Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Sityl · #1 by **Sityl** » Apr 16, 2010 8:16 pm

Ok. Here's a fun experiment that anyone with a windows computer (or internet access) can do! I strongly recommend you have you friends try it too!

1)Open up the game Minesweeper and set it on Expert.

2)Before clicking anything, flag 99 boxes. In your preconceived narrative, it is a FACT that these boxes contain the mines. Be proud of your preconceived narrative! You've come to it with absolutely zero supporting evidence, but for now, noone can prove that your narrative is wrong, and besides, it's a free country, so you have the right to believe whatever you want. Think of each flag as a belief. (e.g. being gay is immoral, abortion is murder, prayer works)

3)Now, start clicking all the unmarked boxes. When you die, from clicking on a bomb, (which you will do), take careful note, not only of how many boxes you marked as bombs that weren't, and how many bombs you failed to mark, but also how FEW you correctly marked.

4)Now, try playing the normal way. You may have occasional flaws in logic, or occasional situations where there's two possibilities, and you don't have enough data to determine which is the correct possibility, but you'll find that with practice, and using the evidence that is presented to you, you will clear the board of mines FAR more often than you would using the preconceive narrative method.

5)Now think about how much actual evidence your religion has, as opposed to how much of it is just preconceived narrative, taught to you by parents or priests or teachers. Which method is better for determining the truth? A book from 2000 years ago, or rational examination of evidence. Which method should be used to determine what is moral? Or how to live your life? Or how to treat your neighbors?

The_Metatron · #2 by **The_Metatron** » Apr 16, 2010 8:25 pm

211 seconds.

Sityl · #3 by **Sityl** » Apr 16, 2010 8:26 pm

The_Metatron wrote:211 seconds.

HughMcB · #4 by **HughMcB** » Apr 16, 2010 8:32 pm

I like this OP! Great work!

econ41 · #5 by **econ41** » Apr 17, 2010 4:45 am

num1cubfn wrote:Ok. Here's a fun experiment that anyone with a windows computer (or internet access) can do!....

Windows?

Do I have to call it "Minesweeper" or can I try it with "Mines" which is in the games package of this UBuntu workstation.

:grin:

DaveDodo007 · #6 by **DaveDodo007** » Apr 17, 2010 2:44 pm

Windows (spit.)

I'll have to use 'Mines' as well.

theidiot · #7 by **theidiot** » Apr 17, 2010 3:23 pm

num1cubfn wrote:

5)Now think about how much actual evidence your religion has, as opposed to how much of it is just preconceived narrative, taught to you by parents or priests or teachers. Which method is better for determining the truth? A book from 2000 years ago, or rational examination of evidence. Which method should be used to determine what is moral? Or how to live your life? Or how to treat your neighbors?

This is actually good question, but how about we extend it to not just a religious worldview, but all worldview in general.

How much of our atheist views on religion are based on a preconceived narrative? How much of our enlightenment devotees views on rationalism, morality, humanism are based on a preconceived narrative rather than a rational examination of the evidence? How much of our atheist understanding of others, particular those they find to be so unlike them, are based on a rational examination of the evidence, rather than a preconceived narrative?

We only see the lack of a rational examination of the evidence in religious worldviews, because they are so frequently brought into question, but what if your own non-religious worldviews are just as naively composed? It's far easier to notice individuals who harbor delusions you don't share, but it's far harder to notice your own. I would love to see a rational evidence based argument for the enlightenment worldview, for humanism, but I have a feeling the arguments are goings to be as dimwitted as those arguing for a few thousand year old earth.

Take popular atheist views like religion motivating 9/11 terrorist, or that the Pope should be arrested, of objective morality advocated by Sam Harris, views on the relationship between rationality and morality, views on the nature of delusions, and the ways in which we can transcend this basic feature of human nature. Are these views based on a rational examination of the evidence, or just on silly preconceived narratives?

Do people cling to these views for emotional reasons, rather than factually based reasons? Does the actual evidence support these views, or stand in contrast to it? Are our atheist capable of processing 'evidence' when it stands contrary to their strongly held beliefs? Or do they begin to show the same level of cognitive dissionace one may find in believers when its come to many of their strongly held beliefs.

(As a disclaimer, I'm not sure I'm happy with the term 'preconceived narrative' because I don't see how I would distinguish something like a 'hypothesis' from it, but this is only minor quibble.)

tytalus · #8 by **tytalus** » Apr 17, 2010 4:04 pm

Wow, another tu quoque in lieu of answering for religious belief systems. How innovative. Somewhere a broken record is playing your song, theidiot.

theidiot · #9 by **theidiot** » Apr 17, 2010 4:27 pm

tytalus wrote:Wow, another tu quoque in lieu of answering for religious belief systems. How innovative. Somewhere a broken record is playing your song, theidiot.

Well, I personally was interested in "Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative" part of the OP, than the question reserved for religious individuals at the end. But I'll answer it though.

"Now think about how much actual evidence your religion has, as opposed to how much of it is just preconceived narrative, taught to you by parents or priests or teachers. Which method is better for determining the truth? A book from 2000 years ago, or rational examination of evidence. Which method should be used to determine what is moral? Or how to live your life? Or how to treat your neighbors?"

Well my religious beliefs are not the product of what was taught to me by my parents, priests, or teachers. They are a products of 'rational' examination of the evidence. I'd argue that an individual who knows as much as I do, would be a theist as well. It's only his lack of understanding, his inadequate knowledge, his clinging to preconceived narratives that prevent him from being a believer.

You'd be hard pressed to find points of dissonance in my thoughts, but you can sure try your hardest.

On the question of morality, on how to live our lives, on how to treat our neighbors. These are all based on a aesthetic for me. I'm not a consequentialist, for me morality is not about giving predefined labels to things as good and evil, but rather about getting individuals to enjoy the same tune. I behave morally for purely aesthetic reasons. Labels such as good and evil, are like labels like 'ugly' and 'beautiful'. To speak rationally about these beliefs, is to speak rationally about why I find Gwenth Paltrow to be quite attractive.

Spearthrower · **#10** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 17, 2010 4:43 pm

Well my religious beliefs are not the product of what was taught to me by my parents, priests, or teachers. They are a products of 'rational' examination of the evidence. I'd argue that an individual who knows as much as I do, would be a theist as well. It's only his lack of understanding, his inadequate knowledge, his clinging to preconceived narratives that prevent him from being a believer.

My preconceived (installed) narrative was Christianity. I believed that God made the world as it is with all the animals as they are.

I take it the evidence you are referring to is some kind of personal revelation, rather than objective evidence that anyone can view?

theidiot · **#11** by **theidiot** » Apr 17, 2010 4:57 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

I take it the evidence you are referring to is some kind of personal revelation, rather than objective evidence that anyone can view?

No, I'm speaking of objective 'evidence' that anyone can view. If I hold a view of reality, it's here for everyone to evaluate as well, they may be too lazy or lack the intellectual capacity to actually evaluate it, but that doesn't mean that I cater to the handicap to deny that something is true.

I mean we could begin such an analysis by a discussion of what are the gospels about? That's probably a good place to start. And the question can proceed by seeing who actually possess a rational and 'evidence' based view of them, and whose views are built of a naive preconceived narrative, and poor learning.

My preconceived (installed) narrative was Christianity. I believed that God made the world as it is with all the animals as they are.

Well I don't know what your particular beliefs are, but I did mention some quite common preconceived narratives that many atheist subscribe. These individuals may have abandon the preconceived narratives of their childhood, but only to acquire other adolscent ones.

Spearthrower · **#12** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 17, 2010 5:37 pm

theidiot wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

I take it the evidence you are referring to is some kind of personal revelation, rather than objective evidence that anyone can view?

No, I'm speaking of objective 'evidence' that anyone can view. If I hold a view of reality, it's here for everyone to evaluate as well, they may be too lazy or lack the intellectual capacity to actually evaluate it, but that doesn't mean that I cater to the handicap to deny that something is true.

What an obnoxious way to present your claim. Why don't you use less inflammatory polemic and more content?

Did my question upset you? Was I untoward in some way to you?

A little civility is not much to ask, is it?

Basically, the subtext of your post is: If you disagree with me, you are intellectually deficient to me.

Now can we start with a fresh, un-poisoned well, or are you too caught up in your prejudice to manage a reasoned discussion?

theidiot wrote:I mean we could begin such an analysis by a discussion of what are the gospels about? That's probably a good place to start. And the question can proceed by seeing who actually possess a rational and 'evidence' based view of them, and whose views are built of a naive preconceived narrative, and poor learning.

So, that's one piece of evidence: the gospels. I agree that they factually exist, so we've got some common ground to start from.

As for my part, I did Bible studies with a number of different Christian sects, but I hardly claim to be an expert on them - are you?. I have a sufficient working knowledge, far in advance than I do of other religious texts, but I wonder how you consider them to be evidence for your belief in a god. Have you spent any equivalent length of time researching other holy texts to see whether they also offer 'rational evidence'?

theidiot wrote:
My preconceived (installed) narrative was Christianity. I believed that God made the world as it is with all the animals as they are.

Well I don't know what your particular beliefs are, but I did mention some quite common preconceived narratives that many atheist subscribe. These individuals may have abandon the preconceived narratives of their childhood, but only to acquire other adolscent ones.

My beliefs on what? You already know I am an atheist, so I hold no beliefs in gods. This position wasn't something I rushed into, it was something that developed over a long period of time through careful consideration of both the facts at hand, and of my own thinking and knowledge. In fact, after rejecting the Christian god as a made up construct, it was another 10 years before I could really say I was an atheist, and to be honest, by then I no longer even considered it a valid enough question to label myself as such. It wasn't until this century that I even realised that the label applied to me.

When I went to uni to study Anthropology, I still held the notion that we were the special creation of some divine benevolence, I even had some notion that I could tie everything up into a grand unifying theory. Evidence slowly convinced me that this divine benevolence wasn't the case. And when I say 'evidence', I do not mean that anyone was trying to persuade me that there was no god, it was a conclusion based on rational appreciation of the indisputable facts. Further, the motivation for studying anthropology was probably much the same reason that lead you to Christianity: a deep-seated desire to understand humanity's position in the greater scheme of things.

Next, let's turn to your other poisoning of the well: again, you have lumped in an presumption that because I no longer hold my indoctrinated beliefs, I am therefore at the mercy of 'adolescent' beliefs. Could you name some of these adolescent beliefs I hold? If not, please inspect your own motivation in posting such tripe.

Edit: I had left a sentence incomplete.

tytalus · **#13** by **tytalus** » Apr 17, 2010 6:00 pm

theidiot wrote:
tytalus wrote:Wow, another tu quoque in lieu of answering for religious belief systems. How innovative. Somewhere a broken record is playing your song, theidiot.

Well, I personally was interested in "Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative" part of the OP, than the question reserved for religious individuals at the end. But I'll answer it though.

Hopefully you'll understand why I found your initial offering to be just taking more potshots at atheism, a running theme of believers here. That said, I'm glad you took a shot at the rest.

"Now think about how much actual evidence your religion has, as opposed to how much of it is just preconceived narrative, taught to you by parents or priests or teachers. Which method is better for determining the truth? A book from 2000 years ago, or rational examination of evidence. Which method should be used to determine what is moral? Or how to live your life? Or how to treat your neighbors?"

Well my religious beliefs are not the product of what was taught to me by my parents, priests, or teachers. They are a products of 'rational' examination of the evidence. I'd argue that an individual who knows as much as I do, would be a theist as well. It's only his lack of understanding, his inadequate knowledge, his clinging to preconceived narratives that prevent him from being a believer.

You'd be hard pressed to find points of dissonance in my thoughts, but you can sure try your hardest.

On the question of morality, on how to live our lives, on how to treat our neighbors. These are all based on a aesthetic for me. I'm not a consequentialist, for me morality is not about giving predefined labels to things as good and evil, but rather about getting individuals to enjoy the same tune. I behave morally for purely aesthetic reasons. Labels such as good and evil, are like labels like 'ugly' and 'beautiful'. To speak rationally about these beliefs, is to speak rationally about why I find Gwenth Paltrow to be quite attractive.

It's interesting to consider this argument -- that theism was arrived at through rational examination of evidence, but that concepts like good and evil can't be spoken about rationally. And to have put 'rational' in quotes in the first place. Well, either it was or it wasn't. There's a point of dissonance, possibly.

But without seeing the argument, we'll never know. If you would argue thus and so, by all means: argue it. What do you know that would make anyone into a theist? What rational (in quotes or otherwise) examination of the evidence results in religious beliefs? Make the case.

As an aside, I am familiar with the recourse to aesthetics, although it does seem that there is some rational study and talk of how and why we find things attractive. It appears that Google Scholar turns up some results as well from the field of psychology. Interestingly enough, one of the factors cited is cultural conditioning, which returns to the point being made by the OP.

Spearthrower · **#14** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 17, 2010 6:16 pm

Oh, and to numb1cubfn: I nominate you for an Orson! Good OP!

Sityl · **#15** by **Sityl** » Apr 17, 2010 6:17 pm

Haha, I'm glad to see that the OP started a conversation. Theidiot, yes, it absolutely applies to ALL worldviews. That's why I'm such a fan of science, as it is an attempt to use testing and evidence to find out what is going on in reality. And while ALL people are very capable of sticking to their preconceived narrative, in my experience it's been far more common, and involved in far more views from those who choose to base their world view on religion or on the word of someone else rather than reviewing available data and basing their worldview on that.

For the most part the people of this forum tend to accept critically robust evidential support over the "word" of an ancient tribe or of their priest.

After reading your post it appears that you would like to deflect the point of the OP by claiming "there are non religious people who have a preconceived narrative too". I concur with that. That fact however, doesn't make it ok for someone to have a preconceived narrative, leaving us where we started - those who live their lives based on preconceived notions of right and wrong, without allowing their views to change in light of new evidence, are doomed to not only be wrong, but to have an impact on others in their pursuit of staying wrong.

Spearthrower · **#16** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 17, 2010 6:25 pm

Another thing of interest to be pointed at here is that the only nod towards 'evidence' here is also specified as requiring extensive knowledge on a particular topic, as opposed to the 'objective evidence that anyone can view' inquired about.

It would be akin to me saying:

Matrilineal kinship systems, such as Marumakkathayam, provide ample evidence of the lack of gods, but it would be an awful presumption on my opponents part to reject that based on their lack of knowledge about the particulars which I happen to have rationally assessed and can testify to their robustness. Furthermore, should someone come to alternative conclusions having actually reviewed that material in adequate depth, it serves only to illustrate their inability to rationally consider the evidence and highlights their intellectual incompetence, preconceived narrative, and poor scholarship.

Sityl · **#17** by **Sityl** » Apr 17, 2010 6:32 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Another thing of interest to be pointed at here is that the only nod towards 'evidence' here is also specified as requiring extensive knowledge on a particular topic, as opposed to the 'objective evidence that anyone can view' inquired about.

It would be akin to me saying:

Matrilineal kinship systems, such as Marumakkathayam, provide ample evidence of the lack of gods, but it would be an awful presumption on my opponents part to reject that based on their lack of knowledge about the particulars which I happen to have rationally assessed and can testify to their robustness. Furthermore, should someone come to alternative conclusions having actually reviewed that material in adequate depth, it serves only to illustrate their inability to rationally consider the evidence and highlights their intellectual incompetence, preconceived narrative, and poor scholarship.

I read that 3 times but I don't understand what is being said. I think I need a coffee :coffee:

Spearthrower · **#18** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 17, 2010 6:44 pm

num1cubfn wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Another thing of interest to be pointed at here is that the only nod towards 'evidence' here is also specified as requiring extensive knowledge on a particular topic, as opposed to the 'objective evidence that anyone can view' inquired about.

It would be akin to me saying:

Matrilineal kinship systems, such as Marumakkathayam, provide ample evidence of the lack of gods, but it would be an awful presumption on my opponents part to reject that based on their lack of knowledge about the particulars which I happen to have rationally assessed and can testify to their robustness. Furthermore, should someone come to alternative conclusions having actually reviewed that material in adequate depth, it serves only to illustrate their inability to rationally consider the evidence and highlights their intellectual incompetence, preconceived narrative, and poor scholarship.

I read that 3 times but I don't understand what is being said. I think I need a coffee

theidiot wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I take it the evidence you are referring to is some kind of personal revelation, rather than objective evidence that anyone can view?

No, I'm speaking of objective 'evidence' that anyone can view. If I hold a view of reality, it's here for everyone to evaluate as well, they may be too lazy or lack the intellectual capacity to actually evaluate it, but that doesn't mean that I cater to the handicap to deny that something is true.

I mean we could begin such an analysis by a discussion of what are the gospels about? That's probably a good place to start. And the question can proceed by seeing who actually possess a rational and 'evidence' based view of them, and whose views are built of a naive preconceived narrative, and poor learning.

I was parodying the above paragraph's reasoning. It's very similar to an argument I read from Nephilimfree, one must possess all the knowledge of the other person to be able to assess something, and if they do not possess precisely the same knowledge, then their disagreement is inherently flawed.

Perhaps it's me that needs coffee, but I will pass as it's nearly 3 am! :smoke:

Sityl · **#19** by **Sityl** » Apr 17, 2010 6:52 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
num1cubfn wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Another thing of interest to be pointed at here is that the only nod towards 'evidence' here is also specified as requiring extensive knowledge on a particular topic, as opposed to the 'objective evidence that anyone can view' inquired about.

It would be akin to me saying:

Matrilineal kinship systems, such as Marumakkathayam, provide ample evidence of the lack of gods, but it would be an awful presumption on my opponents part to reject that based on their lack of knowledge about the particulars which I happen to have rationally assessed and can testify to their robustness. Furthermore, should someone come to alternative conclusions having actually reviewed that material in adequate depth, it serves only to illustrate their inability to rationally consider the evidence and highlights their intellectual incompetence, preconceived narrative, and poor scholarship.

I read that 3 times but I don't understand what is being said. I think I need a coffee

theidiot wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I take it the evidence you are referring to is some kind of personal revelation, rather than objective evidence that anyone can view?

No, I'm speaking of objective 'evidence' that anyone can view. If I hold a view of reality, it's here for everyone to evaluate as well, they may be too lazy or lack the intellectual capacity to actually evaluate it, but that doesn't mean that I cater to the handicap to deny that something is true.

I mean we could begin such an analysis by a discussion of what are the gospels about? That's probably a good place to start. And the question can proceed by seeing who actually possess a rational and 'evidence' based view of them, and whose views are built of a naive preconceived narrative, and poor learning.

The point i was making is that, very similar to an argument I read from Nephilimfree, one must possess all the knowledge of the other person to be able to assess something, and if they do not possess precisely the same knowledge, then their disagreement is inherently flawed.

Perhaps it's me that needs coffee, but I will pass as it's nearly 3 am!

I think the problem lies in that actual reality is not impacted at all by a person's view of reality. While the later point of two people having differing evidence comming to different conclusions may be absolutely true, the core PROBLEM comes about when one or both of those people refuses to CHANGE his or her worldview in light of new evidence. If one sticks with his or her preconceived narrative, the two people will always have conflicting views. If, on the other hand, both are open to the idea that new evidence should allow for a new world view, then the two can SHARE the evidence with each other, and both can make the appropriate ammendments required to their world views.

If everyone were open to changing their world view as the evidence dictated, we would be able to share evidence with each other and help each other come to a closer to true understanding of reality. Unfortunately, the preconceived narrative prevents this. It prevents people from building and ammending knowledge pools together, in preference for the original, unchangeable, preconception.

theidiot · **#20** by **theidiot** » Apr 17, 2010 6:56 pm

Spearthrower wrote:What an obnoxious way to present your claim. Why don't you use less inflammatory polemic and more content?

Did my question upset you? Was I untoward in some way to you?

A little civility is not much to ask, is it?

Basically, the subtext of your post is: If you disagree with me, you are intellectually deficient to me.

Now can we start with a fresh, un-poisoned well, or are you too caught up in your prejudice to manage a reasoned discussion?

Well, I think you took it in the most inflammatory way, but this is perhaps my fault for not explaining myself a bit clearer.

If we hold something as true, we have to make assumptions about those who don't hold this view. You don't believe there is a God, and i do believe there is a God. We both can't be right. One of us is operating on 'mistaken beliefs'. My point is in relationship to why others are mistaken.

Of course what I did leave out, is the fact that they could be right, and I was mistaken. But i was just going with the assumption that I was not, because I currently have little reason to assume otherwise.

I'm too lazy to understand the 2nd of thermodynamics, and I lack the learning to understand higher levels of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. I'm sure if i took the needed effort to understand these things, I would be able to, but I lack the enthusiasm for such endeavors. I'm willfully lazy, and lack the needed knowledge to comprehend much of it.

I view those who don't believe in God as akin to this. That they lack the enthusiasm to even engage the questions, and the learning needed to understand it comprehensively. I base this view on my experience with atheist, my time here, on the sort of views held so prominently, on how these individuals understand basic human nature, and the nature of religion, and God beliefs.

Of course I can be mistaken, perhaps my beliefs are wrong, but I have yet to find an atheist, who actually brings these beliefs into any serious question, and the one's that i see as promising lack the interest for such discussions, or are out of reach.

But you asked for civility, and I'll do my best to afford you that, as long as you afford me the same. If you take offense to something I say, don't take it personally. It wasn't intentional.

As for my part, I did Bible studies with a number of different Christian sects, but I hardly claim to be an expert on them - are you?. I have a sufficient working knowledge, far in advance than I do of other religious texts, but I wonder how you consider them to be evidence for your belief in a god.

Well, I wasn't pointing to the gospels here as evidence for God, but rather as to what is being believed in. This has less to do if there is a God, and more to do with what is meant by God. In order to argue that my beliefs are true or not, we'd first had to understand what are these beliefs that I hold, and those beliefs are expressed in the gospels.

I said the Gospels are a good place to start, but they are only a part of the picture.

Have you spent any equivalent length of time researching other holy texts to see whether they also offer 'rational evidence'?

Yes I have. It's important for me to understand where the Christian worldview places in regards to religious as well as secular worldviews that stand in contrast to it. In order for me to have a comprehensive understanding of Christian mythology, it's important for me to understand where it places in regards to prevailing thoughts of the time, other mythologies, and narratives. When it comes to the central figure of Christianity and his narrative, I went to know where he places in mythologies of other sacrificed divinities, of what are the distinctions and similarities. I want to learn of context, history, culture, and the basic human nature that operates within these things.

If I don't have a comprehensive understanding of alternative worldview, than I'm constantly on the prowl to acquire this.

This position wasn't something I rushed into, it was something that developed over a long period of time through careful consideration of both the facts at hand, and of my own thinking and knowledge. In fact, after rejecting the Christian god as a made up construct, it was another 10 years before I could really say I was an atheist, and to be honest, by then I no longer even considered it a valid enough question to label myself as such. It wasn't until this century that I even realised that the label applied to me.

When I went to uni to study Anthropology, I still held the notion that we were the special creation of some divine benevolence, I even had some notion that I could tie everything up. Evidence slowly convinced me that this wasn't the case. And when I say 'evidence', I do not mean that anyone was trying to persuade me that there was no god, it was a conclusion based on rational appreciation of the indisputable facts. Further, the motivation for studying anthropology was probably much the same reason that lead you to Christianity: a deep-seated desire to understand humanity's position in the greater scheme of things.

Well, we are perhaps the inverse of each other. Even though I was raised in a religious household. I was fairly indifferent to religion for much of my life. It was rather easy to reject it. At the same time I never held any hostility towards religion, or religious individuals. Thought I was indifferent towards religion, I've always had an affection towards believers, because they were my friends, and family.

I was living as an entrenched observer, carefully understanding the nature of the beliefs, and why these individuals clung to them. I was an unbeliever, but yet not the sort that would relate to a Dawkins type, but more the Nietzsche, Habermas, George Santayana type.

Some people are highly interested in exploring mechanical things, I on other hand find such pursuits boring. I want to understand people.

As I grew older I took to understanding Christianity seriously. And I'm here at a point today where I find it to be true. But it wouldn't be accurate to label me as a Christian, because I haven't committed to it's way of life, but I find the Christian worldview to be superior and true.
In many ways I'm still a godless outside observer because of commitment issues. I'm only a believer in the sense that I find Christianity to be true, but I'm not a believer in the sense that I'm a follower.

The gift of this, is that I can always speak of Christianity as an outside observer, always open to see it as wrong when a possibility presents itself.

Next, let's turn to your other poisoning of the well: again, you have lumped in an presumption that because I no longer hold my indoctrinated beliefs, I am therefore at the mercy of 'adolescent' beliefs. Could you name some of these adolescent beliefs I hold? If not, please inspect your own motivation in posting such tripe.

I don't know you, so I don't know why you assume that I've said something about you. I've said something about those I do know, those I have had experiences with. But I'm generous enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you might actually buck the trend, only time will tell.

I never said you held 'adolescent beliefs, particularly when I have no idea what beliefs you do hold. I listed a number of popular atheist beliefs that I find adolescent, if you don't share any of those, than that criticism probably doesn't apply to you.

Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Re: Minesweeper and the preconceived narrative

Who is online