Is that where he got it?!? :laugh:

The other night I couldn't sleep. Dh snored peacefully while I read my kindle. After about an hour and a half he woke up. DH: "I haven't slept all night." Me: "Honey, you've been cutting logs for an hour and a half." "Really?" "Yep." "You still awake?" "Yep." "Can't sleep?" "Nope." "Clowns will eat you?" "Yes honey. Clowns will eat me." He turned over and fell asleep. Within two snores he was chuckling. I love hearing stories about what people say in their sleep. Next?

So... I keep thinking about this because it confuses me. I guess, it flummoxes me, lol! I read this and I think the gist of it is, "why is evidence necessary?" Well, let me count the ways.... And while I totally see and agree what you mean about people attaching themselves to their religious texts through other means, like faith and community, and things like that, it doesn't mean those beliefs are true. And that's important, isn't it? When we see other threads on the front page here about eschewing medical care for snake oils, and wondering whether or not a loved sibling is safe, accuracy counts, right? Being right is important, right? Evidence is important because it determines if what we believe is true, or something else is true. We act according to what we believe is true. And, well, isn't that kind of an important thing in general? I think of evidence as finding matching points between belief and reality. Kind of like CSI techs match points between fingerprints. The more points that match, the more likely a particular scenario is true. You don't have to have a 100% match to rule out other prints. You talk about not finding evidence about the Exodus in the desert not proving that didn't happen, and that's a valid point, but a poor one because you neglect the evidence that suggests an entirely different history of the Israelites and Egyptians, one that doesn't include slavery or an exodus of biblical proportions. So when we consider the evidence we do have, why continue to assume one hypothesis, even when the points don't match, except that there is a personal desire for it to be true. But is that how we discern what is true or not? Is that how we determine what is reality? By what works in line with what we want to work? Earlier in the thread someone had linked or mentioned the blog Godless in Dixie. I found an interesting post called How the bible views humanity (and how to get over it). Reading Onceuponatime's sobering post plays directly into this belief. Her kids are being encouraged to think horribly about themselves by people who genuinely believe they're right. If people are going to teach children they are corrupt, despicable creatures that deserve punishment, doesn't it matter whether or not those beliefs are true? And the gall to try to impose this belief onto other people's children! Sincerity should never be confused with validity, but we create societies in which it is not only confused, it is encouraged. Because evidence doesn't matter when beliefs are sincere and when one's personal experiences are valued more than objective collection of data with regard to knowing how reality works. Sure, there's no evidence of the exodus yet, and there's no evidence of Jesus having actually done any of the things attributed to him in the bible yet. But then we've not yet uncovered evidence of leather bags the Leprechauns use to haul their gold or piles of faerie scat. Does that mean we shouldn't build roadways through certain open spaces because they might live there even though we don't have any evidence yet and all the evidence we do have suggests an entirely different reality? We have no proof there isn't an extraterrestrial race of clowns manipulating physics to troll physicists every time they try to operate particle accelerators at CERN, either. But now I'm getting silly because we know that even though there's no evidence against such a thing, we don't need to prove it's not likely. We know how reality works enough to write that off immediately. The story of the Exodus not so quickly, but that doesn't mean we can't - or shouldn't - apply the same critical analysis of facts. When the points of one print don't match, it should be ruled out in favor of the print that has more matches. And in this case, we have lots more matches for a history that does not claim a mass Israelite exodus out of Egypt. Some of the people in this thread have explained why they have to remain in the closet to avoid social retribution, to protect their children from being punished for what amounts to thought crimes. We are social creatures, peer pressure is as natural as hunger or a sex drive, but we have the ability, to choose how to use it. We can chose to use social influence to pressure people in authority to secure protection for vulnerable people, just like we can chose to satisfy our hunger with whole foods. But, just like we can opt instead for Big Mags and french fries every day, we can opt for the comforting lies of various beliefs, from the magic of essential oils to the magic of certain words when coupled by appropriate emotions. Knowledge, and understanding how reality works, and understanding how we understand how reality works, is important. It's important because what we believe to be true inspires our actions, and our actions count, for better or worse.

That was my point I was hoping to make in my very bad and distracting question with the video. The comments reflect my opinion, but the OP is clearly looking for something within the Christian framework. In this thread, a number of the "correction" posts qualify as proselytizing, in my opinion. They are meant to convince the unbeliever that a particular theological framework is credible. I do not think all the comments made by believers fall in this category (yours, for example, does not), but some do. Mostly, I find it really, really like super dooper interesting that there is a sub-population of Christians that just seem to not be able to help themselves. That's what my OP was about - when people know you're not a believer, do they still try and convince you of the credibility of their belief? And how delightfully illustrative it is to watch Christians proselytize atheists here on a thread questioning that very thing! So now I have to wonder, why are some people so compelled to try and validate their religious beliefs, even when their audience is clearly not interested?

I feel for the OP for this very reason. My family will never, ever be "normal." We can't share the same milestones as others, my siblings' kids are starting to surpass mine. And that hurts. It cuts deep. It's no one's fault, there is no blame, but it's hard anyway. I'm reminded of it constantly. I'll never not know the challenges we face as a family, the various challenges each child has faced, and the ones they have yet to confront. And to see the other families moving on is, well... it just feels raw. I know life's not fair, it's not that. It's just... overkill. I can totally sympathize with the OP for not wanting an external, daily reminder of whatever is uncomfortable in her life. I like the idea of turning off notifications, or checking the phone once a week or when you're in the bathroom. Then quickly go to imgur and look at pictures of kitties and wiggly puppies to lighten you mood, and go on with your day.

Thank you. :-)

Sure, but I didn't ask about personal opinions. Greta's and Pam's apologies reflected the fact that they heard frustration for a larger issue, and that, in my opinion, shows empathy, compassion and courtesy. I was touched to hear them. I will make one caveat with regard to my comments about no minding tangential conversations. I do mind when they get into the topic of manners, tone, and the like. I find they get personal and the essence of the thread is lost. I think many people are enjoying this thread as is. Let's let this go right here. We've each said our piece, and let's move on. Cool?

Please don't be on my account. You said something that's been rummaging in my brain ever since, and really, that's what makes these conversations fun! Your post was about lack of evidence, but I though the conversation had moved on. Perhaps I'll come back to it when I have more time.

Thank you! That was all really nice to read! It gives the warm fuzzies. So let me ask you a question, if you don't mind. If in the thread about Christianity and universalism, I were to offer the following answer to Mergath's question, do you think it would be received as one person's opinion, or as a not-so-subtle zing about the God they genuinely love and adore? And do you think it would be given consideration, or would it be interpreted as deflecting from the conversation in a problematic way? She says, I would answer that finding the presence of God unbearable isn't limited to people with severe mental illness or those who have been damaged. Stephen Fry gives a good answer to why someone might feel being "in the presence of" God to be profoundly unacceptable as it would be an infringement on their freedom and autonomy of thought and person. The way I think of it is if we were to replace the idea of spiritual union with physical union, the idea of being forced into union would never be justified. But Fry explains it much more nicely:

People who have studied these things have concluded Mentos is the Good News. You just need to educate yourself more, then you'll understand.

That's awfully nice of you to say, Greta. Thanks. Fwiw, I don't mind conversations deviating from the OP, but I do mind inequality. I get the impression you'd be as accommodating to atheists on a Christian question thread, but in my experience with online conversations is similar to what they are saying. There comes a point where "correction" starts to get called "persecution," even if it's not quite those words, and even if it's only bandied about by a few. I should hope it doesn't happen here, but I find that it happens when a lot of believers feel like they're being backed into a corner and have the upper hand (population). And honestly, that's kind of how it is when you offer illogical answers to logical questions. You're backed into a corner because assurances of things being true doesn't work for people who don't believe the same things. So it feels personal, even if it's not.

Have you heard the good news of Mentos?!?

Please hear my heart on this, but perhaps your kids will be more considerate when they perceive you as more considerate. Hashing things out for an hour over laundry is terribly inconsiderate. And obviously ineffective. edit: And considering this is on the tailcoats of the texting fiasco, I imagine your family has more than just laundry to sort out. Good luck to you.

Shoot, now you've got me cracking myself up: "Question: Do you get proselytized?" "Nope." "Nah." "They don't dare." "Sometimes." "We don't talk to them." "Have you heard the Good News?"

I'd put it in the laundry basket or washing machine. If it became a habit, I'd threaten to lose all the pants in the house, including mine. Nothing frightens a teen more than thinking of his mother walking around in her underwear. edit: ;-)

I want to say that at first I agreed with you, but the more this thread goes on the less I can. For one thing, theology is a matter of belief, first and foremost. It's a matter of figuring out the possibilities of reality against the assumption of a claim that must, by its very nature, be accepted in faith only. It utilizes evidence and logic and history and all kinds of things, but ultimately, theology assumes the existence of the divine. So, the correction you mention then is a matter of personal belief. And that gets into trying to convince others your beliefs are valid. And that, to me, is proselytizing. So, in answer to my own OP, I would consider this thread to be exemplary of subtle, but legitimate proselytizing as it's become a conversation about how a particular theological viewpoint rightfully explains reality. It may not be followed up with a kind of altar call, but the assumption is there - if you are willing to acknowledge the Truth (or dare I say, if you are educated enough to recognize it, lol), you would then acknowledge the God behind it. Which is the whole point of proselytizing, no?

You asked me if I generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted. My answer is that I do not find historical discoveries to be overthrown by new evidence in general. In general, I find that discoveries and explanations based on those discoveries are further corroborated by more evidence, not contradicted (details notwithstanding, not a full 180 degree turnabout). It's not always the case, but generally I find it to be so. I do not feel this provides a problem for thinking about history generally, and I find that last comment to be indicative of the "gotcha" I was hoping you weren't going for. Although, I do find it very interesting for other reasons, some related to this topic but I'm running out of time. ETA: I didn't catch your edit. "For example, what are we supposed to say about Hannibal?" My opinion is that should a historian challenge the claims made about Hannibal, the discussion about what constitutes as evidence would ensue. Ultimately, whatever the historical record shows to be true would be accepted as fact, at least until more evidence comes to modify or correct it. That's all good and true and true of Jesus, too. Here's the difference, very few people care whether or not the claims about Hannibal are true, probably in no small part due to the fact that no one is legislating state or federal laws based on what is assumed to piss him off.

The two comments in bold are not in agreement.

No. I don't generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted. ETA: With the caveat - I'm not a historian! So take my ignorance into account (read: Please don't play "gotcha" with me, lol!)

My bad, I meant to say what you're saying. "Imagine you found out Jesus didn't exist..." Not, "Well, since we know Jesus didn't exist, what are your thoughts?" It was meant to be more of a thought-experiment than a statement of fact. And I agree with you about proof. So, yeah. High five? Fist bump? Cheers? ;-)

Thank you for sharing this. I was hoping there was something new, as these arguments have been addressed and refuted already (not here).

This is what I thought with regard to the scenario of finding out there was no Jesus. My thought was that the essence of the faith would not require Jesus to be true to be meaningful. After all, most believers don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve and talking snake and particularly interesting fruit, and yet the essence of the story is not lost. Quill said for her it was a big deal, though. It chipped away at her faith. I think for some, it might be a matter of a "fact" being exposed as a "farce," while for others, it would be a matter of replacing faith with mythology, and with others it would simply be relegated to metaphor. The metaphor route has certainly been done before, and continues every time a claim is undeniably understood to be false. I think now it's simply an interesting discussion of its own for a few people, but seeing those few people's posts respond to each other gives it the impression that it's somehow the foundation of the whole thing, or of some elevated importance. I don't think that's it at all. I think it's just a series of replies to one little portion that Stacey brought up in the beginning of the thread.

Thank you for the clarification. I think! I'm still pretty confused, so please be patient as I repeat what I think you're saying. That way I won't waste any time discussing something that no one else is talking about, lol! It seems to me you're saying that the laws of nature explained with a god variable are identical to the laws of nature explained without a god variable. It doesn't make sense to me to invoke such a variable if it's unnecessary. I don't know that morality can be considered objective in the context of the laws of physics. What is the objective source that identifies morality? Your idea that morality can be understood with education goes along with my idea that everyone thinks their morality is right, and those who disagree simply misunderstand the source. I'm surprised no theist has asked you to stop referring to their beliefs as being uneducated. It's uncomfortable for me to read, and I'm not even a believer.

It's funny, because I keep wanting to think that people of belief who come in to "correct" an atheist's opinion is in some way proselytizing, lol! But to be honest, I don't know if that's really true. It could be just my perspective, and if the tables were turned and an atheist corrected a misrepresentation of their beliefs or asked a follow-up question in a thread asking a question of believers, would that be proselytizing? Would it be tolerated? That's another question altogether! Anyway, I've enjoyed the questions and the spin-off questions. My philosophy is that anyone can answer the OP or comment on any of the replies and we can get back to a point made in the past. Sometimes online conversations are easier than offline because you can go back without disrupting the flow.

By "moral precepts" do you mean an external, supernatural source of morality? I'm sorry, I'm just not sure I understand you. I understand this to mean there is, in fact, an external, supernatural source of morality, and to deny that is to conclude morality must be a myth. That can't be it though. I don't want to misunderstand what you're getting at, so if I misunderstand your premise, then I shouldn't go on.