Apostates versus converts

[Obtenebrator]

yes.....you're a hung jury who thinks he just sent Trump to prison.....

No, you missed the point. As per usual.

Do you believe an actual NOT GUILTY VERDICT is a position of agnosticism on the matter of the defendant's guilt?

Not a hung jury. Not Trump. Not anything. Just answer the question as asked.

 

[Obtenebrator]

more particularly, knowing LESS about a subject than the rest of us doesn't make you superior......

But you didn't even know what a "null hypothesis" was let along inferential statistics or hypothesis testing before I mentioned it. I even provided links to outside sources so you would know I didn't just make all this up.

You CAN read if you so wish.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Your mistake is that of course you would know there is a God by merely asking for the Holy Spirit !

It is not my mistake for not doing so...it is YOUR mistake for doing it.

If you merely ask Zeus if Hera exists...you will find that she does.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't miss your point.......I simply think your point is incredibly stupid.....

no.....a NOT GUILTY verdict is not the position of an agnostic......the position of the agnostic is HUNG JURY you dense bitch.....

don't ask stupid questions next time.......

 

[Ross Dolan]

87th time you posted that.

Then why did you write:

"Same for people calling themselves agnostic. They never define what they mean."

 

[domer76]

The thing I find most interesting are those cases of people who did psychedelics and came back from a trip converted from being non-religious to being religious. It would also seem to point to a difference in brain function. Since psychedelics often work on the serotonin system I wonder if there is a quantifiable and physical relationship between carrying a faith vs not carrying a faith.

I also wonder if, after having been trained up from childhood to believe in something, if it doesn't create a neural path prone to accepting that claim which may be why deconverting from religion to non-religion is often harder and more fraught. Once those neural pathways are established do they ever really go away?

I still find that my brain defaults sometimes to that credulity of my former faith which makes atheism feel more like a true "choice" I am making rather than simply giving into my default mode network.

This is not to denigrate or any way delegitimize the real faith people have. But I can also see why some simply seem to "default" to their faith without really thinking about it or letting it get in the way of whatever action they truly want to take regardless of what their faith says about it.

I read some Carlis Castaneda many years ago and his psychedelic experiences. There is, I believe, a difference between a spiritual or religious experience and actually joining a specific church with all its dogma.

I also came across the “4-14” concept in my searches. The ages at which fundamentalists try to bring kids into the fold. The ages at which they are the most malleable. They found that indoctrination during that window increases the likelihood of them remaining.

I’ll give my mother-in-law and wife as examples. My MIL was raised in the Mormon church, but strayed away. As a young girl, my wife was baptized into the church, but was never really active. Both however, periodically talked about the subtle fear they had leaving the church. That kind of shit beat into you at an early age is difficult to shed.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am being a jerk because I'm trying to explain to you my position? That's a pretty low bar. But I can understand your anger. You are faced with an explanation you are unfamiliar with and you would much rather make this debate about me personally.

Try re-reading what I wrote and discuss the topic.

I'd soon have a physician perform an operation on my dick using a chainsaw.

 

[Hume]

Then why did you write:

"Same for people calling themselves agnostic. They never define what they mean."

Because you think your inability to understand something is universal.

That is, you cannot explain why such knowledge is impossible--only that you cannot figure it out.

 

[domer76]

But what if say my experience was visa versa?

Your experience merits tin foil hat status.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But you didn't even know what a "null hypothesis" was let along inferential statistics or hypothesis testing before I mentioned it. I even provided links to outside sources so you would know I didn't just make all this up.

You CAN read if you so wish.

oh fuck off.......are you so incredibly stupid that you think we didn't know those terms......you're an idiot who thinks that being unable to make up his mind equals denial......fuck your atheist sources and the demon they rode in on.....learn the fucking difference between atheist and agnostic or stop embarrassing yourself debating the issue.....

 

[Obtenebrator]

I didn't miss your point.......I simply think your point is incredibly stupid.....

You are free to think that, but it would carry. more weight if you could express what is stupid about it. Perhaps we can figure out what you didn't understand.

no.....a NOT GUILTY verdict is not the position of an agnostic.

Then you understand my position! Kudos.

.....the position of the agnostic is HUNG JURY you dense bitch.....

And, again, you understand my position quite well. It is a verdict but with knowledge that it could be in error. The best that can be done is to make the best decision to eliminate the increased chance of making an erroneous choice.

don't ask stupid questions next time.......

It was clear you didn't understand the question if you went to "hung jury", that was NEVER part of the question.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You are free to think that,

and you are free to be either an atheist or an agnostic......but you are not free to redefine one to mean the other.....

 

[Obtenebrator]

I read some Carlis Castaneda many years ago and his psychedelic experiences. There is, I believe, a difference between a spiritual or religious experience and actually joining a specific church with all its dogma.

I also came across the “4-14” concept in my searches. The ages at which fundamentalists try to bring kids into the fold. The ages at which they are the most malleable. They found that indoctrination during that window increases the likelihood of them remaining.

I’ll give my mother-in-law and wife as examples. My MIL was raised in the Mormon church, but strayed away. As a young girl, my wife was baptized into the church, but was never really active. Both however, periodically talked about the subtle fear they had leaving the church. That kind of shit beat into you at an early age is difficult to shed.

Oh, I definitely agree that early indoctrination is key. It doesn't always take, obviously, but it is key. The best results for the faith will come from that simple investment alone.

I can see that leaving the Mormon church would be difficult task given how "omnipresent" their community is in the lives of the believers. I imagine that is another commonality among "young" faiths. The need to keep in those who might stray by social coercion.

 

[Obtenebrator]

and you are free to be either an atheist or an agnostic......but you are not free to redefine one to mean the other.....

I didn't redefine anything. That is why I provided the links I provided. To prove that I had not redefined a word of it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It was clear you didn't understand the question if you went to "hung jury", that was NEVER part of the question.

if you were smart enough to know the subject, it would have been.......

 

[Hume]

Your experience merits tin foil hat status.

That person claiming to be best friends with god is a symptom of bipolar people, in the manic phase.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't redefine anything. That is why I provided the links I provided. To prove that I had not redefined a word of it.

the links you provided are from other atheists who made the same mistake you did......two people making one mistake does not equal being correct......

 

[Obtenebrator]

if you were smart enough to know the subject, it would have been.......

Actually, again, no. The reason I asked the question as I did was to show that it is possible to use my "rubric" to arrive at a verdict that is predicated on imperfect knowledge with the acquiescence that there is possible error in the verdict, but still have a verdict.

If I had included "hung jury" it wouldn't have worked to make the point.

Of course the hung jury is the perfect "agnostic" position. But that wasn't what I was addressing. I was addressing the insistence that my position in regards to God's existence is somehow "agnostic", when in fact it is exactly as a "not guilty" verdict in a court. I fail to reject the null hypothesis.

That is my position. The vedict is in. I will consider appeals, but the verdict stands as of this time.

 

[Obtenebrator]

the links you provided are from other atheists who made the same mistake you did......two people making one mistake does not equal being correct......

That's alarmingly circular, even for a religious person. SO only YOUR definition counts in regards to words?

 

[domer76]

Oh, I definitely agree that early indoctrination is key. It doesn't always take, obviously, but it is key. The best results for the faith will come from that simple investment alone.

I can see that leaving the Mormon church would be difficult task given how "omnipresent" their community is in the lives of the believers. I imagine that is another commonality among "young" faiths. The need to keep in those who might stray by social coercion.

Yeah, if anything, their youth programs are second to none. Including the pressure on makes to go on their missions as soon as they hit 18.

The Mormons aren’t alone, however. It appears that most fundamentalist churches share that same characteristic.