Bible Humper

The priests can't get away with telling their flock that the other religions worship Satan any more, so this is a lame duck attempt to fill the gap.

The world has become smaller, it is now possible to visit the places on the map that used to say "Here there be dragons".

What goes through a Christians mind when he sees that every group of people in the world has embraced some sort of religion? He knows that the rest are false, and can possibly even identify social and psychological factors involved with belief in an afterlife, performance of rituals, observance of taboos, etc. As long as the religion he is looking at isn't his own

They have to invent reasons to explain to themselves why their own religion can't be looked at with the same discerning eye used on the others, this "relationship" crap fits the bill.

It is also pretty standard propaganda, changing definitions in order to distance themselves, via language usage, from these other groups which they want to avoid being associated with.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Egoinos

Surely they must realise, Bible Humper, that this can only be a short-term solution to this problem of theirs though? As someone else pointed out, almost any other religion can just as easily claim to have a "relationship" with their god/s as Christianity can. Then what will they do?

Defiant Heretic

3: Fear of the IPU is the beginning of knowledge,
4: and if you can't figure that out, well, how much knowledge can you have anyways? - Proverbs of Mordigan

So, does that convince you?

Hey, maybe you could start posting your biblical quotations in French again, and stop posting them in English.

Bible Humper

Hello Egoinos,

I don't think that they look at it in this way, when it comes to their own religion they have placed the cart before the horse. They have already decided that the only question is how their religion is true, having skipped the prerequisite question asking if their religion is true.

The problem is that they can't look at their own religion the way they look at the rest. I don't think that it is looked at as a "solution to a problem", the question of whether their religion is different from the others was already made for them while they were growing up so now they only need some sort of rationalisation that fits the conclusion made before the question was asked.

The "relationship rather than religion" angle fits the bill, they won't acknowledge that the other religions can adopt the same tactic because they "know" that the others have no relationship because their deities aren't real!

"Eh? You can't have a relationship with Vishnu! He isn't real!" <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Egoinos

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
is about right, methinks.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Sigh. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. In my discussions with xians I've noticed that they are simply incapable of considering, even for a fleeting second, that their religion is wrong and somebody elses just might be right. They simply cannot consider the possibility that their religion is wrong, and it follows that they can't consider the possibility that people in other religions can claim the "relationship not religion" argument just as validly.

-Nick

Bible Humper

I've noticed that too, they often have extreme difficulty with concepts that require them to consider the possibility even hypothetically.

A good example is the fact that their religion makes a positive assertion (God exists), and atheism does not. I used to be baffled by their denials of this, I saw very intelligent theists hopelessly disputing this point until it was spelled out to them loud and clear(and sometimes repeatedly). It seems that "God exists" is "hardcoded" into their thoughts, becoming both the default position, and the starting point of all subsequent thinking. From their perspective, Yahweh is the default and it is up to us to prove that he doesn't exist, many of them have theologies that are pure solipsism because they have retreated further and further each time their previous position was undermined. They can finally rest easy with a solipsistic religion because solipsism can't be proven not true.

Reading through the testimonials of many of the members here, I gained much insight by the emotional tribulations endured by the ex-christians immediately following their loss of belief.

It is crystal clear that religious believers are nearly invulnerable to any arguments against their religion, the most you can accomplish is to force them to retreat from a particular position to somewhere less assailable.

A single book written for psychologists studying the cult phenomenon, and emotion based, non-confrontational methods of deprogramming the victims, is much more valuable if you want to "convert" theists than an entire library full of books written about contradictions, absurdities, fallacies, etc, in their theologies.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Yeah, you're right. I don't know how many times I've been asked to prove that God doesn't exist. You're right, though. They think that "God exists" is the default position, and it's up to everybody else to prove them wrong. It's sad when they go on to say that most of the people in the world are theists of some sort, so that makes theism the default position. Even a clear explanation of the burden of proof does little good in such cases.

So true. It's really unfortunate when you think about it. They are simply unwilling to look at the plainly written objective evidence which falsifies their belief. When you have to appeal to emotion rather than objectivity to get someone to think about his beliefs something's not right. I know I would become a theist in a minute if somebody presented clear, detailed, objective evidence for the existence of God. Why many Christians can't do the same is beyond me.

-Nick

cydonia

I think part of the reason they can't hypothetically imagine God not existing is because they are convinced they have personal conversations with Him. I've always wondered what that felt like, how do they get the conviction that they really have a "relationship" with God? They honestly believe he is guiding them to read the bible in a special way that makes it make sense, that the reason they understand the Bible as truth is because their perceptions of the scriptures are literally changed by God. I think they experience real physical sensations and overwhelming emotions when they talk to God. If i know what it's like to feel cold, i can't hypothetically imagine non-cold, right?

I wonder how much is a placebo? People can get drunk off non alcoholic drinks if they think they are drinking alcohol, sugar pills etc.

"just ask god into your heart". Unfortunately, i'm still at the place where i'm afraid to do that, just like i'm afraid to ask satan into my heart. I'm pretty sure it's all bs, but there's a gullible little kid deep down who bugs the hell out of me.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: cydonia ]

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: cydonia ]</p>

Bible Humper

Hi Cydonia,

It's actually much deeper than this, beyond their conviction that he exists.

I am convinced that my Mom exists, but I have no problem understanding that the statement "My Mom exists" is a positive assertion.

I have observed the theists experiencing great difficulties coming to grips with this fact if you replace "Mom" with "God", it seems completely counterintuitive to them in this case only.

It isn't linked to any theological point either, which would obviously invalidate my conclusion because they would have an outside reason to defend this idea, but is rather a curious side effect of their religious beliefs which helps shed light on how it works.

They usually willingly abandon this line of argument with comparatively little fuss when they are backed into a corner, but the way they walk this road is extremely instructive.