A closer look at demonstration

[gary_s]

Great points, gary. This accusation by theists is the old chestnut "you are your own gods!" ploy. It's roots are in "you're sinful and you just want to keep sinning so you pretend you don't believe in god in order to make it all right to do all the "x" sinful things you want to do. This makes you your "own god".

Ug! This argument only makes me gag. It's so patently nonsensical that there's no way to address it intelligently. All one can do is explain the real reasons one does not believe and hope the Christian has the capacity to understand.

[mitchellmckain]

His weren't entirely ridiculous. Most of it was pretty much truth.

If you are going to stubbornly insist that Yuri's BS is the truth then I will see that as sufficient reason to believe that what Rian said is the truth in your case. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance, it only proves that those who employ it are worthy of mockery and contempt.

[gary_s]

If you are going to stubbornly insist that Yuri's BS is the truth then I will see that as sufficient reason to believe that what Rian said is the truth in your case. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance, it only proves that those who employ it are worthy of mockery and contempt.

LOL! Please, spare us your almighty judgment of intolerance. You barely know what it means. If your logic is so flimsy as to make such ignorant connections, then you have my permission to continue to fool yourself.

According to Yuri:
"Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. "

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with this. To some it is a logical conclusion. To others it is not, but either way choice and logic aren't really connected in the sense he has suggested.

But...
"It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority."

These reasons for believing in god are absolutely true for many believers of many different religions. Certainly not for everyone, but to a great many, these are absolutely true. And I don't consider it to be insulting or derogatory either. For many people, fear of death is profound thing and they need the comfort and promise of an afterlife to be able to live. For many, the need to believe that there is a judgmental god who will punish those who are guilty of sin is important. For some, it's even important for them to feel a part of this moral high ground and to feel the warmth of being above the sinful people. These are real reasons people choose religion, among many others. If you find this offensive, then I'm clearly not talking about you. If you find this impossible to believe, then you clearly don't know what motivates all believers. If you find it intolerant, then you clearly don't understand the word. I only know the truth of these statements because I have asked these questions; I have had these conversations with believers. If these statements are not true for some Christians, then why have some Christians professed them to be true?

If you can honestly say that you have personally known or have at least seen a poll stating that atheists claim to be atheists because they could enjoy committing acts of sin without guilt or that they can't tolerate the idea that there is a being more powerful than them, then I'll be happy to agree that some atheists do, in fact, use these things as reasons to be atheistic. My experience has been quite the opposite. When asked these questions, every atheist I have ever witnessed has merely scoffed at the absurdity of them. These ideas are not, in fact, logical. Denying a god that you know exists would not accomplish the riddance of guilt, nor would it rid you of a god that you don't like having power over you. In contrast, however; Yuri's comments are quite reasonable. The promise of eternal bliss, especially as opposed to eternal damnation, can be very persuasive, particularly when most everyone around you believes it, too. And so can the reliance on an all powerful being who can dole out justice. Frankly, I'm surprised you bristle at these ideas. Clearly you are not as knowledgeable and experienced with other Christians as you suppose you are. I believe there are groups you should meet that would drastically improve your knowledge.

[mitchellmckain]

These reasons for believing in god are absolutely true for many believers of many different religions. Certainly not for everyone, but to a great many, these are absolutely true.

Which is exactly what I said. But this is NOT what Yuri said. Likewise what Rian said is ALSO true in some cases. The point was to get Yuri to recognize that such generalizations, which are the very basis of all prejudice, are insulting and ignorant. Those who hypocritically indulge in willful ignorance with regards to others do not deserve any better consideration but rather to have the same attitudes thrown back in their face.

I think any poor taste and lack of imagination simply reflects the poor taste and lack of imagination in the original response and that is the whole point. I think it is YOUR ape-like response HERE that demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person's right to have an opinion!!!

That wasn't an opinion that She expressed, just childish mockery that does nothing but perpetuate unnecessary argument. I don't lack respect for Rian's beliefs about atheists, but I do know that much of them are simply wrong and it would be more useful to simply ask why she has such opinions than to mock them. I have done this and I find that her reasons for believing these things are invalid. In this case I don't even think she really believes what she posted. It just appeared to me that she was taunting. And my response was anything but ape-like, as you should be able to understand. I was pointing out the pointlessness of her comments, not mimicking or mocking her comments. Please try to be more accurate in your insults.

Her comment was no more childish mockery than what Yuri said. And your response most certainly WAS ape-like in my view. Nobody deserves to be called ape-like or whatever more than those who do the same to others. I know you only think that only you atheists have a right to such behavior but I absolutely deny any right to such blatant hypocrisy. If you think that saying certain things is insulting then you should not do it yourself. I have no desire to insult anyone, BUT I refuse to be held by standards that people will not hold themselves to. I do not have respect for views which are demonstrably incorrect or intolerant, no matter who expresses them. If Rian had made such a statement out of the blue rather than in response to what Yuri said then I would have called her on it like have done many times before.

[OzAnt]

His weren't entirely ridiculous. Most of it was pretty much truth.

If you are going to stubbornly insist that Yuri's BS is the truth then I will see that as sufficient reason to believe that what Rian said is the truth in your case. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance, it only proves that those who employ it are worthy of mockery and contempt.

However, that's an irrational reason to believe what Rian said. You say so yourself,

"Yuri should see how ridiculous the claims that Rian just made are..."

Unfortunately, in doing so, you now place yourself in the intolerant camp. And now, by your own admission, you're worthy of mockery and contempt.

This is why fighting fire with fire is by and large such an unproductive exercise. And why audio and/or visual feedback in communications is bad. And why infinite loops in programming are bad. You generally wind up getting nowhere and you have the potential of winding up up your own arsehole.

Ant

[gary_s]

Which is exactly what I said. But this is NOT what Yuri said. Likewise what Rian said is ALSO true in some cases. The point was to get Yuri to recognize that such generalizations, which are the very basis of all prejudice, are insulting and ignorant. Those who hypocritically indulge in willful ignorance with regards to others do not deserve any better consideration but rather to have the same attitudes thrown back in their face.

And it is my opinion that this is a deplorable and childish tactic that does nothing but create argument. That's my opinion. I think people like Rian and you would be better served if you instead probed to find out why a person has an opinion you disagree with. You're not going to change someone's mind by insulting them, so why not be constructive instead and try to find out why the believe what they believe. That would be the mature thing to do.

So why is it that you believe Rian's comments to be true in any case? What atheists do you know that would agree with those statements? How would they even make sense?

Her comment was no more childish mockery than what Yuri said.

I totally disagree; Yuri made a statement of opinion and you may disagree with it. Rian just intentionally mocked him in her childish "I can say exactly what you said" snarky tone, which is precisely the kind of thing Rian has long complained about on this forum, which further proves her hypocritical tendencies. It never ceases to amaze me just how much effort she manages to put toward being exactly the kind of person she complains about. Here's an idea: someone says something that I consider untrue. My response is to say, that's not true and here's why, so why do you believe what you said? I may not like the answer, but there's at least a hint of a chance that I may learn something or may be able to provide information that could change their mind.

And your response most certainly WAS ape-like in my view. Nobody deserves to be called ape-like or whatever more than those who do the same to others.

LOL Well, as I said, you have my permission to fool yourself on this one. There was nothing ape-like about my comment, or could it be that you don't know what "ape-like" even means? You can disagree with my opinion, but saying that I was doing the same thing is nonsense. If that is true, then you are being just as apeish right now. Disagree = ape-like? You amaze me.

I know you only think that only you atheists have a right to such behavior but I absolutely deny any right to such blatant hypocrisy.

LOLLOLLOLLOL This is so hilarious that I think I peed myself. Please continue to manufacture nonsense; it is very amusing. This must be more of your warped sense of "intolerance', which I believe means anything you disagree with must be "bad behavior" and it must be that only atheists behave in such a way. LOL Truly hilarious because you know it to be false.

If you think that saying certain things is insulting then you should not do it yourself.

Yes, I try very hard not to be the initiator of insults, but I do reserve the right to return insult with insult.

I have no desire to insult anyone, BUT I refuse to be held by standards that people will not hold themselves to. I do not have respect for views which are demonstrably incorrect or intolerant, no matter who expresses them. If Rian had made such a statement out of the blue rather than in response to what Yuri said then I would have called her on it like have done many times before.

But the problem is that much of what Yuri said IS demonstrably true. What Rian said is demonstrably false and I believe she knows it to be false, which means she was being intentionally mocking. There is a difference between stating opinion and mocking. I notice that you have, as usual, decided to argue about nothing rather than address the real issue. I stated WHY her comments were nonsense and WHY Yuri's were partly true and you simply ignored those comments and chose instead to continue to beat the dead horse of you being mr. policeman of the forum. What is more important to me is the facts and meaning of the statements they made, not your holy war against imagined "intolerance".

[gary_s]

If you are going to stubbornly insist that Yuri's BS is the truth then I will see that as sufficient reason to believe that what Rian said is the truth in your case. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance, it only proves that those who employ it are worthy of mockery and contempt.

However, that's an irrational reason to believe what Rian said. You say so yourself,

Yes, but Mitch reserves the right to be the forum jerk because he feels that nasty atheists shouldn't be allowed to "get away" with such things as stating unpopular opinions.

"Yuri should see how ridiculous the claims that Rian just made are..."

Unfortunately, in doing so, you now place yourself in the intolerant camp. And now, by your own admission, you're worthy of mockery and contempt.

This is why fighting fire with fire is by and large such an unproductive exercise. And why audio and/or visual feedback in communications is bad. And why infinite loops in programming are bad. You generally wind up getting nowhere and you have the potential of winding up up your own arsehole.

Ant

Well said.

[gary_s]

His weren't entirely ridiculous. Most of it was pretty much truth.

If you are going to stubbornly insist that Yuri's BS is the truth then I will see that as sufficient reason to believe that what Rian said is the truth in your case. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance, it only proves that those who employ it are worthy of mockery and contempt.

I repeat this post because I have stated why much of what Yuri said is true while everything Rian stated was false. I'm waiting for a counter-agument. And please feel free to refer to the thread in Podcasts on the latest episide, 107, where Rian states that no Christians believe because of indoctrination (my summary, not hers). KTR put forth a very explicit and detailed list of evidence of why this is false and how this is a crucial part of belief in the supernatural and has been for ages. I am sorry if you find it offensive; it isn't meant to be so, but it is simply true.

And I disagree with your position on intolerance. I don't believe that addressing intolerance with mockery and insults solves anything. Dr. Martin Luther King proved this half a century ago.

[gary_s]

I thought what Yuri wrote was worth re-examining. Although I don't agree with everything here, I do believe Yuri made a decent and honest effort to expose his opinions and ideas and support them with a reasonable amount of argument. Again, I thought Rian's trite response was nothing but a schoolyard taunt, which is not surprising from her. Not only did she use snarky language to attack Yuri's statements, but she cherry-picked specific lines out of context and attacked them. This is dishonest in my opinion. Take Yuri's post in whole and those statements are not insulting. They are largely true, but certainly not axioms.

The "look at it from my perspective and you'll understand" argument.

The trouble is, your perspective is based on fundamental values of deeper perspective that many do not share.

For example, you take the authority of the Bible as sufficient proof that "lots of awesome miracles" happened. What if the Bible is a book of fairy tales?

When you casually mention these awesome miracles without the slightest hint that it may be that no such miracle ever happened, then you lose from your audience everybody who knows that the universe has laws of nature that have never been demonstrated to have been broken, except in these rather unlikely fairy tales that have innumerable explanations more likely than "miracle".

Do you remember making the choice to believe that God exists?

Rather than trying to create a logical argument for the existence of God, you would be more effective in persuading atheists that whether or not God actually exists really isn't the point. Faith is nothing whatsoever to do with truth. Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority. Take the Biblical view of homosexuality for example. It is not possible to explain why homosexuality is immoral without reference to an authority source such as the bible. Any such explanation can only be justified by saying "according to the bible". So, by claiming belief in God, the faithful can justify their intolerance of something they find to be a disgusting thought. In reality there is no such thing as sin. It is an invention of religion. There is such a thing as morality but in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with god or the bible; morality is a purely subjective issue.

If biblical morality is so hopelessly flawed, the only reason remaining to believe in God is fear of death. This is how to trap new members into faith: concentrate on their fear.

I particularly like his question of whether you remember the decision to believe in god? I think this is a good question for believers. And the question is not, do you remember the day you were baptized or the day you announced your belief, but the day you decided that you believed and what were the events or information that led you to that conclusion that day.

I don't agree. How could a person honestly have faith in something they believe is false? I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of faith.

Aaron's comment here misses the point. Faith, by it's biblical definition, is the belief in things not seen, not known. It is not intended to be based on truth or fact, but the belief in something that you cannot know to be true until it is true. So, you can have faith that your spouse will never cheat on you, but you need no faith to know that there will be a presidential election every four years.

[yjoeyh]

I don't agree. How could a person honestly have faith in something they believe is false? I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of faith.

Aaron's comment here misses the point. Faith, by it's biblical definition, is the belief in things not seen, not known. It is not intended to be based on truth or fact, but the belief in something that you cannot know to be true until it is true. So, you can have faith that your spouse will never cheat on you, but you need no faith to know that there will be a presidential election every four years.

Gary, I agree with Aaron. I have no interest in being schizophrenic, trusting in something I didn't know to be true.
Now your "biblical definition" of faith is way off the mark. The Greek word "pistis" always follows from knowledge and evidence. It does not lead up to simply drawing a mental conclusion. It is not "belief in things unseen" but rather as it says, I think in Hebrews, it is the "evidence of things unseen. The belief is what is unseen. Faith is what happens when what you know to be true becomes apparent by your actions.
Placing "faith" in anything for no good reason is foolish. If you have good reason to think your spouse will never cheat on you, because you know that would be out of character for them, because of what you know about them, and what you have already witnessed about their character, would not be unreasonable thing to have faith (trust) in. On the other hand, if you knew that they WERE the kind of person to do that kind of thing, then trusting them not to, well that would be rather foolish.

[gary_s]

Gary, I agree with Aaron. I have no interest in being schizophrenic, trusting in something I didn't know to be true.

Yes, I can see that.

Now your "biblical definition" of faith is way off the mark. The Greek word "pistis" always follows from knowledge and evidence. It does not lead up to simply drawing a mental conclusion. It is not "belief in things unseen" but rather as it says, I think in Hebrews, it is the "evidence of things unseen. The belief is what is unseen.

But this is merely semantics then. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. The that's a distinction without a difference. The point is still that faith means you are expecting something that has not and cannot be demonstrable before the fact.

Faith is what happens when what you know to be true becomes apparent by your actions.

This certainly isn't the way faith is typically presented in an Christian sense. It isn't dependent upon me doing something, but rather me believing in something that is I can't possibly know for certain. As in, I have faith that my children will grow up to be fine citizens. Certainly I have the power to influence them but I cannot control them and cannot know this hope will come true. I can only have faith.

Placing "faith" in anything for no good reason is foolish. If you have good reason to think your spouse will never cheat on you, because you know that would be out of character for them, because of what you know about them, and what you have already witnessed about their character, would not be unreasonable thing to have faith (trust) in. On the other hand, if you knew that they WERE the kind of person to do that kind of thing, then trusting them not to, well that would be rather foolish.

This is a good point to distinguish. Does it only make sense to have faith in things or outcomes that we already have confidence will come about? Is it disingenuous to do so? I certainly know of cases where people have faith in things that are quite unlikely to happen. I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that there is a big difference between faith and knowing something for sure.

[gary_s]

Something just occurred to me as I was commenting on another thread. I agreed with Mitch and find it encouraging that his position on the topic is parallel to mine. Yet I totally, apparently, disagree with him on the issues that Yuri stated. What's important to understand here, and I wonder if this is apparent to Mitch, is that my opinion is that Yuri is correct and my personal experience with believers supports Yuri's conclusions. But the cold reality is that my opinion is irrelevant. I don't care what another person needs to do in order to get through the day in one piece, so long as it isn't destructive to others. Pray to Allah 20 times if you must, rub a Buddha's belly a thousand times if necessary, kiss a goat if you must. I really don't care, but it's still my right to have my opinions and my opinion will be based on logic, observations and information. I object to Mitch's incessant need to label my opinions (and Yuri's) as "intolerant" largely because they exist only in my mind, whether they are intolerant or not. I treat everyone with the same dignity, whether I agree with you or like you or dislike you. Even if I can't stand the site of you, I will still make every effort to be civil and respectful around you; I just won't likely be your drinking buddy. My opinions belong to me and his belong to him. If Mitch or Rian or anyone opens up about their opinions and shares them, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to counter them if I feel they are in error. But the best response is to challenge them with reason or facts, or to just dig deeper to find the reasoning behind them. Just labeling them "intolerant" is lazy. No one here is "intolerant" until they begin to treat others with disrespect. It is the treatment that is "intolerant", not the opinions.

[mitchellmckain]

Something just occurred to me as I was commenting on another thread. I agreed with Mitch and find it encouraging that his position on the topic is parallel to mine. Yet I totally, apparently, disagree with him on the issues that Yuri stated. What's important to understand here, and I wonder if this is apparent to Mitch, is that my opinion is that Yuri is correct and my personal experience with believers supports Yuri's conclusions. But the cold reality is that my opinion is irrelevant. I don't care what another person needs to do in order to get through the day in one piece, so long as it isn't destructive to others. Pray to Allah 20 times if you must, rub a Buddha's belly a thousand times if necessary, kiss a goat if you must. I really don't care, but it's still my right to have my opinions and my opinion will be based on logic, observations and information. I object to Mitch's incessant need to label my opinions (and Yuri's) as "intolerant" largely because they exist only in my mind, whether they are intolerant or not. I treat everyone with the same dignity, whether I agree with you or like you or dislike you. Even if I can't stand the site of you, I will still make every effort to be civil and respectful around you; I just won't likely be your drinking buddy. My opinions belong to me and his belong to him. If Mitch or Rian or anyone opens up about their opinions and shares them, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to counter them if I feel they are in error. But the surly the best response is to challenge them with reason or facts, or to just dig deeper to find the reasoning behind them. Just labeling them "intolerant" is lazy. No one here is "intolerant" until they begin to treat others with disrespect. It is the treatment that is "intolerant", not the opinions.

Treatment? What treatment? Words and opinions are all that can be found here. But I most certainly do not accept claims that opinions cannot be intolerant. Opinions that people are inferior (whether in regards to rationality, morality, or sanity) simply because they are different are heavy with intolerance. Besides your argument is hypocritical and amounts to no more than saying that you are right to insult us because you don't agree with us, but we cannot return those insults because the fact that we disagree with you doesn't give us the same right. Ridiculous! Yuri's claim is no less demonstrably wrong than Rian's and Rian has just as much right to express her opinion as Yuri does. Yuri, with his claims that theists are brain damaged and incapable of understanding the difference between belief and knowledge, most certainly IS intolerant. And this ignorant generalization (which is the very substance of bigotry and prejudice) with regards to what motivates theism is just the latest example.

All one can do is explain the real reasons one does not believe and hope the Christian has the capacity to understand.

I don't really see why they should do any different than so many atheists which is just to decide for themselves what the reasons are the people believe differently than they do. I have seen no evidence that anything like a majority of Christianity is motivated by a fear of death. You don't see that motivation in the Bible and you don't see that motivation in most of the testimonies by Christians. I have ONLY heard this from atheists making up stuff about people who disagree with them.

The motivations that Rian ascribes fits very well with what Christians see in a large number of people "leaving the fold", where it appears that these are just people that don't want to live by "the rules". No this does not fit so well with atheists I have talked to let alone those that I have grown up with. Nevertheless I can see good reasons why many Christians have come to those conclusions that Rian express. I think they are ill informed generalizations but I certainly don't think they are far fetched and without justification. This contrasts with Yuri's claim about theist motivations for which I see no justification whatsoever. I can only imagine that it is possible that he came to such a conclusion from personal experiences with some Christians, and on that basis only I can give him some benefit of the doubt that this is not completely fabricated, but that only makes it at most an ill informed generalization.

[gary_s]

Treatment? What treatment? Words and opinions are all that can be found here. But I most certainly do not accept claims that opinions cannot be intolerant. Opinions that people are inferior (whether in regards to rationality, morality, or sanity) simply because they are different are heavy with intolerance.

Let me correct you right there. I do not suggest that anyone's opinion is inferior to mine just because they are different and I don't get that impression from Yuri either. So you can simply erase that criticism right now. But I have lots of opinions about people that they wouldn't necessarily appreciate, some they would even find offensive and revolting, not that I share them. Those are my innermost thoughts and impressions based on interactions with those people. I don't claim them all to be completely accurate because I'm intelligent enough to know that a brief encounter with someone doesn't provide all the information you need to form a good opinion. But the thing is, you can't stop yourself from forming opinions. You begin to do this the moment you meet someone whether you like it or not. And that opinion may change over time as you get to know a person more. So I reject your "argument" that opinions are "intolerant". They are merely what they are, your internal version of what another person is all about. So they cannot be "intolerant" unless I act on them in some way.

So consider this, Mitch. If you say something that I disagree with (and you often do) and I respond with a totally contradictory argument, you can choose to mock my idea (which you often do) or you can choose to explain yourself and what is behind your ideas (to be fair you do this as well). Which one do you think stands a better chance of influencing my opinion of your ideas? I've been trying to get this point across to you for years now it seems and you are doggedly resistant to it.

Besides your argument is hypocritical and amounts to no more than saying that you are right to insult us because you don't agree with us, but we cannot return those insults because the fact that we disagree with you doesn't give us the same right. Ridiculous!

Yes, that would be ridiculous, but that isn't my position. First of all, I am not insulting you or mocking your opinion. I've stated why I agree with Yuri and (pat, pat) I think I did a pretty good job of it. So prove me wrong if you disagree, or just insult me for it. The path you choose says something about you that, of course, informs my opinion about you. (hint, hint)

Yuri's claim is no less demonstrably wrong than Rian's and Rian has just as much right to express her opinion as Yuri does.

WRONG! There is ample evidence to support Yuri's claims, I stated them and so did KTR. You have not countered them with an intelligent argument. You have only supported Rian's decision to mock Yuri and added your own insults. That's not a discussion of the topic. And yes, Rian has every right to express her opinion.

Yuri, with his claims that theists are brain damaged and incapable of understanding the difference between belief and knowledge, most certainly IS intolerant.

Hmmm, perhaps you are referring to a different comment or thread. No such argument was offered by Yuri on this thread, so I'm going to ignore your statement as irrelevant to this discussion.

And this ignorant generalization (which is the very substance of bigotry and prejudice) with regards to what motivates theism is just the latest example.

Yuri's argument is NOT ignorant. I've told you several times already, there is substantial evidence to support it. If I'm not misremembering, I believe that even you have acknowledged the fact that many Christians deeply fear death and therefore cling to their belief as a result of this fear. And let me repeat: THIS IS NOT AN INSULT. This is nothing but an observation I have made through interacting with HUNDREDS of Christians, most of whom I know very closely. So, Mitch, are you trying to tell me that you know these people better than I do? The same goes for the morality argument. There is nothing bigoted or prejudice in this and I would like very much for you to stop claiming that there is. The absolute fact is that these two issues are very foundational elements of Christian belief and many, many Christisans would not be Christians if these two elements were removed. That is simply a fact that you are in denial of.

And a side note: I wonder if you know what the words bigotry and prejudice mean. Nothing in this discussion relates to those words. Perhaps we need a side discussion to sort that out.

I don't really see why they should do any different than so many atheists which is just to decide for themselves what the reasons are the people believe differently than they do.

Well, I disagree. YOu can simply ask people. I do it all the time. YOu would be amazed at what people will tell you if you only ask! So when I ask Christians this question of why they are a Christian, 80% of the time they tell me they don't want to go to hell and/or that god creates all morality and without it there would be chaos. So how else am I to interpret those answers? Granted, these are Southern Evangelicals and they may not look anything like Western Mormons or Northern Catholics, but I'm not talking about a universal answer here. It may just be that you are looking at the elephant's tail and I am looking at it's tusks. But you can't deny that it does have tusks.

I have seen no evidence that anything like a majority of Christianity is motivated by a fear of death. You don't see that motivation in the Bible and you don't see that motivation in most of the testimonies by Christians.

Hold on, I'm not saying it's a "majority" of Christians. But yes, a good proportion; I have no idea what percentage. You just don't believe me and I suppose I can't blame you because it is amazing to me as well. Listen, have you ever had a group of Christians come to your door unannounced, introduce themselves and the first question out of their mouth is: So, are you saved from eternal damnation? I'm serious about this, Mitch, have you ever experienced this? Well, I have, many times over. Please give me an alternate explanation if what I'm saying isn't true.

I have ONLY heard this from atheists making up stuff about people who disagree with them.

And just how is it that you know they are "making stuff up" about them? Why do you distrust them? What is it about us atheists that makes you suspicious? Haven't you said many times that atheists are right about a lot of things? So why do you think I'm being dishonest about this particular thing?

The motivations that Rian ascribes fits very well with what Christians see in a large number of people "leaving the fold", where it appears that these are just people that don't want to live by "the rules".

You are likely speaking about people who are angry with god over some tragic event in their life. Yes, I can certainly see that a lot of people likely fit this description, but the truth is that the vast majority of those sort of people end up back "in the fold" before long. They get over their anger and eventually accept that they were just angry about life and those people hardly ever make it to the atheist side of the spectrum, although they may become far less fundamental than they once were.

No this does not fit so well with atheists I have talked to let alone those that I have grown up with.

Exactly!

Nevertheless I can see good reasons why many Christians have come to those conclusions that Rian express. I think they are ill informed generalizations but I certainly don't think they are far fetched and without justification.

Um, I'm sorry. Those are "good" reasons? How so?

This contrasts with Yuri's claim about theist motivations for which I see no justification whatsoever. I can only imagine that it is possible that he came to such a conclusion from personal experiences with some Christians, and on that basis only I can give him some benefit of the doubt that this is not completely fabricated, but that only makes it at most an ill informed generalization.

OK, I've got to go somewhere right now, but when I return, I'm going to do some research and put some evidence up here so you can see what Yuri is getting at. So, please, may I ask that you withhold judgment until I can do that?

[Moonwood the Hare]

The difficulty I find with this argument is the assumption on both sides that people know their own motives. While I don't think our own motives are completely opaque to us I do think they are largely hidden. The argument in both it's Christian and atheist form goes like this:

You believe this because you want it to be true. Wanting something to be true is not sufficient grounds for belief. However even to admit that there is something attractive about the other view is it sometimes seems to concede too much so here comes the next twist. Wanting this to be true is pathological; it stems from some deep personality flaw such as sinfulness or a refusal to face reality.

Gary, i acknowledge that you have said that believing things on pragmatic grounds is okay by you but I can't help sensing an undertone of disapproval; you don't really think the world will be a better place if people just believe whatever will help through the day although you accept that may be what we are stuck with.

Personally I think the idea of explaining people's beliefs by their ascribed motives is a dead end. Yuri has tried to formulate a sophisticated version of this based on his understanding of some of the developments of the thinking of Carl Jung. This seems odd in that Jung's former mentor Freud was one of the first to fully develop this approach to dismissing views one disagrees with and after their split, which was partly religious in nature, did use the approach against Jung. So the real master of this approach is Freud not Jung and Jung developed his psychodynamic theory as an alternative which allows for the validity of different approaches.

So, as I think Yuri was beginning to realise, while we can examine the justification of particular claims to belief or knowledge we cannot make cart blanch dismissals of particular beliefs on the basis of an analysis of psychological functioning. The most we can do is to apply this in particular cases. Of course this does nothing to dismiss either the idea that Christians believe because they are fundamentally or selectively irrational or that atheists disbelieve because they are sinful but such inhibitors if they operate must operate, in general, not at the level of pathological psychology. In other words we can hold these conclusions only by presupposing our worldview to be true.