it's slow rite. that's wat i use to browse.

Glo, f.uck you. This stupid modem is slow. Well slower than my cell phone. sigh. no downloads, no videos. sigh sigh sigh #smh

davidylan:

this is what i will never understand. i am not whipped into a frenzy by the growing zealotry of gay rights advocates neither am i bothered whatsoever in the growing influence of atheism... why are atheists whipped into a maddening frenzy of anger because christians choose to worship a God they claim doesnt exist? What is it about this God that just drives atheists into a state of indescribable apoplexy?

It's not anger but something akin to pity.

White supremacy sites are hellish. Good thing even their own people look on them as insane. Check amren.com you'll feel ilke crying.

not bad...

What is The African contribution to civilisation? Are we truly inferior?

vedaxcool: Lol! You're actually the blind one here, the request pertains to you being an atheist, so get to work! And while on that do have an "outsider" perspective on your theory that seems to be the foundation of your self delusion that is termed atheism "medically" called skepticolosis!

You really should learn to read or just shut up.

Here’s another explanation of the Outsider Test I have developed, which is based upon some hard sociological facts. People overwhelmingly adopt the religious faith of the culture they were raised in. Therefore, my challenge to believers everywhere is to test their faith just like they do the ones they reject, test your own faith as if you were an outsider. Investigate it with a healthy measure of skepticism. Agnosticism is the default position given the outsider test, and I further argue that agnosticism leads to atheism. For in rejecting the religion one was brought up with, many people become agnostics, and/or simply reject religion as a whole. Here's why: A believer in one specific religion has already rejected all other religions, so when he rejects the one he was brought up with he becomes an agnostic or atheist many times, like me.

Let me argue for this further:

You either admit the basis for the outsider test, or you don’t. If you do then you should treat your faith as if you were an outsider. Test your beliefs with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Let’s say you take the test. If you do then you ought to be an agnostic because no faith can survive that test in my opinion, although it should if there is a God who wants us to believe in his specific religion. If God exists and he doesn’t care which religion we accept, then that God might survive the outsider test, but we would end up believing in a nebulous God out there with no definable characteristics, perhaps a Deist God, the god of the philosophers. This God is far and away from any full blown Christianity or any specific religion though.

Let’s say you don’t think you should take the outsider test. At that point I can ask you why you apply a double standard here. Why do you treat your own specific faith differently than you do others? That’s a double standard. Why the double standard?

As I have said, the overwhelming reason why someone becomes an insider to a particular religious faith in the first place is because of when and where he or she was born. Start there for a minute. Do you deny this? Yes or no? Surely you cannot dispute that. The adherents of these faiths are just as intelligent as other people around the world too, and you could no more convince many of them they are wrong than they could convince many Christians. Even with the meager missionary efforts on both sides of the fence, a major factor in why people change is still because of the influence of a personal relationship with someone (a missionary?) they trust.

You might turn my own argument against me by claiming that I myself cannot think outside my own upbringing if what we believe is based to an overwhelming degree on when and where we are born, but that simply does not follow. It would only follow if I said it’s impossible to think outside one’s own upbringing, which I haven’t said.

I was once an insider to Christianity, having been brought up in a Christian culture, so I can argue that Christians should evaluate their faith as an outsider, since I have done so. You say that if I can do it then anyone can, but that too does not follow. I’m not so sure I did in fact do it. There were influences in my life that led me in the direction I am now going. I don't deny this. I am saying that to do so is the exception to the rule, and that you must explain the rule. The overwhelming numbers of people who examine their religious faith, perhaps myself included, follow the influences in their lives. No one knows for sure on such matters. Even so, just because there are some exceptions to the rule does not mean anyone can do it, if it can be done at all. And it does no good whatsoever to claim that because you did escape your upbringing that therefore you are right about what you believe, including me. I might be wrong.

I might be wrong that there is no God. He might exist. But I have put together a solid argument that a full blown Christianity is false, and as a former insider to the faith I had approached it with the presumption that it was correct, trying to fit the facts into my former Christian world-view. But even by approaching the Christian faith from an insider and with an insider’s perspective with the presumption of faith, it does not hold up under intellectual scrutiny, and I ask Christians to deal with the arguments I present here on this blog and in my book. I consider them to be solid, based upon what they themselves believe. To me it’s like believing in the inspiration of Homer to believe in the Bible.

Evangelical Christians must continually argue against all other non-evangelical brands of Christianity, for if any one of these brands are correct, they are wrong. I've said elsewhere, there are so many beliefs that evangelical Christians must believe in order for their faith to be true, that the more they believe the less likely it’s true. If they are wrong on just one of the following beliefs their faith is wrong. Here are a few of them: 1) They believe the Bible is the inspired and innerrant word of God (for the most part)as a collection of books which were continually edited until the time of canonization, and canonized by those believers who chose them out of the number of potential candidates because of their beliefs at the time. [Christians must continually defend the Bible from errors if they think inerrancy is dogma (Bart Ehrman stumbled over Mark 2 in which it was said that David did something when Abithar was the high priest, but II Sam. 21:1-6 tells us Ahimelech was the High priest at the time). Gleason Archer has a 450 plus page book defending these "Bible difficulties," but if one error is found in the Bible, inerrancy falls. What are the odds of that?] 2) Christians must believe there is a God with three persons (what's the likelihood of even one eternal God-person?) who never had a beginning and will never cease to exist (even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end). 3) Christians believe God is all-powerful and good (even though he shows no signs of helping while a child slowly burns to death). 4) Christians believe God did miracles in the ancient past (but we see no evidence he does so today, which is our only sure test for whether or not they happened in the past). 5) Christians believe that God substantiated his revelation in the Bible through miracles (and yet if he chose the historical past to reveal this message he chose a poor medium to do so, since practically anything can be rationally denied in history, even if it actually occurred). 6) Christians believe God became a man (although no Christian has yet ever made logical sense of this). 7) Christians believe Jesus atoned for our sins on a cross (even though there is no rationally coherent understanding of how this supposed God-man’s death does anything to eliminate sin). Christians believe Jesus arose from the dead (even though the evidence is not there and what evidence we do have is based upon the superstitious claims in the past. Would YOU believe a report that someone was raised from the dead today? Wouldn't YOU demand to see for yourself? Doubting Thomas is not you. All we have is a report about what he saw, which I think is flawed). 9) Christians believe Jesus ascended into heaven (indicating an ancient three-tired universe which is rejected by modern science). 10)Christians believe Jesus is in heaven where the believers will join him (but does that mean the 2nd person of the Trinity is forever encapsulated in the body of the man Jesus, or was this body of Jesus discarded, or are there now two separate beings in heaven, the man Jesus and also the 2nd person of the Trinity? And what about free will in heaven for the believers? If they have free will and never sin then God didn't need to create this earthly existence with its pain and suffering and hell for the "many." He could just have created us in heaven in the first place. If there is the chance of rebellion in heaven then it could happen all over again, and no one is eternally safe). 11) Christians believe Jesus said he will return again “in this generation” from the sky heaven where “every eye will see” him (notice the three tired universe again, over a flat earth. Somany failed predictions of Jesus' return have caused Christians to adopt Preterism, since they cannot make sense of such a claim which never happened. Talk about scoffers who will arise in the last days...Christians are now the scoffers!). 12) Christians believe Jesus will judge all people of all lands (and yet those outside of Christ were simply born in the wrong place and the wrong time, as I argue with the basis for the Outsider Test).

Twelve is a good superstitious number multiplying the four corners of the earth by the three vertical planes of hell, earth and heaven, so I'll stop here. [Seven is a superstitious number too, by adding them rather than multiplying them].

None of this makes rational sense. None of this has any good evidence for it. This faith is false if tested from the outside, or even from the inside as I have done. The only reason Christians believe it is because they were influenced to believe it by people they trust, by their parents, and by their culture.

The Evangelical Christian faith fails the outsider test miserably (as well as other brands).

EbuksAllison7: you do realise I was a christian before right. I already have. You are biased

vedaxcool, you seem to be blind, on the very first page mr annoying asked as well

any way, an answer to vedaxcool..Practicing skepticism requires an outsider test but since we've evolved to survive through socialiazation it is very painful to stand apart from the groups that make us feel safe. It goes against our evolved means for species survival.The OTF is not an event it is a methodology. The Christians I see who oppose it either fail to challenge the communal benefit religion provides or equate it with a salvation experience and don't consider methodological and provisional truth.

I've written a lot about this question already, but let me add a few things.

Assuming an outsider position in order to defend what we think is true is incumbent on everyone on every issue. It's the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible with regard to our disagreements. It's to have a disinterest in the outcome as best as possible.

But it applies more forcefully to religious faiths, that's why it's called what it is. Why? Because religious believers do not dispassionately evaluate their faith. Why? Because they have such a vested personal interest in defending what they believe. Why? Because they assume what needs to be proved. Why? Because they do not have any good evidence for them. Why? Because they amass many possible arguments together in a pile then conclude they have a probable case, which is a huge non-sequitur.

By contrast atheism is not about faith. I think I explained that in my chapter for The Christian Delusion. Atheism is based on the probabilities. And I explained there is little or nothing we can know about an atheist simply because he is an atheist, except that said person does not believe in supernatural beings and forces, nor does he think supernatural explanations have the weight of evidence for them.

The sciences are the paragon for outsiders. Show me the math and we agree. Show me the experiment and the argument is over. Show me the scientific poll and the case is closed. Show me what we learn from brain science and there can be no dispute.

Is this a double standard, one for religious faiths and another one for atheists? No! Religious people have the double standard. Why do they evaluate other religious faiths with a level of skepticism that they do not apply to their own culturally inherited one? Why? Answer me that! The OTF is a way to examine all religious faiths. If this is a bad test then how do Christians propose we decide between religious faiths? I’ve proposed the OTF. What’s the alternative? Answer this question too.

So let’s contrast this carefully and precisely. Can theists legitimately say that if I do not collect stamps I still have a hobby? How does that make sense? Let’s say someone tells me I believe in the supernatural realm even though I don’t believe in ghosts? Now let’s say someone asks me to subject my non-ghost view to the skepticism of an outsider. What can that possibly mean? I DO subject the ghost view to skepticism, that’s why I conclude there are no ghosts!

Is it enough to ask people to be objective, fair, and openminded? I've previously addressed this question but let me add that if human beings reason so badly that we implicitly adopt what we were taught to believe in our respective cultures so much that they become like blinders on our eyes, and if we’re that bad at weighing the claims of beliefs that have little or no evidence for them to decide between differing ones, then we cannot offer a milquetoast test that asks people to be objective, fair and openminded about that which they were raised to believe and defend. What we are enculturated with is who we are. We cannot see the water we swim in. We cannot pluck our eyes out and look at them. So we cannot simply ask people to be objective, fair and openminded. Believers already think they are being objective because they can't see that they are not! Just look at how confident some Muslims are that they are being objective. Some of them are so certain they're objective about their faith they are willing to fly planes into buildings. Ask them if they’re objective and it would be a no brainer for them. But ask them to subject their own faith to the same level of skepticism they use to reject other faiths and THAT will get their attention. Since we cannot pluck out their eyes we must offer them a shocking test, one that may help get them out of their dogmatic slumbers like nothing else can do. And they will object as strenuously as they can to the OTF because they know their faith does not pass that test. That’s why Christians argue against it just like Muslim scholars would do so for their faith.

What about people raised as atheists in Sweden? Were they enculturalted? Probably so.

Should these atheists test what they were taught by being objective, fair and openminded? Sure, yes.

Should they test what they were taught as outsiders? How can they? What is the outside perspective for them? Is it the perspective of a young earth Christian creationist or a young earth Jewish orthodox perspective? Any scientist would scoff at it because science produces repeatable evidence that convinces. Is the outside perspective that of a Wiccan, or a Scientologist? How can atheists choose the correct outsider perspective from the many available? Which religious perspective do objectors to the OTF propose we use when being outsiders?

The OTF is a reasonable fair and objective one to judge religious faiths. The whole reason Christians object to it is because they know their faith will not pass the test, even if they admit no other religious faith can do so either. So cognitive dissonance requires them to nitpick at it and point out any small loophole to avoid taking it, even though this is how they judge the other faiths they reject. THEY have the double standard.

So on the front side of the fence, the fact that no revealed religion can pass this test is not the fault of the test. Again, it's a reasonable, fair and objective one. If no revealed religion can pass the OTF then it's the fault of religious faiths, not the test. It means they cannot be justified.

On the back side of the fence, there is no worthy religious contender from out of the myriad number of religions for an atheist to examine his own views on religion as an outsider. But that is not the fault of the test either. The fact that there isn't one religion that succeeds in being the one lone contender over all of the other religions as the rightful outsider position from which to judge my atheist conclusions about religion is not the fault of the test itself. They cannot put up one and only one religion which they all agree would be an outsider's perspective for the atheist. Again the test is a fair and objective one. The fault is with religious faith.

As I said I see no reason why a religion could not pass this test. A religion could pass the test. The fact that no religion can pass the test is not the fault of the test. The test is a reasonable, fair and objective one. Whether on this side of the fence or the back side of it, the fact that Christians object to the test because no revealed religion can pass it on the one side, and that there is no worthy religion that can legitimately be considered as an outside perspective for the atheist, is not the fault of the test.

It's the fault of religion.

vedaxcool: Mr. Annony. My mind reads ur username as mr. Annoying lol truly u literally killed this thread and exposed the fraud behind it, u response were too surgical that one would mistake u for a doctor! Any way good job!

@OP ur theory does not account for accross religion conversions and the fact that adherents of religion do questions aspects of their faith Making the theory a theory of ignorance that pretends to understands why anyone decide to be in a religion! And yeah maybe u should apply it as annony suggested on ur atheism and see the product of skepticolosis!

apply your brain, it says majority of the people not all. think re.tard

Assuming an outsider position in order to defend what we think is true is incumbent on everyone on every issue. It's the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible with regard to our disagreements. It's to have a disinterest in the outcome as best as possible.

But it applies more forcefully to religious faiths, that's why it's called what it is. Why? Because religious believers do not dispassionately evaluate their faith. Why? Because they have such a vested personal interest in defending what they believe. Why? Because they assume what needs to be proved. Why? Because they do not have any good evidence for them. Why? Because they amass many possible arguments together in a pile then conclude they have a probable case, which is a huge non-sequitur.

By contrast atheism is not about faith. I think I explained that in my chapter for The Christian Delusion. Atheism is based on the probabilities. And I explained there is little or nothing we can know about an atheist simply because he is an atheist, except that said person does not believe in supernatural beings and forces, nor does he think supernatural explanations have the weight of evidence for them.

The sciences are the paragon for outsiders. Show me the math and we agree. Show me the experiment and the argument is over. Show me the scientific poll and the case is closed. Show me what we learn from brain science and there can be no dispute.

Is this a double standard, one for religious faiths and another one for atheists? No! Religious people have the double standard. Why do they evaluate other religious faiths with a level of skepticism that they do not apply to their own culturally inherited one? Why? Answer me that! The OTF is a way to examine all religious faiths. If this is a bad test then how do Christians propose we decide between religious faiths? I’ve proposed the OTF. What’s the alternative? Answer this question too.

So let’s contrast this carefully and precisely. Can theists legitimately say that if I do not collect stamps I still have a hobby? How does that make sense? Let’s say someone tells me I believe in the supernatural realm even though I don’t believe in ghosts? Now let’s say someone asks me to subject my non-ghost view to the skepticism of an outsider. What can that possibly mean? I DO subject the ghost view to skepticism, that’s why I conclude there are no ghosts!

Is it enough to ask people to be objective, fair, and openminded? I've previously addressed this question but let me add that if human beings reason so badly that we implicitly adopt what we were taught to believe in our respective cultures so much that they become like blinders on our eyes, and if we’re that bad at weighing the claims of beliefs that have little or no evidence for them to decide between differing ones, then we cannot offer a milquetoast test that asks people to be objective, fair and openminded about that which they were raised to believe and defend. What we are enculturated with is who we are. We cannot see the water we swim in. We cannot pluck our eyes out and look at them. So we cannot simply ask people to be objective, fair and openminded. Believers already think they are being objective because they can't see that they are not! Just look at how confident some Muslims are that they are being objective. Some of them are so certain they're objective about their faith they are willing to fly planes into buildings. Ask them if they’re objective and it would be a no brainer for them. But ask them to subject their own faith to the same level of skepticism they use to reject other faiths and THAT will get their attention. Since we cannot pluck out their eyes we must offer them a shocking test, one that may help get them out of their dogmatic slumbers like nothing else can do. And they will object as strenuously as they can to the OTF because they know their faith does not pass that test. That’s why Christians argue against it just like Muslim scholars would do so for their faith.

What about people raised as atheists in Sweden? Were they enculturalted? Probably so.

logicboy01:


Thanks for reading my mind (and failing). I hope you know that such sorcery is punishable by death in the old testament?

If Jesus were black, it wouldnt change the fact that he is a racist and I would question his xenophobic gospel for only one set of people instead of the whole world.

eh, thanks for clarification. Btw, I'm ea7

logicboy01:


That is the problem with the Jesus Fairytale. Jesus was a Jew and said he came for only the lost sheep of Isreal to a Canaanite woman. Racist

The problem is, you sound like you wouldn't mind if he said he came for the lost sheep of lagos and was black

Mr_Anony:
in the same manner, that a supreme and perfect God exists is also another such necessary leap of faith.

Wrong, it is not.

We make little leaps of faith, that we exist in reality and not in a novel is one. That I am not the true god is another, corgito ergo sum is yet another. Those are necessary.

Some one ought to teach that guy that just because you put words together in a grammatically correct manner you can not forego putting any meaning into them

mr anony is so smart...not

logicboy01:


Jesus is a Jew. As a black West African, you dont even question why a Jew would be God not West Africans or Asians or native Americans.

ok logicboy, as an atheist that is frankly retarded, if god was a west african wouldnt some people still ask why he was west african and not jewish. #smh

on topic, this 'atheist' sounds like all cliches christians could think off put togeda

Mr_Anony:
God revealed Himself to me

-____-
Subjective Personal Experiences Are Insufficient

1. Subjective Personal Experiences Do Not Justify An Objective Belief in God

This post is an ongoing, in-depth analysis of the first set of answers to potential objections to the Summary Case for Atheism, in which some Christians have contended that personal revelatory experiences provide sufficient direct evidence for belief in God.

A. Subjective Experiences Are Hearsay
As a threshold matter, when one person claims to have had a direct, revelatory experience of God, that claim is direct evidence only for that person. From my perspective, it is hearsay. I can’t evaluate your experience; all I can do is evaluate the fact that you’ve claimed to have such an experience.

Now, I have no doubt that religious believers who claim to have experienced God in some subjective or visionary way are, on the whole, generally sincere about those claims. But those claims are, of course, not restricted to Christians. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus – people of every religion claim such subjective experiences, and they can’t all be true.

B. Subjective Experiences Can’t All Be True
Because all sorts of believers have the same sorts of experiences — and they can’t all be true — we resort to methodological naturalism (see part 4) to evaluate these sorts of claims.

Critically, even Christians themselves use these techniques to evaluate claims of personal subjective experience when raised by non-Christians. One particularly compelling counterexample comes from Mormons, who believe that seekers should pray about the Book of Mormon to see if they receive a “burning in the bosom” – a subjective verification – that it is true. Here’s how an evangelical Christian apologist evaluates that argument:

What we must understand is that Latter-day Saints (LDS) believe these things for the same reason that people everywhere believe the things they do: they want to believe them. … This should come as no surprise to evangelicals who have read the Apostle Paul’s revelation of the roots of human idolatry in the first chapter of Romans. Fallen humans have affections and inclinations that they then prop up with beliefs, convincing themselves that their systems are true.

Another evangelical is a bit more direct:

Remember also that Paul never asked any potential converts to pray about his message. What he taught was found in the Scriptures and they could verify it and join the group of wise people, if they would repent and submissively place their faith in Jesus Christ to follow him. See Acts 17:11,12 cf. Acts 20:21; etc. … Yes, the devil can duplicate peace. That is what he does in transcendental meditation (TM) and also in Catholicism after one receives the Eucharist. The devil uses these and other experiences to deceive.

Thus, Christians themselves concede that personal, subjective experiences – particularly of the kind promoted by Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the like – are insufficient to warrant a belief in God! When someone claims to have been visited by God, it is more reasonable to believe that that person is sincerely mistaken, engaged in wish-fulfillment, and so on.

In the most extreme cases, we think people who hear divine voices are suffering from paranoid delusions. Consider the sad case of Andrea Yates, who (apparently) sincerely believed that she heard the voice of God commanding her to drown her five children. On face, her case isn’t any different from what Abraham claimed to have heard directly from God in Genesis 22:1-10. Why, then, does virtually every Christian have no difficulty concluding that Ms. Yates was insane?

I submit that whatever our “worldview” — in day to day life, we are called upon to evaluate claims like this from a variety of religious, spiritual, and other sources. Uniformly, we reject these sorts of experiences, standing alone, as being sufficient justification for the truths of the beliefs asserted in those experiences.

For all of these reasons, I conclude that this first set of arguments is insufficient to warrant belief in God.
yeah i kno. its copied, sue me

Ea7 asks-what made u change?

courtier's reply
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling Instruments when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Mr_Anony:

Interesting, have you tried approaching atheism in the same skeptical manner? Try and divorce yourself from the situation and approach atheism as a disinterested individual with no vested interest in it's falsity or truth. the results might just surprise you.

you do realise I was a christian before right. I already have. You are biased

ezicat: Ah - another atheist in the house.

You know one of the reasons I turned from organized religion? Because of the behaviour of you Christians. You say one thing and do another. Yes, the majority of Southern Nigerians are Christian - they crowd the churches every Sunday, they pay their tithes, they quote the Bible, they bless those who curse them online and yet..yet... Can I leave my door unlocked in Nigeria? No. In fact, I have to live inside high walls covered with broken glass or electrical wiring. Can I expect the government (filled with Christians no doubt) to do their jobs - create industry, protect their citizens? Or are they in there to loot the country dry - but they believe in God.....Can I walk into a place of worship as I am or do I have to dress in my finest wear - who am I showing off for? God or all you Christians. Who am I showing off for when I announce what I'm giving to the church? God or all you Christians? When I ignore the poor on my street while donating wads to the church to fatten pastors and priests? They say most husbands cheat - but they believe in God. Is the average Southern Nigerian polite, kind, humble? But the average Southern Nigerian is Christian.

Was it not the pope himself in the 1400s that branded blacks as inferior and deserving of slavery? The man that is supposed to be closest to God here on earth.

So Christians, by your behavior as a whole, you deny the existence of God - you can blame yourselves for the increasing levels of atheism.

boom-headshot

If every christian were to approach their religion from an impartial and dis interested point of view i.e so no conflict of interest can occur, will it survive?

loling at self

add me-to find my alt id read only caps and numerals

close thread