Discussionator -

Opinion

It's possible, given enough time, to convert someone between theism/atheism simply by explaining to them why their world view is wrong.
– Lee J Haywood, 2009-11-19 at 08:59:28 (62 comments)

	On 2009-11-19 at 12:19:52, Scarletxstarlet wrote... Some people feel much too strongly about the fundamental nature of the universe to ever change their mind.
	On 2009-11-19 at 14:53:05, DigitalBoss wrote... I agree with scarlet. I don't appreciate people trying to convert me to their religion, and I certainly don't appreciate atheists trying to convert me to their anti-religion. Please keep your godless church of groupthink Marxist communism to yourself.
	On 2009-11-19 at 16:01:06, Lee J Haywood wrote... It's not about converting someone, it's a question of being able to convince them with rational arguments. In other words, if you have a level-headed conversation with a friend on the subject is it possible that one of you would grant concessions to the other? Personally, I think that it depends on the person. I think a lot of people base their belief in a god on a religion. Since religions are untenable, and obviously made-up by people, it's possible that pointing out their flaws might undermine the weak belief in a god. On the other hand, some people genuinely believe that there are gods without needing the social acceptance that a religion might provide.
	On 2009-11-19 at 19:40:42, Thelevellers wrote... I just wanna point out that the opinion says SOMEONE, not EVERYONE. Therefore it should be 100% yes, as there are plenty of people who would convert like that. I'm not a fan of actively trying to cvonvert people though, I will point out their fail-logic if it is being pushed in my face, or they ask specifically, but otherwise leave them be. Also, in what way is atheism communist? Communism is often atheist, but atheists can be (and many are) capitalists too...
	On 2009-11-19 at 20:51:29, BorgClown wrote... I agreed because "given enough time" almost anyone would crack to that sort of psychological torture, hearing the same again and again forever.
	On 2009-11-19 at 20:55:27, Lee J Haywood wrote... I've had a few short (off-line) conversations with religious individuals, but it'd take much longer to discuss all of the finer points. I think I'd actually have to live with someone and have daily conversations with them to really get them to understand my complete reasoning on the whole subject. Theism is many things, and many beliefs, not just a simple yes/no choice. I've gradually built up a full set of responses to most questions about religion, but I doubt many theists have really thought about why they accept the things they do. http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/19/row-erupts-over-humanist-poster-in-belfast/ http://gretachristina.typepad.com/photos/atheist_motivational_post/atheism.html
	On 2009-11-19 at 21:13:59, BorgClown wrote... Unfortunately, theism is about faith, not logic. In other words, it's about what you want, not what it is. You can't reason wishes out.
	On 2009-11-19 at 21:22:35, Lee J Haywood wrote... @BorgClown: Ah, but that's the point isn't it? If you have only faith, then it ought to be possible to see the weaknesses in your reasoning? If you have blind, unquestioning faith then that's a different matter, but if you have unthinking faith then you can have your eyes opened to an alternative way of seeing the world. There are many individuals who have been taught that the religious way from an early age and haven't really questioned it, or have been taught that questioning it is unreasonable. When they do realise that much of their religion is based on lies and nonsense, they get angry with the community they grew up in. (Refer to the Lynchburg video I posted previously, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGsxepF9AHo). On the other hand, there are plenty of individuals who have decided that there's a god for themselves - often as adults - and have no need for religion to support that belief. With them, there's both less to debate but their belief is perhaps more fundamental.
	On 2009-11-19 at 21:31:57, BorgClown wrote... The quid is the "belief" word. They don't know, they just want it very bad to be real. BTW, your links depress me, specially this excerpt: "We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth." I know they pick the worse responses for posting, but come on, those people are hopeless, and they're passing it to little children who don't know better =(
	On 2009-11-19 at 21:40:48, Lee J Haywood wrote... @BorgClown: I was thinking that that same argument ought to be given by the theists, although I hadn't seen it written before you posted it - it's an obvious response, yet one which misses the point. A better quote from the comments... "It is none of their business how people bring up their children." - It's none of McIlveen's business either, but that doesn't seem to bother him. My Lynchburg video link isn't any good, BTW - it's only a fragment of the hour-long talk, and I cannot find a better version. http://www.flickr.com/photos/carrieo/4081582335/
	On 2009-11-19 at 21:51:26, BorgClown wrote... Let's concede: They don't brain-wash the children to their religion, and we will not brainwash children to our atheism. =)
	On 2009-11-19 at 21:55:32, Lee J Haywood wrote... @BorgClown: The theists don't see it that way - if you're not teaching them a religion then you are giving them atheism, as far as they're concerned. They don't see non-teaching as a separate thing.
	On 2009-11-19 at 22:00:31, BorgClown wrote... Mmmh boy, one should counter argue that it was God who made children born atheists.
	On 2009-11-19 at 22:05:45, DigitalBoss wrote... The government school system and the main-stream media are brainwashing our children into the godless church of big-government Marxist liberal communism.
	On 2009-11-20 at 04:22:15, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: What is more offending: godlessness, bureaucracy, Marxism, liberalness or communism?
	On 2009-11-20 at 12:35:46, Lee J Haywood wrote... @DigitalBoss: Clearly you think that being 'godless' rather than merely an atheist is somehow insulting. Of course it isn't - it provides intellectual and social freedom. What is it about being 'godless' that is supposed to be bad?
	On 2009-11-20 at 17:47:50, Scarletxstarlet wrote... @DigitalBoss: My political beliefs and my atheism have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are die-hard atheists and also staunchly right wing, and there's a lot of people like them. Atheism doesn't tell you anything about a person except that they don't believe in a personal god. Don't make assumptions.
	On 2009-11-21 at 03:58:21, DigitalBoss wrote... @Borg: It would be hard to put them in any order offense. @LeeJ: If you are an atheist, are you not godless? No insult intended, just the truth. Just another name for the same animal. If you feel insulted, it is your own doing. I have intellectual and individual freedom, well, not as much of the latter as once was, and I have a god. @Scarlet: "Not allll atheists are liberals" [said in a nasal whiny nanny voice]. In general, yes they are. I am sure there are exceptions, as with most anything. I am 50 years old, I will assure you that my assumptions are based on knowledge and experience. There are arguments for and against the existence of a supreme being, or god. I choose to believe. To explain all the reasons why, is beyond the the tools this website provides me.
	On 2009-11-21 at 10:56:02, Lee J Haywood wrote... @DigitalBoss: No insult intended?! You attempt to insult us all in practically every comment you make! If we're not godless, we're communists or Marxists, and if not that then we're liberals or have an unhealthy love of government. If it weren't for your name calling half of your comments would be empty. Your age has nothing to do with it - you're simply obsessive about your own views and reject anything and anybody that opposes you, and label them as being extremists. Calling someone 'godless' isn't the same as calling them an atheist and you know it. It's taking the position that there is a god and that that god is being rejected (or not respected), sinfully, as opposed to simply accepting in the first instance that there may be no god. define:godless - An atheist; evil, wicked, other-worldly. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Agodless (You are of course all free to say what you wish on this site, short of actual harassment).
	On 2009-11-21 at 13:41:16, Lee J Haywood wrote... http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=2064
	On 2009-11-21 at 23:37:07, DigitalBoss wrote... If I am "simply" anything, I am simply tired of seeing my government spend more and more on giving my money away to people who did not earn it. The only end result that I can see from the Obama administration is an increase in my income taxes. He so wants the US to become more "European", which means higher unemployment, higher taxes, and less freedom. How much and when seem to be the only unknowns now. If you really believe in Marxism and liberal big-government, you should not feel insulted, you should be proud of the cluster-fuck that the UK and the US are becoming.
	On 2009-11-21 at 23:39:37, DigitalBoss wrote... And yes, my age does have much to do with it. I imagine you are in your 20s and have never supported yourself. You probably still live with your parents. You haven't lived in a time of less government and more freedom, so you cannot gauge the difference as well. I remember what it was like in this country back in the 70s, when we had less government. A young man could go just about anywhere and get a good job. Now, if you are looking for a job, you have to go to Washington DC, that is where all the jobs are being created, in the government.
	On 2009-11-21 at 23:41:53, DigitalBoss wrote... Ok, if you are not godless, and you are not Marxist, and you are not a supporter of liberal spending big-government, why don't you tell me what you are? I would like to know.
	On 2009-11-22 at 00:45:28, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: Lee is about 37 or 38, but I'm sure he wouldn't reject an extra decade of youth.
	On 2009-11-22 at 05:13:19, DigitalBoss wrote... ...probably still lives with mommy though. he probably has not much choice with the high taxes in the UK. I wouldn't want to live there.
	On 2009-11-22 at 05:17:23, DigitalBoss wrote... I believe I touched a soft spot with the godless comment.
	On 2009-11-22 at 05:51:04, BorgClown wrote... Personally I like the godless adjective, it's a compliment to my ears.
	On 2009-11-22 at 13:09:00, Lee J Haywood wrote... @DigitalBoss: As always, you make ridiculous and unfounded assumptions about people with no basis in reality. I'm in my late 30s, own my own house and I have enough money to live comfortably for 5 years without working. Nothing like your inane guesses. The same goes for my political beliefs. I haven't said much of anything about them, yet you fill the void with your own guesses based on what you'd like to believe and meaningless stereotypes about my country. One thing I'm not is a label - I'm not 'Marxist' or 'Communist'. I don't accept any manifesto, I take each topic individually and take an informed stance. One political party may end up slightly better than another by chance in any given election, but it's unlikely to be because of its political philosophy.
	On 2009-11-22 at 17:15:14, DigitalBoss wrote... The reality is that by examining your previous opinions and posts, it is not ridiculous and/or unfounded for me to have made the assumptions that I have made about you. Maybe I was wrong. If I was wrong, I will admit it. Why is it that you make so many Marxist comments and opinions, yet you claim to not be a Marxist? Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? The Ten Planks of Communism?
	On 2009-11-22 at 17:17:18, DigitalBoss wrote... If you really believe in Marxism, why not be proud of it and stand up for yourself and your beliefs?
	On 2009-11-22 at 17:50:01, DigitalBoss wrote... I am a conservative libertarian. I guess you could say, a Reagan conservative. I freely admit it, and I am proud of it. I believe in open markets, small government, less taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.
	On 2009-11-23 at 00:08:45, Lee J Haywood wrote... Even if my views happen to coincide with a particular political manifesto, that doesn't mean that I believe in that particular way of thinking. My views may well suggest that a particular label fits me, but that doesn't give you the right to label me on the assumption that I do fit that profile. I have no interest in politics generally, it just happens that a lot of the topics posted here have political ties. The views I express are personal ones, not political. I'm sure it seems like a trivial distinction to you, but I do not support any particular political party and am flexible enough to change my views if I agree that my reasoning is flawed.
	On 2009-11-23 at 00:10:46, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: And war! So your beliefs do not apply to non-americans,
	On 2009-11-23 at 04:07:21, DigitalBoss wrote... @LeeJ: I don't think I have mentioned political parties. @Borg: Yes, and war, when it is necessary. My friend, war has been around for along time, it is not going away anytime soon. I think all people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some people are combatants in a war, yes, they may be treated differently, they always have in the past. What is different now? It is clear that regular law enforcement procedures can't succeed when there is no diplomatic cooperation, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other places where terrorism is supported, planned, and trained.
	On 2009-11-23 at 19:08:04, Lee J Haywood wrote... @DigitalBoss: Political parties generally have their own manifesto, so there's not a great deal of difference between a political ideal and a political party's ideals.
	On 2009-11-23 at 20:55:58, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: Then why is Saudi Arabia not being "liberated"? Does USA just liberate small, embargo-weakened countries? Osama came from Saudi Arabia, and so did a good chink of the terrorist financing. Maybe it's the wat they do things there. My point is, you are exhibiting the usual American double moral: Give me my rights and my freedom, even if you have to take them out of someone else.
	On 2009-11-23 at 20:56:20, BorgClown wrote... chunk lol
	On 2009-11-24 at 00:45:41, DigitalBoss wrote... @Borg: Saudi Arabia participates in diplomatic relations and law enforcement activities with the USA. Osama bin Laden was kicked out of Saudi Arabia for being a radical. I am sure the rulers of Saudi Arabia cannot keep all the financing of terrorists at bay. There is no American double moral, we are at war. We are at war with Islamic extremists. @LeeJ: Basically the left (liberals, marxists, communists) are for less personal responsibility, larger government, more government control, higher taxes, highly regulated markets, and less liberty. I think you would fall into that category, wouldn't you?
	On 2009-11-24 at 03:36:03, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: Look at the list of wars USA has been, USA has been bullying the region for decades, it's not surprising that it gets stricken back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
	On 2009-11-24 at 04:43:42, BorgClown wrote... Let me get this clear: I generally like you and have accepted your "proud to be American" attitude as genuine, but sometimes you lean too much on the side of "proud to be willingly ignorant". Doesn't your religion cites the golden rule with several wordings, i.e, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "Do to no one what you yourself dislike", etc.?
	On 2009-11-24 at 11:43:13, Lee J Haywood wrote... @DigitalBoss: I've never said anything about agreeing with any of those things. If I don't argue against something, you just imagine that I agree with it - as I said, filling in the gaps by making stuff up. To be fair, it's difficult to imagine a 'big' government in my country - it's hardly going to be on the same scale as in the US. My government basically does what you'd expect of it. Perhaps it spends too much on the military, although not quite on the same scale as the US government. Branches of the government, such as the intelligence services, may go too far in their surveillance of the population but I wouldn't call that 'the government' - it's the individual Ministry that's typically at fault more than the legislation. On the plus side, at least my government isn't hand-in-pocket with big commercial companies.
	On 2009-11-24 at 23:27:48, DigitalBoss wrote... @Borg: Make no mistake about it my friend, we are at war. We will defend ourselves. We did not start this war, but we will finish it, unless the Democrats turn tail and run, like they have been known to do in the past. There is nothing wrong with defending one's self when attacked. When I saw the twin towers fall on 9/11, I knew someone would be made to pay. Uhrah!
	On 2009-11-25 at 03:10:28, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: Bah. USA started it with the first Iraq invasion, the so-called "Desert Storm" leaded by Bush Sr. The subsequent embargo was meant to debilitate and make Iraq easier to invade. Iraq is all about economic control, not self-defense. They say ignorance is bliss, but willful ignorance is not, it isn't even real ignorance.
	On 2009-11-25 at 03:12:57, BorgClown wrote... I'm inclined to think that Osama is conveniently hidden beyond USA's intelligence prowess not because of his l33t skillz, but because that gives USA a reason to continue meddling in the middle east.
	On 2009-11-26 at 15:15:13, DigitalBoss wrote... He is sleeping during the day, and riding his donkey at night.
	On 2009-11-26 at 15:16:30, DigitalBoss wrote... Bah! I think that Saddam invading Kuwait had a little bit of something to do with the first gulf war. Don't you?
	On 2009-11-27 at 01:42:22, BorgClown wrote... Irak invading Kuwait... of course, that totally makes it OK for USA to bombfuck Saddam! Thanks for enlightening me!
	On 2009-11-27 at 16:58:25, DigitalBoss wrote... I am sure that the Kuwaitis are a little more appreciative than you are.
	On 2009-11-28 at 03:55:05, BorgClown wrote... Specially the Kuwaiti oil producers. They were the only benefited, although I'm sure USA's meddling wasn't free. Since when the Destiny Manifest doctrine expanded to the middle east? Why don't you liberate Palestine, or Venezuela, for example? You are defending the indefensible, as long as you insist on labeling consuming wealth hunger as idealism.
	On 2009-11-28 at 03:56:54, BorgClown wrote... To lower the language barrier, "consuming wealth hunger" was meant to be wealth hunger taken to the extreme. Sorry if I phrased it badly.
	On 2009-11-28 at 16:50:15, DigitalBoss wrote... So many issues, where do I start? First of all, there is no Palestine, just a bunch of refugees from 3 or 4 wars against Israel. Could end up being a Palestine, maybe, but not now. If they would put down their guns and rockets and say, ok, we are ready to have our own country and live in peace, they could have a Palestine. If you meant the original area called Palestine, most of it is now called Jordan. It was called Manifest Destiny, you have the terms reversed. It does not apply here, just a bunch of countries, a coalition, helping an ally to expel an invader. There is nothing wrong with the US helping one of it's allies and looking out for it's interests. That is one of the legitimate constitutional functions of government. Venezuela has not been invaded by one of it's neighboring countries, and it is not an ally of the US. Former US president Jimmy Carter (D) actually authenticated Hugo Chavez's election in Venezuela. What a croc!
	On 2009-11-28 at 18:23:40, BorgClown wrote... Fine, let's nitpick. <li>There's no chance ever of USA recognizing a Palestine state, the general idea that has been at work for decades is helping Israel assimilate that region. USA would have an ideal ally in a conflictive region. <li>Manifest Destiny was not an official policy, just a general set of ideas prone to interpretation. Some of its interpretations even mention world-wide religious salvation. <li> Kuwait was invaded because it financed Iraq's war against Iran for 8 years, and Iraq decided it wasn't going to pay back. It seems that Iraq was a bigger ally of Kuwait than USA. <li>So, what was the nation invading Panama that made USA intervene? Oh right, it was USA itself, securing the control of the Panama Canal! There's no need for a third party involved for USA to join in.
	On 2009-11-29 at 17:46:14, DigitalBoss wrote... I think that there is a possibility that Israel and thereby the US would recognize a Palestinian state; it would require that the refuges put down their guns and rockets and desire peace. Very simple. I still see no connection with Manifest Destiny and Iraq. Kuwait was invaded, and the US and many other countries went to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait. Yeah, Iraq was a big ally of Kuwait. I guess that is why they invaded, raped, and pillaged there so well. I do not see a comparison with Iraq and Panama. Panama declared war with the US. According to the treaty signed by former president Jimmy Carter, we had the right to take back the canal if it were not kept neutral and shipping were threatened. You need to investigate your claims a little better.
	On 2009-11-30 at 01:27:25, BorgClown wrote... @DigitalBoss: However you put it, Kuwait financed Iraq against Iran for eight years, it was a big ally. If oil hadn't been in the equation, Kuwait would not have been aided. Panama declared a state of war because USA was already doing military operations forbidden by the very treaties it used to justify the invasion. Operation "Just Cause", the de-facto invasion, was already USA's third military operation in Panama. I hope you investigate and think better too. Iraq was invaded for oil, Panama was invaded for the Panama Canal control. Neither had a chance to attack USA, those were invasions, not wars.
	On 2009-11-30 at 09:52:39, DigitalBoss wrote... So? Everyone involved in the first Iraq war stated that the reason was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. When Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, the country of Iraq was not invaded. The war was fought mostly in Kuwait. The US has a large interest involving oil in the area, yes. There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for it's interests, especially when the ally involved is so blatantly invaded. Even in the second war with Iraq, if Saddam had cooperated and turned over the people we were wanting, he could have kept his little country. He chose not to cooperate in diplomatic law-enforcement activities, and he paid the price for it. The whole world has an interest in seeing that the canal remains stable and traffic is not endangered. If the US had thought that there was a danger of destabilization in the area, we had every right by treaty to go in and straighten it out. Don't forget, the US built the canal, and the canal has been a great benefit for the Panamanians as well as the whole world.
	On 2009-12-01 at 03:15:10, BorgClown wrote... This is where I wanted to go. I'm not going to insist on the subject, what I was trying to tell you is that you loathe the government affecting your liberties, while approving when the same government affects other's liberties as long as it is for your benefit. It undermines your position as a freedom advocate when you support war as a means of enrichment and influence, you fail to realize than bully governments subjugate other governments with wars, and their own citizens with laws, you can't loathe and praise the same attitude, unless you are willingly deceiving yourself.
	On 2009-12-01 at 12:24:50, DigitalBoss wrote... I am not completely against government. There are valid constitutional functions of the US government. I would just appreciate it if our government would stick to the functions for which they were chartered, mainly protecting it's citizens and their freedoms.
	On 2009-12-01 at 12:32:11, DigitalBoss wrote... War is not a means of enrichment and influence when you are looking out for the greater good of your citizens and their investments. I say it is the fault of the other government, in this case, Panama, that pledged by treaty (an agreement between governments) to hold the investment neutral and sound. The Panamanian government failed their people, not the US government. The US government was looking after the interests of it's citizens as well should the government of Panama.
	On 2009-12-01 at 21:30:34, BorgClown wrote... Anyway... Since you became a regular here, I've been struggling to figure you out. I couldn't reconcile the inconsistencies in your postures: you support freedom, but mainly yours and your country's. You don't want the government oppressing the masses with laws, but you don't mind corporations oppressing the same masses with market manipulation. I think that my problem is the scope of our convictions: I have to recognize that I'm an idealist, if I want freedoms, I want everyone to have freedoms. You on the other hand, are OK if those that matter to you retain their freedoms and give a crap about the rest. Let's say that I like everyone to have happiness, or at least have the opportunity to look for it. I don't care as much for animals and their seek of happiness, but other people extend the idea to all sentient things. For them, my posture would seem as inconsistent as yours seems to me.
	On 2009-12-02 at 11:34:20, DigitalBoss wrote... I think everyone should have the opportunity for happiness also. What I don't like is for the government to take away my hard earned money and give it away to someone else. Wealth redistribution. People that are in need, or that have squandered their opportunities, should look to charities for help, not the voting taxpayer. If they take the help, they should give up their vote until they get back on their feet. It is a matter of conflict of interest. To which corporations and market manipulations are you speaking? That is the first I have heard of this. I do care about other counties' citizens' freedoms but it is their responsibility through their government and it's diplomatic relations to solve that problem. Yes, I am more concerned about my freedoms and liberties, the US constitution is my source and basis. I have a vote here. Does Mexico have a constitution? Or do you hope to attach to ours somehow?
	On 2009-12-02 at 11:43:39, DigitalBoss wrote... The original intent of the US Constitution is that each citizen has the God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter has been taken by the courts to mean ownership of property. It, the constitution, also intends for no one to infringe upon those rights, not even the government. It also limits the power of the government. The founders knew what happened when governments get too powerful, as ours is now. The president, when he is sworn into office, swears to uphold that constitution, and to protect my rights as a citizen. If your country does not protect your rights in such a way, I suggest you take that up with your government, not complain about mine.
	On 2009-12-02 at 21:25:10, BorgClown wrote... Uh, I complained about you and your double standards, not about your government. That was before I understood that your scope for freedom advocacy is narrower than mine.