Cronin: I know many people who have transformed their lives for the better after "realizing God" (as Jan puts it). None of them have been on death row so I don't buy the "fear of death" argument. Many times, people who "realize God" learn how to love themselves and their fellow human beings through their relationship with God.
I also know many who never spent time in state-run halfway houses who have been transformed after realizing God so I don't agree with your conclusion that state run halfway houses are the only real hope for transformation.
Then you missed my first assertion. These people are using theism as a way to form social relationships. I did add another argument to cover this scenario. The near death due to the inherint hazards of criminal behavior. Also it seems to me that I without any specificity I can only assume that you lack sufficient knowledge of these people, are fabricating them, or just aren't willing to share even general details. I have never heard a story of a bad person turning to religion that wasn't based on some sort of injury or near injury.
Also "realizing God" sounds kind of 1984ish. Brainwashing is good symbology here. Who better to take advantage of than the weaker portion of the population. Your ilk are not motivated by altruism, only survival. I don't buy that you are trying to "save" people out of some sort of compassion. You are only trying to extend your membership. Not with convicts, only a few will work for miles, but with people who you have convinced that this is a repeatable phenomena. I would be most pleased if the church released the actual numbers of these occurences. The only time I hear of these people are promotional videos in infomercials at 2:00AM. And lately I have not heard any of these. These are potential conmen and admitted criminals. They do know how to lie to get the perks of being a "reformed" person.
Dark Master:So far, I see Chosen has almost all the logic in this argument with him and Teg. Many people assume too much in arguments, but Chosen hardly assumes if you can seeee and read correctly and clearly instead of always attacking him...why? I've read other threads before and from what I see, you're just jealous because Chosen has beaten your logic with his. I've known Chosen for a long time and he's a very good debater, one of the best I've seen, because he seems to always have the last say in an argument.
Outside observers also introduce bias. People are more likely to see in favor of the arguer whose belief system is similar. Long relationships with others also introduce rose colored sentiments. Your words mean nothing as they come from an impartial perspective. How so "beaten" am I? I simply did not wish to restate my proofs. It was the inability to make his case that damned your friend. All of my arguments had support from multiple impartial observers. He had Jan.
Me: You are wrong because of point A and point B.
~The_Chosen~: Ha, I'm wrong, prove it!
Me: Point A and point B as previously displayed. Please accept or refute these.
~The_Chosen~: Teg is the ad hocism master. Cite it ! Give me some cites!
Dark Master, the last say is only a matter of obdurate behavior. It has no intrinsic value in a conversation, especially when the person in question would rather ignore what you say. If ~The_Chosen~ is your idea of even a sufficient arguer, then you are susceptable to suggestion. That was the same garbage he was trying to sell me. Were you among those he converted?
Raithere: I'm not sure that the clarification is all that important, however. This digression seems to be based largely in response to an attempt to classify Atheism as negativistic. Once again, I see this as putting the cart before the horse. Atheism might indeed develop from a negativistic standpoint but it is neither reliant upon such a position, nor does Atheism mandate such a stance. Give this, the assertion is simply a generalization and ultimately incorrect though it may apply to a subset of the category.
Now have I have another good perspective adding to my synthesis.
Raithere:The main problem here, I believe, is the attempt to overly simplify and categorize. Categorization is a human construction, which is always ultimately false due to its reliance upon set definitions, generalizations, and fuzzy logic. Categories are only true within the limits of the world as it is defined by the category. The sets we are working with here (Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism) even with broadened definitions are very simplistic as compared to subtlety of the nature of belief. The issue also butts up against the much more fundamental concepts and positions that are still being debated in epistemology.
Stereotyping, a human phenomena that inclines one towards a generalization about the sum from experiences with the whole. It doesn't really matter to them how many times we say it. They are immune to logic.
Jan Ardena:If they started to question their own and others existence, became curious about death (what happens after), wondered how this planet is so completely organised, wondered why there was good and evil in the world, and other things too numerous to catolougue then i would say they are developing thier human potential to be able to realise that there is some higher brain behind things, and could well become theists.
Good and evil are your concepts. There are no natural phenomena that would lead to this model of the world. The development of this idea is closely related to religion. They may wonder about the organization but then they may also be intelligent and invent a working a physics model. That would be unlikely. As unlikely that is it is even more so that they would develop a god. That seems more an oddity in human development, a holdover from days in which our brains were more flawed.
You class yourself as a logical and intelligent human being. You don't accept nothing as fact unless it has been proven beyond doubt. Yeah?
Every concept we have has been invented in some way. How could it be any other way? A god did not place the thought of god in your head. Another human being was the culprit. People isolated from the rest of the world do not develop theism. That comes from contact. Religions are more closely tied with accidental occurences. The only reason you
believe is because of a Volcano in the Mediterranian.
Theism is only universal when it is introduced.
And so is atheism.
Then you lack understanding. Atheism is only the title for such behavior. The name is not the important part.
Therefore it is an inherintly weak idea.
Generally any statement of therefore follows an argument. Back up alittle and you'll see why quoting the therefore by itself was an error in your argument.
There are no phenomena that might lead a thinking person to it as an explanation.
Not even curiosity
Besides Conmen and liars, is what I should of said. These are the inventors of religion.
This is great, please offer some proof of evidence.
All Greek gods were based on an inability to explain a phenomena. Native American gods are similar. Yahweh does the same only in terms of one rather than many. Jesus was only a corollary to the Yahweh stories.
Given your hypothectical experiment above, why would they have need to fabricate anything nevermind fairytales.
Liars abound.
You seem very knowledgable, i am searching for knowledge, please provide proof of your claim and in your own words, please tell me what Cinderella, Snow Whiteand Rumpelstilskin ect. has to do with God.
I am talking abou the Yahweh and Jesus fairy tales.
I've known Chosen for a long time and he's a very good debater, one of the best I've seen, because he seems to always have the last say in an argument.
