How many people have you de-converted?

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

How many people have you de-converted

Poll ended at Oct 29, 2010 9:41 pm

Zero
33
72%
One to Three
11
24%
Four to Six
1
2%
Seven to Nine
1
2%
Ten or more
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 46

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#161  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 04, 2018 12:05 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, with respect to the general postulate "a god type entity of some sort exists", I'm one of many here who regard that assertion as possessing the status "truth value unknown", as is the case with every untested assertion.


What's more important, Cali? The fact that many here regard an untested assertion as having "truth value unknown", or that the assertion has not been tested?


Given my track record of disdain for untested assertions, which is shared widely here, you should know that the entire point of me bringing this matter up, was to highlight the fact that the assertion is untested (and hence has the requisite status I expounded, which as a corollary renders the assertion discardable until someone performs the effort to perform a proper test thereof).

Indeed, that's the whole point of presenting the requisite discoursive rules - to push those who really have an interest in those assertions, to figure out a proper method of testing them, without which, said assertions remain discardable.

Cito di Pense wrote:Does a lack of testing mean any particular assertion is subject to testing? No, it doesn't.


Which, of course, is one of the first questions to ask about an assertion, as I seem to recall I've stated in the past, because without a test being possible, an assertion never loses that "truth value unknown" status.

Cito di Pense wrote:But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't?


Actually, from the standpoint of the general form of the assertion I gave, the answer is "no, I don't". What I do know, however, is that any competent candidate isn't going to come from mythology. If that assertion is ever to be tested properly, and the devising of a proper test will propel the inventor thereof to Nobel Laureate status, then the contradiction and absurdity riddled candidates so beloved of mythology enthusiasts, will be conspicuously absent from the outcome of such test, simply by dint of being riddled with contradiction and absurdity. But that doesn't mean I'm in a position to predict the outcome any more than anyone else here is. I've repeatedly stated that the manner in which scientific progress has rendered supernatural entities surplus to requirements and irrelevant, makes it more likely that the answer to that question will be a resounding "no", once a proper test is conducted, but that body of data does not exclude an entity compatible with known physical laws, for example. One of the reasons mythological candidates are filed in the "reject" category, is that they are all too often asserted to be in a position to tell the laws of physics to fuck off, whenever this happens to be administratively convenient, and those familiar with the tendency of humans to reach for lazy solutions to administration issues, can expect any entity with this capability to use it frequently, to the point that [1] it's bloody obvious what's going on, and [2] the laws of physics cease to be the laws of physics, courtesy of said frequent dismissal.

The mere fact that the laws of physics are observably not being tossed into the bin on a routine basis, again points to mythological candidates for the job being ruled out.

Cito di Pense wrote:We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do".


That troublesome past history doesn't mean we can't learn to adopt a new approach. Which is, I gather, what scientists did when they launched modern science.

My message to those possessing an enthusiasm for mythological entities, is quite simply, don't waste my time with apologetics, along with its manifest fabrications and abuses of proper discourse - instead, get off your arse, learn from the example scientists provided, and do the job properly, otherwise I'll regard your entire output as discardable.

Cito di Pense wrote:We are not yet examining the 'god-type entity' with fresh eyes, are we?


That's precisely one of the aims of my expositions - to bring this about.

Cito di Pense wrote:Perhaps that is why many here simply react when some people, known colloquially as 'experts', know how to test some assertions. Does this mean all assertions are subject to testing? I remind you that it does not.


Not that I need reminding, of course.

But that's one of the beauties of pushing people down this route - one of the questions that will be answered, once a proper, diligent search for a means of testing said assertion is underway, will be to answer the question of whether or not said assertion is indeed testable.

But then, I possess this human attribute called 'curiosity'. Which has been a primary driver for all that scientific success I've mentioned. You may think such assertions are a waste of time full stop, but, I recognise that there are a lot of people who don't share this view, and that arriving at a proper, rigorously constituted examination of said assertions, will be of utility value in sweeping away much of the dross arising from those goat-roasters you're disdainful of. Indeed, I recall that Douglas Adams satirised the entire business via Deep Thought:

"What's the use of us spending long nights arguing whether there is a god or not, if this bloody machine gives us his telephone number the next morning?"

:mrgreen:

Perhaps if we had a machine that could do this, it would put a stop to the rot?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21865
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#162  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 04, 2018 12:06 am

John Platko wrote:What expert on God credentials would carry weight with you?


If we're going to give people a heads-up when we're making shit up, it's going to be an important part of that to admit when we are deferring to authority and when we're just deciding that something sounds good to us.

To answer your question, though, credentials are not going to be the gold standard. This is strictly going to be an argument that sounds good to me. Ain't heard that one, yet, although I admit that anyone can lose his grip in some circumstances, traveling in either direction.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26974
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#163  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 04, 2018 12:22 am

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, that's the whole point of presenting the requisite discoursive rules...


That's pretty strict, Cali. Granted, all that is going on here is discourse.

Calilasseia wrote:without a test being possible, an assertion never loses that "truth value unknown" status.


Well, take your typical metaphysical conundrum, you know, about the difference between the observed world and the real world, to which I've been giving a little thought lately. If someone tells you that observed X is not X itself, how does she so conclude? Caution dictates that we might, in fact, be observing the real world just as it is, with the proviso that our observational equipment vary from person to person and lab to lab. It's not that jamest has made an untestable assertion; it's that his logic has failed him. His statement is not just truth-value-unknown, it's in the dumper. Observed X is not X itself is not simply untestable. It's pure bullshit, and we don't give it 'truth value unknown' like we're playing patty-cake, because somebody who says observed X is not X itself wouldn't be able to tell, either.

Calilasseia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't?


Actually, from the standpoint of the general form of the assertion I gave, the answer is "no, I don't". What I do know, however, is that any competent candidate isn't going to come from mythology. If that assertion is ever to be tested properly, and the devising of a proper test will propel the inventor thereof to Nobel Laureate status, then the contradiction and absurdity riddled candidates so beloved of mythology enthusiasts, will be conspicuously absent from the outcome of such test, simply by dint of being riddled with contradiction and absurdity.


You still don't fucking get it, do you? You're treating it as a word you can re-define, in case you find something that might fit, almost as if mythology was just primitive science. All you're doing is clinging to a word, like somebody who's still spooked.

Calilasseia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do".


That troublesome past history doesn't mean we can't learn to adopt a new approach. Which is, I gather, what scientists did when they launched modern science.


Cling on, my friend. Either that, or explain to me the value you find in 'adopting a new approach'. Sounds like an act of faith to me. Not the hope of a new approach, although hope and faith are related. It's that faith a new approach will change something when we are not talking about technology.

Calilasseia wrote:But then, I possess this human attribute called 'curiosity'.


Yeah, me too, brother. But I ain't carrying no coals to Newcastle for no one. You of all people, who bandy about the phrase "surplus to requirements" often enough, should understand immediately what I'm getting at. What requirement is it that we seek to satisfy? Curiosity? Mmm hmmm.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26974
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#164  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 06, 2018 6:32 am

Correction, I'm not clinging to a word, I'm asking that the concept in question be finally placed upon something resembling a rigorous footing. There's a big difference. At the moment, the concept is woefully lacking in rigour, in no small part because all manner of assertions about said concept have been allowed to fester without being subject to proper scrutiny. It's one of the aspects of the entire enterprise that I find so perverse, that those purportedly possessing a vested interest in having this concept made properly robust, having the requisite questions surrounding said concept framed properly, and proper attempts at answers pursued, are actively working to stop this from happening.

Yes, I am intimately aware of the aetiology of doctrinal attachment, indeed, I started writing about this nearly a decade ago over at RDF, but I cannot help but think that at least some supernaturalists would welcome the honest approach, if only because they think doing so will provide them with support for their views. Admittedly, the precedents here are not good, as anyone aware of the history of geology understands only too well, but one would think at least someone in the supernaturalist camp would take the risk, and try to do better than the lamentable farce that is apologetics.

Plus, there's a practical reason for me wanting to see this. At the moment, supernaturalism's insistence upon peddling apologetics, is manifestly malign, both for the arena of discourse and for policy. I want that malign influence brought to an end, and if giving the mythology fetishists the impetus to improve their game in the requisite direction achieves this end, then so much the better. We made vast progress in science, when the decision was made to work out once and for all just what it is we are talking about, and to update our view thereof the moment the data told us this was necessary. Call me naive if you wish, but I don't understand why supernaturalists aren't jumping at the chance to secure for themselves a similar brand of success. They might fail, and in the infant stages of such an endeavour, probably will, but if said exercise teaches them the important lesson that apologetics is just made up shit, that's one benefit I'll welcome.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21865
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#165  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 06, 2018 11:23 am

More power to ya, Cali.

While you're at it, see if you can put Captain Ahab and Moby Dick on a rigorous footing.

I'd love to implore theists to strengthen their claims about deities so that those claims would at least become more interesting to me. At the end of the day, though, I think that accords their position a little too much respect.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26974
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#166  Postby laklak » Mar 09, 2018 2:55 am

Melville, for all his faults, never tried to fit a round peg leg into a square hole.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 18626
Age: 64
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#167  Postby Tero » Mar 11, 2018 8:16 pm

Zero.
humor http://karireport.blogspot.com/
serious http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

How American politics goes
1 Republicans cut tax, let everything run down to barely working...8 years
2 Democrats fix public spending to normal...8 years
Rinse, repeat.
User avatar
Tero
 
Posts: 1048

Country: USA
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#168  Postby Caper » Mar 12, 2018 9:01 pm

None. I just can't get any religious people to actually read the bible.
(Not entirely joking here!)
Caper
 
Name: Glenn Smith
Posts: 428

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#169  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 12, 2018 10:04 pm

The JWs I laid into today packed up their kit and left. Devestated. I kept saying "you must be embarrased to appear so ignorant!" Good line; I'll be using that one again :thumbup:
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell play people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

It's not the money that's the problem - it's the occupational therapy.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 6865
Age: 37
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#170  Postby laklak » Mar 13, 2018 3:25 am

I used to argue with them, but it's pointless. Might as well discuss theoretical particle physics with my dog.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 18626
Age: 64
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#171  Postby Spinozasgalt » Mar 13, 2018 3:57 am

I'm gonna start converting people back. :coffee:
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 17554
Age: 31
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#172  Postby John Platko » Mar 15, 2018 10:48 pm

:scratch: I'm thinking I moved about 25% towards de-conversion since conversing here. I was already on a pretty tiny patch of theism with my imagined non-all powerful God when I joined but as I think back on where I was then and where I am now you folks have hemmed me in further onto a very tiny patch of theism which I could maybe just balance my big toe on - and I'm willing to chalk up the remaining bit to insanity.

:think: Now at first I was thinking we should split the .25 among all those who share the credit for this accomplishment but after praying self talking to myself about it for a few grey coded bits I decided we should just do what they do at the Olympics and pass gold metals all around. So give yourself a .25 de-conversion if you've ever conversed with me.

:cheers:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#173  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 16, 2018 5:34 am

John Platko wrote::scratch: I'm thinking I moved about 25% towards de-conversion since conversing here. I was already on a pretty tiny patch of theism with my imagined non-all powerful God when I joined but as I think back on where I was then and where I am now you folks have hemmed me in further onto a very tiny patch of theism which I could maybe just balance my big toe on - and I'm willing to chalk up the remaining bit to insanity.

:think: Now at first I was thinking we should split the .25 among all those who share the credit for this accomplishment but after praying self talking to myself about it for a few grey coded bits I decided we should just do what they do at the Olympics and pass gold metals all around. So give yourself a .25 de-conversion if you've ever conversed with me.

:cheers:


I'm happy to accept 100% the blame for this, and happy to take 100% of the credit. Not only that, I'll admit I may have had nothing to do with it. 0%, to be exact. That's the way it goes with this sort of percentage shit.

Cleaning up the last 1% of a mess is frequently the most time-consuming part of the job, assuming we have to do it fucking perfectly. You know what perfectionism is all about.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26974
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#174  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 16, 2018 9:41 am

I'm more of a 99.9% perfectionist.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10078
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#175  Postby John Platko » Mar 16, 2018 3:01 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote::scratch: I'm thinking I moved about 25% towards de-conversion since conversing here. I was already on a pretty tiny patch of theism with my imagined non-all powerful God when I joined but as I think back on where I was then and where I am now you folks have hemmed me in further onto a very tiny patch of theism which I could maybe just balance my big toe on - and I'm willing to chalk up the remaining bit to insanity.

:think: Now at first I was thinking we should split the .25 among all those who share the credit for this accomplishment but after praying self talking to myself about it for a few grey coded bits I decided we should just do what they do at the Olympics and pass gold metals all around. So give yourself a .25 de-conversion if you've ever conversed with me.

:cheers:


I'm happy to accept 100% the blame for this, and happy to take 100% of the credit.


:scratch: Are we sure we can rule out a miracle?




Not only that, I'll admit I may have had nothing to do with it. 0%, to be exact. That's the way it goes with this sort of percentage shit.

Cleaning up the last 1% of a mess is frequently the most time-consuming part of the job, assuming we have to do it fucking perfectly. You know what perfectionism is all about.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#176  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 16, 2018 3:20 pm

This morning at the church during the bible study they were again talking about physical healing by god of various ailments. We were then asked to write down anything which was on our minds. I wrote (roughly) this and the speaker read it aloud to the group out of his own volition. Mine was the only writing read out. Might have helped some along the way toward deconversion, but again, hard to tell.

KIR wrote:Psychological pain is well documented to cause physical illness on occasion (psychosomatic/psychogenic illness).
It stands to reason that peace of mind may well cure physical illness from time to time then. Belief in a god(s) may well cause such peace of mind sometimes, although I doubt it is the only such cause possible.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell play people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

It's not the money that's the problem - it's the occupational therapy.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 6865
Age: 37
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#177  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 19, 2018 3:24 pm

Went to the church again today for breakfast/lunch and all the rest as invited warmly by a couple of senior members last friday. First time I've been there on a monday. The two things in the bible study session (shared between 3 speakers/readers/presenters) this time where I remember speaking out were as follows. A speaker asked the group "who is the holy spirit"...silence..."is the holy spirit a person?"...."Jesus?" says somebody..."yes; that's right, Jesus" replies the speaker. "The holy spirit is a person". I then say "what, a biological person?". Sniggers from my friends Abs and Phe sat on the couch behind me. Awkward look on the speaker's face. Then she go's on to relay the tale of how she first encountered the holy spirit....something about it entering her in a blinding light in a hotel room. No puns please; she's a delightful lady. The second incident was where she was saying that god will forgive anything, except speaking out against the holy spirit. I said "or even thinking bad thoughts against it." She said "Oh, I don't think it's that bad..." and I replied "it is I'm afraid, and it results in eternal damnation, and who's in control of what they think? Patently absurd." The food was tasty, and all the Christians were warm and delightful towards me as usual, despite my atheism, I think because I truthfully tell them every time I'm there something in the proximity of how, despite being an atheist, I see a great deal of good in Christianity, and I am extremely appreciative of their warmth, charity and good intentions.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell play people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

It's not the money that's the problem - it's the occupational therapy.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 6865
Age: 37
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#178  Postby Hamster » Apr 05, 2018 3:31 am

Don't really know. I don't have any formal follow-up procedure.

Maybe a JW once...
... well he never came back.
User avatar
Hamster
 
Posts: 84

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#179  Postby jamest » Apr 06, 2018 12:05 am

One has to ask, is 'conversion' the actual point of conjecture when the choice is between shit and piss?
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
User avatar
jamest
Suspended User
 
Posts: 17386
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#180  Postby Keep It Real » Apr 06, 2018 1:37 am

Why so depressed jamest?
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell play people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

It's not the money that's the problem - it's the occupational therapy.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 6865
Age: 37
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest