passionately atheist

[Asmodean]

In your own words - why bother discussing it?

"It" in this case being..? Christianity? No real point in discussing it beyond the entertainment value of such discussion.

[Voter]

OK, I see from your last post that you're not taking this letter thing seriously. Since that's off the table, my reaction to the OP would be:

Child has strict father. Child reaches young adulthood, adopts opposite worldview of father, feels an exciting rush of freedom, wants to tell others about his discoveries. Happened a million times, nothing new to discuss.

[dodgecity]

Ok, it's not like I wasn't expecting this reaction. But does that mean I should be less personal when conversing with a believer? I mean, I want to show my brother how alike we really are. I don't think he will respond like Voter, but maybe part of him will. It's not that I'm afraid of the prospect of him disagreeing with me. It's just...I don't want him to shut me out like Voter has.

I mean, as powerful and sly as religion is, I guess there's part of me, deep down, that believes smart people, viewing the evidence, can change their minds. I did, and I'm nothing special. It's just overwhelming, how can you not? If I could have a nickel for every time I asked someone that question.  

Child has strict father. Child reaches young adulthood, adopts opposite worldview of father, feels an exciting rush of freedom, wants to tell others about his discoveries. Happened a million times, nothing new to discuss.

Child has father. Child can't think for himself and conclude from the overwhelming evidence that the bible can't be accurate, so he keeps believing, and fights to the teeth while never even considering that it may not be the inerrant word of god. Happened a million times.The point is, I can't let my brother be one million and one.

[myleviathan]

Ok, it's not like I wasn't expecting this reaction. But does that mean I should be less personal when conversing with a believer? I mean, I want to show my brother how alike we really are. I don't think he will respond like Voter, but maybe part of him will. It's not that I'm afraid of the prospect of him disagreeing with me. It's just...I don't want him to shut me out like Voter has.

I think that sharing some personal information is very helpful to the conversation when talking to a believer. But don't get offended when they reject your arguments even though you've put your whole heart into a discussion. Voter is great practice (thanks, Voter). This is a very typical discussion with a Christian.

However he's more of a tool than others I've talked to. It would be a nice discussion without the personal attacks he's throwing at you.

[Voter]

Ok, it's not like I wasn't expecting this reaction. But does that mean I should be less personal when conversing with a believer? I mean, I want to show my brother how alike we really are. I don't think he will respond like Voter, but maybe part of him will. It's not that I'm afraid of the prospect of him disagreeing with me. It's just...I don't want him to shut me out like Voter has.

I mean, as powerful and sly as religion is, I guess there's part of me, deep down, that believes smart people, viewing the evidence, can change their minds. I did, and I'm nothing special. It's just overwhelming, how can you not? If I could have a nickel for every time I asked someone that question.

What evidence did you view? You admittedly believed without reason. Upon questioning, did you:

- read a study Bible all the way through and follow the cross-references?
- read a systematic theology, for instance Hodge's?
- read apologetics from the church fathers?
- read modern apologetics, for instance Lewis?
- read the Catholic encyclopedia?

For centuries, really smart people have been making really smart arguments both for and against Christianity. Did you try to find and understand support for the Christian faith? I don't say this to be insulting or combative, but it really seems as though you traded one set of emotional beliefs for another.

Child has strict father. Child reaches young adulthood, adopts opposite worldview of father, feels an exciting rush of freedom, wants to tell others about his discoveries. Happened a million times, nothing new to discuss.

Child has father. Child can't think for himself and conclude from the overwhelming evidence that the bible can't be accurate, so he keeps believing, and fights to the teeth while never even considering that it may not be the inerrant word of god. Happened a million times.The point is, I can't let my brother be one million and one.[/quote]
Why not?

Surveys show that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious. Based on the Iraq thing I take it that this may also be a conservative/liberal issue. Conservatives report greater happiness and mental health than liberals, and give more time, money and literally blood to others. What are you trying to save him from? Or is this really an attempt to validate your own change of heart?

[rlrose328]

Surveys show that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious. Based on the Iraq thing I take it that this may also be a conservative/liberal issue. Conservatives report greater happiness and mental health than liberals, and give more time, money and literally blood to others. What are you trying to save him from? Or is this really an attempt to validate your own change of heart?

I'm curious as to what surveys you're talking about for that giving more time, money and blood thing.

I agree that religious people tend to be happier and have less mental health issues than the nonreligious.  The religious have God to whom they can turn with all of their troubles, telling him and having him shoulder the burden for you.  I don't have that luxury.  I have to shoulder my burdens on my own, with the help of my spouse and a few of my friends.  If I feel like I'm going crazy, I can't just ask some invisible friend to give me strength... I have to make a call and find someone I have to pay to listen to me and give me advice.

I'm okay with these choices.  For me, they are the only choices I have because the thought of sitting here, talking to myself when I have a problem (my interpretation of praying) seems ludicrous to me.  I act, I don't talk silently to myself.  And because I have to act on all of my problems, I tend to be a little high-strung at times.

I know many religious folks who talk about how much they give... but I see very little giving going on.  

So please, cite some actual studies that have been done... provide links, etc., on donations and charity and giving blood.  I can see how you'd find more stats of religious people doing the charity thing because there are so many more churches for religious folk than non-religious folk... they've cornered the market on charity.  But there are plenty of secular charities in the world who are on top of things as well.

ADDED:
Okay, I found a book by Arthur C. Brooks from 2006 which states that conservatives give more than liberals in terms of donations and blood.  

Here is some food for thought on that book.

1. These findings are interesting partly because they don't fit into any simple story: conservatives are more generous, and upper-income people are more conservative [typo fixed; thanks, Dan], but upper-income people give less than lower-income people. Such a pattern is certainly possible--in statistical terms, corr(X,Y)>0, corr(Y,Z)>0, but corr(X,Z)<0)--but it's interesting.

2. Since conservatives are (on average) richer than liberals, I'd like to see the comparison of conservative and liberal donations made as a proportion of income rather than in total dollars.

3. I wonder how the blood donation thing was calculated. Liberals are only 25% of the population, so it's hard to imagine that increasing their blood donations could increase the total blood supply by 45%.

4. The religious angle is interesting too. I'd like to look at how that interacts with religion and ideology.

5. It would also be interesting to see giving as a function of total assets. Income can fluctuate, and you might expect (or hope) that people with more assets would give more.

[Voter]

I picked those up in a recent article on morality in conservatives and liberals. Actually it's in the responses to that article. Scroll down to the section by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine.

Further, according to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent." One reason may be that conservatives are so much more generous than liberals, giving 30 percent more money (even when controlled for income), donating more blood, and logging more volunteer hours. And it isn't because conservatives have more expendable income. The working poor give a substantially higher percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, and three times more than those on public assistance of comparable incomeâ€"poverty is not a barrier to charity, but welfare is. One explanation for these findings is that conservatives believe charity should be private (through religion) whereas liberals believe charity should be public (through government).

[Voter]

Here's another

One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.

One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.

[myleviathan]

Again, severe criticism is a dictionary definition of chastisement.

Let's focus on the intention of the author, not a line in a dictionary.

OK, I'm throwing it seriously in his face. Maintaining faith for life is a primary goal of Christianity. He did not maintain that faith. Therefore he failed as a Christian. He should probably mature as an atheist before attempting to write general letters supporting it.

Listen to yourself, Voter. You admit to throwing failure into the face of another human being. If you don't see the error in that, then there is seriously something wrong with you. Sounds to me like you have a self-esteem issue.

I Can't argue with your omniscience.

I admire your avoidance techniques.

I think most atheists also accept themes like sacrifice, love and hope, and a secular leader worth his salt knows how to use these themes for emotional effect. Such themes are an important component of humanity across the board.

We're all human, of course - thanks for pointing that out. But you can't have faith without emotion. If you had evidence that God existed, you could make an empirical, emotionless decision that God exists. You woudn't need faith. So let's get one thing straight. No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. You can attempt to apply logic to faith once the decision for faith has been made, as in the case of apologetics, but (I'll repeat) No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. A decision for faith is ALWAYS an emotional decision because faith requires emotion.

When did you decide you would follow Christ, Voter? Tell us about it.

OK, we agree that the Bible is evidence.

Sure, for some the Bible is sufficient evidence for faith. Others are more discriminating, though. The quality of evidence should be taken into account before deciding whether or not you can believe that God ghost impregnated a woman. The Council of Nicea back in the 4th century wasn't sure which books to canonize, only that Constantine wouldn't let anybody leave until they had decided. The clergy was under threat of a Roman Emperor. If the Council of Nicea was necessary for 4th century clergy to vote on which books might be authentic (since redaction was so common), the likelihood of those books being trustworthy as evidence of miraculous claims is no stronger than the likelihood of other books having similar miracle claims. Most people never take all of that into account while making a 'decision for Christ'. They don't have the capability or the desire to do so. They just want to be accepted and loved.

Extraordinary claims (God spoke to me) require extraordinary evidence (miracles).

A rational person doesn't consider miracles as valid evidence when they're written in a 2,000 year old book. Especially when, almost too conveniently, none happen today (which contradicts Jesus' claim that greater miracles would be produced by His followers). Again, rational people are a little more discriminating in what may be accepted as evidence.

Yes, I'm making that comparison, and the number of deaths in the military campaign is insignificant compared to the number caused by our healthcare system. Far more good would be done if the evening news focused on deaths by medicine than deaths in Iraq. War deaths apparently have a greater emotional impact on you than iatrogenic deaths.

No death is insignificant, Voter. Why do theists view life so cheaply?

And by the way, iatrogenic deaths have a great emotional impact on me. My grandfather died because of a hospital mistake. But it was an accident. Nobody intended to kill my grandfather. That's the risk of surgery. But intentional killing is different. Why don't you understand that? How can you justify the number war deaths with the number of hospital deaths?

[rlrose328]

I've been thinking a great deal about this charity issue.  I know that I donate blood, as to several of my non-theist friends.  We have also donated many many hours of time to charities, mostly with the aged and young who are chronically ill.  So it's hard to not take that type of thing personally.

When I think back several years, I can think of a few reasons I didn't get involved sooner.  I wanted to donate money and time, but no matter where I looked, all I found was religious organizations.  While I did donate to them via the United Way through my job, I wanted to find a secular organization that I felt would disseminate the money, goods, and services more fairly and NOT require the recipients to participate in some sort of faith-based program.

Now, several years later, there are secular organizations in which I can become involved.  I don't trust faith-based charities because so many have been shown to require the recipients to attend services or change their life in some way in order to receive the funds or goods.  I disagree with that.

This leads me to wonder how many non-believers are out there that are in the same boat... wanting to participate but having a hard time finding a secular cause with which to become involved because any that are secular or atheistic are less vocal about their fundraising.

The group of atheists with whom I socialize are all very socially active... so I wonder where they are getting their statistics.

[Tom62]

I don't really get the health argument and what that has to to with the war in Iraq? Doctors are there to save people's lives isn't it? Without health care thousands of additional people would die. Are you willing to  remove health care from public life? and by doing that go back to Middle Ages' standards, where ever illness is a punishment from God and treated as such (by driving out the evil spirit or other superstitious nonsenses). Would you ask a priest to sacrifice some animals for you to cure you the "Bible way" in case you get sick, or would you go to your doctor for help?.

[Asmodean]

Would you ask a priest to sacrifice some animals for you to cure you the "Bible way" in case you get sick, or would you go to your doctor for help?.

...And if you had a bad case of bacterial meningitis, would The Healerâ,,¢ have even a remote chance of success or would you just not wake up one morning? ... My bet is on the coffin.

[Voter]

Let's focus on the intention of the author, not a line in a dictionary.

What has the author said that indicates the father has gone beyond the verbal in his chastisement?

Listen to yourself, Voter. You admit to throwing failure into the face of another human being. If you don't see the error in that, then there is seriously something wrong with you.

Instead of "throwing failure into the face," which IIRC was your spin on it to make VOter look like a big ol' meany, call it introducing cognitive dissonance in order to get him to examine himself. Call it an intervention. People are forced to face their failures all the time, and mature people come out better for it.

When evaluating people as political candidates, job or loan applicants, business partners, etc, rational people consider their past failures. Dodge has recently failed at one philosophy and is admittedly in a passionate phase about the next. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that, "Hey, you were just as passionate about Christianity, and now think it's false. Maybe you should let the passions cool and do more research before preaching atheism to your brother and others."

Sounds to me like you have a self-esteem issue.

OK Dr. Phil.

We're all human, of course - thanks for pointing that out. But you can't have faith without emotion. If you had evidence that God existed, you could make an empirical, emotionless decision that God exists. You woudn't need faith. So let's get one thing straight. No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. You can attempt to apply logic to faith once the decision for faith has been made, as in the case of apologetics, but (I'll repeat) No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. A decision for faith is ALWAYS an emotional decision because faith requires emotion.

When did you decide you would follow Christ, Voter? Tell us about it.

No one is a strong atheist based on hard, sober, empirical evidence. The author is admittedly passionately atheist, and it's not reading too much in to suggest that the emotions of the family dynamics may have played a role in the rejection of the father's belief system.

Sure, for some the Bible is sufficient evidence for faith. Others are more discriminating, though. The quality of evidence should be taken into account before deciding whether or not you can believe that God ghost impregnated a woman.

Lots of people find the quality of evidence sufficient.

The Council of Nicea back in the 4th century wasn't sure which books to canonize, only that Constantine wouldn't let anybody leave until they had decided. The clergy was under threat of a Roman Emperor. If the Council of Nicea was necessary for 4th century clergy to vote on which books might be authentic (since redaction was so common), the likelihood of those books being trustworthy as evidence of miraculous claims is no stronger than the likelihood of other books having similar miracle claims.

Are you claiming that they just agreed to vote for a random collection in order to be released from the council without debate on the merits? Can you support that claim?

A rational person doesn't consider miracles as valid evidence when they're written in a 2,000 year old book. Especially when, almost too conveniently, none happen today (which contradicts Jesus' claim that greater miracles would be produced by His followers). Again, rational people are a little more discriminating in what may be accepted as evidence.

I know rational people who consider the Biblical evidence of miracles to be valid.

No death is insignificant, Voter. Why do theists view life so cheaply?

And by the way, iatrogenic deaths have a great emotional impact on me. My grandfather died because of a hospital mistake. But it was an accident. Nobody intended to kill my grandfather. That's the risk of surgery. But intentional killing is different. Why don't you understand that? How can you justify the number war deaths with the number of hospital deaths?

I'm not justifying war deaths, I'm pointing out that far many more American deaths could be prevented if the public debate shifted from the Iraq war to our health care system. Is the point to save lives or to make certain politicians look bad?

[Voter]

I don't really get the health argument and what that has to to with the war in Iraq? Doctors are there to save people's lives isn't it? Without health care thousands of additional people would die. Are you willing to  remove health care from public life? and by doing that go back to Middle Ages' standards, where ever illness is a punishment from God and treated as such (by driving out the evil spirit or other superstitious nonsenses). Would you ask a priest to sacrifice some animals for you to cure you the "Bible way" in case you get sick, or would you go to your doctor for help?.

I would keep the parts that work and abandon the rest. Modern healthcare is good with trauma, diagnosis, and some acute bacterial infections. Other than that, drugs and surgery are big business that make some people rich at the expense of others.

[Voter]

I've been thinking a great deal about this charity issue.  I know that I donate blood, as to several of my non-theist friends.  We have also donated many many hours of time to charities, mostly with the aged and young who are chronically ill.  So it's hard to not take that type of thing personally.

When I think back several years, I can think of a few reasons I didn't get involved sooner.  I wanted to donate money and time, but no matter where I looked, all I found was religious organizations.  While I did donate to them via the United Way through my job, I wanted to find a secular organization that I felt would disseminate the money, goods, and services more fairly and NOT require the recipients to participate in some sort of faith-based program.

Now, several years later, there are secular organizations in which I can become involved.  I don't trust faith-based charities because so many have been shown to require the recipients to attend services or change their life in some way in order to receive the funds or goods.  I disagree with that.

This leads me to wonder how many non-believers are out there that are in the same boat... wanting to participate but having a hard time finding a secular cause with which to become involved because any that are secular or atheistic are less vocal about their fundraising.

The group of atheists with whom I socialize are all very socially active... so I wonder where they are getting their statistics.

Shermer is a columnist for Scientific American, so he presumably knows how to accurately summarize and report the results of a study. He's the publisher of Skeptic magazine, so he has no motivation to skew his report in favor of religion.

Religion also improves health and life expectancy.

A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion.

The research looked at 4,000 old people from North Carolina, and found that of the 1,177 who died during a six-year period, 22.9% were frequent church attenders, compared with 37.4 who were infrequent attenders.

Another link

Researchers have found that weekly attendance at religious services is associated with 2 to 3 additional years of life. The researchers analyzed existing data and found that people who attended religious services on a weekly basis lived, on average, 2 to 3 years longer than other people. These findings were controlled for other factors such as amount of physical exercise and taking cholesterol medications.

Getting back to dodge: according to the statistics, religious people are happier, healthier, more charitable, and live longer.  If you care about your brother, shouldn't you encourage, or at least not discourage, his faith?