Apostates versus converts

PostmodernProphet said:
yes.....you're a hung jury who thinks he just sent Trump to prison.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
more particularly, knowing LESS about a subject than the rest of us doesn't make you superior......
Click to expand...

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.
 
Margot said:
Your mistake is that of course you would know there is a God by merely asking for the Holy Spirit !
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.......
 
Obtenebrator said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Obtenebrator said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd soon have a physician perform an operation on my dick using a chainsaw.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Then why did you write:

"Same for people calling themselves agnostic. They never define what they mean."
Click to expand...
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.
 
Obtenebrator said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I didn't miss your point.......I simply think your point is incredibly stupid.....
Click to expand...

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.

PostmodernProphet said:
no.....a NOT GUILTY verdict is not the position of an agnostic.
Click to expand...

Then you understand my position! Kudos.

PostmodernProphet said:
.....the position of the agnostic is HUNG JURY you dense bitch.....
Click to expand...

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.

PostmodernProphet said:
don't ask stupid questions next time.......
Click to expand...

It was clear you didn't understand the question if you went to "hung jury", that was NEVER part of the question.
 
domer76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if you were smart enough to know the subject, it would have been.......
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top