untill I was in my mid 30's when something snapped in me
and I realised I gotta stop lying to myself and start to treat my innerself more seriously. It was a gradual process, between the ages of 26 and 35 I travelled 30+ countries and engaged with a variety of cultures and mentalities. I suspect that this might have been a reason but I certainly don't feel that way. I was never directly indoctrinated by religion in my youth, both my parents are very progressive. I have to say that since my "trurning" my life got a little harder. Firstly, I get pissed off more often. Secondly I have to keep my thoughts to myself more often and thirdly, the religious evil which was always around memin my environment became more apparent and noticable.

.

are you saying that when you were young, you were on the fence, but you are now a believer? and it was travelling to 30 countries that changed you?

[koti]

thankyou drp for the link.

 

so it seems, like me, all you had to do to change sides was learn about science, then realise that god/bible could not be true?

 

i wonder then though, why doesnt that work for everyone that learns about science.

 

 

 

 

i was bought up as a jehovah. the information that jehovahs learn is biased. meaning they learn about science from the johovahs books and other jehovahs. so they are taught what the organisation wants them to know. it is very frowned up to learn anything outside what they teach as they teach that everything we need to know is in the bible and correct, and to question that is bad.

it only took me a short time of reading on my own(when internet started) to start to see how brainwashed i was. then the learning just started from there.

 

so im thinking, in this great world of variety, there must be people who were raised as religious, learned about science, but still chose religion anyway.

this totally confuses me. not really the part about them choosing religion, but more the WHY.

 

the science that drp and myself learned that turned us, why didnt that same science turn the believer?

as i said in op, a fact is a fact regardless of who the learner is.

is it because the believer ,

1; chooses to ignore those facts,

2; acknowledges this fact but still decided to believe anyway (what does that say about his intelligence)

3; im sure there are others that i cant think of.

 

are you saying that when you were young, you were on the fence, but you are now a believer? and it was travelling to 30 countries that changed you?

No. Im saying I was always a sceptic and considered myself agnostic till my mid 30's when I became atheist and having insight to other cultures might have had something to do with it.

[jfoldbar]

do you know why you changed from agnostic to atheist. i mean, why did seeing other cultures make you atheist?

[DrP]

so it seems, like me, all you had to do to change sides was learn about science, then realise that god/bible could not be true?

 

i wonder then though, why doesnt that work for everyone that learns about science.

ha ha - well it is a lot more complex than that really. Being a scientist is not new. I was a scientist and also believed in god for many years. There are many reasons why I believed and many why I now do not.

[jfoldbar]

drp

 

hhhmmm. i guess thats what makes us unique.

 

for me, its either day time or its night time. there are no ifs and buts or maybys. but i guess for some there is something else.

 

has your knowledge of science increased, or changed since becoming a non believer?

when you did believe, why didnt the science in you cause confliction in your mind?

[koti]

do you know why you changed from agnostic to atheist. i mean, why did seeing other cultures make you atheist?

Yes, I do know why. I wrote in my previous post that it was a process. Acquiring knowledge was the main factor.

 

Let me ask you a question...why do you want to know how to turn a believer?

[jfoldbar]

Acquiring knowledge was the main factor.

 

 

knowledge of other cultures? or scientific knowledge. or both?

i wonder how cultural knowledge can make one become atheist

 

and does that mean, if you hadnt acquired such knowledge, would you still be agnostic?

 

or is it something like, when you get older you realise that 2+2=4, and no matter how you say it, whatever you feel or believe, it will still equal 4. hoping it to equal 3.8 will not make it do so.

 

 

 

'how to turn a believer' may not be the correct wording. it makes it sound as though i want to turn a friend but cant.

perhaps it should be 'how does a believer turn"

like i said before. im just curious about something like a fact for me does not seem to make it a fact for the next guy. and apart from that we are all different, i dont get that.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Just a reminder to please stick to the topic of the OP. Pymander and all those who chose to respond to Pymander by highlighting his previous posts and tendency towards certain logical fallacies: you are very much not on topic. Any further posts of this nature will be hidden or trashed.

 

Additionally, Pymander, do try making some sense please. Your first two posts are difficult to read, and barely addressed anything the OP was asking about.

[Pymander]

Scientists are not technicians working for survival by any means. Real scientists have minds of their own, and have created the tools of the trade. They are not seeking brownie points agreeing with each other with lowbrow six word quips to rack up posts. Many believe that the order required for existence would not exist without a mind, an intuition that grows stronger with learning its laws, and observing its beauty and benevolence. They do not attribute more to this power that its due, but understand that a hierarchy of laws is in effect that encompasses much more than material science, but all composite material entities. They attribute evil to the activities of men, which does not require rocket surgery to understand, but justly by higher laws. They recognise fellow scientists. They do not denounce them as non-authorities. They understand that benevolence works throughout all laws as evolutionary providence. And knowing men to be evolving but still evil, they do not trust those who still seek personal gain and advantage over others. They will detect when their governments have become infiltrated and controlled by such forces, being a recurrent theme throughout history, that will eventually destroy that civilisation. Their values are truth, justice and liberty. "He who leadeth into captivity shall be lead into captivity, and he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. This is the faith and the patience of the saints." Revelation KJV. All religions that teach such things are the work of God's anthropomorphic hands. All such teach as needed by the people and their fate by laws science as not reached. Currently, in my opinion, science has stalled due lies or gone dark by force, and is recognised to be in crisis by others besides myself.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Pymander

[DrKrettin]

All religions that teach such things are the work of God's anthropomorphic hands. All such teach as needed by the people and their fate by laws science as not reached. Currently, in my opinion, science has stalled due lies or gone dark by force, and is recognised to be in crisis by others besides myself.

 

This is a demonstration of how impossible the thread title is. A believer is usually so closed-minded and incapable of rational argument that discussion is pointless. Not only that, they have usually invested so much time and energy in the belief that they are totally unprepared to ditch it and re-think.

[koti]

knowledge of other cultures? or scientific knowledge. or both?

i wonder how cultural knowledge can make one become atheist

 

and does that mean, if you hadnt acquired such knowledge, would you still be agnostic?

 

or is it something like, when you get older you realise that 2+2=4, and no matter how you say it, whatever you feel or believe, it will still equal 4. hoping it to equal 3.8 will not make it do so.

 

 

 

'how to turn a believer' may not be the correct wording. it makes it sound as though i want to turn a friend but cant.

perhaps it should be 'how does a believer turn"

like i said before. im just curious about something like a fact for me does not seem to make it a fact for the next guy. and apart from that we are all different, i dont get that.

I think its both. Acquiring purely scientific knowledge obviously has to make you question the ridiculesness of religious dogmas and cultural knowledge makes you understand the mental mechanisms which rule religious beliefs. As for my case Im sure I would have turned full on sceptic despite my work, travel and my interests in science. Like I said I was never indoctrinated and I have progressive parrents. As you get older black&white goes away and you do start to notice the shades in between but I dont think that age is the key factor in becoming or not becoming a sceptic.

You ask why a fact for you does not make it a fact for the other guy - its many factors including the ones in between my lines but they all boil down to one thing in every culture and every environment - fear. If I had to narrow down to just one type of fear it has to be fear of consequences of being rejected by your family and friends if you dare to question God. Religions exploit this fear brilliantly.

 

Amongst small, subtle irrelevant differences the only big difference between a cult and a religion is the number of worshipers.

Edited May 3, 2017 by koti

[jfoldbar]

Scientists are not technicians working for survival by any means. Real scientists have minds of their own, and have created the tools of the trade. They are not seeking brownie points agreeing with each other with lowbrow six word quips to rack up posts. Many believe that the order required for existence would not exist without a mind, an intuition that grows stronger with learning its laws, and observing its beauty and benevolence. They do not attribute more to this power that its due, but understand that a hierarchy of laws is in effect that encompasses much more than material science, but all composite material entities. They attribute evil to the activities of men, which does not require rocket surgery to understand, but justly by higher laws. They recognise fellow scientists. They do not denounce them as non-authorities. They understand that benevolence works throughout all laws as evolutionary providence. And knowing men to be evolving but still evil, they do not trust those who still seek personal gain and advantage over others. They will detect when their governments have become infiltrated and controlled by such forces, being a recurrent theme throughout history, that will eventually destroy that civilisation. Their values are truth, justice and liberty. "He who leadeth into captivity shall be lead into captivity, and he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. This is the faith and the patience of the saints." Revelation KJV. All religions that teach such things are the work of God's anthropomorphic hands. All such teach as needed by the people and their fate by laws science as not reached. Currently, in my opinion, science has stalled due lies or gone dark by force, and is recognised to be in crisis by others besides myself.

do you have anything constructive to say?

[Pymander]

I don't reckon there is much difference in a belief in God (by any other name), and a belief in science, despite appearances. Both initially proceed from "authorities" during a lifetime, at a stage when nothing or little is known by the person being indoctrinated. Both, for the individual, are the result of inference, beyond indoctrination, from the vast vestiges of evidence, to accepting the various hypotheses upon which each is based. True innovative scientists have been the creative force that have established "scientific" hypotheses or theories or models of reality. True innovative leaders have been the creative force that have established "religious" tenets or proverbs or models of life well lived. They are as comparable as psychology and geology. Do psychologists and geologists argue like this? In their own fields, science and religion have evolved and both have left a trail of blood. Both have also evolved the race toward a global community. If you are not sure it is all by God's design, it is because it is not in the field of "religion" that you are very well versed. "The words of the wise (those who believe in God, opposite of fool Psalm 14 KJV) are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, and proceeding from one Shepherd." Ecclesiastes 12:11 KJV, the leader in this case being King Solomon.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Pymander

[DrKrettin]

I don't reckon there is much difference in a belief in God (by any other name), and a belief in science, despite appearances.

 

There is one fundamental difference - physical evidence. Evidence of the senses. I am appalled that somebody cannot see this.

 

The expression "belief in science" attempts to place science on the same level of ignorance as religion. Please stop it.

[Pymander]

The Bible itself, the churches, the faiths (belief systems, like yours specialising in science instead of humanity) and a whole lot more are evidence. Your claim is not just false, but hypocritical. Science has a drop in the ocean of evidence for its most media and educational systematically supported HYPOTHESIS, not FACT. If I started a forum (oops, that requires MONEY) that forbade lampooning GOD, I would be the hypocrite. Face it, the real frauds have been debunked, but in the words Jesus often used "Those who have ears to hear, let them hear." (note: more evidence for my FACTS), like your statistical support for the anomaly buster "asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions". You have to be blind too.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Pymander

[DrP]

That's such nonsense - The bible is full of holes... any evidence of the existence of anything that happened is word of mouth. Gravity etc... (science) can be tested. If you release an apple - it falls. Every time. EVERY time - because it has been tested and found to be a real thing. Jesus might be alive in people's hearts... but he is in fact dead. Totally dead for over 2000 years, if he even existed, which is debatable now as he is just a rehash of the other died and resurrected mythological deities such as Mithras, Horus etc.. of which there were about 4 or 5 before Jesus and they all have the same story (virgin birth, died for sins, resurrected blah blah blah.)

 

Also, In support of religion being testable - it is - it fails often to support any of it's claims beyond statistical expectancies and fails a lot of people that put their trust in it.

[DrKrettin]

The Bible itself, the churches, the faiths (belief systems, like yours specialising in science instead of humanity) and a whole lot more are evidence. Your claim is not just false, but hypocritical.

 

This is the problem one has in "turning a believer". They do not have an intelligent concept of evidence. Exactly what is the bible evidence of?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This is not a thread about the holes in the bible, or whether science is a religion. There are other threads for that.

[DrP]

Being fair H_I, the thread is about WHY we converted from believing to non believing. Holes in the bible are very relevant to why some people drop Christianity.

 

jfb asked why we 'converted' - As I said before - it is very complex and personal for each, but here are some the reasons that lead to me dropping the myth:

 

Holes in the bible that I could no longer make excuses for.

Solid Scientific evidence for Evolution, which completely contradicts the bible (I went through a phase of believing the 7 days in Genesis were 7 'time periods'... but that is clutching at straws).

Real life contradictions to what is suppose to happen spiritually within the Christian belief.

Total lack of appearance by god to ever show his face beyond what can be put down to coincidental superstitious nonsense.

Discovery that there are many similar myths to the Christ one that came before.

The obvious use of religion by many to advance their political stance.

The demonstrations of many that explain how things like 'baptism in the holy ghost' and the like are psychological states and states of mind that can be replicated in non believers by simple suggestion, hypnosis or drugs.

 

These are just SOME of the reasons I changed my mind.