Evangelising young children

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You have an experience, no one doubts that. But what is the cause of it? That is logic.

You mentioned lying atheists that really believed. If you really believe you are not an atheist.

Point 1. I thought I mentioned a logical possibility which is completely open to investigation......mental incompetence.

I think the lying atheist problem comes from my exchange with Be Rational. He gives the grass analogy....he talks about not having a belief or commitment either way.... Is he lying therefore about being an atheist by commitment or what?

[ippy]

But would you say that like the grass in BR's garden it is as likely there is a God as God free?

Is suggesting a universe which is God free a negative?

If I am the controller of the Piccadilly Line I could confirm that the line was cow free for instance.

Gets a bit countryside between Arnos Grove and Cockfosters, you may have something Vlad.

ippy

[ippy]

I've read bits. fairly large Bits.
In my twenties they all these and the Bible seemed fairly dry dusty and meaningless. They didn't get me going at all.

That changed and the Bible began to mean something to me the others don't so much although one can appreciate the sweep of their canvasses.

Where did it all start going wrong and you've ended up where you are now Vlad?

ippy

[Brownie]

Wot, on R&E? 
Blame the internet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where did it all start going wrong and you've ended up where you are now Vlad?

ippy

It all happened to me Ippy.

You of course are all self made which only goes to show that shoddy workmanship still exists Ha Ha.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Point 1. I thought I mentioned a logical possibility which is completely open to investigation......mental incompetence.

Did you? How can we investigate your claim to an experience of an objectively true god?

I think the lying atheist problem comes from my exchange with Be Rational. He gives the grass analogy....he talks about not having a belief or commitment either way.... Is he lying therefore about being an atheist by commitment or what?

No, because not having a belief , either way, (in god(s)s) is what define an atheist. You insinuated that there were people who pretend to be atheists but actually believe that god(s) exist. Hence my question, who are they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you? How can we investigate your claim to an experience of an objectively true god?

No, because not having a belief , either way, (in god(s)s) is what define an atheist. You insinuated that there were people who pretend to be atheists but actually believe that god(s) exist. Hence my question, who are they?

No I maintained that there were people who were committed to the idea of God Free (AKA atheists) while pleading agnosticism.

But I am sure that there are people who believe but pretend to atheism.

[torridon]

But I am sure that there are people who believe but pretend to atheism.

Maybe, but I would put money on the numbers of such people being miniscule compared to their opposite counterparts, those who don't really believe, but pretend to.  Let's see, we have Pascal's Wager, social conformity, peer pressure, marriage, fear of mortality, trying to get your kids into a high performing faith school, tradition, general neediness, could go on  .....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe, but I would put money on the numbers of such people being miniscule compared to their opposite counterparts, those who don't really believe, but pretend to.  Let's see, we have Pascal's Wager, social conformity, peer pressure, marriage, fear of mortality, trying to get your kids into a high performing faith school, tradition, general neediness, could go on  .....

Since you are trying to ''win the trophy'' lets analyse this.

1: Pascals wager. There is an atheists understanding of this and a Christian understanding. The two are different
2: Social conformity. No argument there but remember this is a secular society.
3: Peer pressure. Ditto.
4: Marriage. Difficult to see how that ties in with an existential conversion.
5: Trying to get kids into a high performing school. Concede but this is offset by pretending to be a Christian in the workplace or down the pub etc.
6: Fear of mortality. Difficult to see how pretending to have faith sorts this one out. Also doesn't commitment to not believing in the self sort this one out?
7: Tradition see 2 and 3.
8: General neediness. How needy?........ Non believer on the religionethics forum needy?
Could go on: We know.

[Maeght]

.... committed to the idea of God Free

What does that actually mean?

[Brownie]

http://swordartonline.wikia.com/wiki/Godfree

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does that actually mean?

It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.

[Maeght]

It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.

If some one has no belief in the existence of God then of course they think the world works without God. But I think you mean more than that don't you?

[BeRational]

It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.

Atheists do not believe a God exists.

That does NOT mean they believe there are no gods.

Can you understand that simple point after all these years?

[torridon]

Since you are trying to ''win the trophy'' lets analyse this.

1: Pascals wager. There is an atheists understanding of this and a Christian understanding. The two are different
2: Social conformity. No argument there but remember this is a secular society.
3: Peer pressure. Ditto.
4: Marriage. Difficult to see how that ties in with an existential conversion.
5: Trying to get kids into a high performing school. Concede but this is offset by pretending to be a Christian in the workplace or down the pub etc.
6: Fear of mortality. Difficult to see how pretending to have faith sorts this one out. Also doesn't commitment to not believing in the self sort this one out?
7: Tradition see 2 and 3.
8: General neediness. How needy?........ Non believer on the religionethics forum needy?
Could go on: We know.

I suppose it works both ways.  Conformity is a powerful human universal; we have a tendency to want to fit in with the overarching cultural context we find ourselves in.  Take a survey of all those venerable stone churches in every English village; statistics reveal that the pews are pretty empty now by and large, and all those empty pews are ones that in a bygone age would have been filled by casuals, those there for social and cultural reasons rather than authentic conviction; in my grandfather's day it was expected to put on your best and go to church on a Sunday morning, it was what all decent people did. Now the cultural norms have changed and the expectation to conform to a common stereotype is less. I can see this working the opposite way also, if I were a christian in Stalinist Russia, I would probably keep quiet about it; likewise if I were a muslim apostate in Saudi, I would probably keep quiet about it.

[torridon]

It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.

I don't see that 'positive commitment' is particularly appropriate.  That would be a bit like trying to argue there are people who are really motivated to not play chess.  Doesn't really make a lot of useful sense.

[floo]

It didn't start as a book, but as word of mouth. It's someone's testimony. I feel like I should let others explain this to you because I am rubbish at it. gods with a small g are really just objects and it is common sense that they have no personality or power except what we give them. It is also common sense that a being which created the physical universe would have a personality, since it created beings with personalities. The Bible is a bit like when you are given an equation with an unknown, 'x', then you are told the value of x and asked to prove that it's the correct value. Suppose x is the manifestation of the creator of the universe. Now prove that Jesus is x by reading the Old and New Testaments.

And eye witness accounts are always accurate are they? Besides which, when something is written down probably many years later, exaggeration and lies are bound to creep in.

[Maeght]

The other thing is that the Gospels are surely a record of what people believed rather than a pure historical record. The writers were not impartial.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see that 'positive commitment' is particularly appropriate.  That would be a bit like trying to argue there are people who are really motivated to not play chess.  Doesn't really make a lot of useful sense.

With all due respect that statement seems to me to be 'category sloppy'.....as if theism or naturalism are somehow games to be played.

Also there is a bit of the ''Carry on'' as if there is no God about what you are suggesting.
That is a choice. To be Camusian about it, isn't life about carrying on or ending it all. How one carries on is greatly significant and more so than the odd game of chess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The other thing is that the Gospels are surely a record of what people believed rather than a pure historical record. The writers were not impartial.

And yet there were no such considerations  or qualms when the Billions lined up outside Waterstones to Nuzzle at the teat of Dawkin's The God Delusion.

[ippy]

And yet there were no such considerations  or qualms when the Billions lined up outside Waterstones to Nuzzle at the teat of Dawkin's The God Delusion.

Even Dicky doesn't say there are no gods, he just points out it's very unlikely and that there is no evidence that would support the god, gods ideas.

ippy

[Maeght]

And yet there were no such considerations  or qualms when the Billions lined up outside Waterstones to Nuzzle at the teat of Dawkin's The God Delusion.

Must have missed that, sounds awful,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose it works both ways.  Conformity is a powerful human universal; we have a tendency to want to fit in with the overarching cultural context we find ourselves in.  Take a survey of all those venerable stone churches in every English village; statistics reveal that the pews are pretty empty now by and large, and all those empty pews are ones that in a bygone age would have been filled by casuals, those there for social and cultural reasons rather than authentic conviction; in my grandfather's day it was expected to put on your best and go to church on a Sunday morning, it was what all decent people did. Now the cultural norms have changed and the expectation to conform to a common stereotype is less. I can see this working the opposite way also, if I were a christian in Stalinist Russia, I would probably keep quiet about it; likewise if I were a muslim apostate in Saudi, I would probably keep quiet about it.

Not much to disagree with here although Methodist, Baptist chapels, Quaker meeting houses stand testimony to enthusiasm.

Also I wonder about the lifespan of the more secular organisations whose existence has left infrastructure now abandoned, the Oddfellows, temperance societies, the cooperative movements.

Yes church attendance has fallen but look at the declining number of pubs.

[floo]

The other thing is that the Gospels are surely a record of what people believed rather than a pure historical record. The writers were not impartial.

Very true.

[BeRational]

Vlad,

Do you believe my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass?

If not, does this mean you believe it has an even number of blades of grass?