I really doubt that these videos make much difference among Christians. Such hateful, heated words are the exact thing that will convince Christians they are being persecuted and that their religion is true.

stuupid

Chris,

What approach, in your pious opinion, would help Christians understand how delusional they are?

Hmm?

Oh, and anony... yours is the ironically funny post of the day.

Being diplomatic might help. Throwing insults is probably the least effective way to convince someone you're right. A majority of Christians will simply become defensive or ignore you. Granted, I'm sure there are some who are open-minded enough to actually listen.

But this series of videos tends to state opinions ("Christianity is repulsive") as gospel truth. It's sensationalism more than anything.

Huh?

Did you actually listen to the entire video?

I thought it was quite effective.

However, there are a lot of different kinds of people out there, Chris, and no single approach will get to or appeal to everyone -- period.

Besides, this site is about encouraging people who are doubting Christianity. I think those who are having problems believing in Christianity would find this video encouraging.

I suggest, Chris, that if you know the best way of presenting this topic, that you do it instead of just sitting on your ass and criticizing people who are actually doing something.

Just an opinion.

Sure, you found it effective in reinforcing your positions as an ex-christian. And like I said, some Christians are looking for something like this. But to be honest, for a vast majority of Christians, arguing with them will not get them to change their minds.

Something I did carry over from christianity though is the idea of being an example of an atheist who treats people well and strives to make a positive difference in this world. That's part of the reason I contacted Habitat for Humanity the other day about volunteering.

And is telling someone, "You're delusional," really encouraging? Sure, it may be a true statement, but I think there are ways to soften the blow a little. But like you said, to each his own. Maybe some people need to be insulted before they'll really examine themselves and their beliefs.

I don't think any of these girls were virgins. Great video Dave. Thanks for sharing that with all of us. It is so ironic that Christians do think their story is so believable, and should be accepted by all despite the irrationality of the whole tall tale, and yes a devout Christian would be the first one to scoff at the obsurdity of the stories of the Mormon or Muslim faiths. As outsiders looking in all we can do is be glad we are no longer within the cirlces of delusion.

Too bad this doesn't get out to the masses.

I've got to agree with Chris.

Dave, you're totally, totally right that this can be encouraging to ex-Christians (though, IMO, for not really great reasons; mockery and debasement is a self-demeaning form of encouragement: that's how bullies find "encouragement" on school playgrounds). But the stated purpose of the video itself (as opposed to the site to which it was posted) is to convince Christians. This is a much harder job when, before even introducing the arguments, you are already using derogatory and insulting language against them. Much better to make your points in as diplomatic a way as possible, the better to get past their initial defenses and get them to actually listen to what you're saying.

I like these videos, they are blunt and to the point, and they raise great questions. I don't hear hateful, heated words. Look to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind or Ted Haggard when he's chatting about evolution or gay sex for that. These words are simple and straightforward.

My common exchange with any number of my Christian friends...

Me: You're delusional

Them: You're an ass

and then we drink beer.

I find it much more civilised that way.

Of course, nothing changes, but we do drink beer... which is all to the good in ecumenical dealings like that :)

Love

Grandpa

BTW, the 'all scientific studies' assertion is an act of faith. Most often I find when people say 'there is not study to back this' they mean nothing they've got round to reading or nothing in English (being UK based, I'd refine this further to nothing in the UK... I think the same holds true for the US)
It's easy to ignore a study in French since you don't translate it (clinical studies using 'essential oils'... huge volume going back to the 1920s). same with German (General Practice Doctors use lot of stuff the FDA would class as 'radionic' and thus it would be broken up and the person using it would be placed in a Federal Penitentiary) To assert ALL studies is, unless one has spent a life time reading them is just FAITH. It doesn't fit within the world view, thus it's 'impossible'... Trying to prove an absence is one of the hardest things I know...

Love etc

Gramps

Chris and Mike, you're certainly entitled to your opinions, but if I apply what you are saying across the board, then Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are out line.

What I think both of you still have from Christianity is a dogmatic view of how others should think, speak, or act.

Ex-Christians are not united in any way except the lack of belief in Christianity.

This video encourages me. I WAS delusional. I WAS! I know it now. And the comparisons with Mormonism and Islam make it painfully clear just how delusional I was.

Are the words shocking to a Christian? Yeah, they are. So what? Christians weren't converted to Christianity through a quiet rational conversation, and it's doubtful to me that any one will de-convert after a quiet rational conversation. No doubt, something like this video will NOT de-convert anyone either. It will ultimately take a desire on the part of the Christian to actually dig and learn for him- or herself before anything like de-conversion can ever happen. Little videos, scientific books, entire websites, television shows, etc., none of it is going to de-convert a single person that isn't already having doubts. But all of the above things might (MIGHT) get someone to start thinking.

What concerns me whenever I see comments condemning the work of others on these general topics, especially the godhatesamputees people, who by the way, have some great articles to read on their site, is that broad brush statements that seem to be telling me that "there is only one right way to approach a topic" and you need to have possession of this knowledge in order to be an effective ex-Christian (or atheist, or whatever) has echoes of fundamentalism in it. What you think you are saying and what I am hearing are two different things. If what you mean to say is that "I personally prefer a softer approach, it agrees more with my personality" then fine, that's a valid statement, and quite defensible. Everyone has a different preference on nearly everything -- can't argue with that. If, however, you are saying what I think you are saying, that "Only my preferred style of broaching these topics is the correct and effective approach, and all other approaches are less effective, less valuable and can even make things worse," then, I'll have to completely disagree with both of you. But, I guess that's what discussion is all about.

Now, this is a discussion site, so discussion is expected. I don't hold this kind of conversation at work or with the people I associate with in various community activities. That would be fruitless and inappropriate and rude. And I don't really expect anyone on this site to agree with everything, or any one thing that I say. But I do know that over 2,500 former Christians and current Christians log on to this site every day, for any number of reasons, and it's not only because of the topics touched on here, but because they are in all kinds of formats, ranging in quality from sophomoric, silly humor to serious well written articles and everything in between. The increasing attraction of this site alone speaks to the need for all of us to be less absolute in our viewpoints on how ideas MUST be presented.

Anyway, have either of you ever read Thomas Paine? How about Robert Ingersoll? Man, talk about offensive stuff!

Saying someone is delusional is not what I consider an insult.
Saying they're a dickhead, yes that's an insult, for insult's sake.
Saying they're delusional is just a statement describing them (or your opinion of them).

I would consider it an invitation to further engage them in discussion.
Like the christian accepting the 'challenge' and asking, "Ok then, why am I delusional?"

If all the reasons the atheist calls a christian delusional can be successfully rebutted by that christian then hasn't he accomplished something?

No christian should be afraid to enter such debate, after all, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

Hmmm, now I sound like I'm defending christians, but really I'm just wishing they wouldn't hide behind the 'insult' excuse to avoid the issues.

WM wrote:
"...Little videos, scientific books, entire websites, television shows, etc., none of it is going to de-convert a single person that isn't already having doubts. But all of the above things might (MIGHT) get someone to start thinking..."

Yeah, that one just about stole my thunder. The way I was going to put it was that since it takes all kinds to make a world, even all kinds of Xtians to make a world of Xtians, it takes all kinds of approaches to reach them. Since nothing is ruled out of life, no form of address should be ruled out in dealing with them.

I was once thinking that I'd put together a directory/folder on my disk which contained only the caviar of ways of cutting through a Xtian's delusion. But they would only have been things that would have reached me if I were the one living under that delusion. Some of them would have had no effect at all on some of the people I've met. (Example: Asking "Does god know what he's going to think before he thinks it?" would only get a blank stare from one person I have in my mind's eye right now. It would have no effect at all.)

I wish the video had had a graphic where the 3 bubbles were pictured there, and, for each of the 3 religions under consideration, 2 of the bubbles being in complete agreement that the 3rd one is delusional, and then rotating the focus 120 degrees, so that the next two religious bubbles could be in complete agreement that the successor bubble is the delusional one, etc.

Most Xtians, I'll agree, will look at the video and say, "If you take the problem of adding 4+5, you might get several different answers as to the total, but that doesn't mean that the person who comes up with 9 is wrong. And I'm that guy." But if the video works on even one person, or even combines with something else that a given Xtian hears, to produce the desired effect, it was worth making.

It's a big world, and when everything in it is fair game, no approach can be ruled out of court.

I think this is an excellent video. I see no "hateful heated" words in it at all. It makes a point I have been thinking about a lot in recent months. I just couldn't come up with a way to say it. He sums up the beliefs of the Mormons, Muslims, and Christians. He uses the exact same way to tell each story. Because he is speaking to Christians he asks Christians to open their eyes and see the similarities between their own religion and the religions they consider baloney.

The one item he does not address is the psychological functions of the human psyche that produce these delusions. Also, he does not address the idea that religious people consider atheists to be delusional and that they have very good reason to do so. Otherwise, I consider this to be an excellent, thought-provoking video.

For those who don't know me, I identify as an ex-Christian who thinks the evidence for god is mighty slim to non-existent. I came to this position via the information that a "god-spot" naturally exists in the human brain which, when stimulated, creates a "religious experience." There are still a few phenomema in the human experience of which I am aware that are not accounted for by science. However, science has been able to explain an extremely wide range of previously thought supernatural phenomena. I feel fairly comfortable trusting that the few remaining items will eventually be explainable, too.

Unfortunately, the number of people who stand outside all of the major delusional bubbles is rather small. (I qualify the bubbles as "major" because we've probably all got some "minor" personal delusions.)

I have a question for all those who were at one time an ardent believe in Christianity. (I do not put myself in this camp because I rejected Christianity as a child.) How do you think you would have reacted to such a video when you were in the grips of Christianity? I do not ask this rhetorically. I think you are in a unique position to provide some helpful insights.

Jim,

Were I still in Christianity's grip, I would proabably never see this clip. However, if I did see it, I would have tried to justify how my bubble was the true bubble while all those other ridiculous bubbles didn't apply to my personal experience, or something similar.

However, it would have made me think, just a little. Besides, people expressing themselves openly and honestly has never offended me, even if and when it results in sharp disagreement. While still a fundie I told myself that if my worldview couldn't stand up to a little harsh analysis, then it wasn't worth following.

Of course, that attitude may have been what allowed me to be eventually cured of the delusion.

Hi Jim,

You've got a point there. If I were still a christian, I would have said: You're so wrong in what you're saying. You need to open up to the Holy Spirit. He's the only one that can really reveal the things of God to you. I'm so glad I'm not in the bubble anymore.
By the way, the video is great. Thanks Dave.

Gilbert

Dave said "While still a fundie I told myself that if my worldview couldn't stand up to a little harsh analysis, then it wasn't worth following... Of course, that attitude may have been what allowed me to be eventually cured of the delusion."

Obviously, I have no way of knowing this for sure, but I can't help shouting "BINGO"! The fact that you allowed yourself to be exposed to criticism, and that you felt your beliefs ought to survive such attacks if they were in fact true, were probably your tickets out of cult-think. I suspect those are the only people such videos will affect. If they cannot even acknowledge that there are real live thinking people outside the bubble who hold different views, then their fate is effectively sealed. Or so it seems. Fascinating (and scary) stuff...

Jim,

Here I go again.

Probably I would have added that the difference between Jesus Christ and all the others is, that he's the only one that came back from the dead.

Now I'd say that even that ( would it happen ) does not prove that you're the Son of God. Halleluja.

Gilbert

Hi Gilbert,

So, as a Christian, you would have responded by saying (in effect) "You are all wrong, and this is why you have failed to see the truth of Christianity...", citing the need for an indwelling "sprit" to guide your thinking. Is that a fair statement? Do you recall ever wondering why the Holy Spirit did not bestow the gift of such insights onto everybody? I mean, was there some culpability on the part of the "skeptic" (for lack of a better word)?

Most importantly, how did you eventually overcome this way of thinking? How did you manage to get out of the bubble. Given what you just said, I would think it was tremendously difficult.

@ Dave,

"Chris and Mike, you're certainly entitled to your opinions, but if I apply what you are saying across the board, then Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are out line."

I'm not very familiar with Sam Harris. I'm not a particular fan of Richard Dawkins, though I believe him to be a very intelligent man who makes fairly persuasive arguments. However, the comments I've read from him, offensive as they might be to Christians, do not seem quite as vitriolic as the general style of this video appeared to me. Richard Dawkins still tends to offend more with substance than with style (though he obviously does not make great effort to make his style as inoffensive as possible).

"What I think both of you still have from Christianity is a dogmatic view of how others should think, speak, or act."

This is a confusing statement to me. Aside from the dysphemistic terminology you've used, what precisely is wrong with that? There are obviously universally accepted rules pertaining to acceptable and expected behavior in others: nobody likes to be shouted at, for example, regardless of the actual words being shouted; and (almost) nobody approves of (e.g.) pedophilia.

I'm not drawing comparisons between these behaviors and this video; but the point is that clearly some such "dogmas" are universally upheld. And I do not believe that insisting on civility, whether from Christians or Atheists, is out-of-line, nor remotely inappropriate, nor is it indicative of some narrow-minded or parochial viewpoint.

"I'm not drawing comparisons between these behaviors and this video;"

Uhm, then why cite the examples?

This video is not behaviors, guys. These are words and ideas and they are expressed here in a certain style. All you are talking about is personal preference here. You don't like your food too spicy, or you'll spit it out, and that's fine. Frankly, sometimes I like mine super spicy. So what? Am I right? No. Are you wrong? No.

We just have a difference in opinion on best recipes for our word combinations. Big deal!

Christianity is classic for making people think that certain thoughts about religion and words critical of religion, and facial expressions, and attitudes, and negative feelings toward religion, are in and of themselves wicked. What I am "hearing" from you is that certain styles or presentations of ideas against religion are somehow bad, or wicked, or evil.

I suggest you become more familiar with Harris and Dawkins. Whether you agree with a more agressively frontal approach to these issues or not, many others seem to understand it as non-offensive. Dawkins' and Harris' books are selling like crazy. Like I said before, try reading Paine and Ingersoll. Those guys were really in-your-face writers. If you wince for this video, you'll drop over dead with Paine.

Anyway, on this site, at least, the policy will continue to be: the more variety and styles in the presentation of ideas, the better.

Oh, and I personally love your writing style. However, although your style is quite captivating, I don’t think you’ve cornered the market and discovered the one true, best, superior, or even most effective approach toward communicating these ideas to all people in all places at all times.

Then again, no one has done that.

YO, Gilly!

"Probably I would have added that the difference between Jesus Christ and all the others is, that he's the only one that came back from the dead."

Mithras - got better after being dead (also born of a virgin, 25th December, in a barn)
Odin - Got Better after being hung over the mouth of hell
Osiris - got better enough to make his wife pregnant after being murdered by his son
Krishna - Turns up numerous times after he died at the hand of his brother

Dying/resurrecting man-gods are a staple of Pagan thought. There's really no excuse for THAT sort of stultifying ignorance, despite the number of loud mouthed no-nothings on this side of the fence...

Love and kisses with tongues

Grandpa

managed to post that without smilies

scatter the following

;) :D :P

since It wasn't being THAT insulting :D

GH

Here's an alternate approach Chris and Mike might find more palatable:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-i-defining.html

It's a series of blogs about what really gets through to hard-core Christians based on the experiences of the blogger. A lot of good stuff there, I found it really fascinating.

To be honest a bit crap considering that mormens could barely be called anything to do with Christainty especailly since it as taken and rewritten ( the 'bible' that the mormens read) anyway Im a christain so i would like you ( by this i mean anyone to email me at djs1990@hotmail.com with your strongesrt reasons about why God is non existant etc, however it may take a while for me to get back to you as I'm only 16, i have a life, and i have to study for exams etcetc so until then

Hi Grandpa,

Just goes to show that nothing is gonna hold back true love, ain't that so.

I'll take your love and have no need of the kisses. Thanks anyway.

Cornflowers & Poppies,
Gilbert

(From "Anonymous":)

To be honest a bit crap considering that mormens could barely be called anything to do with Christainty especailly since it as taken and rewritten..."

You obviously didn't finish watching the movie. The movie clearly did not consider Mormonism to be Christianity.

(From Dave:)

"I'm not drawing comparisons between these behaviors and this video;"

Uhm, then why cite the examples?

Dave, if you have actually read the rest of the sentence you're quoting from, it answers the question quite clearly: to make the point that promoting some behaviors and disapproving others is not in and of itself "dogmatic".

You don't like your food too spicy, or you'll spit it out, and that's fine. Frankly, sometimes I like mine super spicy. So what? Am I right? No. Are you wrong? No.

Then what is our argument? Have Chris or I said anything to contradict this? We simply mention what we dislike about it. We don't claim everyone else has to dislike it, too. We haven't been complaining that you don't dislike it. When you posted a comment that disagreed with our viewpoint, we didn't accuse you of being pious, dogmatic or clinging to remnants of your former faith…

We just have a difference in opinion on best recipes for our word combinations. Big deal!

Um, exactly. Who has said otherwise?

Hm, I meant to address these, too:

Like I said before, try reading Paine and Ingersoll. Those guys were really in-your-face writers. If you wince for this video, you'll drop over dead with Paine.

Heh. Actually, I love Paine. Just ordered The Age of Reason from Amazon. :)

At least to me, I find that, while Paine is certainly offensive to Christian sensibilities, he (as well as Dawkins) tends to offend more with substance than with style alone; in my personal (and admittedly subjective) view, the video's offensiveness lay chiefly in the manner with which it was presented, and not with the actual content of the message.

Oh, and I personally love your writing style. However, although your style is quite captivating, I don’t think you’ve cornered the market and discovered the one true, best, superior, or even most effective approach toward communicating these ideas to all people in all places at all times.

Hell, is there such a thing? :)

Thanks for the compliment: I really appreciate it. I'm a little critical of my style, myself. While I do believe that I have a bit of a knack for presenting things in a style that can be appreciated from the "other side", I worry that my writing style can be excessively wordy, or even come across as pretentious (especially if you compare it to how I speak: I don't really talk the way I write).

The vast amount of my communications tend to be written, and tend to reflect the material I spend my time reading: dense and wordy :/

Jim,

You asked: "Was there some culpability on the part of the skeptic".

Certainly not.

But I was not ready to acknowledge that. I had a need to believe. The christian faith provided certain things that I needed in my life. Doubts were there all the time, but the need to believe overruled them.

And then, after I had invested so much for so long, it wasn't easy to let go of it. Having married a christian wife in the meantime, and having raised three daughters in christian bible-faith.

And then, Jim, you said: "Most importantly, how did you eventually overcome this way of thinking? How did you manage to get out of the bubble. Given what you just said, I would think it was tremendously difficult".

You're right about that. It wasn't easy.

Must get some sleep now. It's soon gonna be daybreak. Greetings to y'all.

Gilbert

Perhaps I've completely misunderstood then, Micah.

And in that, case, I apologize, and I'm out.

Peace.

I just finished "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and one point he makes is the fact that for the most part religion has had a given unfair shroud agaisnt critisism. The theist is free to lambaste the atheist or the homosexual i.e. Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell, yet it doesn't work fairly in the other direction.

See here's the thing. I don't think most Christians literally believe in that stuff anymore. I've met very few who actually do believe it, and most of them were either new converts or fundies. Most Christians go to church to fit into society and have a social life. If going to church suddenly made them a social pariah, like claiming you're athiest does nowadays, they wouldn't go to church. It's all about social acceptance.

@ Jim,

Most importantly, how did you eventually overcome this way of thinking? How did you manage to get out of the bubble. Given what you just said, I would think it was tremendously difficult.

Yeah, getting out of the bubble is extremely difficult. Especially if you were raised in it. Those fortunate enough to have converted to it, lack the indoctrination-from-birth aspect that tends to make deconversion very difficult. I've noticed that, among those whose parents raised them in The Faith (Dawkins' "Christian Children"), the vast majority appear to come from families who are abusive, or who are otherwise obvious in the inconsistency between their practices and their preaching.

I'm frankly amazed that I was able to free myself from it: I come from literally the most loving, caring, and nurturing family I know. Their faith really worked, as far as consistency between their beliefs and their actions went, and as far as having a truly happy and productive life goes: we had that*. My Dad, a Calvary Chapel pastor for over a quarter-century, is by far the wisest person I know, in interpersonal relationships, emotional and mental stability, and balanced perspectives (despite a very evangelical, Bible-literalist faith).

To use these things as proof of Christ's veracity is to essentially argue by "confirming the subsequent" (a logical fallacy); but in a day when happy, close-knit and functional families are an extreme rarity, it surely speaks loudly as a testimony. And it certainly makes believing in Jesus pretty damn easy.

While any atheist knows that the burden of proof falls upon the one arguing for an extension to the known facts (thus demanding that belief in God be proved beyond doubt); human nature invariably requires that the burden of proof falls on the one who wishes to change another's current point of view (which results in such as our anonymous 16-year-old's challenge to prove the non-existence of God).

Those for whom the experience of Christianity has been a largely positive experience have a very deep emotional attachment to it. Possibly as strong as the bond between a parent and a child (the concept of a Father God would strengthen this). Couple this with the misperception that God has clearly and unmistakably intervened in and guided your life (due chiefly to strong human biases to remember hits and forget misses, to recognize strong patterns from random noise, and, yes, some brainwashing), and it becomes practically impossible to change your mind.

The only reason I'm not currently a Christian is a combination of sheer luck (of the sort that a superstitious person might term Fate or Providence), an overwhelming and abiding love of knowledge and truth (to a degree that I am willing to accept knowing nothing [my current state], over being certain of what may be false [my previous state]), and an accidental but firm self-grounding in logical argument.

* Sadly, it's less clear to me that the functionality and joy in my family as a unit remains quite so intact; there are signs of stress, weariness, and intellectual inconsistency too long unbroken, and the inevitably-resulting psychological and relational damage being swept under the façade of the supernatural Joy and Strength which the Lord gives to those who ask for it. They nevertheless remain, "the most loving, caring, and nurturing family I know."

I think the video is excellent. In the ecology of persuasion, we need variety. This video, while certainly hard-hitting, is actually not rude. It's just being forthright.

@ Amethyst,

Let's take a look.

79% of Americans believe Jesus was born of a virgin, without a human father¹

Twenty-five percent of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely that Jesus Christ will return to Earth in 2007¹

For reference, Half of Americans believe a person can get AIDS by having anal intercourse even if neither partner is infected with the AIDS virus (search in that page for the phrase, "neither partner").²

Depressed yet? :)

¹ Polls, not scientific studies.

² Alarmingly, this one is a statistically representative, carefully compiled scientific study; the Kinsey Institute/Roper Organization National Sex Knowledge Test, a survey performed in the fall of 1989.

The producer of this video seems to be over exuberant in his use of the terms 'delusional', 'irrational' and 'superstition,' underscoring the argument with statements like 'scientific studies prove that your religion cannot be true' and worse still, that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for a being named 'god.' This video in no way supports any evidence to the contrary about God, in fact quite the opposite. The rational human being (using the producer's term) who has half a brain (using the producer's tone) can easily establish for his or her own self the reality of this supposedly 'unknown God.' It is my understanding that God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him (either athiest or otherwise). I do not believe in fairy tales and would never base my life on one and I take exception to the effort made in this video to build a discreditable case attempting to prove otherwise. Let it be known also that the "bubble" of Christianity is a figment of his over exagerated efforts to debunk Christianity in a demeaning way. There is no "bubble." God wants real people living relevant lives in a real world likewise helping real people in whichever way they can. Fairytales can stay at home on the children's bookstand where they belong. I don't mind making strong statements to the contrary as I'm doing now against an argument, however would never go out of my way to defraud anyone's belief as this producer takes pride in doing. Lastly, the 'god' he cannot prove empirically is in fact The One who put in place all structured scientific order in the first place. God is provable both evidentially AND experientially and for anyone who seeks Him diligently and graciously there is NO doubt he will draw near to that one and change their lives forever. Making statements that sound "scientifically authenticated" and providing comparisons with fairy tales doesn't prove to an intelligent person that God does not exist, it merely proves that that person has been very creative in his vain attempt to disprove and discredit God Himself. Lastly, to blatantly suggest that what I believe is "harming us as a species" considering all the good that Christianity has brought to this earth (hospitals, education, orphanages, shelters for the homeless, aged care, provision of food to the hungry, poor and destitute, and the list is endless...) I would ask that he takes a good long hard look in the mirror and ask himself what harm is he bringing by producing such a video in the first place (and furthermore, what good has he done and what difference is he making to a suffering world?). Thanks for sharing this staggeringly simplistic video, it has certainly helped strengthen my faith and has served to remind me that people will go to extraordinary lengths to deny provable truth if they fervently believe in the power of their own opinion to the exception of others. He may deny God, but thankfully God's nature is so faithful that He can never deny him and to this I am eternally grateful.

I would surmise that the main point of this video depends a great deal on where you reside in life. If you live in the world of reality, this video is compelling. If you reside in the "bubble" of faith, you have the right to be offended. Having had the experience of living in both worlds, I find the video both helpful and educational to a degree. Had I seen this video while I was residing under the "god delusion", I'm sure that I would not have appreciated it one bit. Since I see clearly now, I love it.

Craig wrote:

God is provable both evidentially AND experientially ...

Craig, can you prove God exists?

God is provable both evidentially AND experientially

Which would explain how all the other religions, past and present, have the wrong god but you have the right one. We do appreciate your help in supporting the assertion found in the title of this thread.

Religions and beliefs require faith.

Reality and truth needs no faith.

Okay this is for the webmaster. You cant convience these idiots with something like that. You cant burst a bubble that strong. To successfuly show christians the truth you must show them facts. I would start out by asking them some questions. "How did Noah get all the animal from places like australia" They will probaly say "Well back then the world was one big land mass." and then you say " Not if you believe in the bible." Ask questions like that for starters. Next explain to them that religion was invented to explain nature. i.e rainbows, snakes having no legs, how the universe was formed etc. Lastly let them down easy. Tell them its going to be hard to except that they wont see thier loved ones again. And that they wasted all this time worshiping nothing. At the end they always have one final question. Where did we come from. After you explain evolution and the big bang(or some othe theory) they will ask you "but where did it all begin(like for example: where did the rocks come from that started the big bang come from?) you say " I dont know, thats why people make gods.


I have changed many lives this way and for the better.

p.s if the still believe then dont bother with the crazy person anymore

sertyopklopklop@aim.com
masterroyalsnow@yahoo.com

[I also posted this over at Debunking Christianity where Craig also posted.]

So, then how do you explain the fact that most non-Mormons do in fact think Mormons are delusional, and that most non-Muslims think Muslims are delusional, and that most non-Christians (at least 2/3's of the world's population I might add) do think Christians are delusional? How also do you account for the fact that the largest and most well-funded prayer study to date had only negative results? While you might say that God did not want to be put to the test, at least as far as the science so far is concerned, we have no reason to think that prayer works.

Furthermore, suppose I grant that due to the order in the universe and due to your personal religious experiences, God exists. How then do you know that Christianity alone is true? Unless your personal religious experience contained explicit doctrinal content, I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. People have profound religious experience in many traditions. Perhaps, as you say, God does reveal Himself to those you desire Him. Then it would follow that God would reveal Himself to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike. How then do you that your particular version of God is correct?

[Besides, there are other ways to explain the order we see. Natural selection for biological organisms and potentially multiverse selection for ordered universes. The arguments you cite in favor of God which I earlier granted are not slam dunks.]

You are the most silly person on earth. This video is talking about MORMONS! MORON!!!.. Get your facts straight before you attack my Lord and savior!! please oh please get a brain!! you are the only delusional one amongst us!!.. please find the lord and please ACTUALLY READ YOUR BIBLE!!!.. Your opinion is your own thank GOD!. Idiot!!

Hi Alan and Spirula..
I previously stated "God is provable both evidentially AND experientially"
I certainly can prove that God exists and I certainly have experienced His grace and power. However YOU both must undertake to prove His existence otherwise it wouldn't be a personal experience (ie: you'd be living off someone elses experience), however I know just how this is done. It's real simple. Seek Him with your whole heart and He will absolutely honour you by revealing Himself to you. He never breaks His promises and I can tell you categorically that this is His promise and it is impossible for Him to break it. But only YOU can find out, or if you will allow others, they can guide you if you are brave enough to allow them to. I can provide a plethora of evidence and sound scientific argument to counter the dogmatic and over zealous statements made by "Royal Snow?" however that I perceive could be a pointless exercise considering the 'loudness' of his statements. For the record, I hate religion, and I believe God does too. This is all about getting to know God personally and having an incredibly personal relationship with the same One who formed heaven and earth who is the same One who intimately knows every hair on our heads. Incidently, as "Amethyst" seems to suggest, it is NEVER about social acceptance. That would deny all self conviction which in my mind is a pretty weak stance at the best of times. Certainly, it is true, that out of association with others there forms incredibly dynamic relationships, but it is merely a by-product of fellowship.
"Anonymous" please, your last answer was not good buddy, but keep believing, I love ya faith, but tread gracefully man.

Hello Craig?

This thread is about to go south so there isn't much point in striking up this conversation. However, you seem like a reasonable homo sapiens, quite unlike the fundie trash that wanders in here, resembling drunks looking for an alley to piss in.

Craig, look buddy.......this god shit just doesn't work for everybody. OK? It just doesn't. Not everybody likes broccoli. Not everybody likes oral sex. I know that I am am arguing by analogy, but you get my point.

I do not deny that you have experienced something; I do not know what. That is your affair, and you are welcome to it. You borrow xian expressions, such as seeking god with a whole heart. Many of us here, me included, have sought your god with a whole heart, with all the sincerity we had at our command, and the process failed. That is where we found ourselves in a trap. Then we were told that we were not sincere. See, "you can find god if you seek him with a whole heart, and if you fail, that means you did not seek with a whole heart". At that point life became a living hell, as we tried to somehow conjure up the amount of sincerity that would please god. It soon became obvious to me that god did not exist, and that I took the blame for not finding a god who was not there to begin with. Heads god wins; tails I lose.

Craig, I have nothing against you--really, no shit, really--but I wish you would get the hell out of here. Leave people alone and do not try to fuck with their minds.

And I too hate religion, including yours.

And one more thing that I forgot.

I have no interest in your "proofs" of your god's existence. One can argue for the existence of a god or a creator, but there is no proof that this god can be communicated with or that she even cares about us to begin with. As Voltaire had said "god is the eternal geometrician who cannot love you".

I am pleased that you have these pleasant feelings that come from inside your head. I have my own feelings and they work fine for me. I do not live by your subjective experience.

Craig,
Sorry, that shifting the burden of proof crap won't work here. Neither does evading my assertion, sarcastic as it was. You did note the EX in Ex-Christian didn't you? Almost all of us here had the "conversion" experience, and then realized that it really was just a group-think control mechanism, that the "truths" of the bable are just that...bable.
Come back when you have something of substance.

By the way, proofs are based on empirical methods (mathematical and scientific), not fuzzy feelings or conversion experiences or philosophical arguments, which is why no one has ever had "proof" of divine beings.

And you did read Adam's comment about prayer didn't you? Empirically tested, it doesn't work.

I should imagine that I am just talking for the sake of it. I do not suppose Craig cares or even notices what I said.

This shit about the "whole heart" is not logical. None of us is whole-hearted about anything; that would mean perfection. None of us is a whole-hearted xian, or republican, or democrat, or truck driver. If god cared about us--if she was a benevolent god--she would meet us in our imperfections; she would meet us in our less-than-whole hearts. She would meet us at the half-way point, or at 3/4, or wherever we were. And she sure as hell would not hand out blame for our failure.

Hey Craig,

Your babbling sounds like a hypnotic induction. I'm not at all impressed by that kinda stuff.

Talk about categorically. You're so vague: "I certainly have experienced His grace and power... seek Him with your whole heart...I know just how this is done...It's real simple... He will absolutely honour you by revealing Himself to you... I can provide a plethora of evidence..."

But you don't and you can't...

Craig, we've been there and we've seen it already. You're so yesterday.

I wish you better...

Poppies & lots of Cornflowers for you,

Gilbert

Craig

It appears you are saying I would have to assume God exists before I can see the evidence that he exists, which means developing a confirmation bias. Do you have evidence that can be examined without having to make that assumption? If a supreme being is causing physical changes to our world or influencing human behavior then those changes or influences should be observable, whether or not the observer believes in God.

Yet, one more Christian guest said: I certainly can prove that God exists and I certainly have experienced His grace and power.

Hurry, now...and don't dawdle. Submit your objective evidence for the existance OF...::trumpets sound::...."GOD". Yes, yes...there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you, as well as gaggles of interviews in all the science journals. Hell, I know I'm not the only one who can't wait to see what "GOD" looks like.

So please, submit your photos and/or video footage at once, and "if" you don't have that, then a physical description will suffice, for now. You know what I mean...like, is "GOD" 5'9"?...or more like 9'5"? How about skin color?...is "GOD" Caucasian?...or an Pacific Islander? Does "GOD" sound like Darth Vader?....or Tiny Tim?

Yay!..I can hardly wait!

@ Anonymous,

You should watch beyond the first minute or two of the video before claiming to know, better than everyone else on this thread, what the video is about (and then insulting them for their "ignorance"). The first ~3 minutes of the video is about Mormons, yes. The end of the video, and its primary point, is that mainstream Christianity is just as ridiculous as Mormonism and Islam is.

I kind of wish this site would disallow anonymous posters: I love it when idiots write ignorant flame-fests with their names attached to it, so they have a permanent record of their idiocy for anyone who wishes to check them out via Google.

How about it, Dave? :)

Wow, looks like there's a fair degree of heat in here. Seriously, some of your responses are worthy of response but some...man, well what can I say. I take it this blog site is for the civil and the intelligent believer and unbeliever to respond to? I would have thought that everyone has a right of response.
Craig stated: "I certainly can prove that God exists and I certainly have experienced His grace and power. However YOU both must undertake to prove His existence otherwise it wouldn't be a personal experience."
Granted, I didn't get into empiracal evidence or other science based contentions, as this was never my point. The basis of my response was never that, although I did refer to that. The basis behind my response was the obvious, and that is that you will each prove God for yourselves by seeking Him with your whole heart. For those of you who have 'given this a go' then it's real hard for me to comment as I don't know your circumstances but I pray you hang in there and keep seeking Him. One condition though is that you open up your heart to Him, no holds barred. ie: let your barriers down and let go of your anger.
There was one comment that said: "One can argue for the existence of a god or a creator, but there is no proof that this god can be communicated with or that she even cares about us to begin with. As Voltaire had said "god is the eternal geometrician who cannot love you".

God is being communicated with every day by millions of people. The burden of proof is provable and testable over and over again with these ones. The amazing thing is that God desperately WANTS to communicate with each of us, but we have to allow Him to, He will never ever impose His will on anyone. He loves us too much for that. Quoting Voltaire is only one person's opinion vs the millions I made reference to above, who incidentally, amazingly receive real answers to their prayers from a real God who yearns to hear from them.
Spirula said: "Sorry, that shifting the burden of proof crap won't work here. Neither does evading my assertion, sarcastic as it was."
Hey Spirula, so sorry, I had much to write and did not mean to avoid your statement. However seriously, I was never attempting to "shift the burden of proof." I'll deal with some interesting proof if you are willing to read it. In fact I'll post it below (an answer I gave to Adam regarding the bible's authenticity. Firstly though...
Ryan said: "I should imagine that I am just talking for the sake of it. I do not suppose Craig cares or even notices what I said.

"This shit about the "whole heart" is not logical. None of us is whole-hearted about anything; that would mean perfection. If god cared about us--if she was a benevolent god--she would meet us in our imperfections; she would meet us in our less-than-whole hearts. She would meet us at the half-way point, or at 3/4, or wherever we were. And she sure as hell would not hand out blame for our failure."
Craig said: Ryan man, I seriously care about what you said. ie: I took what you said very seriously and mindfully. I want you to know that I would never have gotten to an understanding of God without Him receiving me unconditionally in the state I was in. Perfection doesn't come into it and never will when it comes to mankind. God accepts us fully in whatever state we are in. ie: Come as you are, that what He loves. Leave the rest to Him. By the way Ryan, God never blames us for our failure, that is sooo wrong. Quite the opposite; He gave His only Son as a sacrifice for us that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have everlasting life. God gave His Son freely that we might have life and live it to the max!
Gilbert, Alan, Spirula and Crew. Blog space is running thin, but my answers are plenty. May I copy here a response to Adam (as I promised Spirula) to the veracity of the bible, the very document that authenticates for all of us the events that are recorded within. ie: yes, the book itself is self testifying and verifiable more than any other book, ever.
Craig's response was:
"Hey there Adam (and Crew),

There is a huge difference between the bible's claim to its authenticity vs the two other religions you mentioned. (with all respect to the other religions). One of the most stunningly compelling reasons is that it is not based on tales passed down through the ages with the obvious danger of creating legends and leading to nil accuracy. On the contrary you need to understand someting that is pivotal to this argument and that is that the bible's records are in fact records of eye witness testimony. This is not conjecture, this is undiluted truth. Look, the reason for my 'strong emphasis' is that IF you are TRULY interested in delving deeper and really setting about to seek out the truth in this most important of matters, then you need to look at what was written, by whom, when it was written, what were the time gaps in the copies, how the copies were written and preserved and by whom, etc. You will discover that the case for the bible's veracity is truly based not on hearsay evidence, not on legend passed down, not on cultural beliefs and certainly not on mythology, but on actual eye witness testimony, the kind that holds the greatest weight in any court of law. When you begin to discover that, as I did after much digging, then it will change your life. You see at that point blind faith is taken out of the equation and truth hits you like a bombshell. As I said, I have no time for fairytales Adam, I'm too methodical and thorough for that. I want the truth and nothing less. Upon searching you will find that the people in the NT (you mentioned this section of the bible) who wrote these things were recording what they saw, not what they heard or what they "believed." That's just one of the stunning differences between the bible and all other ancient records from antiquity. Not only did the authors see these things and record these things in their time but there were many others with them recorded in the bible who also saw and heard with their own eyes and ears. The testimonies therefore are verified by a multiplicity of eye witnesses.
Once again Adam, there is NO book, or series of books, which comes anywhere close to preserving such textual content from ages past with such astounding accuracy and preserved order." Much much more can be written with far greater substantiation behind it and I'm happy to engage in discussion any time. Keep smiling and seek well!
Craig

Craig, just one more response and this thing will disappear. I lose interest in these things pretty quick.

1st, you said you did not like religion, and yet your whole post was about the xian religion. You people--you religious people--always try to disquise the plain fact that you have a religion.

2nd, you are unable to deny that religion has failed many people. Your only (futile) response was to keep seeking. Craig, we do not whip a dead horse. We do not "keep seeking" year after year. If your god was who you insist he is, there would be no need to beat one's head against a wall. You said god was yearning to communicate. Well, I listened for 15 years. What the hell do you think "yearning" means?

Your insistence that the bible is provable--your appeal to eyewitness accounts--is laughable and I won't even go there.

Finally, you reverse yourself in ways that should be obvious to you. I told you that a whole heart was not possible; that whole heartedness implied a perfection. This was after you insisted that god would respond on the CONDITION of whole heartedness. Well, you ground the gears into reverse pretty quick and then said that god would respond just as we are. Your like, "oh no I didn't say that, I didn't say that" Well Craig, how I wish that your god had responded to me just as I was. If that had happened, I would be a xian. It didn't, and I ain't.

What has happened in your postings is what any fundie can be counted on to do: You re-define the xian religion to suit the direction of the argument. The fundie's inability to stick to a straight answer has never ceased to amaze me.

When this thing goes over the edge I will probable check archive, and I expect to hear yet another version of your religion

Craig wrote:

God is being communicated with every day by millions of people. The burden of proof is provable and testable over and over again with these ones

Craig, why is this proof limited to believers? Evidence is evidence, it doesn't care who is looking at it. If I said I have proof the Earth is flat, but only members of the Flat Earth Society will understand it, its not very good proof, is it?

actual eye witness testimony, the kind that holds the greatest weight in any court of law

Wrong. It has been demostrated repeatedly that eyewitness testimony is one of the LEAST reliable evidences in court. What is far more reliable is scientifically based forensics. If you have kept up with the news, you know that numerous convictions of murder and rape have been overturned based on forensic evidence. Many of these convictions had been based on eyewitness testimony, including victim testimony in rape cases. Eyewitness testimony has been historically relied upon because the better forensic techniques had not been developed. Nowdays, no prosecutor wants to take a case based solely on eyewitness accounts.

So the creation, flood and Job's story were all based on eyewitness accounts? Someone was there to witness the converstations and events and write it down? And how come the first record of Jesus was written 40 years after he died? You're attempts to defend the integrity of the Bible over all other religious manuscripts is, quite frankly, lame.

These issues are ones we all wrestled with, some of us for many years. These assertions are, in fact, unsupportable. That is why we are EX-Christians.

And to go further with with Alan's comment, if there are in fact more Islamic believers than Christian, isn't that then "proof" their god is the true god?

spirula, if I know fundies, his answer is going to be "the spirit gave them the ability to observe, remember, and record accurately"

Religious people love to talk about their proof and their evidence, and then when pressured (as you have done with breathtaking ease) they shift to miracles. There is always a card up their sleeve.

ryan,

I hear you. After I corrected Craig on the definition of proof, he went right back to using it wrongly. I get irritated at the use of such words as "proof" for assertions that are neither testable or falsifiable. This distortion of meanings (e.g. theory) has become widespread in our culture, and it is primarily due to religious people, usually intentionally (IOW, deceitfully). So I'll call them on it every time I see it.

Lads, no pressure felt this end.
I must repeat that my discovery of the bible's accuracy was not by accident or incidently as a result of some 'religious' experience. The bible is unique and its accuracy and authenticity stands alone unique to any book. You MAY wish to bag it, you MAY wish to try to even disprove it, however this is not possible as it would be like disproving your own existence or denying that everest doesn't exist. To suggest to me Ryan that the bible is not provable and that you doubt that it was not based on eyewitness accounts tells me that either you didn't read very carefully what I wrote or that your own delusion has clouded your ability to reason and to research with clarity. You must understand also that the bible's uniqueness goes far beyond accurate records of actual eyewitness accounts. What is your understanding of the bible? Do you think that such a book could ever be the suject of one person's vain imagination?? Is that what you seriously believe?? Because if you do I encourage you to 'look again' and ask yourself that question as you read from 66 different books that span nearly 2,000 years, penned by 38 different authors and all maintaining continuity from Genesis through to Revelation. No one could ever have put that together by plan and plotting. So far as accuracy goes and relevance to the actual authors; Luke (ie: who wrote the gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) was a historian of note and also a renowned physician. His documentation of places and his ability to record throughout his writings various places of note also help to determine accuracy and trustworthyness. Don't just wipe God off as some etherial, nebulous, unattainable myth and please guys don't just blatantly disregard accuracy and proof within this unique Book because it's easier to take the sledging and mocking line. If this justifies your stance then fine, but I suspect you have more determination in you than what I'm reading. I must admit I find it difficult that you are 'locked' into this stubborn stance where the seemingly obvious is denied without further research.
Alan, the burden of proof is absolutely not limited to believers, I never said that, nor meant to imply it. In fact the burden of proof is open to all of us. (Anyone who really wishes to find truth WILL do so.) It is the truth that will set you free, not a faiytale where an unreal, irrelevant bubble is formed around it. As I said, God desires to commune with real people not proponents of some myth.
Spirula: You are right, scientifically based forensics are becoming very accurate with the latest testing methods being applied to bring to light snapshots from the past to prove a case. However in talking to lawyers about this the legal profession do not deny eyewitness accounts over forensic evidence. The reality is that the combination of both is the best way to fastrack a positive outcome for the advocate or the prosecutor. One key difference is this. Forensic evidence is primarily taken to determine a snapshot from dead bodies and inert objects, whilst eye witness testimony is taken from living people to determine the pattern of events occurred which are in question. This is the pattern you can read first hand from the bible. ie: a record taken from living people who saw and who witnessed and who faithfully recorded these events.
Spirula: My reference to the New Testament and some of the records pertaining to Jesus do in fact date far earlier than 40 years. By the way no other work from antiquity comes close to 40 years. Try hundreds of years with work such as Homer's Iliad and the accounts of Alexander the Great, etc, etc. These are regarded as important and accurate works, yet you refute 40 years?? The truth however is that when you consider the early creeds as written by what I would refer to as the early church fathers, then these, with reference to in scripture date to within 2-5 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Incidentally, the apostle Paul's writings began approx 40AD, some 10 years after the crucifixion. Is Homer's Iliad still more accurate? Come on guys, don't let your unbelief get in the way of sound logic.
Regards,
Craig

Craig,

Please use paragraph breaks (insert a space between paragraphs).

Reading long, unending blocks of text is irritating.

Thanks.

Craig said: "The burden of proof is absolutely not limited to believers, I never said that, nor meant to imply it. In fact the burden of proof is open to all of us.

Craig, when someone proclaims that there are flying chariots, talking shrubs, walking snakes, speaking donkeys, that the earth stands still on its axis once in awhile, that a certain deity commands genocide and rape from time to time, that there is a flying un-dead god-man on a stick and that belief in all these things is mandatory or else a future of everlasting horror and torture awaits, well, I think the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the one making all these fantastic claims.

Don't you?

Or, if I tell you there is a flying spagetti monster that demands your pasta or else you are doomed, would you feel obligated to believe me? Or do you really think you have to spend any energy to prove me wrong?

Craig, you are the one with the weird stories. You are the one with the burden of proof. Until you give some better evidence that Noah shoved millions of creatures into his ark and that all the other myths in the Bible have any resemblence to reality, then common sense dictates a healthy dose of skepticism.