Personal experience as a basis for god belief

[Gustav]

alright grasshopper
i appreciate the effort
let me break it down
you seem lucid enough

i notice my intrusive questioning
i see frag's sanctimonious preaching

we dont do that kind of thing in sci

how this turn of events came about...clueless
sci is your place. find your own role here
you stand or fall on your own intellect

sit back, observe, interact. try to have some fun!

oh, you will find out that most answers are qualified
it is just a reflection of our status and there is nothing wrong with a dash of ambiguity to spice things up

now give me the finger and be on your way

and stop being so enthusiastic
we are dying in here

 

[Myles]

alright grasshopper
i appreciate the effort
let me break it down
you seem lucid enough

i notice my intrusive questioning
i see frag's sanctimonious preaching

we dont do that kind of thing in sci

how this turn of events came about...clueless
sci is your place. find your own role here
you stand or fall on your own intellect

sit back, observe, interact. try to have some fun!

oh, you will find out that most answers are qualified
it is just a reflection of our status and there is nothing wrong with a dash of ambiguity to spice things up

now give me the finger and be on your way

and stop being so enthusiastic
we are dying in here

Sounds like you are off to Japan soon but you really must learn to say "glasshopper". You see the Japanese have a problem with rs. It even has a name, "lambdacism". Aren't I the clever one but , to be honest, I cannot take the credit for my erudition. Angels teach me while I sleep.

Apropos of dying I'm nearing the end of the road and it doesn't bother me in the least

 

[greenberg]

Consider what people have suffered and are continuing to suffer because there are others who insist that their belief in some holy book guarantees the TRUTH.

I find it telling that this is how you (and many others) are formulating it. It's basically a tradition.

The theist perpetrators have defined their fight against others as being a matter of those others "denying the truth".

The victims have bought the perpetrator's definition as true and pertinent.

So the victims are now playing the perpetrator's game, defining their hardship on the terms set by the perpetrator.


It's as if I were assaulted and the perpetrator would tell me "You deserve to be assaulted and killed because your name starts with a G and I hate names starting with G". And then I would seek to find "evidence" or "proof" that there is nothing hatable about names starting with G and that thus he was not entitled to assault me.
- Would I have done that, I would be plaiyng his game, understanding the assault ON HIS TERMS. It would be really stupid of me.

The above is a very simplistic example - and yet, it captures exactly the way that so many victims behave: They are hurt, and they take the pepetrator's definition of what is going on to be true, or they seek to refute it. Either way, the victims are thus playing the perpetrator's game, and it never ends.

And yes, their belief will be verified by their guillible followers. So we come back to the question of the value of personal belief in providing evidence for the existence of god. If I ask for proof I will be treated to a quotation from the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon or whatever. If I am not satisfied, one quotation will be propped up by another from the same source. The people I am talking to are simply begging the question, so no progress can be made. If one cuts a swathe through the verbiage the arguments put forward by theists amount to; God exists because it says so in some book and because that book is the holy word of god or words he has dictated to someone it cannot be wrong, ergo god exists

I'm starting to seriously wonder -

Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will leave us alone?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will admit the error of their ways and change?

 

[greenberg]

I have been concerned with knowledge of the external world, not subjective experiences.

Let's not forget that using terms like these suggests that you hold that the distinction "external vs. internal" truly applies, and also that the distinction "subjective vs. objective" truly applies.

These distinctions are traditionally taken for granted, but neither are they universally accepted, nor can they be proved.

 

[Grantywanty]

I have been concerned with knowledge of the external world, not subjective experiences.Perhaps I should have made my position clearer.

As Greenberg has said this distinction is not that clear and what consensus has said was 'internal' has sometimes turned out to be external.

Further Quantum Mechanics also calls into question the hardness of this distinction and so does the latest neuroscience.

Toss in the general confusion about how we reify things using words.

As to your being pleased that people before you did not wait for science etc. don't overlook the downside. How would you fancy a doctor bleeding you to cure the vapours or whatever.

1) I could point out some of the horrors of conventional medicine errors in the past (and present), but I think that again you would assume I am against science. In fact what I am against is people thinking that scientific explanations preclude others. I am also against the non-historical view people have in relation to science. They assume that they can tell the liklihood of certain phenomena given what science has proven so far. This is just intuition.
2) I have treated myself for a wide variety of medical problems using herbs, my knowledge of them coming primarily from Native American traditional healers. Just because some European folk healers were goofballs with poor intuitions and theories does not mean that everyone must be. Further I think you need to look at the way you use worst case scenarios to reinforce your certainty about approaches of gaining knowledge that are different from yours. Psychiatrists used to regularly stick a needle above the eye into the brains of uppity women and sever the connection between their brain halves.
Have i now proven something about Western Medicine? This is not an either or situation. On my part that is.

Less than 200 years ago , if you were considered insane one possible part of the "cure" would be to beat hell out of you.

Shall I go into the mass drugging of children today and the way pharmaceutical companies market illnesses now instead of simply medicines? And also see above.

This still happens today in cultures which regard some individuals as being possessed by evil spirits. You make a good point for me when you say you might have been killed for your beliefs. Some theists, or people claiming to be theists, still slaughter innocent people today, as you well know. They blindly believe what they are told by men they regard as wiser than themselves.

Yeah, thank God the non-theists are so nice. China, USSR, for example. And how do I categorize the behavior of the USA in relation to South America? Who were the major decision-makers, theists, non-theists. A combination? This article of faith on atheists' parts that once religion is gone we will be nice to each seems just ludicrous to me. It certainly just sounds like a hypothesis to me. Let me know when it is backed up by some evidence. Of course the people who want us to have wars have used religion. If we all became athiests and their was water scarcity, tell me they wouldn't find another kind of excuse to start that war and get that water.

After all our exchanges, it seems we are closer in outlook than we first imagined. I wish you well.

I wish you well to, though I am not sure you will think the above after this message.
Good on you for making it 75 years. I am always surprised to have hit another decade.

 

[Myles]

I find it telling that this is how you (and many others) are formulating it. It's basically a tradition.

The theist perpetrators have defined their fight against others as being a matter of those others "denying the truth".

The victims have bought the perpetrator's definition as true and pertinent.

So the victims are now playing the perpetrator's game, defining their hardship on the terms set by the perpetrator.


It's as if I were assaulted and the perpetrator would tell me "You deserve to be assaulted and killed because your name starts with a G and I hate names starting with G". And then I would seek to find "evidence" or "proof" that there is nothing hatable about names starting with G and that thus he was not entitled to assault me.
- Would I have done that, I would be plaiyng his game, understanding the assault ON HIS TERMS. It would be really stupid of me.

The above is a very simplistic example - and yet, it captures exactly the way that so many victims behave: They are hurt, and they take the pepetrator's definition of what is going on to be true, or they seek to refute it. Either way, the victims are thus playing the perpetrator's game, and it never ends.





I'm starting to seriously wonder -

Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will leave us alone?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will admit the error of their ways and change?

Your sophistry astounds me.

So, in your terms, people who were tortured or put to death by the Inquisition were wrong if they thought they were being persecuted for their failure to conform to the beliefs of others. They ought to have looked elsehere for the cause of their suffering, despite their having been told the reason for their plight by those inflicting that suffering on them.So, where do you suggest theyought to have looked ? Pehaps they should have accepted that it was god's will and left it as that.

As I understand things Christian in ancient Rome believed, as I do, that they were persecuted for their beliefs. In your terms they were wrong to do so. Their belief that the Romans threw them to the lions because they would not give up what they held to be true was incorrect. Should they, perhaps, have thought that the real reason for their predicament was a need for some more martyrs in heaven, thus refusing to play the the Romans' game.

Then , of course we have Jesus. There he was , suffering on the cross, believing he was being put to death to save us sinners from the wrath of his " loving" father. What should he have thought ,to avoid playing the game in his father's terms. How about " I am being put to death so I can go to heaven and sit on my own right-hand side "

In our own time people are being blown to pieces. We are playing the suicide bombers' game on their terms, if we attribute their motives to their professed fanatical beliefs, are we. The victims themselves have no time to think about motivation at all.

You say you are beginning to wonder ...... I find it hard to believe that you wonder about anything . You have no need to do so as you have a ready-made answer for everything. To wonder implies thinking and , from my experience, that is not something you and your ilk are capable of doing. Otherwise you would spend some time wondering about the self-contradictory system of belief you espouse. The bible is riddled with contradictions, as you will find if you examine it with a critical eye, preferably one that has evolved.

You ask why non-believers engage in discussions with theists. In the first instance it happens because theists come to my door asking silly questions such as, " have you been born again"? , have you accepted Jesus into your life ? " Atheists do not behave in this way; at least I have yet to find one on
my doorstep asking me whether I have come to my senses and stopped believing in god.

My understanding is that forums like this are meant to serve as a vehicle for discussion rather than a platform for your personal beliefs. Am I viewing things in the wrong terms as you might put it ?

When you wonder why I engage in discussion with theists you seem to imagine that we are exchanging private correspondence. Not so. Others read what appears here, so I am expressing a point of view different from yours to show that there are other ways of looking at things. Doubtless, you would prefer to confine the discussion to the merits of theism.

Perhaps your time would be better spent if you sarted a thread of your own. You could, perhaps, call it: I only wish to talk to theists.

 

[Myles]

Let's not forget that using terms like these suggests that you hold that the distinction "external vs. internal" truly applies, and also that the distinction "subjective vs. objective" truly applies.

These distinctions are traditionally taken for granted, but neither are they universally accepted, nor can they be proved.

Nothing can be proved to someone who refuses or is unable to think. Who are these people who refuse to accept the distinction betweenwhat is internal and that which is external ?

My thoughts are internal and private unless I choose to reveal them to you. What I write here is external to me because it is available to others. Is that so difficult to understand ?

 

[greenberg]

So, in your terms, people who were tortured or put to death by the Inquisition were wrong if they thought they were being persecuted for their failure to conform to the beliefs of others. They ought to have looked elsehere for the cause of their suffering, despite their having been told the reason for their plight by those inflicting that suffering on them.So, where do you suggest theyought to have looked ? Pehaps they should have accepted that it was god's will and left it as that.

You are misinterpreting me badly.
The example with the assaulter who'd assault me for my name starting with G is clear.

When someone persecutes you, you don't have to believe that the things they are accusing you of, are true. In fact, you don't even have to prove them wrong.

The problem is that many people (including myself) tend to automatically take the accusation seriously, and try to prove the accuser wrong.

You ask why non-believers engage in discussions with theists. In the first instance it happens because theists come to my door asking silly questions such as, " have you been born again"? , have you accepted Jesus into your life ? "

You seem compelled to answer those questions.
Why? Why do you take theists seriously enough to engage in such discussions?

Doubtless, you would prefer to confine the discussion to the merits of theism.

This is really mean of you.

I used to be a Christian, and other Christians would say I was a bad one, I had way too many doubts.
I am not a theist anymore. Yet, I still feel obligated to defend myself against the accusations theists haul against me, I feel obligated to engage in discussions with them, be it in forums, IRL, or in my mind.
Recently, I started to wonder why I do that. Why do I take them seriously. What is to be gained by convicing the theists that my non-theist position is a worthy one too.

 

[greenberg]

Nothing can be proved to someone who refuses or is unable to think. Who are these people who refuse to accept the distinction betweenwhat is internal and that which is external ?

My thoughts are internal and private unless I choose to reveal them to you. What I write here is external to me because it is available to others. Is that so difficult to understand ?

I was referring to the problems that philosophers have been pondering for millenia.

 

[Myles]

My last word on the subject. If someone persecutes me for being bald then I have no need to look elsewhere. He is persecuting me because he is bald and that is his motivation. Why look elsewhere for an answer ?

 

[greenberg]

My last word on the subject. If someone persecutes me for being bald then I have no need to look elsewhere. He is persecuting me because he is bald and that is his motivation. Why look elsewhere for an answer ?

But do you believe that being bald is bad and something you should be persecuted for?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Unless you are a solipsist you must surely accept that belief is private and knowledge is public.

Knowledge is known to those who understand, otherwise it is information, belief is based on forms of knowledge (including information).
Niether are public or private, they just are.

Evidence for god ? Offer me some and I shall comment.

There are lots of evidences to support belief in God, either you haven't heard any, or you don't regard them as evidences.
The question though, was directed at you

...and this is precisely why we require evidence ,if we wish claims we make to be taken seriously.

What evidence would be required to make you believe that God exists?

To be "taken seriously" by the "we", is not my aim, anymore than wanting everyone in the world to buy my music.
You have set a standard of what you would class as evidence (scientific method), and I would guess you are not prepared to accept anything as "knowledge" unless it has been verified by the scientific community. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Either you have not made any real effort to understand why belief in God is justified, or you have chosen your position, in the knowledge that God cannot be proven to the point of undeniability by the scientific community.
Either way it shows a lacking on your part.

The question of whether my hypothetical headache would make a difference to your life is totally irrelevant to this discussion

If I say I have a headache you will know what I am talking about and believe I know what a headache is.

Okay, so I have knowledge of headaches.

If for some reason you doubt that I have knowledge of headaches, you can ask me to describe what I mean ( provide evidence ) to you or a doctor.

There are various levels of knowledge of what headaches are, my level of knowledge is based on my experience, and the experience of others.
I would have more reason to doubt your LACK of knowledge.
The evidence is abound for everyone not just a privelidge few, and the larger, scientific knowledge base on headaches is based on personal experience.
In the context of God, God has always been understood in the same basic way from time, I doubt that you can name a time and place where this has not been the case. An atheist is one who denies this understanding.

If I fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, you are entitled to doubt me.

But I can still doubt you even if you provide such an explanation, you could be lieing. Once we acquire knowledge of something, we can use it in various ways, especially to those that do not have that knowledge.
How do we "know" things;
personal experience, and learning from someone who has knowledge of things.
In my opinion it is best to base the latter form on the former, then if faith is necessary (i.e believing authority), your position much more secure.

Now try the same test with the tactile qualities of a unicorn. Do you see the difference ?

Who and why would someone claim unicorns are real in the here and now sense?
Have you read scriptures?
Maybe if you do, you would understand why these comparisons, although seemingly plausible at first, is silly, and devicive.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

You are misinterpreting me badly.
The example with the assaulter who'd assault me for my name starting with G is clear.

When someone persecutes you, you don't have to believe that the things they are accusing you of, are true. In fact, you don't even have to prove them wrong.

The problem is that many people (including myself) tend to automatically take the accusation seriously, and try to prove the accuser wrong.




You seem compelled to answer those questions.
Why? Why do you take theists seriously enough to engage in such discussions?




This is really mean of you.

I used to be a Christian, and other Christians would say I was a bad one, I had way too many doubts.
I am not a theist anymore. Yet, I still feel obligated to defend myself against the accusations theists haul against me, I feel obligated to engage in discussions with them, be it in forums, IRL, or in my mind.
Recently, I started to wonder why I do that. Why do I take them seriously. What is to be gained by convicing the theists that my non-theist position is a worthy one too.

I have no wish to be offensive but my I say that if you had expressed yoursely as clearly the first time as you have now, the misunderstanding would not have arisen.

I do not take theists seriously and I have no quarrel with those who do not wish to foist their views on others. Look at the objections there are to the teaching of evolutionary theory in US schools. Some would ban it if they could. What are they afraid of ? I believe they worry about losing their influence in society. Far better to proclaim themselves as experts who will guide us according to their unquestioned understanding of the bible.

I'll give you two reasons why I enter into what is admittedly a futile dialoge ( from both perspectives ) with them:

1. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic in Ireland without ever having asked to join the church. When I began to think for myself and question some of the things I was being taught, instead of being given considered answers I was shouted down and called all sorts of names, told I would burn in hell and so on. From my perspective all I was seeking was guidance in understanding doctrines and dogma which made no sense to me. In short, rather than being helped, I was given a hard time. Whn I came to live here in the UK I had no such problems.

2. Because of what I have said above I enter into dialogue with such theists in the (vain ?) hope that it will get some who read our correspondence to think for themselves rather than blindly accept what others , an I include myself, tell them.

So, in summary, my position is that children should be exposed to all points of view and allowed to decide for themselves and choose what to believe, when they have reached maturity. The Christians I oppose are those who simply want to produce clones of themselves, that is, bigots who will not allow others to think for themselves.

 

[Myles]

As Greenberg has said this distinction is not that clear and what consensus has said was 'internal' has sometimes turned out to be external.

Further Quantum Mechanics also calls into question the hardness of this distinction and so does the latest neuroscience.

Toss in the general confusion about how we reify things using words.



1) I could point out some of the horrors of conventional medicine errors in the past (and present), but I think that again you would assume I am against science. In fact what I am against is people thinking that scientific explanations preclude others. I am also against the non-historical view people have in relation to science. They assume that they can tell the liklihood of certain phenomena given what science has proven so far. This is just intuition.
2) I have treated myself for a wide variety of medical problems using herbs, my knowledge of them coming primarily from Native American traditional healers. Just because some European folk healers were goofballs with poor intuitions and theories does not mean that everyone must be. Further I think you need to look at the way you use worst case scenarios to reinforce your certainty about approaches of gaining knowledge that are different from yours. Psychiatrists used to regularly stick a needle above the eye into the brains of uppity women and sever the connection between their brain halves.
Have i now proven something about Western Medicine? This is not an either or situation. On my part that is.

Shall I go into the mass drugging of children today and the way pharmaceutical companies market illnesses now instead of simply medicines? And also see above.



Yeah, thank God the non-theists are so nice. China, USSR, for example. And how do I categorize the behavior of the USA in relation to South America? Who were the major decision-makers, theists, non-theists. A combination? This article of faith on atheists' parts that once religion is gone we will be nice to each seems just ludicrous to me. It certainly just sounds like a hypothesis to me. Let me know when it is backed up by some evidence. Of course the people who want us to have wars have used religion. If we all became athiests and their was water scarcity, tell me they wouldn't find another kind of excuse to start that war and get that water.



I wish you well to, though I am not sure you will think the above after this message.
Good on you for making it 75 years. I am always surprised to have hit another decade.

I can forgive you if you rfuse tobelieve me but I have written and lost, through my own ineptitude, two previous messages to you. I have no witnesses, so I may not have written at all, hahha.

I accept everything you say about modern medicine. You might have pointed out the malpractices of the pharmaceutical companies. Some studies which they produce are skewed and have been shown to be so. There is alos the question of the morality of offering inducements to doctors to prescribe on drug rather than another. I imagine they succeed occasionally.

All I ask you to agree to is that , on balance, people are healthier and living longer today than they were in the past.

I do not believe the world would be a better place without religion. What we both regard as wicked behaviour would continue under the banners of some other ideologies. Of course The Russian and Chinese regimes are abhorrent. I refuse to buy anything imported from China, but my choices are becoming increasingly limited owing to the increasing flood of imports from China where labour is cheap and human rights non-existent. If we in the West were less greedy and refused to profit from exploited labour, things might improve in China.

I'm sure you will agree that the majority of people in Russia and China are just ordinary human beings like the rest of us. It's the people who rule the roost who are at fault. I feel the same is true in the US with it's dubious foreign policy. In the UK we have just seen the last of your president's poodle.
He is now earning megabucks on the lecture circuit.

Back to theism. I have set out my objections in a message to another correspondent on this thread. Please read it and spare my strained index finger the work of having to repeat my views here.

I believe that if your Christian Fundametalists ever got their way you would be living in a theocracy. Would that be any better than living under Chinese or Russian rule ? The difference, if any, would be marginal. We would have thought-police, a present day version of the Inquisition and so on. I have some first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the bible belt on which I base my conclusions.

The jury is still out on QM, as you must know. Do we accept the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds explanation, or do we reject both. In the current Issue of New Scientist there is an article on a scientist who is questioning the validity of action at a distance which, as you know, is tied up with the question of entanglement. So any inferences you draw from QM can only be rgarded as tentative at present

I still wish you well and something tels me we would get on if we settled down for a pint or two in front of a log fire in a cosy pub

 

[Myles]

Myles,



Knowledge is known to those who understand, otherwise it is information, belief is based on forms of knowledge (including information).
Niether are public or private, they just are.



There are lots of evidences to support belief in God, either you haven't heard any, or you don't regard them as evidences.
The question though, was directed at you



To be "taken seriously" by the "we", is not my aim, anymore than wanting everyone in the world to buy my music.
You have set a standard of what you would class as evidence (scientific method), and I would guess you are not prepared to accept anything as "knowledge" unless it has been verified by the scientific community. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Either you have not made any real effort to understand why belief in God is justified, or you have chosen your position, in the knowledge that God cannot be proven to the point of undeniability by the scientific community.
Either way it shows a lacking on your part.





Okay, so I have knowledge of headaches.



There are various levels of knowledge of what headaches are, my level of knowledge is based on my experience, and the experience of others.
I would have more reason to doubt your LACK of knowledge.
The evidence is abound for everyone not just a privelidge few, and the larger, scientific knowledge base on headaches is based on personal experience.
In the context of God, God has always been understood in the same basic way from time, I doubt that you can name a time and place where this has not been the case. An atheist is one who denies this understanding.



But I can still doubt you even if you provide such an explanation, you could be lieing. Once we acquire knowledge of something, we can use it in various ways, especially to those that do not have that knowledge.
How do we "know" things;
personal experience, and learning from someone who has knowledge of things.
In my opinion it is best to base the latter form on the former, then if faith is necessary (i.e believing authority), your position much more secure.



Who and why would someone claim unicorns are real in the here and now sense?
Have you read scriptures?
Maybe if you do, you would understand why these comparisons, although seemingly plausible at first, is silly, and devicive.

Jan.

Thank you for your contribution

 

[Myles]

But do you believe that being bald is bad and something you should be persecuted for?

No, of course not. But looking for reasons other than the obvious one given by the guy who is persecuting me is futile. It will not end the persuction and I would have no way of recognizing the "real" reason if there is one. So why not just take things at face value because I cannot imagine a useful alternative.The guy persecuting me could be lying about his reasons for doing so where would all this speculation get me.

I believe it is wrong to persecute anyone for any reason, which makes motive largely irrelevant to me.
Does that make sense ?

 

[Myles]

Thank you for your contribution

Afterthought. Im not an expert . which you obviously are, in scriptures but I have a nodding acquaintance with the following:
The Bible, Catholic version and King James version

The writings of Mary Baker-Eddy, if I remember her name correctly.

The Book of Mormon as explained by Mormons who call on me from time to time,

The Jehovah's witnesses inteerpretation of the Bible

The Dharma as it is represented by followers of the Therevada school of Buddhism

The Upanishads

The Bagavhad Gita

I have also personally known members of many of the numerous Christian denominations, each of whom gave me what he'she claimed to be the only true way of understanding things.

If you are averse to discussing non-Chriostian literature, perhaps ypou could make a start by explaining to me your understanding of Judges:19 23-4

Perhaps you could also tell me whether you have read the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, Why I am not a Christian ( Bertrand Russell) and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ( David Hume ) and , for a bit of fun, Voltaire's Candide. I would enjoy discussing any of these works with you, not to mention the writings of Richard Dawkins

 

[greenberg]

I have no wish to be offensive but my I say that if you had expressed yoursely as clearly the first time as you have now, the misunderstanding would not have arisen.

I think I was clear the first time, but that my input came a bit from the left field. It happens sometimes.
But - no hard feelings.

So, in summary, my position is that children should be exposed to all points of view and allowed to decide for themselves and choose what to believe, when they have reached maturity. The Christians I oppose are those who simply want to produce clones of themselves, that is, bigots who will not allow others to think for themselves.

I see.

 

[greenberg]

No, of course not. But looking for reasons other than the obvious one given by the guy who is persecuting me is futile. It will not end the persuction and I would have no way of recognizing the "real" reason if there is one. So why not just take things at face value because I cannot imagine a useful alternative.The guy persecuting me could be lying about his reasons for doing so where would all this speculation get me.

I believe it is wrong to persecute anyone for any reason, which makes motive largely irrelevant to me.
Does that make sense ?

I see. But my concerns are primarily about feeling guilty for not believing in God, and the sort of discussions and the sort of atheism this guilt leads to.

I'm not sure you reciprocate this concern of mine. I know many people, including myself, who engage in discussions with theists often because we feel we need to prove ourselves to them. This way, we're playing their game, on their terms - and we're bound to lose. This leads to a lot of grief and stress on our part, while those theists feel even more justified in their conviction.

Like I said elsewhere earlier, I don't want to feel terror anymore whenever a Christian accuses me of denying God and such. I don't want to feel obligated anymore to defend myself against the accusations Christians haul against me.

I don't think I'm the only one feeling this way. But so far, I haven't found much sound advice on how to deal with these things.
The usual atheist ways for countering Christian claims have not really helped me - because there is so much anger, so much hostility, so much poor thinking in those ways. Adopting those ways might surely make me a good atheist, but still, an unhappy person.

 

[(Q)]

Adopting those ways might surely make me a good atheist, but still, an unhappy person.

If not condoning the atrocities of cults and not following the myths and superstitions they purport, freeing yourself from the ignorance and oppression fettering your intellect isn't reason enough to be a happier person, then maybe being an atheist isn't for you.