What would be the ONE BOOK you would show to a religious person to make them not religious
lol it's not like religious people make their children read the bible/quran/torah whatever the fuck. It's not like the admittedly nice christian guy who hands out the Watchtower every week is trying to convert me.
Let's take a moment, in fact, to appreciate the fact that this is a silly fantasy book that has an idiot savant become a better moral teacher than Jesus was.
"But not every shared trait of the High Church atheist is quite as superlatively wonderful as atheists might have one believe. For example, fresh from a visit to England for an inspiring sermon from the High Church’s own Archbishop of Oxford, Wired magazine writer Gary Wolf found himself noting that atheists are almost always enthusiastic, defiant men who “enjoy pissing people off.”20 Another Dawkins interviewer, Simon Hattenstone, reached a similar conclusion: “I agree with virtually everything he says, but find myself wanting to smack him for his intolerance.” This is not unusual, as the High Church atheist’s undeveloped social skills are often so dramatic as to be reasonably described as a form of social autism. The atheist tends to regard every statement with which he disagrees in much the same manner that a bull views a matador’s red flag, viewing even the most cherished myths held by his friends and family as little more than imperative targets of opportunity. It is no wonder that the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey reported that atheists are one-third as likely to be married as the average American; these are the sort of men who believe that boring a woman with lengthy explanations of why her opinions are incorrect is the best way to her heart."
Vox Day. Irrational Atheist.
Prayer is the elevation of the mind and the heart to God in praise, in thanksgiving, and in petition for the spiritual and material goods we need.
A petition in prayer is asking for gods will to coincide with your own will. Often times it doesn't, and you move on and make due with what god has given you.
So I don't think prayer requires the mental gymnastics and confirmation bias you think it does. If you think of prayers as simply asking for what you want then of course prayers are no good.
Prayer isn't always a practical demand though - for most people it's a bit of reassurance, a kind of emotional crutch. It doesn't work in the sense that you can invoke divine intervention on your part, but that's usually also not the point.
Prayer done right is opening your heart up to God and listening to him. Only atheists and protestants, which are basically the same thing (and rightfully so: if my parents were baptist I would probably be an atheist too) think that prayer is this thing where you beg God for more money so you can buy a private jet.
he has legitimately accepted that religion is nothing more than a coping mechanism that has no evidence or physical merit, and has receded from the pride of true belief into the insecurity of utility based faith.
>completely misinterprets utility based faith vs true belief
a true believer does not have doubt, they simply know. faith based in utility is arguing from the ground up. "my god exists because he's useful"
instead of simply "my god exists"
no, he doesnt, utilitarian faith is an incredibly weak argument, and does not act as evidence.
the presup has the upper hand, considering that there is absolute knowledge of god's existence without evidence, they do not trouble themselves with proofs, they simply speak from divine authority, instead of trying to reason with a doubter. utilitarian faith is an act of pleading with a doubter.
some people don't realize that outspoken and famous atheists do not represent absolute authority when it comes to atheistic concepts, not like, for example, a pope, who must be correct on all counts, otherwise his religion is undermined. one can disagree with many of the arguments that dawkins presents, and still be an atheist.
Augustine or Aquinas, probably. Or any book trying to define God. Confessions would do quite nicely. My though process being that everything that tries to prove or make a case for God does so for the primal ''essence'' or phenomenon that permeates through everything in the universe, and takes a primal father role, deserving of reciprocation, it never actually proves about why one specific branch of religion is true. So, to make someone non religious is to try and show them what God is truly meant to be, in purity, without filthy human doctrines attached to it.
i guess you don't understand what i'm talking about here. of course people doubt their belief in religion. that's because it lacks evidence. the ones who convince themselves beyond doubt are the truly devout. "leap to faith" is a meaningless phrase. if you mean the leap from subjective reality into objective reality as being the leap of faith, then all positions are equally faulty and can be dismissed with a wave of relativism. it is the presuppositionalist who takes to the establishment of pure knowledge from a divine source so as to avoid this relativism problem. they are of the understanding that absolute true knowledge is revealed by god.
>if you mean the leap from subjective reality into objective reality as being the leap of faith
no i mean kierkegaard's leap to faith.
exactly. If it doesn't matter and it helps people, why do atheists care so much?
oh yeah because their primary function is feeling superior to other people
>not like, for example, a pope, who must be correct on all counts, otherwise his religion is undermined.
the catholic church has had any number of scoundrels for popes, but that does not undermine the necessity of papal infallibility.
Do some research; infallibility does not mean impeccability. Only when the Pope makes official doctrinal decisions along with the church officials as a whole is it considered infallible. It is also supported in scripture.
Pathetic attempt. I read it just to throw counterargument back at atheists. It's one of those books, written by atheist for atheists so they feel entitled and proud of their religion.
The God Delusion. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, had communion, was confirmed, believed in God, prayed every night, and was thinking about joining the priesthood, until one day when I was 17 I saw Dawkins debate a theist on one of the news channels and I instantly saw how foolish I'd been to believe a collection of ancient myths was the word of the universe's creator. I've never gotten around to reading Dawkins's book, but I didn't need to. That news segment was enough. I'm now a proud atheist and a tireless promoter of atheists' rights in my largely religious community.
Children are indoctrinated by design. They'll inevitably form beliefs based on their exposure, culture is no different. Parents may as well instill their beliefs in those they have worked to beget, it's not inherently a sinister thing.
>thinks that there is no evidence that conflicts specific religious claims and can be used to discredit the belief in various religions
>lacking belief requires faith
eat trash fucking shitposting retard fuckwits every fucking day with this same fucking christian shitposting jesus christ just kill yourself you world-hating nihilist eschatological fuck-grenades
>What would be the ONE BOOK you would show to a religious person to make them not religious
Probably the gospel of Matthew, chapter 23 in particular. Any of the words of Jesus in general though.
Cannibals and Kings by Marvin Harris. It's what made me an atheist. Understanding the mechanisms that drive the evolution of regional religious practices, it kind of shatters the illusion. Like how I can't really enjoy video games anymore after learning programming. I know that all the interactions are scripted, regardless of what the player says or does. No more magic, no more mystery. I'd actually prefer things the way they were before, but one can never return to ignorance after seeing the light.
I've never read and it and i don't know an atheist that has. I've actually never seen anything by Dawkins at all.
Then again, i live in a country with a high level of atheists. So maybe in other countries all the atheists have read it.
> their religion.
The moment basic logic becomes a religion.
Apparently there are big problems with this in parts of the US where being an atheist is basically worse than being black, gay, jewish and a pedophile at once.
Where i live the only people who get looked at weirdly for their religion are the ones who take it too seriously.
Atheism isn't suppose to be a religion, but lots of people like>>7629503 act like it is.
It's like people who are obsessed with anime or star wars. Maybe you do just like it and aren't a stereotype, but you know there are people who embrace the life style and are proud of it.
It's pretty sad really, plus while all the dogmatic atheists go around jerking each other off, everyone else just wants to distance themselves from that as much as possible.
Imagine if everyone thought like this. Really try to imagine what it would be like if everyone let everyone else believe whatever.
I'm not personally religious, but that Jesus guy had the right idea when it came to morals. And a large part of that is preaching. It's almost a moral duty to preach something you really believe.
Aquinas is quite clear that God cannot be defined.
Confessions are also highly existential.
God is in Christianity literally a man so um yeah they can't detach it and also say that man is the image of God.
>I'm an agnostic theist
>I'm a Christian
Gee whiz old boy you really got me there, I don't know what I was thinking.
You can't be a Christian without believing what Christ said. THAT'S KIND OF THE IDEA.
>it requires as much faith not to believe there's a rhino in your room as to believe that there isn't
I mean, I'm not an expert, but I was raised Catholic and did quite a lot of research on ways to stay Christian without really believing in God (because I really, really wanted to).
Honestly dude, you don't know how much I wanted (and still want) to be a Christian. It's just a good feeling, but I couldn't justify it.
Then be one. There's really no more to it then that.
Doubt is not the enemy of faith, but the very reason it exists. You can very well understand something is unknowable with certainty by current means, and still believe.
Well it's not, like, a list of thing to check off. "Go to church, follow Jesus' example, read scripture; well, that's it, now I'm a christian!"
Not like that. Christians believe, by definition of the word, that Jesus of Nazareth was the literal, full blown son of God, the omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent. Calling yourself a Christian isn't enough to BE Christian.
And the problem is, I don't believe Jesus was the divine, nor do I believe in God, biblical or otherwise.
There IS more to it. I don't just think God is unknowable, I know that god is a construct of human imagination and pattern recognition. There's nothing I "don't understand" about that, but that doesn't make it less hard to swallow.
I will not lie to myself to make myself feel better.
> Christians believe, by definition of the word, that Jesus of Nazareth was the literal, full blown son of God, the omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent. Calling yourself a Christian isn't enough to BE Christian.
That should be true, but it isn't. Ask an Episcopalian.
Am I missing something here?
I mean this isn't the ultimate authority, but that seems to be incorrect.
People of all religions do that.
I mean I could call myself Christian and reject Christ, but that wouldn't mean Christians can reject Christ. It just means I'm stupid.
Definitionally, these are Christians who haggle with the definition, and you've just noted that people in every religion do that, so in practice, it would be perfectly possible for you to call yourself a Christian and just think Christ was a cool guy.
Eh... I guess that's technically true, but I don't feel right about it, you know? I feel like I'm disrespecting actual Christians by calling myself Christian when I'm also an atheist.
That's just non-productive semantics. The fact that a concept cannot be addressed empirically is no reason to give that concept any special credence. There are infinite hypothetical unfalsifiable nonsenses, but hardly anyone bothers to say they are 'agnostic' toward Scientology's alien invisible souls, much less the Greek Gods, much less Russell's teapot, etc.
It's possible to construe it that way, but is it not also possible that Pilate was an educated elite asking an honest question? Here is a man who has spent his career in service to his state, and who has attempted to bring order and justice to a restive and fundamentalist region. He is accused of offending religious sensibilities. Pontius knows he is treading on thin ice. He can't afford to anger the local religious authorities, while at the same time is grasping at straws to exonerate an obviously innocent man. Is it far fetched for such a person to want to ask what truth is?
Again, you're too narrowly focused on religion - I am talking about the very idea of 'potential existence'. 'Higher power' is an umbrella term, yes, but it does not cover all of the non-empirical concepts, which I stressed are infinite.
The existence of a higher power has been a significant philosophical and cultural concept forever, that's the very reason their is specific terminology for the stances one may take.
Stop sperging over it.
I read it as an atheist and it almost made me religious. The superficial treatment of both philosophical and theological thought ripped off of its historical context makes most of Dawkins' attacks to those who crafted theological arguments laughable.
The fall of a system of thought rarely comes from outside, but from the subject itself realizing the inefficiencies of his own thought. Reading an atheist book like Dawkins' will only enrage these people and convince them more of their beliefs, however absurd they are.
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
Specifically the later chapters, including "of miracles".
but really, if someone is quite literally seriously religious, there's not a great deal of hope.
in the same breath you deny reason, then attempt to use it.
you really should consider calming down.
just a suggestion.
People will always be resistant if they are having a point of view shoved down their throat by a book like The God Delusion.
It is best to let them find the flaws themselves. From there they can decide how they want to interpret them.
Yes it's true, it really is just a concept we use as a tool.
What is the thought process we have before doing something really weird or disgusting (I have personal experience in this), or otherwise something non-virtuous. I thought on this a while ago and I think it is that of cynicism. And the opposite of someone who is cynical would be a zealous person. If you look at Christianity we have the seven deadly sins and their opposites which are the seven virtues. Basically what seems to be a function of Christianity is to influence people to be more virtuous. When you are zealous you follow the teachings of Christianity and learn to act more virtuous. When you are cynical you reject such teachings, and then there is nothing stopping you from having sin, in other words, having non-virtuous traits, such as gluttony, wrath, sloth, greed, lust, pride, and envy. A person who embodies such negative traits is viewed as a bad person. I really do think that cynicism is the thought process that you have to be in in order to to really pick up some of these negative character traits. So the church seems to have a function of trying to coerce people into being more virtuous.
Pic related, I'm supporting Christianity but I'm sure only a few hundreds of years ago they would have branded this heresy.