My Fall from Grace
Posted by evanescent on 20 June, 2007
Something’s not right.
That was what I thought as I read about hypnosis on the Skeptic’s Dictionary (SD). Wasn’t hypnosis putting somebody under a spell, a trance? It might have appeared fun when I was quite young watching Paul McKenna, but since then it had been explained to me that hypnosis was wrong, an unholy use of power, and ultimately could open a window to demons.
But the SD explained what hypnosis was and what it wasn’t, and how it worked by purely natural explanations. It didn’t reference anything supernatural. It just explained in common sense terms what was going on. After reading a lot of convoluted far-fetched explanations of hypnosis and coming across offers of “Buy this book and you will be hypnotising someone to forget their own name in 5 minutes!”, this explanation was quite refreshing.
I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness (JW). The view of hypnosis as dangerous and wrong was just one of the things I was told. But, if the SD was correct, and it certainly presented a better explanation that literally putting someone into a trance, didn’t the organisation know this?! Couldn’t they have really done the research themselves?! Wasn’t it a bit close-minded to give their own explanation, when, surely they weren’t actually scientists themselves? It just smacked of propaganda to me.
But then, I was raised to see people outside the belief as wicked and destined for destruction. Having strong friends outside the group was actively discouraged. I couldn’t quite reconcile the 5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses (at the time, now over 6 million), with the 6 billion people on the planet. How on earth would everyone get the chance to be saved or not? The organisation had existed for over 100 years, and still less than 1/1000th of the population was to be saved? That’s a lot of death if Armageddon comes tomorrow, I thought. It was a puzzle, but I had faith so I let this discomfort pass me by.
I have never been comfortable with censorship. I could never understand why it was wrong to see what other people had to say, because if I had the truth (which I honestly believed I had), what did I have to fear? If anything, looking at the counter-arguments of others would only strength my conviction because, surely, there was nothing they could say that I couldn’t answer? That’s not arrogant really if you believe you have the truth. But the JW society frowns on that. You are not encouraged to read material that contradicts what the Governing Body says. And you are explicitly told not to read apostate material. (An apostate is someone who was part of the JW faith but now has left and expressly opposes it).
Still, I couldn’t understand this. It seemed like the Governing Body wanted to treat members like kids; not able or intelligent enough to make their own minds up and defend themselves from external attack. I’ve never shied away from a fight if I think I’m right. I will argue with anyone because my interest is the truth. So there is no fear of losing because if you lose, well you weren’t right to begin with. This seemed like common sense to me; why didn’t JWs view it the same way?
JW doctrine is that ghosts and clairvoyants and many supposedly supernatural things, are supernatural, but not caused by genuine ghosts or genuinely clairvoyant people, but through demons deceiving and being evil. But, SD explained ghosts, psychics, and clairvoyants all very well without needing to invoke a supernatural explanation. Now, this didn’t make the JW beliefs wrong of course, but it did seem to me that the Society could explain to its members the truth behind charlatanism and “supernatural” events. But it seemed like they wanted to fit demons into the explanation. Again, this is an organisation that is responsible for feeding information to millions of people, so shouldn’t they be extremely careful about what they produce as fact?
Finally, I came across a link at the bottom of this page:
Called the Watchtower Indoctrination process.
I also happened across a link (I spent 20 minutes trying to find the original but can’t anymore) linking to Bible contradictions. I was very hesitant at first to even click the link; afraid that Jehovah himself was watching me and I would be committing a grievous sin by looking at apostate material. But, I plucked up the courage to do it, and rationalised the action to myself by thinking that I would find the contradictions laughable, false, and easily refutable. Ultimately, I believed that my belief would win out.
For me, the bible is either the perfect inerrant word of God, or it isn’t. It’s as simple as that. I don’t accept that the bible is the word of god but also contains errors. I know liberal Christians might accept that, but that doesn’t make sense to me. Because, how can the bible be god’s message to man, whilst he allows it to be mistranslated, erroneous, or confusing. No, I’m sorry, that doesn’t work. Either the bible is god’s perfect word, or it is a lie; a myth; a collection of old primitive stories. This isn’t a false dichotomy, it is simply the only rational way to view the bible.
I always believed, and of course was brought up to believe, that the bible contained no errors and no contradictions. I knew unfortunately, that if I could find even one, that would destroy my beliefs of inerrancy. This was the very first contradiction I remember seeing:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html
The second book of Kings says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king. The second book of Chronicles says he was 42 years old. Alarms bells went off in my head. ‘How can that be?!’, I thought. I immediately went downstairs to retrieve a copy of the New World Translation, which is the bible translation Jehovah’s Witnesses use. I looked up both passages: they both said 22! I felt a cold shiver – as one might feel when they discover themselves being watched, or part of a huge conspiracy. Had the Society re-edited their version of the bible to remove this contradiction?! (The bible isn’t talking about two different persons by the way – Ahaziah’s mother’s name is shown in the verses and it’s the same in both accounts).
I read more and more contradictions and I could not rationalise them away. I could understand faith in tough times, or believing in god even though I couldn’t see him; but I believed the evidence for god was good anyway. But I couldn’t use faith to ignore blatant contradictions. That was dishonest as far as I was concerned. I was afraid. Genuinely. The possibility of beliefs I’d held my entire life being false was dawning on me. It was a feeling of being thrown out in the cold; like the world is collapsing around you. The closest I can describe it for those who haven’t been through this, is by using a scene from the first Matrix film: Neo is strapped into a chair and Morpheus asks him: “have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”
Whilst this is happening, Neo is incredibly disorientated, as the mirror in front of him seems to dissolve; as the very world around him fades and become unreal; his sense of reality breaks down.
He awakens, in the real world. It is nothing like he thought! It is cold; harsh; alien; bleak. It is frightening, and there is real danger, real death, and there are no happy endings.
This is what it’s like to de-convert. It is like waking up from a comforting dream. It is like realising it’s Monday morning when you were convinced just for a moment that it was Saturday all over again. It is not pleasant. Ignorance at this point, seems like bliss.
At the time I was a fan of a popular collectible card game which led me to a fan site for it. The creator of the site was a devout Christian and had a forum for discussing Christianity and the bible. This was about two months after my first SD experience above. I had read a lot more since then about the lies of the Watchtower Society. Sheer time prevents me from listing everything I read and all my experiences in that time, so I hope you, the reader, will forgive me. Suffice it to say that reading many “apostate” sites that I was forbidden to, exposed the contradictions, turnarounds, and lies that the Governing Body had made in its past, and continued to make. Re-writing its own history, changing new editions of old books to cover errors and failed predictions, blatantly lying about what it said in the past, changing its mind on the issue of organ transplants and blood transfusions – because of which people died…are just some of the things the organisation was guilty of. It could not be the truth. I was sure of that now.
But, I was also sure that if the JW belief couldn’t be the truth, nothing else could. And the reasons for this are that the problems with the Jehovah’s Witness organisation are applicable to ALL religions. If I reject the bible as the word of god, then bangs goes all bible-based belief. Having come across the counter-arguments for the existence of god during this short time, I learned about logical fallacies; how to spot them in others’ arguments; what made a good argument; the difference between a valid and a sound argument; circular reasoning etc. I saw the argument from intelligent design destroyed. The ontological argument was also easily refuted. The popular cosmological argument or arguments from morality that I had been raised to believe as genuine hard proof of god, had in fact been debunked by sceptics and atheists decades, even centuries ago. I felt like I was catching up on an age of philosophy. So because of this, I rejected all religion. It would have been very easy to turn to another form of faith; another belief system, to keep my mind comforted and happy. But that’s not me – I am proud to say I am intellectually honest, or at least I like to think I am and try to be wherever possible. I am proud of myself now for that, because that’s something I have achieved. But I’m also proud that that’s the person I was before, because otherwise, I would never have had the guts and courage to challenge my beliefs and face the facts, however unpleasant.
On this website forum, I argued with theists and used my new powers of critical thinking to debunk their beliefs. Imagine going your entire life trying to convert people and preach to them what you believe, to in a few short months destroying these very same arguments in others! Because I used to be a theist I thought (and I still do) that this gives me a very good way of arguing with theists, because I know how they think and their arguments. It was a liberating experience, and I suppose inasmuch as I was arguing with theists and debunking their beliefs, I was destroying the remaining walls of belief in my own mind too. One day when the website was down, I searched out other forums for discussion and argument, and came across the Internet Infidels. I posted here for a long time and was even a moderator in two forums. I made many friends and enjoyed my stay there. I don’t post there anymore, but not because I don’t want to, but because I do! I don’t want to flit in and out; I would want to spend far more time there. But because I simply can’t, it’s something I’ve had to leave off altogether. I remember Rowland98 there, an Administrator. I made good friends with Alliey and Doug (I know they won’t mind me mentioning them – if you ever read this: hi!) I also remember Magus55: you will never meet a more fundamentalist fundie than him! I also made friends with Plognark on the MTG fanatic site, and he came across to IIDB later as well.
It was also on IIDB I came across the poster Ebonmuse and visited his website called Ebon Musings. I have said elsewhere that in my opinion this is the best atheist/evolutionist website on the internet (next to mine of course). I read all his essays. This was a massive help in learning more about atheism and why it made so much sense. His essays brilliantly destroyed religious belief and explained that not only was it wrong, it was unnecessary and caused more harm than good. Since then I have actively encouraged people to read his material, and at least one good friend of mine is in constant touch with Ebonmuse. He also created and maintains the blog Daylight Atheism.
I have skipped over the blackest part of my life though. I came home from a night out one evening. It was not a good night and I was upset over something, admittedly. (What it was isn’t important.) I remember just breaking down crying on my bedroom floor. Desolate. Destroyed. Inconsolable. I had lost the will to live. There was nothing. There was no god. No future. No happiness. I would die. Facing your own mortality when you’ve believed your entire life in a potential everlasting life is hard. I would see my own parents grow old and die. There was no point to life. To call my worldview nihilistic at this point would have been an understatement. I remember my dad trying to console me and being replaced with my mum, who unfortunately attributed my state to the fact that I had rejected my faith. She was right, but she didn’t understand why! In the end she spent hours regurgitating the same old tired religious bullshit that was exactly what I had rejected. How embracing Jehovah etc and committing to his way of life was the only way to find happiness. But it was exactly that which I didn’t believe anymore. I remember sitting there tuned out, quiet for ages, just wishing she would leave. I love her very much, and she was just trying to help. But she couldn’t see beyond her own worldview and as such, she was useless in helping with mine. She could not help with my doubts about belief, because to her there were no doubts!
I was off work for two weeks after this. I was very depressed but because of taking time off, my doctor’s note for work stated “stress”. I didn’t like the idea of being signed off with stress, because I felt like I was taking the piss; and I knew some people in work would think that. At the time I didn’t care, but the truth is of course I wasn’t stressed – I was severely depressed. I unashamedly admit I considered suicide. But my depression wasn’t chemical or hormonal, or the result of a mental disorder. It was simply the destruction of an entire worldview in a short space of time, resulting in total nihilism.
Some may say that this is why de-converting people is not good. And indeed, I would never wish what I went through on anyone, except perhaps bigots like Pat Robertson, or the deceased Jerry Falwell who is now very much not burning in hell. But remember, the belief system was to blame. Do I blame the facts for putting me through that living nightmare? No! I blame the belief system for a lifetime of lies and indoctrination. We should never be afraid to de-convert people! It should be done with care if possible, but never should a lie take precedence over the truth where lives are concerned.
I relapsed into depression several times after that, for reasons other than just my de-conversion.
But when I started to get over that spell, which lasted a few months, I was glad in the end to have the facts. When I asked myself: “would I go back in time and change anything, given the pain of what I went through?” the answer was ‘no’.
I wrote a few essays myself on old websites I had. The desire to write and debunk was always strong with me since then. I spent most time on IIDB during 2004. For those who are wondering, I don’t attribute any real depression during that time to England going out of Euro 2004 to Portugal. At that time I still cared about the England football team. I remember having my head on a stool as the last penalty was taken (I didn’t look) and leaving it there for about 20 minutes afterwards.
But I digress. Towards the autumn of 2004 something happened that was good for me personally. It is irrelevant to religion or anything I’ve mentioned here, and I guess you, the reader, will just have to wonder forever what it was! It doesn’t matter really. What matters is that it was a positive change in life for me. I could talk about seeing a lovely girl not long after this for a few months if you will forgive me for wandering once more. I fell in love with her (at least I think I did), and we had some beautiful times. It never really worked for other reasons. By the spring of 2005 there was not really anything of us in that way to speak of. By the summer we were good friends but didn’t keep in touch much. I still say to this day that one evening I spent just sitting outside with her rivals all my memories as one of the greatest nights of my life. Of course, there is one night in particular back in May 2005 that also ranks up there. And I’ve had two nights since just spending time with an amazing girl that I will also cherish forever.
I’ve digressed again haven’t I? Sorry.
The point is that since my de-conversion I’ve learned things about life. Everyone does, I guess. Maybe it’s called growing up. Or maybe it’s just experience, and if it’s experience then it doesn’t matter how old you are; wisdom isn’t necessarily about age. It’s about knowledge and what you’ve learned – so anyone can be wise!
I adopted a rational worldview. I don’t believe in god because I’m an atheist. I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in god. My worldview doesn’t stem from my beliefs; my beliefs stem from my worldview. My worldview is rationalism; evidence-based; logic-based; nature-based. I believe everything in the world can be explained naturally. I believe that only through evidence and study can we come to know anything. Although I’ve always loved science, this rational worldview is best expressed by science. In a choice between the dogmatic traditionalistic absolutism of religious faith and the testable repeatable evidence-based logical theories of the sciences, there is only one winner.
Rationalism for me means a life of pure freedom. A life where your mind is free from superstitions as great as god(s) and karma, to idiosyncrasies such as believing you are unlucky or fated. Atheism means that there is no one watching over you. There is no Big Brother in the sky, no one to see your secret deeds whether good or bad. This means that there is no eternal reward or punishment for anything you do. It also means that everything you do, ultimately over time, will fade. But this means that this life that you’re living now is the most precious thing you’ll ever have. Every day, every week that goes by will never come again. The friendships and relationships you have are of the utmost importance. Because there is no Big Daddy to appease or suck up to, or be afraid of, you should be nice to people because it’s nice! You should treat people like you want to be treated! You should not steal or murder because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. Always. No one needs a god to tell them this, and if you do need a god to tell you this then you belong in a mental institution.
To quote one of Joss Whedon’s popular TV shows:
“If this life is all there is and in the end nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do; the smallest act of compassion, can be the greatest thing in the word.”
Being a rationalist, and being able to think critically is very empowering. It gives you confidence in yourself, your ability to think, your ability to talk, and your interactions with other people. It makes you sure of yourself, but humbles you to realise all the ways in which you can be wrong. It serves as a constant mental checkpoint at what leaves your mouth and what enters your mind. If you say something irrational or realise the error in your own thoughts, a red flag immediately raises. It also comes in handy as a nonsense detector when someone starts talking to you about crystal healing, reiki, chi, takionics, ghosts, psychic energy, pyramid schemes, chain-letters, George Bush, and the like.
In short, rationalism is a worldview with no drawbacks, and only positives. It encourages honesty and truth. It encourages knowledge and science. It promotes interest in the common good, and cultivates respect and tolerance for other people, especially those you might not personally agree with. It makes you appreciate the evanescence of life; which demonstrates how valuable it is, and why humans should work together and live together in peace. It demands that we respect the environment and other animals, and leave a legacy for our descendants. It means that we must each give our own lives meaning, and not get given a purpose from someone else.
Some say that life is short. Well it is. But this is rather paradoxical, as a funny chain e-mail I came across once said: “Life is short. What the hell?! Life is the longest thing anyone can ever do! What can you do that’s longer?!”
There’s probably no point making sweeping statements about your life when you’re in the middle of it or in my case, still young (and virile, with the torso of a swimmer and the legs of a footballer). But what I can say with certainty is that de-converting is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me, and will be, no matter what else happens in my life. Because I’m convinced that whatever good happens in my future, will be founded on the worldview of rationalism I developed once I shed the dark superstitious mental baggage I was carrying for years.
The irony is that whilst de-converting, it was like leaving somewhere warm and bright for somewhere cold and dark. But really, religion and theism belong to the darkness and the night. And the night tends to get its coldest…right before dawn. Right before the sun finally comes up. As religion and faith are the stifling oppressive night, so rationalism, atheism, and also science, are the liberating piercing light. And without light, life would be impossible.
I’ve hope I’ve given you a glimpse of that light, or at least what it meant to me. Thanks for reading.



20 June, 2007 at 1:15 am
Hello,
I’ve looked. I’ve really looked. But I can’t find an email address, anyhere.
I really don’t like using the top post to contact a blogger through a comment, when it should be done in private, but your blog is too good not to contact you.
I’m the author of Way of the Mind and the maintainer of Planet Atheism, an aggregator of atheism-related blogs (currently more than 90). Reading the latter, today, I found out about your blog through a post in A Load of Bright (who’s also a member of PA), and would like to invite you to join PA yourself.
For more details, please take a look at the Planet Atheism FAQ. You don’t need to do anything; if you say yes, I’ll just add your feed. But I won’t do it without permission, of course.
Thanks,
Pedro
P.S. - it’s really a good idea to provide readers with some way to contact you.
20 June, 2007 at 2:35 am
Reading the trauma that you underwent from a short term conversion, I find myself thanking my lucky stars * that my deconversion was relatively uneventful, and I surmise that part of the reason was it took me 30 years to do it. In the end, it was a lot of the same sources for me. Internet Infidels was a big one, I posted there a good bit, but books like George Smiths “Atheism: A Case Against God” and Sagan’s “A Demon Haunted World” along with a bunch of others, really pushed it along. And I agree with your take on Ebon Musings. I’ve said the same thing a few times.
What stands out though is that in the end, we come to the same place, and with much the same enthusiasm. It’s rationalism, science, clear critical thinking that rules the day. And the confidence those disciplines bring to the table is palpably enervating, but never evanescent.
*I read today that Christopher Hitchens said “When people say ‘There but for the grace of God go I’ they really are saying ‘There but for the grace of God goes another fucker’”. He can be SO right sometimes.
20 June, 2007 at 5:31 am
> I also remember Magus55: you will never meet a more
> fundamentalist fundie than him!
Guess again!
(requires digging through google cache, but
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JhsTF7gp1-0J:www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-34588….%253C/t-184096.html+magus55+deconverted+site:iidb.org+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=us
“Nialler
October 26, 2006, 07:46 AM
Ther have been a couple of enormous changes of mind on this board.
Magus55 is probably the biggest.
An enormously committed, and articulate and prolific poster of Creationist policies, he has since become quite the Evolution-supporter.”
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=174262&highlight=nested+hierarchies
Posted by Magus55:
“Well, in another RR discussion on Evolution, I believe I found the most incomprehensible argument against evolution and a true sign of the warped mind of the fundamentalist.
‘I would not worship a God who created evolution as the means to bring about life as we know it. It is cruelty of the highest order.’
I of course replied, and eternal torture isn’t?
I’m so glad I’m no longer a fundamentalist. Theistic evolutionists have really saved my sanity. I just have no words for how eternal torture is fine, but evolution is the cruelest thing ever.”
Who’d a ever thunkit?
20 June, 2007 at 5:32 am
That’s an incredible story. I have no deconversion of my own; I’ve been an atheist all my life.
I don’t believe in god because I’m an atheist. I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in god.
Do you mean “I don’t disbelieve…”? Actually, that sentence is going to be ambiguous if you put it like that, isn’t it? Oh, never mind, the meaning comes across.
20 June, 2007 at 10:37 am
I deconverted from Catholicism about 17 years ago, and I understand the trauma it can cause, when you have believed fervently in a particular set of beliefs all your life. Fortunately, I adjusted pretty quickly to being a non-believer. I still look back on the day it happened as one of the most significant moments of my life.
20 June, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Good post and thanks for sharing. I don’t know if you have had a chance to read my blog yet, but I am starting to have issues with my children being raised in The Truth, which is why I was interested in hearing your story.
How has your relationship with your parents and other family members progresses since you left. When my wife and I first dated she was disfellowshipped and it destroyed her at the time. She eventually got back in, but now she is kind of losing interest, but her mom and siblings keep after her to stay involved. She rarely goes to meetings any more, but “sisters” keep coming over to see how she is doing and they study at our house.
Let me know your thoughts-your blog is on my regular read now.
20 June, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Hi John P, cheers for the comment. Very well said, and very nicely phrased too!
20 June, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Cragar said:
“Good post and thanks for sharing. I don’t know if you have had a chance to read my blog yet, but I am starting to have issues with my children being raised in The Truth, which is why I was interested in hearing your story.”
I’ve not the chance yet my friend but I promise I will.
My humble opinion, if you want it, is that indoctrinating children is a form of child abuse. I believe parents have an enormous responsibility to raise their children to think, but not WHAT TO THINK. Religion teaches ignorance, superstition, and intolerance. It’s not my place to tell YOU what to do, but my general opinion is that bringing children up to believe a faith is wrong.
Cragar said:
“How has your relationship with your parents and other family members progresses since you left. When my wife and I first dated she was disfellowshipped and it destroyed her at the time. She eventually got back in, but now she is kind of losing interest, but her mom and siblings keep after her to stay involved. She rarely goes to meetings any more, but “sisters” keep coming over to see how she is doing and they study at our house.”
My dad hadn’t been going the meetings for years anyway, although he still harboured some belief. I’m not sure how much he does now. He is fairly open-minded and very switched on, but I think he has inklings of theistic bias, and I think many decades of “The Truth” have blinded him to important issues, like evolution.
I still talk with all my family of course. My mum and I still talk as much as ever I suppose but we’ve also had the occasional very long debate too. There is no doubt that every time, I win these arguments hands down. That’s not because I’m anything special, but because the theistic position is ultimately indefensible. If you have logic on your side and they have no evidence, there is only one winner!
Unfortunately, she will not see reason. Faith blinds, and whenever the cracks start to appear in her belief, I see her put up the mental shutters again and not want to argue. Usually she’ll end it by something like “whatever I say you’ll just find fault with!” Yes! That’s the point!
My sister and I used to be very close but we’re not anymore. That is, undoubtedly, because she is in the faith and I’m not. It’s a shame, but that’s the way it goes unfortunately.
Cragar said: “Let me know your thoughts-your blog is on my regular read now.”
Thank you very much! I intend to return the favour.
20 June, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Woodpigeon said:
“I deconverted from Catholicism about 17 years ago, and I understand the trauma it can cause, when you have believed fervently in a particular set of beliefs all your life. Fortunately, I adjusted pretty quickly to being a non-believer. I still look back on the day it happened as one of the most significant moments of my life.”
Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. Cheers for the comment.
20 June, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“My humble opinion, if you want it, is that indoctrinating children is a form of child abuse. I believe parents have an enormous responsibility to raise their children to think, but not WHAT TO THINK.”
I agree to some extent. But I am in the marriage now, and I love my wife and kids. My children are not and will not be totally immersed in the Truth. They already get some flack from their cousins, but so be it. My son is very analytical and reads a lot, and is only 10. Within a few years I bet he really studies the Bible, much as I did, and I think he will be much like me. My eldest daughter (
is her mother all the way, so she may stay in, we will see. The main thing my kids have over other Witness children is they are not prejudicial towards other religions or persons, as many Witnesses can be toward the “worldly”
“I win these arguments hands down. That’s not because I’m anything special, but because the theistic position is ultimately indefensible”
My wife won’t even argue any longer, as her religion (all religions really) gets exposed. She still lives life a little blindly as far as faith goes.
20 June, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Angel Rules!!
20 June, 2007 at 7:47 pm
To Cragar: Happiness is the most important thing at the end of the day. It is good to hear you say though that they will have the chance to question and think for themselves.
To Sean: Agreed!
21 June, 2007 at 1:43 am
Very moving story, and very well put. Congratulations on your freedom.
21 June, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I see no deconversions here - only conversions to a differing world view - one that puts “me” at the center of everything. (which you all are free to do, just be careful with your words or someone may assume you are being dishonest.)
As to indoctrination I find that laughable. Everyone raises their kids to believe what they believe. I was raised by atheist parents to be an atheist. By watching their actions, listening to their words and observing their rage reactions to the mention of religion, we were indoctrinated. (I guess I went through a deconversion, or was that a conversion?)
So, do you abuse your children through indoctrination to be good citizens or do you allow them “freethink” to choose when they are adults? Do you force them to go to school to be educated and socialized in a certain way or do you wait for them to be grow up and choose if they want to be educated or socialized?
21 June, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Geno said:
“I see no deconversions here - only conversions to a differing world view - one that puts “me” at the center of everything. (which you all are free to do, just be careful with your words or someone may assume you are being dishonest.)”
I think you’re being disingenuous; it is not possible to indoctrinate someone to have a lack of belief. Every human is born an atheist.
Parents should encourage children how to think, but not what to think.
It is possible that parents force certain ideas on their children, so in this respect atheism could be forced on children just like theism is. But in both cases it is wrong.
Atheism isn’t a belief system though, it is just lack of belief. It is not indoctrinated the way religion is.
You’re correct about a differing world-view though: mine is rationalism; the only world-view that makes sense.
Geno said:
“As to indoctrination I find that laughable. Everyone raises their kids to believe what they believe.”
YEAH! That’s the point! It’s wrong. Children should be raised how to think and learn for themselves, not WHAT to think.
If I was to raise my children to believe in a religion, which of the millions do you suggest, and why?? Atheism is just the obvious starting point.
Geno said:
“I was raised by atheist parents to be an atheist. By watching their actions, listening to their words and observing their rage reactions to the mention of religion, we were indoctrinated. (I guess I went through a deconversion, or was that a conversion?)”
That doesn’t sound like indoctrination to me. Children are very suggestible, so they will generally follow their parents attitudes. Religion encourages blind obedience and belief in the belief of your parents.
Since humans are born atheists, that you grew up one was just the natural state. There are millions of different god beliefs on earth, none of which are better than any others. Atheism, which is disbelief, is the only position that makes sense until evidence is provided.
Geno said:
“So, do you abuse your children through indoctrination to be good citizens or do you allow them “freethink” to choose when they are adults?”
I don’t understand this question. It’s probably a false dichotomy anyway.
I believe all children should be raised to think freely. Don’t you??
Geno said:
“Do you force them to go to school to be educated and socialized in a certain way or do you wait for them to be grow up and choose if they want to be educated or socialized?”
I would instill children with values and morals that are directly related to their own well-being and that of others. (Not based on the whims of a character in a book).
I would teach them to listen and question, and think critically.
Hopefully this will be enough for them to choose their own way, which ultimately should also be the right way.
For example, I wouldn’t teach my children that homosexuality is evil and a sin. I wouldn’t teach them that a man in the sky watches them all the time. I wouldn’t teach them that only MY opinions are valid and right. I would teach them tolerance and science. I would teach them the value of evidence and reason, and never to accept something on faith (and why).
But none of that is indoctrination. It is not faith or a belief system. It is good common sense.
21 June, 2007 at 6:40 pm
evanescent,
Interesting that you don’t consider any of what you do as indoctrination, just good thinking.
So, if your child came home (let’s say a 12 yr old) and says “Pops, I have been talking to my friends and giving some thought to this as you raised me to do, and I think I am going to join the Baptist Church.” My question, do you give him a ride to church next week?
(out of curiosity, I am assuming you are in England, what time is it there? I am on the west coast of the US and it is 10:40am.)
21 June, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Geno said:
“Interesting that you don’t consider any of what you do as indoctrination, just good thinking.”
Did you read what I said? Did you understand it?
It’s not “interesting” it’s a fact! Atheism isn’t a belief system. Religion, by definition, is! Religion has no evidence to support its claims. To teach children, (who cannot evaluation truth claims but will generally just believe), a religion is a mental injustice.
Do we have children democrats, or children democratic socialists? Do we have children ultra-liberals? No, because these words mean nothing to them. To pin religious labels on children is even worse.
Geno said:
“So, if your child came home (let’s say a 12 yr old) and says “Pops, I have been talking to my friends and giving some thought to this as you raised me to do, and I think I am going to join the Baptist Church.” My question, do you give him a ride to church next week?”
I’d probably go with him actually. Then when we got home I’d go through everything that was said, and we talk about the problems with it. Assuming my child understands logic and proper argumentation, I’m confident he would see through the fantasies and impossible promises.
Geno said:
“out of curiosity, I am assuming you are in England, what time is it there? I am on the west coast of the US and it is 10:40am.)”
It’s now 6:47pm here!
21 June, 2007 at 7:20 pm
evanescent,
Here is where the indoctrination comes in. You said “Then when we got home I’d go through everything that was said, and we talk about the problems with it.”
What if he had not yet identified any “problems” to you? What if when he walked out of the church service he said “thanks Dad, that was great!” Do you start the indoctrination process by pointing out the “problems” (as you put it?)
See, I think as soon as you say anything without being asked (especially if it comes after he said it was great)you are indeed starting an indoctrination process.
21 June, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Geno said:
“Here is where the indoctrination comes in. You said “Then when we got home I’d go through everything that was said, and we talk about the problems with it.”
What if he had not yet identified any “problems” to you? What if when he walked out of the church service he said “thanks Dad, that was great!” Do you start the indoctrination process by pointing out the “problems” (as you put it?)”
No. If there were no problems I’d start attending the churches myself and bring him along, secure in the knowledge that we’d found the truth; the one true religion!
Unfortunately, NO religion on earth has ever provided evidence to support its claims. No one has ever proved God.
The entire world does not make sense if one assumes theism, so a religion would have a long way to go to overcome these problems.
But I’m not saying it will never happen, although I’d rate the chances at a billion to one.
It is not indoctrination to subject something to critical analysis. Is this not how you analyse things??
The problems with religion, like Christianity, are self-contradiction, absurdities, repression, ignorance, rejection of evidence, and total lack of proof. I cannot possibly see them ever being reconciled. I cannot possibly believe that the TRUE religion would have these qualities.
But if there was such a thing:
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/onetrue.html …
…Then I would be happy to believe.
You seem to imply criticism is indoctrination, when you know full well that it isn’t.
How is pointing out problems indoctrination? Has it ever occurred to you that these problems are real and demand answers, and if there are no answers perhaps the religion is just plain wrong?
21 June, 2007 at 7:41 pm
evanescent,
Parents have a way of squashing the “freethink” of their children. This is exactly what you would be doing. Instead of letting your child continue in what he perceived as “good” (the visit to the Baptist Church) and allowing him to follow his own path and let his own mind decide what he thinks about his experience, you would feel compelled to step in and set him straight, by imposing your “beliefs” about disbelief.
Again, I don’t know why atheist can’t admit that they work just as hard to raise their children to think like they do, as any religious person does.
If you were true to your statements, you would let him go along unhindered to discover for himself. Once he said “thanks Dad that was great” I would think that is his free will and free mind speaking. What say you? I will let you have the last word as I know it is getting late at your home.
21 June, 2007 at 7:45 pm
One last thing before I give you the last word. You guys all follow “Ebon’s” writings like they were scripture. I have read this one before - all he is saying is “If I were God this is how I would set things up.”
Perhaps if I were God, I would set them up different than what he would and you the same.
So, what’s the big deal, it’s view. And as far as opinions go, yes that is one.
21 June, 2007 at 7:46 pm
correction - “it’s his view.”
21 June, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Geno:
“Parents have a way of squashing the “freethink” of their children. This is exactly what you would be doing. Instead of letting your child continue in what he perceived as “good” (the visit to the Baptist Church) and allowing him to follow his own path and let his own mind decide what he thinks about his experience, you would feel compelled to step in and set him straight, by imposing your “beliefs” about disbelief.”
I would feel compelled to step in and examine the belief with him. Religious belief requires faith, and faith is dangerous and irrational. I would not be a loving father if I taught my children faith.
Saying that I have “belief about disbelief” is blatantly dishonest and I am disappointed in you; you have been debating with atheists long enough to know that atheism is lack of belief. How can you have belief in a lack of belief?? You should know better. I think this just shows that for all our talk, you really just don’t listen. Do you believe in your disbelief of Santa Claus? No, didn’t think so.
Geno said:
“Again, I don’t know why atheist can’t admit that they work just as hard to raise their children to think like they do, as any religious person does.”
But THEY DON’T though, which is what I’ve just been trying to tell you. You don’t listen to anything I say. You just come back and repeat yourself as though I said nothing.
Geno said:
“If you were true to your statements, you would let him go along unhindered to discover for himself. Once he said “thanks Dad that was great” I would think that is his free will and free mind speaking. What say you? I will let you have the last word as I know it is getting late at your home.”
If you had listened to anything I said you wouldn’t have asked that question.
Seriously Geno this is very disappointing my friend. You pay no attention to the comments of others and just repeat yourself. I mean no offence at all, but this is exactly what it’s like to argue with a child. You are an experienced, intelligent, educated man - but when it comes to your beliefs you are like a child stuck in a fantasy world.
What makes me question the point in debating with you is simply that you don’t listen to anything anyone says.
Please, read my last post again about faith, and requiring evidence. Did you not see what I said about the problems with religion? Did you just blank that out and allow your mind to gloss over it? Well don’t. Go back and read what i said. Think about it.
I’m not interested in having the last word (it’s 7:54 here, don’t worry well before my bedtime!), and please don’t take this the wrong way, but if you keep repeating yourself and ignoring what I write then I just won’t reply.
21 June, 2007 at 8:44 pm
When I said;
“Here is where the indoctrination comes in. You said “Then when we got home I’d go through everything that was said, and we talk about the problems with it.”
What if he had not yet identified any “problems” to you? What if when he walked out of the church service he said “thanks Dad, that was great!” Do you start the indoctrination process by pointing out the “problems” (as you put it?)”
You followed up and said;
No. If there were no problems I’d start attending the churches myself and bring him along, secure in the knowledge that we’d found the truth; the one true religion!
Now here may be where we talk past each other - you said “if there were no problems.” Your son (hypothetical) had already told you that from his point of view that there are “no problems” once he said it was great. What I am saying, is that you do not trust his opinion nor his own rational thought. Therefore, you will now impose on him “your” problems. (I don’t know how old you are or if you have any children - but parents do exert great influence on their children in giving an opposing position.)
I read your posts very clearly, but you have framed the discussion to not allow opposition to your view. You state off hand that what I do is indoctrination but what you do isn’t. That somehow you cannot indoctrinate to “lack of belief.” But you do, as soon as your son says I want to be a Baptist, you are going to start the indoctrination process to bring him back into the fold. (I don’t think that indoctrination has to be a bad word. We “indoctrinate” everyone as to the rules of driving - I never figured out how you guys ended up on the wrong side of the road.)
21 June, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Geno said:
“Now here may be where we talk past each other - you said “if there were no problems.” Your son (hypothetical) had already told you that from his point of view that there are “no problems” once he said it was great. What I am saying, is that you do not trust his opinion nor his own rational thought. Therefore, you will now impose on him “your” problems. (I don’t know how old you are or if you have any children - but parents do exert great influence on their children in giving an opposing position.)”
You are right I think; this is where we talk past each other. Remember that he is my child and as such I have to take care of him, without doing his thinking for him.
Like I said, religious belief requires faith, which is irrational. So yes, if someone (anyone) has faith they are being irrational! So how could I think otherwise?
The problems with religion are not MY problems, they are objective real problems and I listed them earlier, and I don’t think even a religious person like yourself could disagree with them. They may not be problems in your eyes, but they are still very real issues that I could not in good conscience not warn my child of.
Perhaps a good way to let you see where I’m coming from is if your child joined a Muslim fundamentalist camp, which you knew had affiliations to terrorism. Would you respect his choice then?? Or would you think that maybe he was being deluded and didn’t have all the facts?
I’m not saying for a second that you would be a terrorist Geno and I’m not putting you in that camp. But, your beliefs are in essence no different because both Muslims and Christians believe absurd things based on faith. There is no objective difference between you. So if you understand why you reject other religions and would more than gladly point out to your child the problem with them, you can see why I would point out the problems with ALL of them, including your religion.
You cannot possibly believe this is imposition, or indoctrination. No more so than explaining to a child why he should look both ways before he crosses the street is indoctrination! And if he says “oh it’s ok dad I really like just crossing without looking” would you accept that as an answer?? Faith is just as dangerous.
21 June, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Geno, this is a very interesting debate and I can appreciate your persistance, but your logic has one complete flaw.
The Bible. Or Koran. But I know little to nothing of the Koran so I can’t comment on it. On tobe’s site you seemed to try to be ambiguous about what you believe. But bottom line is if you are religious, you have to use a book, whether it’s the Bible, Koran or something else, because there is no other evidence. Most theists, when argued against, try to refer to the Bible. You, until your hypothetical question about what happens if your child goes to a Baptist church, have thankfully stayed away from going that route.
The bottom line is the Baptist church is going to use the Bible and say this is your proof and what you base your FAITH in. Yet, the Bible has all kinds of contradictions, flaws and problems. In the same book, you have a flood that covered the entire earth for 6+ months and there is no evidence it ever happened, a talking donkey, Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, Jonah being eaten by a whale, and Jesus being resurrected from the dead–not to mention numerous others, just trying to be brief. So if we know parts of the book are untrue, can we not deduce, especially without any evidence, that the rest is untrue also? Especially when the evidence points in other directions.
Would I like to believe there is a God? Of course. And maybe there is some divine being after this life. I just know it’s not the one portrayed in the Bible and taught by religions today.
21 June, 2007 at 10:26 pm
You said - “Perhaps a good way to let you see where I’m coming from is if your child joined a Muslim fundamentalist camp, which you knew had affiliations to terrorism. Would you respect his choice then?? Or would you think that maybe he was being deluded and didn’t have all the facts?”
That is exactly the point. You and I would have the exact same reaction to this and the same remedy. We would each sit the child down and tell him why “WE” think it is incorrect to join the Muslim fundamentalist group and “WE” would inform him as to what reaction “WE” would like him to have. We both would do the exact same - but you want to apply (for this discussion) a pejorative term to what I do and some “rational” nice guy term to what you do. But in the end, we both think “WE” know what is right and wrong for the child and “WE” don’t mind telling him. My question is would you force him to obey you and not join? I would! (remember, 12 yrs old)
A summary of what you had said previous is “my child can believe whatever he wants as long as it meets my standards for logic and reason. That my friend is indoctrination.
As to the point in your next post; I am not “ambiguous about what I believe” as you stated. However, what I believe in specific is unimportant to any of these discussions. And trust me, I do not want to convert you. Again, as I said yesterday, you narrow the frame of discussion to saying “no evidence” - but if I offer it you reject it as “no evidence.” I will give you an example (an I am sure that you’ve heard it before)
I have never seen the wind, but I can give you evidence that there is wind or a wind storm by the evidence of moving leaves on a tree, debris flying in the air and trees bent over. Before modern day technology, if a tornado blew through town what was the requirement to evidence such a happening to collect on the insurance? All the houses are blown down! I know that it is simple but it is acceptable evidence - just as we may not see God, but we see the results of God’s presence. (and I don’t even care if people want to point to evil acts to prove god - our discussion is god vs no god.)
As I said yesterday, all of the jurors chose to ignore the evidence in the OJ Simpson trial and let him go. Their world view (oppression of the black man) was more important to them than any evidence before them to allow justice to be served.
It is my personal feeling that that is how atheist automatically react to anything presented to them about God - that doesn’t matter, it gets in the way of my world view. It takes away from “me” being at the center.
(In the end, I hope you do not take anything I say as personal, I am sure you are a fine person and would always do what is best for your family.)
21 June, 2007 at 10:27 pm
OOPS, sorry, I missed that the last post was from cragar. My comments are to both, and my apologies to both.
21 June, 2007 at 10:44 pm
cragar,
You said - “But bottom line is if you are religious, you have to use a book, whether it’s the Bible, Koran or something else, because there is no other evidence.”
This is false, I don’t think Native Americans had a Book, I think it was passed down orally. What did your Druid ancestors use? I don’t think they had a Book.
21 June, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Geno said:
“That is exactly the point. You and I would have the exact same reaction to this and the same remedy. We would each sit the child down and tell him why “WE” think it is incorrect to join the Muslim fundamentalist group and “WE” would inform him as to what reaction “WE” would like him to have. We both would do the exact same - but you want to apply (for this discussion) a pejorative term to what I do and some “rational” nice guy term to what you do. But in the end, we both think “WE” know what is right and wrong for the child and “WE” don’t mind telling him. My question is would you force him to obey you and not join? I would! (remember, 12 yrs old)
A summary of what you had said previous is “my child can believe whatever he wants as long as it meets my standards for logic and reason. That my friend is indoctrination.”
No, you don’t get it. The standards are: logic and reason. They aren’t MY standards. They are objective, unchanging, necessary truths - such as the law of non-contradiction, and requiring evidence before one believes.
X cannot be X and also Y at the same time. Geno cannot be in New York and also California at the same time. Something cannot be true and also self-contradictory. Believing when there is no reason to is not logical.
If you cannot see this then that is very worrying indeed. I don’t really know what else to say to you on this because if you can’t see the difference between evidence and faith there is no point.
Geno said:
“I know that it is simple but it is acceptable evidence - just as we may not see God, but we see the results of God’s presence. (and I don’t even care if people want to point to evil acts to prove god - our discussion is god vs no god.)”
The problem with your analogy Geno is that we know what causes the wind and it is unmistakable, explainable, testable, repeatable, and totally understandable. In fact, it is virtually impossible for the wind to be explained any other way.
Unfortunately, what you call the “results of God’s presence” whether good or bad, are not really proof at all.
Now now, hear me out!
They MIGHT be God, but they MIGHT be something else, and the split is not 50/50 because god is such an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. The non-god explanation is generally always better than the god explanation, (simply because we CAN explain it, whereas we can’t explain god).
Now, I don’t think I’m being unfair here, because throughout history (as I’m sure you’re well aware) humans have always tried to explain what they didn’t understand with God. But unfortunately they got it wrong every time. e.g.: the sun, where rain comes from, what is thunder?, where did we come from?, explaining comets and acts of nature. But when we did research we explained these things better with a natural explanation.
I don’t think you can give me one instance in history where the god explanation won over the non-god one. And there is nothing wrong with that - it’s a matter of history.
Now, that doesn’t prove that your god doesn’t exist. At this moment I am not interested in trying to disprove it to you. I am just trying to show you, that, even IF your god DOES exist, what you’re trying to show as evidence isn’t really evidence, because it doesn’t actually prove anything.
I hope you understand this Geno, and this isn’t being close-minded or me shutting the door on you: what MIGHT be evidence of God just MIGHT be evidence of something else. But the “something else” explanation always seems to make more sense, and if we look back through history, let’s face it every time someone claimed that “such an such” what god’s presence it turned out to be something else.
Don’t you think the same could be happening here?
Let me say again: this isn’t me setting the goalposts. I am not saying “oh well your god doesn’t exist”. In fact, let’s forget for a second whether he does or doesn’t. What matters is whether there is PROOF. And so far nothing you’ve mentioned really counts as proof. In other words, if it were a court of law on earth for instance, nothing would be accepted as good evidence. Does that make sense?
21 June, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Geno said:
“(In the end, I hope you do not take anything I say as personal, I am sure you are a fine person and would always do what is best for your family.)”
Thank you very much. I’m sure you’re the same.
It’s hard to express emotion over text, and I admit that sometimes my exasperation manifests itself as sarcasm. Perhaps also things can be mis-interpreted too easily.
I am leaving for the night very soon now, so if I don’t reply, I will tomorrow.
21 June, 2007 at 11:31 pm
You said - “Geno cannot be in New York and also California at the same time.” Of course I could. Cut me in half and send each section to LA and NY. (and I can show evidence for that.) So perhaps logic isn’t so clear. (having fun with you)
You break your own rule here! “IF your god DOES exist, what you’re trying to show as evidence isn’t really evidence, because it doesn’t actually prove anything.” If my God exists, there is no requirement for proof. Existence is proof in itself! Therefore, you really can’t even allow for the possibility of a god and no atheist says that.
21 June, 2007 at 11:31 pm
clicked off before I could say, have a good night
22 June, 2007 at 12:30 am
Geno said:
“You said - “Geno cannot be in New York and also California at the same time.” Of course I could. Cut me in half and send each section to LA and NY. (and I can show evidence for that.) So perhaps logic isn’t so clear. (having fun with you)”
You’d be dead! So “you” wouldn’t be in either place!
Geno said:
“You break your own rule here! “IF your god DOES exist, what you’re trying to show as evidence isn’t really evidence, because it doesn’t actually prove anything.” If my God exists, there is no requirement for proof. Existence is proof in itself!”
Wrong. Existence is not proof in itself. There might be a teapot orbiting the moon. It’s existence is either a fact or not, there is no inbetween. If there is no evidence for its existence it is not logical to believe that there is a teapot.
Correspondingly, there may very well be a teapot there all along, and you might just so happen to be right. But you’d only be right by sheer luck. It could just as easily be a kettle.
When you stop talking about proof, you cease to have any meaning in terms of reality. Anything goes. And I don’t think you want to go down that route with god.
Geno said:
“Therefore, you really can’t even allow for the possibility of a god and no atheist says that.”
Now, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here.
What I have said is that whether or not god exists, proof is required for belief. You can’t just say “god exists, even though there is no proof”. He MIGHT exist, but your belief still isn’t rational, because it isn’t based on anything. To explain further: Aliens MIGHT exist. But there is no proof of them. Whether or not aliens actually exist does not make a belief valid. What makes a belief valid is the evidence for it.
Everyone can allow for the possibility of god. But then everyone can allow for the possibility of anything! “god” is just one of countless things that could or couldn’t exist (depending on what “god” means). Instead of god, I could believe in Zorg. Now, Zorg MIGHT ACTUALLY exist, whatever that means. But do I have evidence of Zorg? No.
It’s the same with God. We need objective definitive testable proof; the kind that would hold up in a court of law, or better yet, a science experiment (the most rigorous and best way of testing we have). Or a logical argument that proves his existence. Nothing of the sort exists at the moment though.
22 June, 2007 at 1:00 am
You said - “You’d be dead! So “you” wouldn’t be in either place!”
Now you sound like a theist! Are you saying that when I die that there is some immaterial part of me that is gone, has left me? As a physical being aren’t I just the same (material wise) as when I was living? Isn’t “me” still there? Where did I go? Was it heaven or hell?
You said - “There might be a teapot orbiting the moon. It’s existence is either a fact or not, there is no inbetween. If there is no evidence for its existence it is not logical to believe that there is a teapot.” You said it, the teapots existence is fact whether we believe it or not. And so is the existence of God. The America’s were in fact real long before the Europeans made the discovery - it didn’t change a single aspect about America’s existence just because some fat Italians showed up!
So you would agree with me that Carl Sagan was full of irrational thoughts up until his death as he tried to communicate with beings from other far distant places? He had no evidence at all to even think that there are other beings in the universe (in fact he had to make up the concept), but he lived his life everyday as if there were - that must sound pretty wacky to you.
Go to bed, you won’t be able to get up for work tomorrow.
22 June, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Geno, you’re being disingenuous and deflecting from the argument at hand. The New York/California analogy was poor.
“X cannot be X and also Y at the same time. Geno cannot be in New York and also California at the same time.”
Geographical location is not the same as being. A better example would have been “You cannot be you and me at the same time”
While the existence of a thing is entirely unaffected by whether you believe it or not, it is also true that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. If someone told you that your house was on fire, would you believe them without proof? If someone told you that they believe that the earth is flat because it appears to be so, would you believe them unquestioningly, or correct them? If I told you I was the President of the United States, would you require proof?
Please tell me why the god hypothesis does not require evidence.
22 June, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Darren,
2 points.
1.) The logic actually goes this way “X cannot be non X at the same time AND in the same manner. So as you see, I did answer evanescent properly. (but you didn’t read deep enough - I told him I was having fun at his expense.) But you didn’t address that he brought up the immaterial part of me.
2.) to the issue of the President. I am 58 yrs old, I have never met the president nor seen him in person and I don’t personally know a single person who has. Therefore, I use as evidence for his existence things that he has affected and left his mark (whether it be damage in Iraq or spending too much public money papers he has signed etc.)
I make the claim that those evidences are also available to show the existence of God. (you can deny them, but I could also deny the existence of Napoleon.)
See what you miss is that we do look at evidences (and they have all been laid out before, but your side just says “no evidence” and moves on.) I have read enough of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Brian Sapien etc. to know that they all use the same “talking points” and will not move off script. So, we continue to talk past each other.
22 June, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Geno, you have not met the President, but it is quite simple to do so, and nobody doubts his existence because the evidence is plain and the claim that the President exists is not extraordinary.
You claim there is evidence for the existence of a god, and I suspect that you only make that claim because you wish it to be so, but I contend that the evidence is nothing more than hearsay, superstition and fabrication. I invite you to prove otherwise.
You are correct on one thing: Napoleon does not exist.