rainbow walking

Rw: I’ve been saving up for this one. Thanks peteyh for bringing this question to light in such an eloquent manner. Now let’s see… where to begin…ah, yes, I know…

A simple illustration of a conversation between myself and a devout Christian should suffice to illuminate the fealty created by the illusion of theism compared to the liberty enabled by atheism.

Conversation With A Theist

Theist: “Did you see where Congress has voted to restrict stem cell research in this country? I think it’s the best thing they’ve done in a long time. I just wish the world would take their cue and put an end to this madness. It needs to be abolished altogether”

Me: “Do you understand the ramifications of their actions?”

Theist: “Yeah, it means scientists won’t have the opportunity to create designer babies.”

Me: “Designer babies?”

Theist: “Yeah, you know, where the parents can choose the hair and eye color, sex and other stuff before the child is born.”

Me: “You find this offensive, do you?”

Theist: “Well sure, don’t you? I mean, what right do we have to meddle in God’s business? Why would people want to be able to make such choices and force their preferences on a child before it’s born? Maybe the child won’t appreciate being blonde and blue-eyed. What if everyone wants blonde haired, blue eyed babies? Pretty soon the world would be nothing but blonde headed, blue eyed people”

Me: “So you think the gestation of a child is the business of God?”

Theist: “Yes I do and I, personally, have no problem with the children He’s given me. I think they are beautiful just the way they are. Children are the greatest expression of His love for humanity and I believe tampering with His ability to decide who gets what gift is like totally ungrateful, like saying God, I don’t want this baby, I want that one. Science has no right to change or alter God’s gift before it’s born”

Me: "I’m thankful and happy for you that your children are healthy and pleasing to you, but what about all the un-told thousands of children who are born with defects, who barely live just long enough for their parents to fall hopelessly in love with them and then die due to some mal-development during pregnancy? Are these also God’s gift and expression of his love?”

Theist: “ No, God doesn’t have a thing to do with that, people do. Ever heard of crack babies? Most defects are caused by mothers who are irresponsible with their health during pregnancy or because of some past genetic defect in the family line of one of the parents. It says in the bible that the sins of the father will follow the children even to the seventh generation. “

Me: “And God told you about these genetic defects and crack babies?”

Theist: “No, God didn’t have to, it’s been proven. It’s a fact of reality.”

Me: “Proven by who?”

Theist: “Medical researchers.”

Me: “Scientists?”

Theist: “Yeah, scientists and medical researchers have proven that most birth defects are caused by people, not God.”

Me: “Then you admit that people already have the power to alter God’s gift?”

Theist: “Yeah, and just look at what they do with that power.”

Me: “And you say that the sins of the father are what causes a lot of these birth defects?”

Theist: “No, I’m not saying it, the bible says it, God says it. It’s a proven fact of life.”

Me: “So God, in His business of over-seeing the gestation of babies, allows these sins to mangle innocent babies who’ve committed no sin, the same God who forgives men of their sins when they repent, allows sin to destroy innocent lives even if He knows that the father will repent of his sins at a future date?”

Theist: “No, I’m saying that God doesn’t interfere with the consequences of sin. It may be that a child born with a birth defect is what drives the mother and father to the alter. God has a way of turning sin into some good.”

Me: “So God, whose business it is to determine the eye and hair color and sex and health of a child during gestation, just refuses to interfere with some debilitating agent that causes horrible birth defects in babies, like being born with an undeveloped heart, such that they barely survive three months in this world? This same God who is suppose to love mankind, has the power to produce normal healthy children from all pregnancies, yet refuses to exorcise that power because the consequences might be the conversion of one or both parents?”

Theist: “ You’re just trying to make God out to be a monster or something. Look, God isn’t the one who committed the sins that brought the defects onto the child. Maybe God has repaired many such defects because the parents dedicated their lives to Him during pregnancy, who knows? But God always gets the glory out of any situation, no matter how bad it looks at first.”

Me: “Then believers have never had children born with defects? Believing in God or serving God in some way assures you of healthy children?”

Theist: “Look man, I’m not going to stand here and let you put my God in that kind of light. He’s not responsible for sin, Adam is.”

Me: “I knew a young couple who were so in love with each other, who carefully planned their first child, were very responsible during her pregnancy, were devout believers in your God and their child died after three days. Their doctor attributed it to some kind of genetic defect in one of their family lines. Now they’ve divorced and neither of them are in church. So if I apply the biblical teaching of sins following the children to the seventh generation, am I to assume that someone in their family refused to repent and so God allowed this innocent child, along with his believing parents, to suffer for that un-repentance? That doesn’t sound like a very loving, forgiving, just God to me.”

Theist: “That’s because you don’t understand that God’s ways are not our ways. God has mysterious ways of working things out according to His plan but we might never fully understand that in this life. What about all the babies born with defects who overcome those defects to live normal, productive lives anyway, and are able to help others because they’ve been through it and know what it’s like?”

Me: Yabut, if God’s business is over-seeing the gestation of babies, why put a single child through this experience? It can’t be the child’s fault that someone in his bloodline failed to repent of their sins. If that past relative is burning in hell, isn’t that punishment enough? Must future children also pay for his sins? Children who are unable to even comprehend anything close to sin or goodness? What if gestation of babies isn’t God’s business? What if it’s man’s business? You’ve already admitted that man can influence or alter the normal affairs of gestation through neglect such as crack babies, so what if your God gave man his reasoning faculties and put no restrictions on man’s use of those faculties? Wouldn’t it be good if man could develop the technology and medical expertise to diagnose defects and treat them during gestation? How would this affect man’s view of God?”

Theist: “Well, yeah, that would be all well and good if that was all men used this type of science for, but history proves that men always end up using their science for wrong reasons also. Just like I said about choosing the sex, and looks of a child, how would you justify that?”

Me: You said a child might grow up to resent his parents choosing these things for him, right?”

Theist: “Yeah, don’t you think that might lead to a world of resentful blond haired, blue eyed people?”

Me: “What would a child resent you the most for, being a blond haired blue eyed woman or being a blond haired, blue eyed woman with no legs because you refused to allow science to develop methods of combating these birth defects? And why would an African American family elect to have a blond haired, blue eyed child? Or a Spanish person elect to have a child with such features? I just don’t see all people wanting children with these particular features.”

Theist: “Yeah, you’re probably right about that, but still…I just don’t see picking a child’s features for him, it just doesn’t set well with me. I still think that’s a violation of God’s sovereignty some how.”

Me: “Let me ask you this, when you go to buy a car do you just close your eyes and wander through the car lot and purchase the first car you bump into?”

Theist: “Yeah but you can’t compare a child to a used car.”

Me: “I’m not, but why allow something as uncaring as nature pick the features of your child? Is that responsible? Don’t all parents hope for children who will be better in every way than they are? If you can give your child an edge in being better, would you deny them this because of your religious beliefs?”

Theist: “Well, I agree that it would be good if we could prevent birth defects but I’m just not comfortable with picking and choosing our child’s looks and sex. I think that is taking things a little too far, but I’ll ask my pastor what he thinks about it and let you know”

Me:” That’s all well and good but if your pastor has any children, ask him if he’d prefer them to become auto mechanics or brain surgeons?”

Theist: “See! That’s my point! Every parent will want their child to be super smart and become brain surgeons and there’ll be no one left to work on cars. That’s why we shouldn’t meddle in God’s business. He knows what we need better than we do.”

Me: “Yabut, if we produce a generation of super smart people, don’t you think they’ll be able to produce better modes of transportation that require no mechanics to fix? Don’t you think an entire generation of geniuses might solve a lot of the world’s problems much more efficiently than allowing nature to produce one out of a million? Wouldn’t that be preferable to allowing the world to languish on in its current state of affairs? Isn’t that the logical next step in the evolution of the human species”

Theist: “Evolution! Bah, don’t tell me you believe in that crap? This conversation is over!”

Rw: Now let me repost peteyh’s complaint against atheism again:

Not believing in God would take away all the hope and meaning from their lives and replace it with nothing. That's why logical arguments so rarely work - they don't care about the logic, they care about what gives them hope and a purpose. The fact that God isn't real is irrelevant; faith in Him brings happiness to them and that's all that really counts.

rw: See anything in the above conversation that leaves the theist without hope, purpose or meaning? Did my logic work? While this theist may have brushed aside the logic and stubbornly clung to his faith, it’s a sure bet that he’ll be more mindful of his unsolicited comments against the only hope humanity has…science.

Atheism offers the theist a challenge. It hovers out there on the edge of their cognizance threatening the comfort of their worldview, tugging on the loose, dangling threads of their cocoon, forcing a response. Thus evangelism is indoctrinated early on as the underlying goal and purpose uppermost to their existence. Non-belief cannot be countenanced in a world under the influence of theism. Every man, woman, and child must be of one mind and one accord.

Atheism offers power, the only power capable of compelling change. A person who has reached the plateau of atheism has intellectually overcome 90% of the tools by which the autocratic bureaucracy of the “elect” manipulate the behavior of the masses. Every nation on earth has its religion.

Atheism offers liberty, the only road to the vision required to see through the fog of orthodox consensus. From this point onward it’s up to the individual how they apply their vision of change and challenge the powers-that-be.

Tom Sawyer

Rainbow,

It's theat "God has mysterious ways" line that kills every secular argument. Whoever came up with that one should be canonized, because he's brought billions of dollars and worshipers to religions around the world. There's really no way to argue it or get around it. No matter how good the argument is, it always hits the brick wall of that we can't understand God's plan and the argument goes nowhere after that.

I've had that same conversation (not the specifics, but the general idea) many times and that's a point that just can't be beat.

All atheists have to go on is logic and common sense and those just don't have what it takes.

Koyaanisqatsi

THE REST...

You're assuming, of course, that it is a freely decided upon action of an individual who has weighed all of the options and simply chosen theism, which is rarely if ever the case.

Mine too, if in fact it is "their own personal choice" and not, say, the result of childhood inculcation or other forms of indoctrination, as it arguably is for the overwhelming majority of christians, IMO.

That is irrelevant, of course, because people do not live in a vacuum. The question is, should the truth be a top priority?

Before you address that, have you read any of Jung's theories regarding the collective unconscious?

No, actually they are not. I don't know where you live, but on Earth, no life is "their own" to do with as they please.

That's what laws are for and moral inculcation is for and social peer pressure is for. We are social, pack animals and always have been and when something within that pack adversely affects the whole tribe, it needs to be actively addressed, correct?

Again, you are posting your thoughts from an ideal utopic perspective, wherein the individual is has had no influence and exists entirely in a vacuum from the rest of society, so, yes, of course, in that impossible scenario, I agree, but then I'm an anarchist.

Unfortunately, however, we do not live in an anarchic utopia, so the question of whether or not individuals should or should not be left alone to act in any way they wish upon their beliefs is not as simple as you paint it.

If those beliefs--such as the belief, for example, that incest is permissible (a belief one can find evidence for in the Bible, mind you)--effects others in a detrimental manner, then the answer is, "No, you cannot act upon those beliefs and we as a society will do everything in our power to eradicate such beliefs from our culture."

It happens literally every day of you life in ways you have no conscious understanding of, so while I agree that anarchy is the way humanity should live, unfortunately we do not live that way, so it is not as simple as saying, "Well, people should be allowed to believe anything they want," since it rarely if ever is left at mere belief.

If you'll recall, I made this point prior.

And how would you propose you assess that question? "Well, I know my friend is a christian, therefore he likes to live a lie, therefore I won't tell him?"

Nor does it necessarily mean it would be the worst for him and that's the point. You don't know, so the question therefore becomes more complex than the simplistic ideal you have painted and you must seek some form of guideline that you, personally, decide upon.

For you, it appears your guideline is inaction based upon your own personal assessment--your own judgment call--regarding whether or not your friend would prefer to live a lie.

How is that in any way different from my guideline, aside from the passive decision? We're both making a personal judgment call based upon what we think our friend would or would not want, yes?

At least with my guideline there is an attempt at objectivity through empathy; yours is arguably little more than a personal crapshoot that defaults to passivity.

What would you do, for example, if your friend discovered that you had known all along and could have prevented all of that pain and suffering but chose instead to remain passive because you thought he preferred to live a lie and be happy?

I know in your analogy he "won't find out," but that's, of course, more of the impossible ideal and an unreasonable and unrealistic limitation and must be factored in to the whole equation if you are to honestly assess whether or not you should (or should not) tell your friend.

It arguably should be and that's of course what we're really debating here; a should scenario.

Yes, you've "said that," but so far as I can see, provided no reasonable justification for why you don't accept it. Not that you have to, of course, but since you started this...

All you've done so far is set up unrealistic "real life" scenarios based on an impossible ideal and not understood that your choice to be passive is no different than my choice to be active, IMO.

In essence (and practice) you're saying, "It's not my business." While literally true, isn't the whole point of being and having a friend that such things are indeed "your business" to some degree? That you are concerned and do rely upon empathy/sympathy in times of crisis to help your friend?

I'm not saying this is an easy scenario and of course one needs to weigh all the issues as best they can, which is why I won't let you put unrealistic limitations on the analogy, fair enough?

Please. There's a profound difference between selling the truth and telling the truth, yes?

But you do, arguably, pursue truth for truth's sake, which is precisely why you are an atheist, yes?

Again, I think you're attempting to over simplify an extremely complex scenario.

Which is why it ultimately must come down to an overall good vs. an overall bad, IMO. Do the detriments/benefits of living a lie outweigh the detriments/benefits of living the truth?

Further than that, of course, is what are the detriments/benefits of living a lie for the individual and for society in general?

Well, obviously that depends upon many factors, primary of which is what is the lie and how does it impact the individual/society?

It's just not as simple as saying, "In this ideal, perfect scenario that does not reflect reality...", yes?

That's why empathy/sympathy is the basis for morality and our laws; they act as guidelines to, hopefully, regulate as best as possible all individual conduct within a society.

Again, if you're talking about a monk in the mountains of Tibet, obviously this doesn't apply and if you're arguing for anarchy, I concur, but unfortunately we are nowhere near as enlightened as anarchy demands for us to even have a chance of evolving toward, IMO.

The question isn't, "Does it work for everybody," the question is can it work for most people?

Like it or not, we live in a society that has to establish rules and regulations and the number one rule, of course is, will your actions harm others? If so, we, as a society, have declared that you may therefore not commit those actions, based upon that empathy/sympathy-derived guideline, yes?

Then it is arguably not "happiness;" it is self-delusion. There is a difference, though, yes, not necessarily a qualitative difference to the individual, which is, again, why I keep bringing up the lobotomy/heroin addict analogy.

Ok, stop there for a moment and now factor in the state of the world population. Wars, famine, brother against brother, victimization, 10% of the population ruling and arguably enslaving the other 90%.

Do you see any correlation? I do and can readily argue that very point and do on a regular basis.

Again, people do not live in a vacuum and an extremely good argument can be made that it is precisely because 90% of the population are living a lie that we have wars, famine, brother against brother, victimization and 10% of the population enslaving the other 90%.

Does the perceived good of "living a lie" therefore outweigh the demonstrable bad, IMO, of living that lie?

Let me put it another way. Clearly the current state of affairs--that 90% of the world lives this lie--is not working and is, arguably, in fact causing the vast majority of the problems you are saying (and Odemus) living a lie helps to smooth out, yes?

If the lie is the cause and the "happiness" merely self-delusion induced as a contingent element to the lie, then shouldn't the lie be exposed at all costs so that true happiness can be achieved by all?

Well, clearly that is a bone of contention. I can only say that, if that were indeed the case, then we would not have the wars and victimization that we currently do in the world, so I do not and cannot agree with that simplification.

It just is not the case, which means that one would have to re-evaluate exactly what constitutes this so called "happiness" you assert.

IMO, of course, it is not actually "happiness;" it is self-delusion induced by the cognitive dissonance most cult dogma necessarily invokes in its members as a necessary condition to maintain their membership.

Again, I would strongly encourage you to read Jung.

I just did and my math does not compute, for, if you say that 90% of the world is religious and that therefore the majority of those people are "happy," then why isn't our world a global paradise?

If that many people are so happy based upon the ideals of brotherhood and tolerance and acceptance and love that most religious people (such as Odemus and luvluv) claim are the "true" doctrines of their religion, then how do you explain the fact that 98% of our world is in poverty and/or at war with one another?

Sorry, but the math does not support a passivity toward cult mentality in the slightest, nor does it support the contention that these people are actually "happy," so, I contend, a deeper investigation must take place.

As most around here know, scratch that surface (as I did here with Odemus) and you see that what someone calls "happiness" is actually anything but; it is black but they see white, IMO borne out by not just by ancient history, but also recent history.

It does if that happiness is not genuine; if it is, in fact, merely self-delusion. Again, read Jung.

Well, that should be obvious, by now. My definition of happiness is knowing and living by the truth.

After all, the truth shall set you free...

You didn't read what I posted. "assuming she was never conditioned in the same manner he was."

And it is, arguably, detrimental and harmful to others.

Exactly. Cult indoctrination that forces a family to direct their primary love (arguably the most important) away from one another and toward a lie.

Such indoctrination has serious detrimental consequences not just for that family, but also for society in general as has been proved many times over throughout the centuries.

Are there also benefits? Yes, there are.

So the question is, do the benefits outweigh the detriments?

Even a cursory look at history proves they do not, especially when you factor into all of this that the comfort and happiness most cult members speak about can be directly traced back to their inculcation; the poison and the anti-dote syndrome replete in the NT mythology.

First you terrify a child through images of Hell and a Vengeful God, then you mollify them with "salvation" through Jesus Christ.

So you tell me how a child can separate out what it is he or she is referring to when they say they are "comforted" and "happy" about? Are they happy that they have found the way to salvation? Salvation from Hell?

If so then they are "happy" as a result of being initially terrified by the same lie.

Take Odemus once again. He states that his "greatest joy" comes from being defined by his cult as a servant to a fictional being.

Since the being does not exist and he was only inculcated into believing that it does, then how can he possibly qualify what his "greatest joy" is? Because he says that what it is based upon the fact that he was simply programmed to respond that way?

Let me augment your hypothetical and ask you a question. Brainwashing is a term that often gets ridiculed or easily dismissed around here, but it is a fact that people can rather easily be brainwashed; meaning that they can be manipulated and controlled to believe certain things and worse, act upon those things.

Knowing that this is a fact and that it can be demonstrated as such, would that effect in any way your passive stance? In other words, if it could be demonstrated to you that a friend of yours had in fact been conditioned to think that something ultimately detrimental to him (let's say alcohol for an easy one) would make him happy and he told you that he found his greatest joy from drinking and not to worry because his father and his father's father, etc., were all drinkers and his wife loved him unconditionally and she too was a drinker, etc., etc., etc., would you step in and say to him at some point, "You're living a lie and this has got to stop?"

You are right because there is no comparison between the two. One is real (family) and one is, at best a wishful fantasy (God), so you're arguing that it's perfectly all right, in your opinion, for a person to put a fantasy above what is real, yes?

How do you justify that?

Which is also a lie as you can plainly see by simply reading the source its based upon, which necessarily means that they are, in turn, being lied to by the very people they trust the most.

It is irrelevant, of course, whether or not that person also believes in the lie, they are still inculcating others into the lie.

Are you seriously arguing that all of those lies and all of that conditioning being deliberately and unabashedly performed from birth to grave on 90% of our world's population is not having a detrimental effect?

Well, then, let me, again, ask another question. If you think there's no detrimental effect to telling all those people all those lies, then why not tell them the truth?

Our world certainly couldn't be any worse than it already is, unless, of course, it is your contention that those lies are what keep us from blowing up the world, in which case I would ask you to support such a contention as I have mine.

You don't see any atheist's flying planes into buildings or burning crosses on people's lawns or forcing people to say a pledge of allegiance to a lack of belief in gods.

As has been refuted so many times in these boards alone, the fallacious argument that without a belief in gods we'd all rape and pillage wantonly cannot be supported (but the converse can, BTW) how do you justify continued passivity in regard to lies that arguably cause world harms not cure them?

How?

Except for lobotomies, of course, which is worse for society?

It's a trick question, of course, since they both are (drug addiction and god addiction).

Nor is it necessarily wrong for everyone, so why make this a delineation in favor of passivity?

What happens when their delusions inflict harm upon you?

Nor does it mean they would not. It is the circumstance that determine such a thing; the ultimate good outweighing the ultimate bad, yes?

Nor does the fact that the friend's "wife" doesn't exist either in the sense that her actions arguably negate that qualifier, but the point is trivial.

What I was getting at is the fact that empathy/sympathy for a friend should guide your choices, IMO, and for you they should not, which is what morality is all about; personal decisions based on assessment of circumstances.

But please don't be under the misconception that you aren't doing the exact same thing; you're just defaulting to passivity based on your own assessment.

Yes, it will, for that is the reality of things like this that must be factored in.

Well, that's just it, it doesn't work as an analogy and that's what I was pointing out.

Agreed, but a necessary element is missing and, likewise, a necessary elements is missing from the scenario with God; the necessary element being the detrimental aspects to that particular lie.

Then the next question that must be addressed is, are there any detrimental side effects to that "fake" world?

Have you read Brave New World by any chance?

Then you should agree with me, yes, since those perceptions of 90% of the world's population are arguably causing harm to not just the other 10%, but to each other as well.

Again, does "axis of evil" ring any bells?

But it does not give us the authority to cause harm to others in the process, so the question then becomes, what is the greater harm and how do you insure against it?

Is it a greater harm to tell somebody the truth if the result will be the end of a War, for example? Or torture? Or social ostracism?

False as I can personally attest to, since happiness is contingent to circumstance and feelings, etc. Happiness, likewise, does not exist in a vacuum; it is dependent upon certain mitigating factors; number one, arguably, being the truth, especially in a relationship.

Yes, I considered myself to be in a state of happiness at the time, but when I discovered it was a lie I became miserable precisely because I had thought my happiness to be the result of an honest interchange of emotions and communication, when the ultimate truth was, it was not.

It was this realization--that I had been, evidently, deluding myself into thinking that black was white--that supplanted that lie with the truth.

False. You are not taking into consideration that happiness is mutable and contingent.

False, IMO, for the above reasons.

Again, nor does it mean it does not.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

rainbow walking

rw: Hi peteyh,
When the "mysterious ways" defense is marched out and sworn in for testimony, as the prosecutor, I merely demonstrate that this witness is not credible, offers nothing of value to the defendants defense, and await his next witness. There is an intelligent response to this evasion and that is to disallow it as a response.

philechat

What does atheism offer?

Ironically, a meaning and purpose in life.

People who live yearning for another life misses out the most gorgeous aspect of this life, and people who live with worries about judgements could never live fully in accordance to their own values.

Therefore, those who need a value of life to be given outside of life suffers from passivity in this life. They, instead of designing their own "form" of life, seem to need a blueprint thrushed into their face in order to live.

Life is art and art is life. Those who are able to treat their own lives as artworks are in no need of another life.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Beautifully said! I couldn't agree more.

That sentiment reminds me of the essay <a href="http://www.kindreason.com/newsletter0202.pdf" target="_blank">Life is an Artifact</a>.

[corrected misspelling]

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

Freedom.

luvluv

Folks, I never offered my theory as a good reason to worship God, I offered it as a partial explanation of why people in depressed circumstances would not readily convert to atheism.

Your vaugely optimistic appeals to the goodness of human nature and to mankinds ability to solve problems are not going to work with someone who lives in a neighborhood in which teenagers are regularly shot to death. If that's not plainly evident to you from the outset than I doubt anything I can say will add to it. I encourage you to go to South Central and witness life there for a few weeks and ask yourself why anyone there would have any reason to believe in the inevitable goodness of man. Their entire history is a political and economic study of why men are inherently self-seeking and untrustworthy. (Ever read a book called Black Rage by Grier and Cobbs? It's instructive on this issue. It's a psychological case study explaining why blacks tend to be less trustful of institutions).

Bottom line, it's fine for all you folks who eat three-squares a day and who live in neighborhoods where there is no gang-banging to believe in the goodness of mankind. To people who live in the middle of drug wars, such an ephemeral notion of human goodness is hourly disproven. They might require something a bit more substantial.

(In fact, a belief in the goodness of people is an excellent way to get taken in and/or killed in most ghettos. Trusting people don't last long in those kinds of neighborhoods. Suckers are quickly identified and exploited.)

Again, that's not a good reason to believe in God, but it's a good explanation as to why they would not be very open to atheism. It is, to a certain extent, a priviledged faith.

Walter_Mitty

Luvluv writes:
Based on my prior career, as a both a caseworker and a correctional officer in 2 different prisons, I think I can speak to your opinion.

1) Though our appeals are optimistic, I do not think they are vague. You might wish to reread all seven pages. The topic starter was looking at atheism vs. Christianity on a very micro (and hypothetical) level. I also think that adherents of atheism are more likely to promote that which will pull these people out of the cycle of violence and poverty. Namely: education.

2) I do agree that belief (or lack thereof) is not going to work in the “hood” as a sole solution, any more than I think psychological or sociological theories will. In fact, the first month in the “joint” I tossed out every theory I ever learned.

Yes, and it needs to be more substantial than atheism or belief in the Christian God. It would also appear that many of those drug offenders in the hood have found their own "higher power" and I dare say it's not God. Regardlesss, I find it ironic that despite the USA being a “Christian Nation” ® we certainly seem to have a high crime/gang problem. I think the thing needed that is “more substantial” would be to put money into those neighborhoods in an attempt to educate those people. I think this offers the best hope of pulling these people out of the cycle of poverty and violence. But, money talks, and it would appear that John Q. Christian does not want his tax dollars to be used for their betterment, rather, it would appear that this money is better spent on such notions as “faith-based” nonsense.

If memory serves me, I think there is good empirical evidence that the more education one has, the less likely they are to get caught in the cycle of crime. (If I get the time, I may cite a few studies for you.) I would contend that the average atheist is more likely to support “educating the poor”, rather than worrying about their “spiritual well-being”. To make my point, the example I would cite would be this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000798&p=" target="_blank">SEE HERE</a>

More to the point, look at the answer those true Christians ® gave a fellow Christian who is seeking advice: <a href="http://iljboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8069" target="_blank">SEE HERE</a>

As its often said in these forums: “nothing fails like prayer.”

Which is exactly my point in regards to the cycle of violence that you speak of. What would you rather teach these people? How to pray, or how to become educated?

Clutch

luvluv,

The Argument from Evil *for* theism?

Well, now I've seen it all.