I have noticed that many Christians who have strong beliefs seem to have their life completely shaped around their religion.  Some of the shaping is done before birth.  The question, is it not a religion of convenience?  I can see many reasons why someone would remain Christian despite any evidence:

1. Their entire family is Christians and they dont want to upset anyone.  If they come out and speak out against Religion, they could be ostracised by their own social network.  

2. They have alterior motives, ie: love, money, power, etc, and have found an avenue in getting said resources through the Church.

To me, it seems that many people are theistic OR atheistic not because of their own personal beliefs, but because of their own personal desires.  But it seems to me that people are more aligned idealogically with anything (religion, abortion, government, etc) because of convenience.  Because their family is, or because they can find progress (financial, mental, desires) or meet goals by using it.

I suppose my main argument is that I've witnessed many people in chruches, especially in my day as a Christian, whom were there not for salvation, but for help with money, help with raising the kids, to please their family members, and even for attention/power. 

In this respect it can be argued that the atheist who walks away and is shunned by his/her family and social network is indeed a martyr, and if it were the bronze age would be put to death.  

You walk into the office tomorrow. As you walk to your desk a co-worker, Gordon, stops you and says, "I'm going to blow Mary's fucking head off."

How do we assess a threat like that? It clearly has very serious implications if Gordon is being sincere, so it's important that we be able to analyze the sincerity of given pledges to do harm.

Fortunately, this is something we're very good at, thanks to a certain branch of epistemology that I'll explain later. First, let's go over a few potential crystalizations of our scenario:

First, let's say that Gordon has worked with you for several years, that Mary is the boss, and that Gordon has said the same thing (or some variation thereof) to you every single day without incident. He has never acted violently or strangely - but has acted rather grumpily - around you.

How likely do you think it would be that Gordon actually intends to harm Mary?

Now let's say that Gordon is a new employee. He never talks to anyone, including yourself, and a few times while looking over into his cubicle you've seen him browsing snuff websites. He always seems to be a bit jittery/anxious.

How likely do you think it would be that Gordon actually intends to harm Mary?

Now let's say that after Gordon stopped you, he pulled a gun out of his belt and pointed it at Mary's head while he told you about killing her.

How likely do you think it would be that Gordon actually intends to harm Mary?

THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING.  IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED.  HAVE AT IT...

How about an appeal to reason and common sense?  The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here?  You have no answer for that.  Christianity does.  I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one.  Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.  I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind.  You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him. 

You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name.  You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God.  How ironic.   Allah does not exist.  That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him.   What for?  He doesn't exist.  Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others. 

This is my first post on this forum so I hope to get a few responses. Let me start off by saying I live in the deep south and I am not the kind of person who tries to spreed my views; however, when asked I clearly state my case in the most polite way I can. Being 6'4 I hardly ever have problems with people (note the word hardly). One day several weeks ago I was minding my own business and I was quickly approached at work(and btw I'm the manager) by an irrational person. They asked, why don't you believe in god? I said there is no proof, and in an extremely loud voice I get "what about the bible!!!". Now I work with the public everyday and that's not a situation I try to stay in so I asked if I could help them with anything and all of a sudden I get ganged up on by 3 people at least a foot shorter than me trying to persuade me by fear. I finally caved in and asked them all one simple question. "Were any of you born with the knowledge of God??" 2 of them were quiet for about 30 seconds but the 3rd kept ranting about "is this all you think life is that you will work here the rest of your life and just die, you think this is it, and there's nothing after your life on this planet!!" and I said, well... yea..

So my question is how many people have been bullied because of there beliefs and what is your story behind it?

Several points...

- I am using the term "consciousness" to mean, at the very least, "conscious-awareness."

- It is generally argued by materialists that consciousness is an "emergent" property. That is, somewhere during the process of biological evolution, consciousness suddenly emerged in living organisms. Exactly when this emergence occurred seems to be a bit of mystery. And there doesn't appear to be any kind of consensus in the scientific community concerning which organisms are conscious and which are not. Also, keep in mind that consciousness as an emergent property cannot be compared to any other form of emergence we may observe in nature because every other form is physical, not mental. 

- Evolution theory basically holds that the fittest survive by the process of natural selection. In other words, those members of a species with genetic traits or characteristics which confer some kind of survival benefit are the ones that live and reproduce and thereby pass on their traits to subsequent generations.

- Materialism generally holds that consciousness is a by-product or an epiphenomenon of the physical or that consciousness supervenes on the physical. Both epiphenomenalism and supervenience theory hold that conscious is not causally-efficacious. (Incidentally, both eiphenomenalism and supervenience are dualistic...but now I digress.)

Here's the dilemma for materialists as I see it...

Atheists are wont to denounce belief in "the immaterial" as ridiculous while exclaiming the worldview of scientific materialism as the only rational and sane position. Certainly, this attitude is prevalent on this particular forum. Be that as it may, the truth of the matter is that scientific materialism is a metaphysical belief-system based on faith ("faith" as the atheist defines the term - i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). Why? Because there is no proof that mental phenomena are physical in nature. Indeed, our first-person experience of our own subjectivity is proof-positive in the reality of the immaterial. Moreover, science itself has never proven that so-called physical phenomena are ultimately physical in nature. Those who would argue otherwise are saddled with the burden of proof.

Your site is the best on the web for showing us how to be better people. But I hope you look at two suggestions I give at the end.

One thing that makes your site great is that it starts off with an absolute statement that certain ideas should be eradicated (peacefully) from the earth. Then a person can go to the forums and read RRS posts saying we shouldn´t  make such absolute judgments. Even better, lots of your members act about as peaceful as rabid weasels in their posts and videos, and never get called on it by the rest of you. Good example of what people can expect if they give you any political power, then get on your bad side.

Another example of why this is such a great site: your responses to the topic  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15905. It started off with a post that included a quote from the guest book of http://kent-hovind.com:

Kent Hovind thinks it's a good thing to massacre Muslim insurgents, then bury them in mass graves filled with pig guts.

(http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm) On the other hand, Materialists of my acquaintance maintain that we must not do this.

 Projection is the psychological defense mechanism of assigning one's own bad qualities to someone else, usually the opposition.  For instance, a hypothetical football player (cough... cough... T.O.) who is well known for selfishly wanting all of the spotlight for himself might suggest that his team is somehow conspiring to keep him from his just rewards by selfishly not throwing the ball to him enough.  By assigning the quality of selfishness to the quarterback, he absolves himself of his own selfishness.

Christians are particularly good at this.  I read an interesting post this afternoon, in which our very own Paisley said that he thinks consumerism at Christmas is due to a secular materialist worldview.  I admit, I almost choked on my iced tea when I read that.  A short trip through Googleland produced 387,000 hits for "Christian Merchandise."   Curiously, "Secular Merchandise" spawned only 171 hits.

Challenge, accepted..

EPISTEMIC ARGUMENT FOR THE SUPERNATURAL, WITTGENSTEIN VERSION

Definitions

D1. Nature: observable reality

D2. Supernature: non-observable reality

D3. Knowledge: true, justified belief

D4. Certain: unreasonable to doubt

D5. Natural knowledge: knowledge attained through observable modalities.

D6. Supernatural knowledge: knowledge attained through non-observable modalities. (NOTE: To head off a rather obvious objection, the supernatural modality provides information but is not itself observed. By analogy, imagine that there were no mirrors in your house. Your eyes would provide you with information, but you would not be able to observe the sensory organs themselves.)

D7. Modality: source of knowledge (e.g., your eyes, your reason)

Argument (In Four Parts)

P1. If supernatural knowledge exists, then a non-observable modality exists. (D6)

P2. If a non-observable modality exists, then a non-observable reality exists.

C1. Therefore, If supernatural knowledge exists, then a non-observable reality exists. (P1 & P2)

P3. If a non-observable reality exists, then supernature exists. (D2)

C2. Therefore, If supernatural knowledge exists, then supernature exists. (C1 & P3)

Part Two

I've heard it said on the web, that religion is "BS" and "poisons everything. I'm not going to defend world religions. But the claim that Christianity is "BS" and poisons everything, is both very ignorant, an irresponsible statement, and a lie. Below is a small sampling of the good that Christianity in particular, has done for the world. A more thorough treatment can be found in the book "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born," by Kennedy.
 
Thousands of miralce working saints who overcame fallen human sinful nature to a large degree.
 
Christians gave us Oxford University, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton.
 
The first 123 colleges in America were founded by Christians.
 
All the founders of the major branches of science, were Christians.
 
98% of modern technological inventions, are from Christians.
 
The principles found in the Constitution, are based on Christian and biblical principles.
 
Had Jesus never been born, America would never have been created.
 
Christianity put an end to cannibalism around the world in the 19th century.
 
Wherever Christianity has been, literacy and education have progressed.
 
Christians put value on human life.
 
The Salvation Army was founded by Christians, and is now in 100 nations.
 
Christianity abolished slavery.
 
The Red Cross was founded by Christians, and has saved millions of lives.