New program targeting teens and college kids.
Posted on: February 1, 2010 - 4:47pm
Offline
New program targeting teens and college kids.
Here are some cute little videos some kids have been sending me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaYIu2YRwa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdU10K5XycA
I found them pretty entertaining.
Reminds me of the HELP US WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED chart, and the sham that is "Intelligent Design".
- Login to post comments
The Truth Project is what it's called. I remember my teacher giving the cards to kids to hand out. He realized he wasn't allowed to so he made sure it was explicitly promoted through his student minions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthProject
Big assumptions... lots of big assumptions.
Propaganda. It's maddening to see for me, and not at all entertaining. But I am left entertaining some thoughts about these folks.
More maddening than anything.
Notice how one part starts with the statement about how the young are losing their faith?
We can only hope.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
FFS.... Veritology?!?
*facepalm*
If I ever feel like saying Praise The Lord! it would be because I wasn't born in America...
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
I've been invited to this thing by like 3 people. They watch the movie at their church and then discuss it in groups. should i go raise havoc, being the only one there who would have any objections to most of the shit he says? Of course in all due respect, but i'd still be the thorn in their side.
Sure, why not, if you're sufficiently intrigued to do so? Then you can give us the dirt. Don't be disruptive, of course, but feel free to speak your mind honestly. Nothing wrong with a little 'beg to differ'. If they object, they're basically admitting they're just trying to indoctrinate, and in what kind of university-oriented presentation is that acceptable?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
sure, give it a try. just bear in mind that, especially if it's a youth-oriented church, the guys who lead these groups may be deluded, but they're not necessarily stupid. they've prepared for objections. since genuine arguments obviously won't help them, be prepared for the lowest common denomenator. i used to be on staff with campus crusade for christ and i'd like to offer these warnings and pointers to any rational person who ever engages an evangelical youth leader on his or her turf, either in a discussion group or large seminar setting:
1. they'll definitely rely on peer pressure. the angry stares of all those around you can be more intimidating than you realize. i say this as someone who's been on both sides of this situation: i've used it and had it used against me. they'll be counting on their adoring fans to help them reduce your confidence and trip you up verbally. be ready for it.
2. specious reasoning can be a lot more effective with the kind of idiots they pander to when it comes with mild ridicule and a good ol' flash of pearly whites. like it or not, these guys are almost always charismatic, and with most of our retarded species charisma is all it takes. whatever you do, don't let him get you flustered. if he makes a wisecrack, keep standing firm and wait patiently for the giggles to die down. don't be afraid to use his own weapons against him, either. these guys are seldom daunted by a superior intellect, but a superior wit can sometimes throw them.
3. keep the exchange on track. keep the topic as specific as possible. he's definitely going to try to deflect you onto some other issue, usually trying to guide things to the personal level ("why do you hate god?" or some shit like that). don't let him get away with responses that begin with something like, "well, let me ask you a question..."
4. finally, if all else fails, he's going to try an out like "well, we're pressed for time, so i'll tell you what, come see me after this is over and we'll talk about it some more." then after the event is over he'll try to put as much human wall between the two of you as possible until he can duck out without looking or feeling like a chickenshit. try not to let him get away with this. if you still have an opening, tell him that you're pressed for time as well and that if he doesn't answer your question now he'll just have to leave you unconvinced (although, to be honest, the thought of that probably won't bother him much and won't decrease his standing in the eyes of his fans, as they'll view you as a pushy bastard, but it might be some modicum of a personal victory for you). if he doesn't leave you an opening (most likely scenario), then definitely take him up on it. be aggressive. fight your way through the crowd and pin him to the wall on the issue. when he's no longer the center of attention he'll be much more vulnerable and more likely to cede victory with some statement like, "well, you obviously know a lot more about this than me, and i'm not qualified to speak about it, but i believe blah blah blah..." he might even ask for your email so he can put you in touch with someone "who knows a lot more about this" but i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.
hope this helps.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
This is pretty much what I'm expecting. I will know a few people there, so we'll see how that plays out. I'll know the cute sister of my friend's friend, and I'll know my best friends cute sister, so no matter how it goes down ill be with cute christian broads hahaha.
Ill be going this Sunday (3/21/10) and I'll add to this post what happens!
I thought this was going to be the blasphemy challenge part 2, but then I realized that it targets "college students," not middle school students.
Began with a recap of last week (I didn't attend, yet knew everything) covering naturalism, pantheism, deism and theism. The whole program is based on an overview of major theories and how they are compatible with each world view.
The video went over the Big Bang theory in pretty good detail. It also covered all of the opposing theories and how they weren't correct, then said as far as we know the big bang actually happened. He then went on to say the only problem is a first cause. This first cause is best explained by a god and that theism and deism were the only satisfactory world views.
Argument against naturalism was that the big bang was an effect, and that nothing can cause itself. The argument against pantheism was that there was at first no matter (zero spatial volume / singularity) and since the pantheistic god is in all matter: No Matter = No God.
I didn't respond very assertively. I didn't even defend naturalism, I felt like it would be a little too opposing to the theism/deism scheme of things, and I just wasn't yet comfortable, so instead I defended pantheism. I said if the god of theism or deism could cause itself, so could a pantheistic god. I told them how my understanding of it was that all matter was in an infinitely dense space, so there was matter in the first place. I didn't get much opposition, I myself am not even sure if that is a solid argument at all. I know most of the people there accepted it though L O L.
The fact is, none of the kids there knew what was going on. No one but the little group leader had anything to say. It was me and him going back and forth. I found this hilariously funny, as kids were taking a book full of notes for the 30 minute video, yet couldn't add anything to the discussion. This makes it seem rather pointless. Nobody is learning anything, but at the end where the guy says "god did it" people get all excited.
My friend whose sister invited me recognized this as well. He hasn't been, but told me he expected this. He doesn't go to that church because "its cliquey and social - hardly even church. the kids there are dumb and I'm not surprised no one knows what they are watching."
Overall i had a lot of fun. I got the opportunity to discuss the things I spend so much time teaching myself about. There was a lot more to this then I have posted, but its hard to coherently get it all out. I encourage you guys to ask questions!
I do plan on going again this Sunday. I feel that I brought a lot to the discussion and could perhaps enlighten a few people. The next section is arguing a fine-tuned universe. I have of course seen this argument and have looked into some problems with it. I would love for the topic to be discussed here so i can be better prepared.
P.S. I now see i have written quite a lot. I'm writing this in my break between classes, sorry if it was poorly written/structured. I hope you can understand it well enough.
Yeah, it's just a step up from Jesus Camp.
That's a pretty decent argument for pantheism contra theism. Good job. However, they both fail against atheism (as you know, of course).
I used to be a panpsychist, which is a kind of pantheism that doesn't treat the universe as 'god', it just treats all matter/energy as containing some basis for 'consciousness'.
Actually, I guess thinking back on it, I probably should call my previous position pangnositicism or pansophism, since my point was that complex kinds of 'intelligence' must be decomposable to some elemental bits of 'intelligence' which all matter/energy holds.
The basic argument I used (this was early university, so i was about 21-22 at the time) was that humans are very intelligent, chimps less so, dogs even less, lizards less, fish less, insects less, and even single-celled organisms like bacteria appear to have a certain kind of 'intelligence'. It appeared to me that 'intelligence' was something that could be continually decomposed, even to say that proteins have a kind of 'intelligence', and so therefore molecules, atoms, quarks, and whatever's at the root of matter/energy must also have some extremely basic 'intelligence'. We humans are simply super-advanced intelligences compared to the brutally simple intelligences of basic matter.
It took me realizing that the organization of 'non-intelligent' things can produce 'intelligence' to realize that this line of reasoning violated Occam's Razor. If carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, and nitrogen, by themselves are not 'alive', and yet when they are in a particular configuration they can be 'alive', then the same is true of intelligence. There is no 'lifeforce' at the root of the universe, so there's no 'intelligence' at the root of it either.
Simple physical laws can combine to produce novelty such as 'life' and 'intelligence'. Atheism beats even pansophism.
Which, in a roundabout way, leads me to my point: All forms of theism, including pantheism, fail this same application of Occam's Razor. Everything that we *know* can be explained without a mind behind it. Things that we *don't* yet know... well, we can't explain them yet! Why make up an explanation?! Occam's Razor says no to such ad hoc 'explanations'. They are 'explanations' that don't really explain anything.
I would have responded to the guy along the lines of, "Why are you uncomfortable with simply admitting, 'We don't know yet'? The answer to the question of the first cause is a) we don't know what the first cause was, and b) we don't even know if a first cause is necessary! The answer to 'What came before the big bang?' is, 'We don't know.' There is no shame in admitting we don't know all the answers. In fact, admitting our ignorance is important! After saying, 'We don't know,' the next obvious step is, 'Let's find out!' But if you pretend to know what you don't really know, then you stop searching and stop wondering. You don't look for answers, because you think you've found them already, when really all you're doing is deceiving yourself."
The First Cause argument does *nothing* except introduce a ginormous, unnecessary unknown to explain a merely big, necessary unknown. It doesn't answer life's 'big questions', it only pushes them back one step, and actually turns the 'big questions' into 'insurmountably unanswerable questions'. This quickly turns into dogma, when the answer 'goddidit' is questioned with a simple 'why?', and the inevitable response is, "God is mysterious! Stop asking questions!!!! (or else...)"
These kinds of theist arguments are huge admissions of their fear of the unknown. Well, I say, there's nothing to fear! Embrace the unknown. Investigate it. Explore it. This is how we, as a species, learn about our cosmos. Making up the 'goddidit' answer is a major cop-out; an act of terror, rather than an act of wonder.
Good analysis. It's pointless to you or me, but the real 'point' of it is simply 'indoctrination'. They unquestioningly slurp up the authority's feces.
Awesome. Sounds like it was a perfect opportunity for you. Here's a question or two:
How many people were there? Did you get any funny looks or anything? Did it seem like you might have got anyone to think, after you made your comments/questions? Was the guy generally a nice guy, or a pompous prick, or what?
Good on ya! Now that you've made your presence known, feel free to try a bit more bolder counter-arguments. What have you got to lose by directly challenging the presumption of theism? Even pantheism is not really threatening to Christians, since, "Well, at least he believes in some sort of God, so there's hope for him yet." As long as you keep calm, rational, and honest, I don't think you'll have any problems defending atheism. You seem well-prepared for this kind of thing.
On fine-tuning: Again, Occam's Razor. They're answering a question with a bigger question. Why the extra question?
Read my signature at the bottom of this post. This is my standard position on the whole 'Why are we here?' kind of question.
Of course the universe appears fine-tuned for life! How could it be otherwise?! The brain-deadedness of the idea boggles my mind. If there was no life, then there would be no people to ask the question of 'Why is there life?' It's like a friggin' tautology!
I like the analogy of the puddle which looks around and says, "My, this hole I'm in seems exquisitely fine-tuned to perfectly fit my contours!" The reason 'fine-tuning' is apparent is that a) life exists, b) to satisfy 'a' life must be of the kind that could exist, and c) to satisfy 'b' the kind of life must 'fit' within the parameters of existence. The universe is 'fine tuned' for us because "Here we are!" This is called the Anthropic Principle, and you can demonstrate the Anthropic Principle by simply waving to the person you're talking to and saying, "Hi, here I am!"
Despite what theists might think, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument *against* theism, and *for* atheism.
For, consider that a true god of the omnipotent kind existed. Then why would life have to be 'tuned' to the parameters of the universe? Why couldn't it be the case that the parameters of existence are totally incompatible with abiogenesis and evolution, and yet God just snaps his fingers and life exists anyway? A truly omnipotent God would not be constrained to make a universe where life must lift itself up from its own bootstraps, clawing desperately against the forces of death and destruction to just barely avoid extinction. Life would not have to collect so many hard-won evolutionary adaptations. Instead of constantly worrying about hunger and shelter, God could just rain down manna from heaven all day long and provide us with cozy bungalows, or better yet giant mansions.
A true God could literally create *any* universe imaginable, even one where the 'fine-tuning' is way off, but life exists nonetheless. But no. Instead, we have a universe that works according to blind, stupid, physical laws, which are so mindless as to *appear to require no mind at all* behind them! Instead of creating an obvious miracle, this 'God' created a universe that by all appearances shows no evidence of his existence. He covered his tracks so well, wiped his fingerprints so cleanly, that our universe is *indistinguishable* from one in which *no God at all* had any hand in its existence.
Again, Occam's Razor slices and dices this God to nothingness.
You might want to ask the guy something along these lines: "Do you believe that God can cause miracles?" Assuming he answers yes, ask: "How would a person be able to distinguish between a true miracle of God versus something that is purely physical, but we just don't understand it yet?" Assuming he answers that it is possible to make such a distinction, ask: "Okay, so if miracles are possible, and it's possible to tell the difference between a miracle and a non-miracle, then why couldn't God simply have poofed us into existence with his miracle powers? Why did he have to 'fine-tune' the universe for life? Couldn't he just say "... And then a miracle occurred. Ta da! Humans exist!"? Why this billions-of-years-long process of slow, gradual accumulation of complexity in the face of unimaginable suffering? He could have just made a miracle, no fine-tuning required, and then we would have *incontrovertible* proof of a divine power."
He'll likely say that the fine-tuning *is* the 'miracle'. Which is when you roll out the argument I laid out earlier that such 'fine-tuning' is actually an argument against theism, and for atheism. Only in an atheistic world is it *necessary* that life should be limited to the parameters of physical existence. It's not a miracle at all that the universe is 'fine-tuned' for us. It's a friggin' tautology. It is *literally* impossible for it to be any other way without a God. Without a God, it is impossible for *any* life to look around and realize, "Hey, this universe is *not* conducive for my existence." Such a non-tuned universe, by definition, could *not* contain such life. Only tuned universes can have life. The 'fine-tuning' is an illusion of hindsight.
On the other hand, with a God, this 'fine-tuning' is not necessary. And even if this 'God' 'fine-tuned' our universe, it just makes him into a coward, afraid to show any evidence of his existence. Such a god does not want us to know him, because he has the power to make it obvious and he doesn't. Such a god, if he existed, must *want* us to be atheists, because that's the only honest interpretation of a fine-tuned universe.
If the theist guy answers that it's not possible to tell a miracle from a non-miracle, then he loses by Occam's Razor. How, then, does he know that miracles are true? If he answers 'faith', then it's game over for him: If all of his arguments boil down to 'faith', then why all this mumbo jumbo about trying to defend theism with science? Why not just say, "Hey, you gotta have faith." Again, this 'God' shows zero evidence of his existence, and *humans* claim you gotta have faith in their particular 'god'. Sounds like a con-game.
If he answers that he does not believe God causes miracles, then again, Occam's Razor: If there are no miracles, then basically it's just the universe itself doing all this work generating life from non-life. We don't know what may have 'caused' the universe, and we don't even know that such a cause is necessary. It seems he's just slapping the label g-o-d onto the universe. But we already have a word for the universe, and that's u-n-i-v-e-r-s-e, so why call it 'god'?
Basically, it all boils down to the problem that there's no evidence for any gods. 'God' does not explain anything. It's a superfluous, unnecessary concept, and has zero evidence to support it. It is a useless assumption.
If a god-created universe is *indistinguishable* from a godless universe, then we don't need god, and we certainly don't need human conceptions of god which are obvious con-games.
What's important are the ideas, not the form. Don't worry too much about 'structure'. We are able to understand what you mean, no problem. Have confidence. Style and structure is an extra bonus that you'll easily improve upon the more you write. Write first, improve later.
Addendum:
Okay, I just figured out that there's a way to lay out the logic very simply.
In this truth-table, if there is Not God, then it is impossible to have Life without also having the requisite Conditions for life. (Note, it's possible for there to be the requisite Conditions for life is there is Not Life. It might simply never have happened yet, even though the right conditions are available.)
Notice that if God exists, then there's a '?' for the case where Life exists, but there are Not Conditions for life. This represents the question I proposed for you to ask, of whether God can create miracles.
If God can create miracles, then the '?' becomes a 'T', and we have the following logical argument:
P1 ~God => (Life => Conditions) "Only atheism requires the Anthropic Principle: Life must have the right conditions to exist." (Logical definition of Possible from truth-table.)
P2 Life "Life exists. 'Hi, here I am!'"
C1 ~God => Conditions "Only atheism requires that the universe must have the right conditions for life." (P1, P2. I forget the name of this rule; it's related to Modus Ponens.)
C2 God v Conditions "Either God exists, or the conditions for life are right, or both." (C1. Expansion of definition of => implication. Double negation.)
C3 Conditions v God "Swap them around" (C2. Commutative v)
.: ~Conditions => God "The only way to prove God exists is to show that the Conditions are Not right for life, i.e. a miracle occurred." (C3. Definition of => implication. Double neg.)
So, if miracles are possible, then to prove God, the theist must show that a miracle occurred to allow life without requisite physical conditions for life. If miracles are possible, but God didn't make one, then he's just a dick for not saying 'hi' to us humans with an obvious sign of his existence.
Alternatively, if miracles are *not* possible (or it's not possible for humans to identify a miracle), then the '?' becomes a 'F', and we have the following:
P1 Life => Conditions "Anthropic Principle: Life must have the right conditions to exist." (Logical definition of Possible from truth-table.)
P2 Life "Life exists. 'Hi, here I am!'"
C1 Conditions "The universe must have the right conditions for life." (P1, P2. Modus Ponens.)
C2 God v ~God "Either God exists or he doesn't" (Tautology.)
C3 (God ^ Conditions) v (~God ^ Conditions) "God or no God, the universe must have the right conditions for life." (C1, C2. Conjunction. Distributive ^.)
.: ~God ^ Conditions "Of two hypotheses of equal strength, prefer the one with fewest assumptions. Atheism wins." (Informal application of the principle of Occam's Razor.)
(Note, this final conclusion is not formally valid, it is only to illustrate Occam's Razor. Logically, you don't need to go further than C1.)
Anyway you slice it (ooh, a pun!), the fine-tuning argument attempts to draw out the implication:
Conditions => God
But such an implication is unsound. Such an implication would require this absurd truth-table:
This definition of Possible, which is basically God v ~(Life v Conditions), merely asserts what it is hoping to prove, begging the question: If God doesn't exist, then neither Life nor the Conditions for life are possible. (Says who?) Sure, it's possible (they ingenuously admit) that there could be a universe without a god, but such a universe would not be capable of life. The fact that the universe is capable of life, they assert, is proof that a god exists.
Their argument rests on the idea that the only way the conditions for life could be so 'unlikely' is that some intelligence must have set them up that way.
However, the Anthropic Principle shows that the fact that Life does exist turns the whole idea on its head. Regardless of how unlikely life may be, it is not possible for us to be sitting here talking about it if the conditions were not right for life in the first place. Life => Conditions. It's like someone who won the lottery saying "God must have wanted me to win." It's like the single survivor of an air crash saying, "God was looking out for me." It shows *nothing* for a *survivor* to utter those words. If tomorrow all the humans on the planet were wiped out, except for one guy, would it make any sense for that guy to say, "Finally, proof that God exists! I'm alive!"
lol (We need a good facepalm smiley for situations like this.) No matter how unlikely it is for any particular person to survive, *someone* survived, and only a survivor can speak.
We don't know how likely or unlikely it is for a universe to harbour life. In the end, it doesn't matter, because this universe *does* harbour life, and it's absurd for that life to turn around and say, "Aha! Proof that God exists! We're alive!" Of course you're alive, dumbass! Who else could question their own existence except someone who exists?!
It's actually the other way around: The more unlikely it is for life to survive given the harsh conditions of the universe and the odds against it, the more it makes sense to say, "Aha! Proof that any god that might exist is a complete dick for a) making life so full of death, destruction, and suffering, and b) not just poofing us into existence instead of messing about with all these silly knobs." The more it makes sense to say, "This universe looks suspiciously like one in which either a god does not exist, or whatever it is it's not worth dignifying with the title 'god' rather than simply 'universe'." The more it makes sense to apply Occam's Razor and trim the worldview of yet another useless assumption. What is so fine-tuned about the universe if we cannot exist in 99.99999999...% of it? Again, the puddle admires its fine-tuned pothole. The arrogance is breath-taking.
One final thought experiment for completeness: Imagine that the odds of the universe having the right conditions for life was 1 in a googol to the googol to the googol, and that, given the right conditions for life, the odds of *actually* generating life were another 1 in a googol to the googol to the googol. Seems 'impossible' that life could exist, right? But it's not. It's just incredibly unlikely. However, consider all those vast number of cases where life never exists. Not in any of those cases is it possible for the fine-tuning argument to be posed. In that single, solitary, 1 in a googol to the googol to the googol to the googol to the googol to the googol case, it *is* possible for someone to pose the fine-tuning argument. And furthermore, they *did* pose it.
So, given that the question was posed, what is the probability that the conditions for life were right? 100%. Always. Every single time. And furthermore, since life does exist, solely through having the necessary conditions for it and the luck of it, there's no need for a god to explain any of it. The fact that the question is asked changes *everything*. We're no longer outside of the system, we're in it. Our existence changes the odds from 1 in a bazillion to 1 in 1.
The only way for the fine-tuning argument to work for the theist is in the opposite case, where it is *impossible*, not merely extremely *improbable* for life to exist without a miracle.
Finally, my argument using Bayes' Theorem, for the case where there's no god. Given these probabilities:
P(Conditions) = C (a very tiny, but non-zero number)
P(Life|Conditions) = L (another very tiny, but non-zero number)
P(~Conditions) = (1-C)
P(Life|~Conditions) = M = 0 (probability of miracle; without god, it's zero)
Bayes:
P(Conditions|Life) = P(Conditions)*P(Life|Conditions) / (P(Conditions)*P(Life|Conditions) + P(~Conditions)*P(Life|~Conditions))
= C*L / (C*L + (1-C)*M)
= C*L / (C*L + (1-C)*0)
= C*L / (C*L + 0)
= C*L / C*L
= 1 (Regardless of how small C or L are, as long as they are not 0
So, if there's no god, then it doesn't matter how frigging low the initial probabilities of C and L are. Due to the nature of conditional probabilities, if you see an outcome (life), then the conditions that are required for that outcome must also be true.
Sorry for the length. This argument is one of my pet peeves. If you want the short version, just read the counter-argument in my sig below vvvv
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
That was an excellent refutation of the fine tuning argument. It's so hard to make theists 'get' this because the logically sound conclusion is counterintuitive.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Thanks, BB, I thought it was a bit rambly, but I guess I got the point across. I really appreciate your comment.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I'd say 30 people? A couple children <11 years old (no age limit apparently)
I don't think it was known by them that I was an atheist, although I was a stranger.
I'm sure I did get people thinking. They seemed satisfied with my defense of pantheism. At the very least, they think I'm a genius, so that's a plus haha.
The guy was nice, he genuinely tried to understand what I was saying. I wasn't at all pushy against his theism so he didn't have a reason to get smug anyways. We'll see how it goes next time around!
I most definitely will! I think I have a shock and awe factor on my side. I sound conceited, but that really isn't it. People were impressed, so that should increase my influence - especially as a peer.
Agreed, we'll see if anyone there applies themselves enough to understand it.
My goal is to get people to think. I really want to enlighten people on the very, very strong possibility that the universe is without a god. I hope to properly refute the argument so there is less (bullshit pretending to be) evidence of an imaginary god in their minds. I'll pray that they decide to apply themselves and really think about what I present.