I have noticed that there are so many kinds of contradiction to any type of god belief, that it can get almost humorous to watch all the little loopholes and tricks that theists will come up with to explain all of the gaps. Which in itself is a contradiction, because most theists say that god is a mystery and unknowable, yet they provide all these explanations to fit their unknowable mystery.

The biblical type of theists are pretty easy to refute since all of their holy scripture contradicts itself and their only explanation to me for this has always been " Well, your just reading it all wrong,". Hmm, so it doesn't say what it really says ?

Comically enough, there are no shortage of people that tell me the bible is the absolute word of god, but when I bring up some really evil cruelty on the part of their god, I get 'Well, that is in the Old Testament,". Ahh, I see, so the Old Testament is no good, right ? So you admit that one half of the bible is totally useless for deciding morals. Oddly enough, the Ten Commandments that Christians swear by as the cornerstone for society, is in the Old Testament.

The "spiritual but not religious" theists are just as bad if not worse at times. I have encountered a few that honestly need to put the dope down and stop priding themselves on being great visionaries for having all of these supposedly clever little explanations for why god behaves the way that he does.

The other night, I was watching this documentary on the Black Metal scene that exploded in Sweden and Norway back in the 1990's.

I am watching one of these musicians going on and on about "God is within the lifeforce of things, god is in nature, I am god and the devil encompassed". OH GIVE ME A BREAK ! I wanted to yell at the tv, your just trying to come up with some sort of original spin idea for a ridiculously stupid concept. Get real.

I used to be a pretty huge fan of Anne Rice as well back in the day. The Vampire Chronicles, the Mayfair Witches, Ramses and the Servant of the Bones were all really great books. At least, they were for me at that time. I don't know how I would approach a work like Memnoch the Devil if I were to pick it up today.

But her facebook page has gone starkly insane.

Woman posts all sorts of deists/universalist nonsense all of the time.

I do somewhat miss the Anne Rice that gave us the concept of Lestat and his "Savage Garden". But she went from being supposedly Atheist, then after the death of Stan Rice she went ultra-religious, and now she is on this kick of " God is all but I hate organized religion".

Please Anne, sit back down at the typewriter and give us some godless stories of vampires that love some and kill others again already.

I started reading CS Lewis' Space Trilogy', but the final volume, "That Hideous Strength", was one of the few novels I actually failed to finish, because the Christian theology that inspired much of the plot became just too obtrusive, to me at least, for my 'suspension of critical faculties' , a necessity for Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, to be maintained.

Last Christmas, I had my sister visiting with her two children, my niece and nephew.

I offered to take them to a movie at one point and allowed the kids to pick the show.

Of course, they picked The Voyage of Dawn Treader, the film adaptation of Lewis's book.

I noticed the young kid character that everyone is supposed to dislike was the kid that scorned make-believe and following made-up imaginary friends.

He was the "bad" kid that needed to learn the so-called lesson.

While I said nothing to anyone else about this, I was sitting there shaking my head and semi-chuckling at a sly bit of Lewis propaganda.

This is a ridiculously common meme in Hollywood.  Science is bad, technology is a tool for evil, those who doubt are flawed, those who have faith are heroic.  Children's movies and adult stuff.  It isn't usually overtly religious, but it encourages religion in a back handed way.  The assumptions of dualism combined with individualism, maybe.

Even stuff I really enjoy, like Star Wars, has that message.  Honestly that is one of the things I love about Star Trek...the absence of overt faith, outside of the 'faith' that humans could overcome obstacles.

To elaborate on that, you might be assuming there is some sort of overt thought process involved.  There isn't.  Typically you are taught things at such a young age they become axioms central to your identity.  If you begin to doubt or ask questions those surrounding you will bury you with rationalizations and justifications and all of them are terribly easy to latch on to.  Remember that at the core theism is an emotional argument.  Who doesn't want to be immortal?  Who doesn't fear death?  When you are raised as a theist you also typically have assumptions about the nature of God, you have assumptions about dualism, you have no rigorous idea about critical thinking...it isn't a one time thing either.  It is often constant.  I was indoctrinated all day long throughout my entire school-age life.

Plus there is enormous social pressure to conform and be a 'good person'.

Religion as a meme is brutally effective, even for the intelligent people.  That is one of the reasons I have a more moderate tone, because I understand the process, I've been there.  Religious people aren't any more stupid than atheists, they are just in the throes of powerful indoctrination.  If you went back in time and snatched them away from their mothers at birth and transplanted them to a place where they could get a good education and be raised without all the theism, they'd be fine.

---------------------------

As far as how I 'got out of it'...I don't know.  I'd like to think it was a rational process but it might be more innate than that.  I remember being in grade school when I 'accepted Jesus into my heart'.  This acceptance came about by my teachers leading us in group prayer with that being a punch-line.  I remember seeing the words and feeling...nothing.  The fact that this was not a wondrous experience was a surprise to me and I was maybe...7 years old?

I still believed though.  I'd have nightmares about Hell.  I would pray to God for help when in distress.  I'd feel extreme guilt about 'sinning'.  I remember being panicked when my brother did something I thought was wrong and being pretty much in tears...I think I told him, "what are you doing, you might go to Hell!" or something like that and he just blew me off...I was distraught about that.  I wasn't terribly devout though, mainly because I was never diligent about anything when I was a kid.  I didn't have overt doubts though, it never occurred to me that God might not exist.  Not once, that I can remember.  I was a very intelligent kid though, always asking questions.  Being around me must have been exhausting, I was always asking, "Why?"  "Why?"  "Why?"

Once I hit my upper-teens I started to have real doubts.  Not about God or dualism mind you, but about the nature of theism as it had been taught to me.  I'd never read any counter-apologetics or apologetics but I remember having very emotional arguments with friends about my instinctive take on the problem of evil and the concept of Hell.  I remember being confused about certain aspects of moral law.  If I had brought this stuff up with someone skilled in apologetics I might never have become an atheist...I doubt I could have dealt with obscure and twisting word-games.  Needless to say, everything was, "Why?" "Why?"  "Why?"  No-one had answers that satisfied me.

Eventually I became very disenfranchised with the Christian God and I started researching other religions, trying to be objective.  The objective part is what killed me.  The more I studied the more I realized they all looked the same.  I remember looking into Wicca at one point and although I really liked the ethics of it and I was very, very attracted to the rituals (I grew up as Lutheran and I loved fantasy stories), the magic...well, it was absurd.  It was *all* absurd.  Every time I investigated a religion it just turned into bullshit and unfounded assumptions.

So, I started thinking maybe it isn't possible to know.  I became an agnostic and that started a new round of research, but now I was reading the real stuff.  Apologetics, counter-apologetics, all that jazz...real heavy stuff I'd never even heard of.  I'd read something anti-religious then I'd go find the counter-argument, back and forth, back and forth.

The first real atheist website I can remember visiting was http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ I remember reading through it and 'discovering' that there were other people who had the same doubts and thoughts as me.  It was amazing.

Eventually, I self identified as an atheist.  I was still very passionate about studying the arguments though...I'm guessing it is because I still have leftover thought patterns from theism.  I still catch myself sometimes, and if I want to I can 'think like a theist'.  I don't like to though...it feels good, then it feels horrible, if that makes sense.

I started debating theists, both strangers and a few friends.  I honestly don't remember how I found the RRS.

This whole process took a long time.  Ten years maybe?  Agnostic-theist probably took a year or two.  It wasn't a fun journey.  I'm far happier now though.  As my sig says, life, the universe and everything makes a lot more sense now.

---------------

TL;dr--  Somehow, I got the idea in my head that the things people were telling me didn't make sense.  Somehow, I started researching theistic claims with a skeptical eye.  Somehow I had a passion for learning that drove me to research even when it was highly unpleasant emotionally.

I really don't know why my thinking process was different from that of my peers.  My brother is a deist because he's too lazy to go the extra mile.  He thought about it one day, decided there was no personal God, and past that he doesn't care so he never pushed any further.  Maybe that means there is a genetic component that makes us more skeptical.  Maybe all the hard sci-fi I read did it.  Maybe that initial surprise when I was 7 years old was a seed that took hold somewhere deep.  Maybe my dad unwittingly taught me more about being open-minded than he did about religion.  Maybe it was because although I feared God, I never 'loved' God (Hmm).  I've thought about it a lot, but I can't pin down any one thing.  Maybe there is no one thing.

I have noticed that as well. What amazes me these days is how many people actually fall for the whole "faith" message in Hollywood films.

I can't remember the name of the movie, but there was a line where actor Michael Caine says " Believe in something, it does not have to be real, just BELIEVE in it,". The girl that I was dating at the time told me that the line gave her goosebumps because it was so good. Needless to say, she thought I was being real negative when I said that I thought that would be a horrible way to live your life. I told her I only spoke from experience.

Funny, the current person that I live with loves that medical tv drama House. Our hero Dr. House is a very cynical, misanthropic, hard-core dude with no real belief in anything other than "logic". (Ahh yes, believing only in reality makes one so mean and miserable right ? ) But every so often,  they have to throw in some silly "miracle" episode where "faith in spiritual nonsense" proves itself to be beyond logic and reason and our "hero" House is supposed to be left without an answer. SIGH.

I have noticed that this seems to be a more prevalent type of meme in Hollywood and American television  than other countries. I am lucky enough to have access to loads of international cinema through Netflix and find that these types of themes do not seem to occur as much in European and Asian cinema.

Kinda like Mellestad was stating, I was born into it and never knew of anything outside of theistic thinking for much of my life.

To be perfectly honest, science was always so heavily scorned and put down by the "faithful" in the congregations that I grew up in, that I never thought to really question that.

Whenever I expressed curiousity about history, I was always told " My boy, the scientists would have you to believe that we are all here by accident, look around you, does this complex world looked like it could have all happened by accident ?,".

Now, of course that is a childish argument, but for a small child, that made so much sense that I never thought too deeply about it afterward.

I was pretty much indoctrinated from childhood up to believe in the scriptures, dislike knowledge for that was an enemy to the faith, and see anyone that questioned the faith as "someone that did not want to serve god" . I was taught that so much, that it was almost like an inherent reaction to anything outside of the faith to avert, dislike and hate it.

Had it not been for so much personal tragedy and suffering in my life that NONE of the priests, the cult-like family, the so-called friends or anyone else could provide answers to, I sometimes wonder if I could have ever broken free of that delusion.

My religion taught penance, suffering, more penance, more suffering and after that, even more penance and suffering. I spent hours and hours and hours praying and pleading and begging. All to no avail of course because there was nothing there listening.

THEN, when bad things continued to happen, I was told that this was god's way of punishing me for my doubts, this was god's way of testing my faith.

For a long time after leaving the church, there really was not much rational thought behind the idea of god. I simply hated the word and anyone that associated with it.

So I went for that whole New Age Mumbo-Jumbo stuff (kinda like what Mellestad was referring to earlier). I found nothing at the bottom of that stuff. All I found was a bunch of lost people ferverently hoping that the universe was filled with some sort of loving energy, here to protect us all of the time. Utter bunk.

It finally occurred to me that the whole thing was useless.

It was actually the scientific community of mainstream Atheists like Dawkins and Stenger that perked my interests enough to start cracking open the science books and looking for explanations.

What I read there just made so much sense to me, I could not believe that I could have ever swallowed the nonsense that had been preached to me my whole life.

The most important thing that I have ever learned from deconversion, was to never accept assertions and dogmatic crap as an absolute. Simply because someone is espousing it does not make it so.

I no longer think of faith as a virtue at all. I think of it as a poison.

Which proves absolutely nothing

Yet you have not offered one single rebuttal of his post, your just using ad hominems and strawmen

Perhaps you should learn to actually formulate some sort of argument if you are in disagreement with what he is saying, other than ridiculing and ad hominems. Who is really being petulant, sulky and childish here ?

Actually, deism is the complete antithesis of atheism; deists believe in God, atheists do not.  So it is just silly to claim that Flew is somehow closer to atheism than he is to theism.  Anyway, more converts:

Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, Edith Stein, and Alister McGrath.

Do you come to conclusions in a sophisticated manner? Or just by sheer imagination?

What actual evidence would there be of any of that being reality?

It sounds like a false assertion, and a simple ad hominem.

Those aren't considered sophisticated.

This is an inference out of your imagination, and your fantasy.

And an insult.

Nothing sophisticated about that.

Any retarded person can do that. Just like becoming religious.

Evidence for the existence of a god, of course.

Are your posts what you consider sophisticated debate?

Are you able to provide a sophisticated debate, or are you only willing to run your mouth?

I'm challenging you, and any and all theists, to a sophisticated debate.

Will (any or all of) you accept?

.

Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies.

Via the idiocy of your posts (though I'm torn between idiocy and lunacy--if the latter, then I apologize for being so insensitive).

Okay.  

Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?

Another ad hominem, and an assertion without a sophisticated analysis.

You're drole...

I don't require any apology.

You can call me any name in the book. It doesn't matter to me.

In the real world, I have people much more intelligent than you for breakfast, and can decide their fates to a great degree.

I can fire them, and get them fired, and sent home to boo hoo into their bibles looking for a way to feed their automaton children.

You don't make the rules, boy.

I do.

A simple yes or no, is all that's required.

Take your chances, if you have the courage of your convictions, and the confidence you project that you are able to distinguish between a sophisticated argument, and an intellectually retarded one.

I will single handedly debate any, and all theists.

You can come up with your own arguments, anyone who you otherwise respect, or quote from any of the most well known apologetics, on the 'proof' that a god exists.

I will debate any 'arguments'.

I don't care who makes the 'arguments'.

Will you be the first to rise up to the challenge, or are you going to continue to try and justify your reluctance to do so?

Simple questions.

I'd like simple answers.

Bring it...

.

That your posts are idiotic is a matter of fact.  Labeling them as such is not ad hominem anymore than it is ad hominem for Simon Cowell to tell some deluded singer that she cannot sing.

I did not put forward any rules.  I simply asked you a question.

Do you have an answer?

Simply because certain famous people have converted to religion or theism fails to prove that religion is true.

Simply using famous names is an attempt to do the above mentioned fallacies. Look up their meanings and you'll see exactly what I mean.

You made the claim that you could argue for and prove god. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate where Atheism fails. Either demonstrate this or I will take the road to the famous Hitchens quote : That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Nope, not the same thing at all. You are making assertions and attacks but thus far have not presented any evidence to refute any of redneF's statements. Therefore, you are only arguing through attacks and ridicule. You are not stating a subjective opinion.

Either provide some evidence that your assertions are true or they will just be dismissed by me as another baseless claim not worth paying attention to.

A degree in philosophy, wow. I am real impressed.

You made the assertion originally that by one Atheist converting it would "offset" anything. Then you threw out more names a few posts later. What were you attempting to do ? How was it relevant to the topic at hand ?

That was in response to his initial assertion regarding converts to atheism.  It was meant to show that his position could easily be reversed.  Moreover, I did not mention one atheist, or two atheists, and so forth.  You are now just putting words in my mouth.

I think I pointed out there is a distinction between logical truths and actual truths.  Do you really have a degree in philosophy?  Um, no you can construct a sound argument and it not entail the real world.  Zeno's paradoxes still haunt your supposed discipline.  Modal logic can construct all sorts of true statements about possible worlds.  Some might even supervene on the real world.  I answered your question but I guess it did not sink in.... 

The premise of Plantinga is logically true. The conclusion is not necessarily true in the sense of a real world in that the possible world in which the entity exists may not exist.

1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness

I guess define what you mean by true... in a scientific sense?, historical sense? Where was I claiming my standard for sufficient evidence to be 100% absolute certainty?  It certainly should be in the realm of believable, clear and convincing,  testable. I was long influenced by Robert Almeder's Blind Utopian Realism: An Essay on Human Knowledge and Science.  In philosophy you can create all sorts of constructs and systems that hold up as true but do not correspond to the real world. I'll take science over philosophy and theology any day.

Mentioning Anthony Flew, CS Lewis, Edith Stein and Lee Strobel does not "inevitably offset" (your words) anything. That does not easily reverse his position. It was an attempt to invalidate the position by tossing famous names around. It doesn't prove anything.  

And you'd only undermine your basis for posturing as one who understands what a sophisticated argument is.

I could just as easily find a few people off the street who would conclude that you have a pvssy instead of a dick.

Your level of sophistry isn't even compelling by the standards of a pre schooler.

And I can prove that, as well.

No.

You're displaying a reluctance to either accept, or decline my numerous direct challenges asking whether you would debate with me.

We can easily conclude that you are an insecure pvssy, who simply prefers to run his mouth with his arbitrary, retarded methods of 'reasoning'.

Stop derailing this thread.

I pissed all over your imaginery god.

I characterized him as a petulant dysfuntional idiot.

This is your chance to shine, and to score some great brownie points with your imaginary pvssy god.

Man up, boy, or STFU and piss off.

Yes, or no, to my challenge, tough guy.

Yes or no?

But apparently, just unqualifiably declaring 'It doesn't prove anything' is sufficient proof.

How long are we going to continue this?  I really have better things to do with my time.

You're the one who can't even say the word without masking the 'u'.