Is it fair to debate Christians in the Lion's Den?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Why Professor, how cleverly recursive of you.

 

As I've said before, I prefer not to repeat myself. 

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I've said before, I prefer not to repeat myself. 

 

That's deja vu for you, all over again.

[alreadyGone]

Almost like a continuum, no? Almost as if there is no end, no boundary.

[pantheory]

On 11/9/2021 at 10:25 AM, midniterider said:

I think there has been some internal debate as to whether some of the Christian participants may be mentally healthy enough to present a cogent argument in the Den. Are we just picking on the mentally ill? Are we pathetic morons getting our jollies from the less fortunate?

 

I think the first thing to consider is whether some of the more notable people we've had here are mentally ill? People who believe the batshit crazy stuff in the bible cant immediately be assumed to be mentally ill or all of us ex-Christians would have to consider ourselves to have been mentally ill at once time. Christians do live normal lives and can function well in society, despite their eccentric beliefs. It may be difficult to diagnose someone from the fire and brimstone rants on this site. 

 

One time I attended a pentecostal church that had an ex-marine drill sergeant for a pastor. The man came unhinged during his sermons...but I'm sure lived a happy healthy life otherwise. lol

 

Another consideration might be , whether or not someone is an  unarmed participant, I think we do help to arm them with better ideas by bantering back and forth. Some of these debates devolve and threads get locked. But not everyone learns by peaceful discourse. Sometimes 'Christian Assumed Authority' needs to be challenged with the big middle finger. Things get heated, but the mod team handles it. 

 

Is it helpful? It might be. When the emotions calm down, the common sense responses from ex-Christians are still in the Christian's head. 

 

One final point to think about is that the Christian might feel we are the ones who are mentally ill or unarmed participants.  

 

"I think there has been some internal debate as to whether some of the Christian participants may be mentally healthy enough to present a cogent argument in the Den. Are we just picking on the mentally ill? Are we pathetic morons getting our jollies from the less fortunate?"

 

Yeah, we've had a few Christian debaters here that have been nutters, but I think most are at least somewhat competent for debate -- although none that I recall have involved objective debates. There also have been many that know very little concerning what they're talking about, especially when it comes to science. 

 

This bothers me since I believe that countless professed Christians who are now leaning toward non-belief will fall back to religion when s well-known theory of science is shown to be wrong. This happens roughly four times per century. IMO there  are a great number of big things wrong with mainstream theory today.  A big problem IMO is that many scientists profess the certainty of many science theories, where in fact parts or the whole of the theory are wrong. Many Christians and some scientists don't realize that science is self correcting over time and that much of present theory will change.

 

Here are some examples from my own scientific papers:

 

https://www.pantheory.org/Technical-Papers.pdf

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

IM opinion the next big theory that will fall is the Big Bang Theory, not too long from now. The James Webb space telescope will be going up in December. If it is properly placed and becomes operational, then just a few years afterwards I expect many scientists will begin to realize that the Big Bang model may be entirely wrong.

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology      See, "How (cosmology) theories might be disproved."

"

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

It's primarily an emotional problem, Pantheory.

 

Christians and other theists want their truth, their facts and their evidence for god to be absolute and unchanging, just like the their god and his Word.  When they realize that science isn't absolute but is self-correcting, they instinctively recoil from it and reject it on a purely emotional level. 

 

If you want to see evidence for this, just look at where I showed Austin that the bible isn't inerrant.  He wouldn't accept it and even risked god calling him a liar by adding something to scripture that isn't even hinted at, so as to reconcile the two offending, contradicting passages. 

 

It's sad, but however much science changes, because it changes, it will always be emotionally unacceptable to most fundamentalist Christians.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 11/13/2021 at 2:22 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

If you want to see evidence for this, just look at where I showed Austin that the bible isn't inerrant.  He wouldn't accept it and even risked god calling him a liar by adding something to scripture that isn't even hinted at, so as to reconcile the two offending, contradicting passages. 

 

DENIAL.   A paraphrased psychiatric definition is, "an unconscious process involving denying reality to avoid overwhelming anxiety."  In a sense it is emotional, but it is so scary that the person blocks the fear that is attached to the issue.  They literally can't "see" the issue.  It is often associated with a deep fear of abandonment. 

[walterpthefirst]

38 minutes ago, Weezer said:

DENIAL.   A paraphrased psychiatric definition is, "an unconscious process involving denying reality to avoid overwhelming anxiety."  In a sense it is emotional, but it is so scary that the person blocks the fear that is attached to the issue.  They literally can't "see" the issue.  It is often associated with a deep fear of abandonment. 

 

I couldn't agree more, Weezer.  

 

Pantheory highlighted a big problem that theists have with science - that it changes.  This other factor, which you and I agree upon, highlights another aspect of science that theists just don't like - its agnostic about the supernatural.  

 

As you say, it's an emotional thing, one that strikes right to the core of what it means to be human.  We all crave belonging and millions of years of primate evolution have hard-wired this need into us.  Family, community, tribe, society, culture, nation, etc.  All of these things mean a great deal to us and make our lives emotionally meaningful.  

 

But, therein lies the problem when it comes to theists and science.

 

Physics says that there is no deep meaning to the universe.  Chemistry says the same.  Biology and anthropology say that we evolved and weren't created on the sixth day.  And so it goes with every branch of science because all of science is carefully and strictly agnostic about assigning any emotionally-satisfying meaning to its results.  Nowhere in science can theists find the comfort and security and deep meaning that scripture and faith can give them.  Which is why they have such a difficult and tortured relationship with science.

 

They usually flip flop between two irrational modes of thinking about it.  Either NONE of science can be trusted or ALL of science declares the hand of god, writ large across the cosmos and encoded within our very DNA.  Did you notice how Austin veered between these two modes?  At first he asserted that science confirmed god and then, when challenged, declared that science wasn't as trustworthy as scripture.  Then, when things got even more challenging he went down the road you've spotlighted - out and out DENIAL.

 

I believe that these behaviours are linked to our flight or fight reflexes, which originate deep within the emotional centres of our brains.  Here in Ex-C we often observe how stupid certain theists are, but I'd hazard that they have the capacity to be just as rational as reasonable as any of us.  In my humble opinion they are rendered 'stupid' and behave stupidly because they are reacting emotionally to a perceived threat to the things that they dearly love. 

 

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

38 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

...

They usually flip flop between two irrational modes of thinking about it.  Either NONE of science can be trusted or ALL of science declares the hand of god, writ large across the cosmos and encoded within our very DNA.  ...

 

Brilliant observation.

As you have now pointed it out, I realize that I have seen this, more than once.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I couldn't agree more, Weezer.  

 

Pantheory highlighted a big problem that theists have with science - that it changes.  This other factor, which you and I agree upon, highlights another aspect of science that theists just don't like - its agnostic about the supernatural.  

 

As you say, it's an emotional thing, one that strikes right to the core of what it means to be human.  We all crave belonging and millions of years of primate evolution have hard-wired this need into us.  Family, community, tribe, society, culture, nation, etc.  All of these things mean a great deal to us and make our lives emotionally meaningful.  

 

But, therein lies the problem when it comes to theists and science.

 

Physics says that there is no deep meaning to the universe.  Chemistry says the same.  Biology and anthropology say that we evolved and weren't created on the sixth day.  And so it goes with every branch of science because all of science is carefully and strictly agnostic about assigning any emotionally-satisfying meaning to its results.  Nowhere in science can theists find the comfort and security and deep meaning that scripture and faith can give them.  Which is why they have such a difficult and tortured relationship with science.

 

They usually flip flop between two irrational modes of thinking about it.  Either NONE of science can be trusted or ALL of science declares the hand of god, writ large across the cosmos and encoded within our very DNA.  Did you notice how Austin veered between these two modes?  At first he asserted that science confirmed god and then, when challenged, declared that science wasn't as trustworthy as scripture.  Then, when things got even more challenging he went down the road you've spotlighted - out and out DENIAL.

 

I believe that these behaviours are linked to our flight or fight reflexes, which originate deep within the emotional centres of our brains.  Here in Ex-C we often observe how stupid certain theists are, but I'd hazard that they have the capacity to be just as rational as reasonable as any of us.  In my humble opinion they are rendered 'stupid' and behave stupidly because they are reacting emotionally to a perceived threat to the things that they dearly love. 

 

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 I agree with much of what you have said above. There is much comfort in believing that God can help us here on Earth via prayer, And if you are good you will have a wonderful afterlife in heaven.

 

What are the comforts of being an atheist like myself in comparison? most would say little or none.  You must make due with your genetic makeup and do the very best you can to achieve your goals with little or no help. You must try to be happy here on Earth since you know this is your one and only chance since there is no afterlife. But you can take pleasure in realizing that you understand how reality really works without having to believe or invent fantasies. But you have trouble  trying to "throw pearls before swine" (not advisable, biblical)  when they cannot even start to understand what you're talking about since their understandings are so very different from reality.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This conversation scares me.  I'm leaving now. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter.

 

 

Our minds are running along similar paths on this.  At 80 years of age it is getting harder for me to organize my thoughts at times, but will try to add some more to this line of thought.  Austin somewhat reminds me of a friend who had brain damage, and also my father who was  abused physically and emotionally as a child.  He was literally scared into obedience as a child, and saw God the same way he saw his father.   His security, his survival, was rooted in unconditionally obedience.  His parents were "nomads", moving every 2 or 3 years, keeping no ties with extended family.  The kids (7 of them) were totally dependent on their parents.  The bible was the only information needed for life.

 

It takes a healthy ego (sense of self) to question authority.  And that is rooted in early childhood conditioning.  I am so thankful my mother didnt allow my father to contine the nomad life style.  We lived near our maternal grandparents, and my grandfather and mother, although Christians, were rebels at times and would openly argue with preachers and elders at times over doctrine, and did not motivate us kids with fear alone.  They were very supportive and encouraging, including getting a higher education.   Without their examples of questioning authority, and seeking more information through education, I don't know if I would have ever started down the road of questioning the bible and God.

 

My sister and I grew up in the same household and both of us turned out to be agnostic.  Our older half brother was raised by his mother who was also emotionally abusive and raised her kids with fear.  He had to "toe the line" without question, and turned out to be like my dad, and a die hard fundamentalists.  The last religious discussion I tried to have with him several years ago,  he literally tuned me out and changed the subject.

 

Small children's greatest fear is of being abandoned. And if the only way, in their mind, they can avoid abandonment is by being obedient followers, that is what they become. They can crave acceptance and security the rest of their lives, and are often easy prey for flamboyant, self assured leaders and grandiose claims.  In religion, and in life.  And if backed into a corner on their beliefs, turn to distraction, poorly thought through fabrication, and denial.

 

So yes, I think smart people who function very well in life in most areas, can have problems of thinking rationally when their sense of safety and belonging to the big daddy in the sky are threatened.  Their early conditioning can be overwhelming. 

 

Hopefully I didn't ramble too much with this.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If we're going to get this deep into psychology here, then let's not leave out ego.  Often it's not so much about engaging in honest debate as it is just keeping the debate going.  Austin is a good example of this.  As Walt pointed out, he refused to engage unless it was on his own terms, he could win "points", and he could control the narrative.  He employs the same tactics on his Twitter account (which has been temporarily restricted); he is fully engaged with at least 2 other responders, but has not even acknowledged any of my replies.  Semi-Wise pulled the same stunts; as have many of the christians with whom I have interacted here.  This, of course, isn't a behavior exclusively restricted to christians; but some people just like to hear their own heads rattle.  It seems especially true when they believ themselves to have knowledge about something the rest of us don't know.  Or be right about something the rest of us have gotten wrong. 

 

I don't like to brag; but I've got a huge ego. 

[alreadyGone]

14 hours ago, Weezer said:

...

It takes a healthy ego (sense of self) to question authority.  ...

 

And as well, a sense of self-preservation, a recognition of the value of one's own life.

 

But then, I'm only repeating your words (for emphasis) in so saying.

All of human history attests to the reality and truth of this.

 

[alreadyGone]

36 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

....I don't like to brag; but I've got a huge ego. 

 

I've heard the size is less important than knowing how to use it.

 

[walterpthefirst]

17 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

Our minds are running along similar paths on this.  At 80 years of age it is getting harder for me to organize my thoughts at times, but will try to add some more to this line of thought.  Austin somewhat reminds me of a friend who had brain damage, and also my father who was  abused physically and emotionally as a child.  He was literally scared into obedience as a child, and saw God the same way he saw his father.   His security, his survival, was rooted in unconditionally obedience.  His parents were "nomads", moving every 2 or 3 years, keeping no ties with extended family.  The kids (7 of them) were totally dependent on their parents.  The bible was the only information needed for life.

 

It takes a healthy ego (sense of self) to question authority.  And that is rooted in early childhood conditioning.  I am so thankful my mother didnt allow my father to contine the nomad life style.  We lived near our maternal grandparents, and my grandfather and mother, although Christians, were rebels at times and would openly argue with preachers and elders at times over doctrine, and did not motivate us kids with fear alone.  They were very supportive and encouraging, including getting a higher education.   Without their examples of questioning authority, and seeking more information through education, I don't know if I would have ever started down the road of questioning the bible and God.

 

My sister and I grew up in the same household and both of us turned out to be agnostic.  Our older half brother was raised by his mother who was also emotionally abusive and raised her kids with fear.  He had to "toe the line" without question, and turned out to be like my dad, and a die hard fundamentalists.  The last religious discussion I tried to have with him several years ago,  he literally tuned me out and changed the subject.

 

Small children's greatest fear is of being abandoned. And if the only way, in their mind, they can avoid abandonment is by being obedient followers, that is what they become. They can crave acceptance and security the rest of their lives, and are often easy prey for flamboyant, self assured leaders and grandiose claims.  In religion, and in life.  And if backed into a corner on their beliefs, turn to distraction, poorly thought through fabrication, and denial.

 

So yes, I think smart people who function very well in life in most areas, can have problems of thinking rationally when their sense of safety and belonging to the big daddy in the sky are threatened.  Their early conditioning can be overwhelming. 

 

Hopefully I didn't ramble too much with this.

 

No, you haven't rambled at all, Weezer.  If anything, I'm very grateful that you consider us worthy to share this with.

 

Two things come to mind from what you've written.

 

First, a great sense of sadness for the people who have been abused in the ways you describe.  Secondly, you seem to be outlining a pattern of 'generational' behaviour, where the way a child is raised sets the pattern for the rest of their lives, depriving them of the skills and the abilities to think rationally for themselves.  They then perpetuate these behaviours themselves, instilling these same things (and the same flawed modes of thinking) into their children.

 

You call this early conditioning.  Others might call it indoctrination.  

 

Aristotle wrote, 'Give me a child until he is 7 and I will give you the man.'  https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/709859-give-me-a-child-until-he-is-7-and-i

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If we're going to get this deep into psychology here, then let's not leave out ego.  Often it's not so much about engaging in honest debate as it is just keeping the debate going.  Austin is a good example of this.  As Walt pointed out, he refused to engage unless it was on his own terms, he could win "points", and he could control the narrative.  He employs the same tactics on his Twitter account (which has been temporarily restricted); he is fully engaged with at least 2 other responders, but has not even acknowledged any of my replies.  Semi-Wise pulled the same stunts; as have many of the christians with whom I have interacted here.  This, of course, isn't a behavior exclusively restricted to christians; but some people just like to hear their own heads rattle.  It seems especially true when they believ themselves to have knowledge about something the rest of us don't know.  Or be right about something the rest of us have gotten wrong. 

 

I don't like to brag; but I've got a huge ego. 

 

Good points about the importance of ego, Professor.

 

 

On the subject of psychology, I wonder what, if anything, the following can tell us about what goes on in Austin's mind.  Looking at HOW he posted rather than WHAT he posted in DarkBishop's  'Austin Austin and Evolution' thread, the following pattern emerges.  

 

Tuesday 9

 

Austin posts at 9:04 pm, 9:06, 9:06, 9:07, 9:08, 9:08, 9:12, 9:13 and 9:13. 

 

Which equals nine posts over eleven minutes, averaging about a post every minute and a few seconds.

 

Wednesday 10

 

Austin posts at 4:33 pm & 4:34.   He then goes on to post at 9.23 pm, 9.25, 9.30, 9.35, 9.38, 9.43, 9.50, 9.52, 10.02, 10.12, 10.16, 10.18, 10.18, 10.20, 10.26, 10.28, 10.37, 10.54, 10.57, 10.58, 11.22, 11.23, 11.26, 11.31, 11.32, 11.35, 11.42, 11.47, 11.48, 11.53, 11.58, 12.06 am, 12.18, 12.20 and 12.25 am.

 

Excluding the two earlier posts, he made thirty-five posts over at least three hours and two minutes online, averaging a post every five minutes or so. 

 

Thursday 11

 

Austin posts at 4:49 pm, 4:55, 4:57, 4:58, 5:11, 6:13, 6:15, 6:40, 6:45, 6:46, 6:48, 6:51, 6:52, 7:12, 7:16, 7:41, 7:42, 7:43, 7:58, 7:59, 8:00, 8:22, 8:23, 8:49 & 8:50.

 

Which equals twenty-five posts over four hours and one minute online, averaging a post every nine and a half minutes.

 

So, across three days he made seventy-one posts in a single thread, over a period of at least seven hours and fifteen minutes online.  Which equals an average of a post every six minutes and ten seconds.

 

 

Please note that I've not been able to perform the same analysis on the other three threads he participated in.  The timestamp information for each posting doesn't seem to be available for them.  But Austin did make a further one hundred and two (102!) posts in those earlier threads.  

 

Just check the numbers out for yourself if you don't believe what I'm saying here.  At first I didn't believe them either!

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Not sure what that says about Austin, @walterpthefirst; but it does tell us something about you...

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 11/15/2021 at 11:17 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I don't like to brag; but I've got a huge ego. 

 

Most of us have a bit of an ego, or we wouldn't be posting here. 

 

 

On 11/15/2021 at 3:31 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

You call this early conditioning.  Others might call it indoctrination.  

 

Aristotle wrote, 'Give me a child until he is 7 and I will give you the man.' 

 

 

Very true.  But I might add what I think someome else said earlier.  Psychology is not an exact science.  Not all kids turn out the same way under the same circumstances.  We are born with different temperments, and some kids are more curious, and rebellious than others.  Human behavior is extremely complex.  It just occured to me that humans may be the most unpredictible animals on earth.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:43 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

On 11/15/2021 at 4:43 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Just check the numbers out for yourself if you don't believe what I'm saying here.  At first I didn't believe them either!

 

 

Excelent observation.  He may be bipolar in a manic phase.  That would account for the grandiosity and the rapid replies.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

It just occured to me that humans may be the most unpredictible animals on earth.

 

We're probably just as unpredictable as all other animals.  Difference is . . . thanks to our society our unpredictability is less fatal.

[alreadyGone]

11 hours ago, Weezer said:

It just occured to me that humans may be the most unpredictible animals on earth.

 

Human beings are without doubt the most dangerous animals on earth.

And the more I believe I know and understand of human beings, the less I want to be one.

 

Being so unpredictable, and dangerous...

Is it at all possible that this accounts for the apparently innate human desire to have a god?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Being so unpredictable, and dangerous...

Is it at all possible that this accounts for the innate human desire to have a god?

A god who is equally unpredictable and dangerous?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

 

Excelent observation.  He may be bipolar in a manic phase.  That would account for the grandiosity and the rapid replies.

I'd say he's swung into the depression phase.  He's completely disappeared from here, shut down his Twitter account that he had since 2012 and his new Twitter account has been restricted due to "unusual activity".  Bless his heart.

[alreadyGone]

8 hours ago, Krowb said:

Difference is . . . thanks to our society our unpredictability is less fatal.

 

I'm not certain I agree..

I think it possible the opposite may be true.

[Margee]

On 11/15/2021 at 1:17 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If we're going to get this deep into psychology here, then let's not leave out ego.  Often it's not so much about engaging in honest debate as it is just keeping the debate going.  Austin is a good example of this.  As Walt pointed out, he refused to engage unless it was on his own terms, he could win "points", and he could control the narrative. 

 

 I watched this debate last night on why people have to suffer so much and I could barely make it through the christian narrative. Barts' debater is sooooo convinced 110% of the Genesis account in the bible that there was absolutely no winning. None. I give so much credit to you guys who will take these people on. If I could have gone through the computer screen to stuff a rag in Kyle Butt's mouth I would have done it. The arrogance. Ugg.   To listen to him explain away suffering (according to the holy bible) made me almost vomit.

 

Sad part about it is that I once believed it.