Tusitala

Thanks for the replies, I agree with all of you.

I will continue to have discussions with my workmate. I (we) enjoy them. He doesn't piss me off at all. The people that fill his head with falsehoods are another matter.

On another tact......If we take the World-wide situation into account and apply the doctrine? that religion is the opiate of the poor, then mass dissolution of faith could lead to chaotic upheaval, as those who have been praying for something better realise they were conned.

Cheers,
Tusi

Totalitarianist

It is not destroying their faith, it is releasing them from their cages, in my opinion.

And you have all made wonderful points.

HumanisTim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tusitala:
[QB]I'm not seeking arguments here, but feel free to give your considered opinions.

I work with a presbyterian fundy young-earther who gets those creation 'science' mags. We have had several 'discussions' that I try to keep as civil as possible. We agree to disagree. Many of you will have experienced the frustration of trying to reason with someone that won't consider the other side of the coin, so to speak.

The guy is a really good and caring human being, and I like and respect him for that.

Sometimes I punch little holes in the armour, but I'm restrained from doing any serious damage because I'm conscious of his faith being the cornerstone of his life.

For so many people around the world, faith gives hope for an afterlife. If we destroy that hope, what will become of these people?

For me its not right to try to convert someone. If their faith gives them hope and brings meaning to their life. I think that if their faith becomes dangerous to themselves or others. Then I think its time to start planting the seeds of doubt.

Panta Pei

"Is it wise to destroy someone's faith? "

Nope.

But, I do make it a point to sincerely and proactively oppose their imposition, proseletyzing and/or subversion at all possible times.

excreationist

Tusitala:
Your friend can still believe in the after-life if they gave up the belief in an old earth!

Though on the other hand, creationists like the emphasize a lot that an old earth is incompatible with the gospel message and evolutionism leads onto atheism fairly easily. But don't worry about that...

I suggest you ask your friend to look at these links about the Green River formation and "valves" (annual sedimentary layers) - and you can too

Firstly, the young-earth links:
(you could print all of this out and give it to him)
<a href="http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=6" target="_blank">http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=6</a>
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp</a>

And the old-earth links:
<a href="http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/rockofages.html" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/rockofages.html</a>
<a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm</a> (just the "varves" section is relevant)

Basically in the old-earth links, it gives many reasons why the varves point to an old earth. In the young-earth links they only talk about a couple of these things...

So it is up to your friend to explain all of the remaining problems with valves... I think there are several - you can have a read through those articles to familiarize yourself with them.

Also you should print out and give him this article:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp</a>
You could highlight the date of the flood which is just before appendix 1 - 2304 BC!

So basically he would have to explain how those remaining features of the valves, that suggest it is millions or at least hundreds of thousands of years old, are in fact only 4300 years old.

You could also tell him about <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">Arguments we think creationists should NOT use</a>...
e.g.
If your friend can't explain away the problems with valves after a few days or weeks you could say that this suggests that the earth is a lot older than the 6000 years that Answers in Genesis suggests it is.

There would be benefits for him no longer believing in a young-earth - e.g. he would no longer influence others about it and so there might be less chance of you having disagreements about that topic... also, people who believe in a young-earth probably are more likely to elect right-wing fundamentalist politicians, etc...

Perchance

I don't know if religion is only that, but if it is...

I don't know that the upheaval would be major, unless people break suddenly into non-belief rather than gradually. After all, not all atheists are angry and bitter and violent towards religion and/or religious people, even the ones who may have raised them religiously.

And it would really depend on who was left, I think. If, for example, all the lay Catholics on earth somehow became atheists at once, but the Catholic hierarchy was intact and telling them to believe, then those people might have a target for their anger. But if everyone on earth adopted non-belief at more or less the same time, what would people get angry at? Crosses?

-Perchance.

sighhswolf

An astute observation freemonkey.
I agree that if a religious person is swayed into
rejection of their faith, by anything said or done by non-believers, the faith was not strong in the first place.
And comments from non-believers are in most cases
not the catalist for disbelief.
Wolf

Starboy

All of this is interesting but if religion is a form of cognitive dissonance then it is possible to destroy someone’s faith. All that is required is to present them with a sufficiently strong disconfirming event when they are away from their support group.

I think the reason why the numbers of a-theists is growing in this society is because religion is it's own worst enemy. By make such are big deal about science and evolution they setup up the very conditions needed to create a disconfirming event. By painting a-theists as some terrible form of existence, when a religious person actually gets to meet and know one of us, it also becomes a disconfirming event.

So in some sense people don't choose to loose their belief, they are setup to experience a disconfirming event, and in most cases it is the very religion they espouse that does it to them.

This is why I welcome the creationists and IDers. I say bring it on. The more they protest the more numerous a-theists become. At some point we will become the political majority and will be able to settle this nonsense once and for all.

Starboy

Tusitala

excreationist: Thanks for the links. I will use them as best I can. I have a large folder of ueseful material (wide ranging in subject material) already, but it is dynamic and there's always room for more.

My friend is probably typical of many fundamentalist Christians in that (I sense) he really doesn't want to know - his head is filled with so much propaganda from creation 'scientists' and the like.

Perchance:

No. If religion is the opiate of the poor- (and we remove their hope of a better afterlife) I imagine they wouldn't want to put up with being miserably poor anymore. There are a lot of them.

Starboy - Yes. I've always been a fan of leading by example too.

Marduk

"Is it wise to destroy someone's faith? "
In general I would say no. I rarely even discuss religion unless I know the person reasonably well. If it makes them happy fine with me. If it makes them annoying, pushy and arrogant, bust em.