If God had not met me at the time that I was searching, it's entirely plausible that I would be a deist. But since I have met God, I can't honestly hold a position of a deist.

It might also help to engage a book in systematic theology, as it looks like your piecemeal theology is probably erroneous.

Or perhaps you should follow Madnak's advice:

...

Are they ridiculous because you've rejected their premises, or are they ridiculous because the logical inferences (assuming the premises) don't follow? If it's the latter, then I expect I would agree with your assessment. I've seen many theists say stupid things, so I don't doubt that you've found some. If it's the former, then it should be obvious why your criticism of the argument is probably not particularly interesting to me.

ok, ill bite.

what argument have you found a theist say in one of these debates that is somehow compelling?

edit: i just want a single compelling argument. that we may discuss it.

Describe the difference between "brainwashing" and other forms of social conformity.

this is a weird question. brainwashing is a technique to alter a persons beliefs or mental processes. social conformity is not a technique, nor does it have to do with being mentally assuaged. social conformity is a DESCRIPTION of social behaviors that is optionally adopted. the two are in no way similar, related, analogous, comparable or relevant

Note that "brainwashing" was in quotes (and still is). His interpretation of

was that this is "brainwashing." The challenge is to explain how this particular process that I've described is "brainwashing" but other forms of social conformity are not.

oh, i missed that. a lot of words just randomly show up on this forum with quotes around them for no reason. my bad.

Social conformity does not threaten eternal fire and brimstone and worse pain than you've ever imagined until the end of time if you don't comply.

People refuse to believe that stuff like this is luck of the draw, pure variance. I think a lot of people believe in religion just because they can't come to terms with the idea that life really might be this random and unfair to some.

Given that this process explicitly mentions that one is already a Christian, this threat is nonexistent in the process described. Therefore, your analysis is flawed. Would you like to try again?

Can I ask where you met him? Or more specifically, where exactly was HE when this meeting took place?

i had to reread through your back and forths to understand this response. but now i get it, youre saying that since you were talking about maturing Christians, that is to say, people who are already Christian but are on the path to learn more, then the threat of eternal damnation "is nonexistent."

but i dont think thats true. i know many believers who continue to be fearful of eternal damnation, despite their belief that they are saved. and this belief can shape future behavior. so its a worthwhile point.

We were and still are talking about Christianity. Not to mention non-Christians go to hell anyway, according to Christians who happen to be our country's majority, if we're talking about 'social conformity.' Point out any other flaws.

I will concede that some have a fear-driven theology, and that fear can be used in the process of "maturing" as I described. However, nothing in what I have said is necessarily driven by this factor. Also, people conform socially due to fear of "social damnation" (ie, rejection by peers), so using fear as a particular motivator of change does not distinguish one process from the other.

I have no idea what these three sentences mean in the context of the preceding discussion. In particular, I have no idea if that second sentence is actually a sentence.

Unfortunately, I cannot answer either question you've asked directly. The second question comes across as more sarcastic than inquisitive, so I'm inclined to ignore it. If you have any conception of the Judeo-Christian God, then you'll know why it reads that way. (Also, given our previous interactions, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.)

I suppose you can say I met Him in Sunday school for the first time, but that's like a parent introducing a kid to their friend. There's no true connection other than a name and that this guy is somehow important to your parents.

So I would say that I met God in college, at a time when I was trying to determine whether this friend of my parents was real, or whether I was just being tricked into believing it because they believed it.

This reminds me why I want to stop myself from opening this forum. I respond to other posters' poorly worded nonsense and random writen garbage, but if I make one grammatical error, I get made fun of in a way in which the poster thinks he is being subtly clever, and any discussion screeches to a halt. Good job avoiding any point I was making.

As an aside, here's the point I was making on this: Social conformity is the essence of Christianity as it is today. 99% of Christians are mindless sheep. How powerful would you Christians feel if the majority religion in the USA were ANYTHING else? At very least, most of you would lose that ****-eating smugness that drives me away from any hope of being open-minded to your beliefs. I'd even contend that some of you would convert to whatever was the majority, because regardless of what you think, you aren't as dynamic and intelligent as you think. It's pretty easy to follow what's popular, even subconsciously.

using fear may not distinguish the two, but what each is afraid of does plenty to distinguish them. weigh the rejection of peers vs eternal damnation. if believed, one is going to be much more effective than the other. and i dont have to say which.

Did you have coffee at this meeting?

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that I was giving an example of a Christian who believes that God will come through and make good on his rather impressive promises.

Are you suggesting it's impossible that anyone would be enticed to follow by promises of miracles and good fortune?


Just stop right there. This is crap that applies to theists, not atheists. If someone were to come on here and make a series of compelling, logical arguments for the existence of a God, I would welcome the challenge of thinking it through.

That's why I mentioned almost getting excited for those debates, because I thought maybe with all they hype something I hadn't heard was being said.

Nope.

I think you're taking yourself far too seriously if you thought that was an attempt at "subtle" humor. It really makes no sense to someone who doesn't already know what you were trying to say. As for the rest of it, I'm leaving it alone. I don't think it's productive conversation.

People kill themselves as a result of rejection by peers. I think both can be equally compelling reasons to conform. In fact, I think the abstract notion of "eternal damnation" is actually a weaker form of influence than the immediate threat of social rejection. You're welcome to disagree with that.

FWIW, I was just as sarcastic as you when I said "subtle." Now regarding the bolded, you really can't be serious. If you're going to try to brush off my perfectly on-topic points (at least regarding our social conformity) for a SECOND time for what I can only assume is becuase you have no answer, say that. Don't be a typical ass with his nose in the air dismissing my argument as "unproductive" because you can't think of anything to say.

In fact, does ANYONE else ITT think what I quoted is "unproductive?"

My bad. I thought you were actually trying to make an argument, not making a parody of a Christian's argument.

Are you suggesting it's impossible that anyone would be enticed to follow by promises of miracles and good fortune? [/quote]

Hardly. But I am saying that piecemeal theology does lead to errors.

Sorry, but "logic" is a system of inferences based on a given set of premises. If you reject the premises of an argument, then it doesn't really matter what follows, as it's all nonsense. In this context, it's really a reflection of your worldview assumptions, not the quality of the argument itself.

Aaaaand everything I had to say about social conformity and Christians was off-topic and unproductive? What makes you special? What the hell am I missing here?

EDIT: Also, I agree with social rejection>future eternal damnation in people's heads unless the person's on their death bed or something. I'm not sure what I can add to that facet of the discussion though.

well i dont. one is a much more compelling reason than the other.

i wont disagree. but ill clarify my point. the threat may be a weaker influence on a day to day basis, since we find ourselves in social situations constantly, and much less often think about life after death.

but the malevolence of the threat is much more heightened in telling people they will be damned for an eternity if they dont believe. whereas the threat of social rejection is a mild threat in most cases. people don't want to face social rejection, but it happens all the time, and most people handle it well enough most of the time. but nobody wants an eternity of suffering.

this makes the usage of fear in the threat on behalf of christianity worse, and in my opinion, evil.

anyone notice i just did like 3 posts in a row without berating?

man that looks delicious