An interesting tactic. Almost seems unfair, but then they ask for it don't they.

Absolute genius!

Holy shit, Rich!

Ball-size: how do they compare to Stephen Colbert's?  

learning how to kill the faith card xtians pull was always baffling i will have to try a varian of that 

simply marvalous

GM

Did I miss the actual body of your argument, or is that in another blog?  And isn't it an "illogical" (faith-based, if you will) leap to assume that reason is supreme?  Don't you first have to adhere to a philosophy (ie, that there truth exists, and that it can be known) before any conclusion can be reached?  Isn't faith the foundation to any conclusion we can come to? 

I have FAITH that Christianity is completely and unequivocally true...

That's kinda the point here, your faith cancels out with the faith of someone you would be debating Christianity with, and faith itself proves absolutely nothing, as such it can't be used as an argument.

Did you actually read the article, or just decide someone wasn't falling into the same flock of sheep as you, and you needed to defend yourself?

.... faith , no faith , ever consider neither ?

[[ edit, was just using solphism, xlint OP .... That's going in my tool box,  thanks ..... 

 did you even read it

FAITH as related to the this situation

(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

I understand the 'tactic' here as far as 'baiting the trap' according to Rich...

Basically - I wouldn't have taken the bait...

ibelieve-- I understand--now--that you do "get it," and did read the first post by Rich.  I hope you understand that *your* first post gave the appearance that you didn't get it, and maybe, just maybe hadn't read Rich's first post.  The tactic was indeed "baiting the trap," with the additional irony of turning the tables on someone who basically had baited a trap for Rich.  Speaking of...

Rich--

GREAT work, man! I wish I could have been there!  I hope you don't mind if I remember this for future reference.

Conor

_____________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

Why are you guys wasting you lives trying to convert Christians to atheist beliefs? Why not leave them alone? Let them believe what they want, don't you want them to leave you alone? And by the way, you cant prove the existence of God, or any other higher being so stop trying, and try to find solace in something.

We're not, we're just trying to get them to think rationally.  Anyway, they don't leave us alone, so why should we leave them alone?  Of course, that last sentence makes a lot of sense.  Can't prove something that doesn't exist.

simpleminds--

Correct me if I'm wrong, here...but you see no problem with Christians trying to convert atheists to Christianity, am I right?   I see no problem with trying to convert Christians to rationality and atheism.  After all, do Christians leave other people alone?  I've been on military bases, reading quietly, when Evangelicals invited themselves over to try to persuade me to join their church.  When I tried to tell them that I was just quietly studying, they didn't take the hint.  When I made my desire to be left alone explicit, they got offended.

Conor

P.S.: "...you can't prove the existence of God." is *our* line.  You probably meant to write "disprove."

_______________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

I don't think it's really a philosophy to think there is an answer to a question, it's just common sense. This blog isn't an argument in a debate, it's the other part of debating, refuting the other's argument. It prove how frivilous "faith-based" arguments actually are.

Excellent post.

Thank you. 

First, let me begin by saying that I am an agnostic. I wanted to get that out of the way before beginning.

While you can't prove that God exists, neither can you disprove that he exists. This is the thing about religion, it can neither be proven nor disproven.

Math, on the other hand, can be proven. If something is taught in math, whether in first grade, or in graduate school, it is true.

Science, on the third hand, cannot be proven until all available knowledge in the universe is obtained. It can be proven right now but that doesn't mean it will still be proven tomorrow. This is why many physicists say that there are no true laws in science, only really good theories. For all the proof that you may have today, somebody may discover something tomorrow that takes your theory and places it in the same dust bin as a geocentric universe theory.

And yes, I am an engineer. Hence my love of math, general disdain of religion, and healthy poking fun of science.

I'm pretty sure the RRS isn't singling out Christians, they want to put an end to ALL faiths.

 As for why, Richard Dawkins gives plenty of good reasons (the indoctrination of children, for one), as do Kelly's blogs. Ever think about a world without faith? It would look something like this:

http://www.guardianchronicle.com/images/the%20world%20trade%20center.jpg

 Do you have any believes that are not "proved" right now?

I suggest reading Am I Agnostic or Atheist?

Conor,
I don't see an issue with a person of any faith (existence/non-existence of a god/gods) having the desire to discuss their beliefs with others. The problem comes when people are either forcing their views on others or are only interested in winning a debate, especially through the use of satire. True communication demands mutual desire to interchange ideas.
Though they probably never realized it, the "Evangelicals" who invaded your table probably did more harm than good in working toward their supposed goal. It seems to me that they see it as a numbers game; eventually someone will bite. But they fail to recognize the immeasurable value of each soul that endures collateral damage due to their tactics. Likewise, the author of this article probably did more harm than good in trying to convert Christians in his debate. But, giving the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he returned to the table with humility rather than ridicule and his reasoning was well-received rather than heard as a slew of insults.
But the main reason for my reply is because of your signature where you argue that faith should fear reason. First, your rebuttal to the Pope's quote shows your lack of understanding of the Catholic position. Second, in light of this article's point that atheists are quite faithful, I'm surprised you'd admit that your faith should fear reason. I suspect you weren't considering yourself a "faithful" atheist when you wrote it though. But it brings up a good topic. Does all faith contradict reason? I suspect the author would proclaim that his faith is the only faith that doesn't.
Well, I just got to this site and I still need to browse around a bit... but, as a closing thought, if a single true faith exists, then it seems objective reasoning should lead us toward that faith. Anyway, I have yet to see reason contradict my faith and therefore agree with the Pope; that "[the only true] faith does not fear reason."
- Kory

,`,`, 

faith, beliefs and opinions are of little use to anyone.

who is the most influential personality to ever exist?  jesus christ. 

it is a fact that noone has proven god's existence or absence yet, unless there's something i missed.

therefore, in truth, atheists are agnostics.

the idea that we can choose what we believe is a threat to public health and safety.

let the truth be known.

demand the use of lie detection as a prerequisite for public service officials.

also make deliberate HIV transmission and child molestation crimes punishable with death.

end the AIDS epidemic.

Why do people participate in bug parties?

Many psychologists theorize that participation in bug parties is actually an anxiety disorder where the non-infected individuals fear getting HIV so greatly that they would rather contract it and free themselves of the anxiety of living in fear. These parties are also seen as a sort of club for those living with HIV. Infecting a HIV negative and willing participant initiates them into their world. Some people also engage in unprotected anal sex (or barebacking) as the fear for AIDS dangerously dwindles.

"The Gift" from filmmaker Louise Hogarth is a documentary about gay men who purposely contract HIV. According to Rolling Stone, one character in the film admits "I was relieved. I didn't have to worry. Do I need to be careful -- not any more." Yet another willing 21-year-old regrets his choice. "I've made a terrible mistake and there's no fixing that. There is no benefit in this and that's what needs to be said."

`,`,`

Kory wrote:

I don't see an issue with a person of any faith (existence/non-existence of a god/gods) having the desire to discuss their beliefs with others. The problem comes when people are either forcing their views on others or are only interested in winning a debate, especially through the use of satire.

My $0.02:  I wholeheartedly agree. 

Kory wrote:

Likewise, the author of this article probably did more harm than good in trying to convert Christians in his debate.

My $0.02: Here, I disagree.  What Rich did was arrange for a public debate, (...which is perfectly legitimate...) research his opponent (...for which, I know of no reason for an objection...) and turn the tables on said opponent in said debate.  My point was that if conversion is a legitimate goal for Christians, then deconversion is a legitimate goal for atheists.  Please note that, so far as I know, nobody was forced to come to the debate, and nobody was forced to debate him unwillingly.  Rich harassed...absolutely nobody.  The situation that I was talking about was not even comparable to the debate Rich described.  And if he got someone to do some serious thinking...Rich may well have done them a favor.

Kory wrote:

But the main reason for my reply is because of your signature where you argue that faith should fear reason. First, your rebuttal to the Pope's quote shows your lack of understanding of the Catholic position.

My $0.02: Here, I wonder whether *you* understand *me.*  In the first place, I gave no "argument."  I did indeed make a smart aside, but I don't see that as being the same thing.  Second, my "understanding" of the Pope's position is that, in the considered opinion of His Holiness, reason, properly employed, provides no obstacle to faith.  What part of this, if any needs correction, and why?

Kory wrote:

Second, in light of this article's point that atheists are quite faithful, I'm surprised you'd admit that your faith should fear reason.

My $0.02:  Kory...honestly...what on earth are you talking about?  Atheists don't have faith; that's a huge part of what makes us atheists.  And I nowhere said anything about *my* faith; the remark was about the faith of those who believe in God.  (I suppose you could be referring to the faith I *used* *to* *have* in Catholic Christianity, but then I wouldn't be able to make sense out of your reply.)

Kory wrote:

Does all faith contradict reason? I suspect the author would proclaim that his faith is the only faith that doesn't.

My $0.02: I would say that faith does indeed contradict reason.  And I understand that Pius, were he here, would disagree.  At one time, I would have been happy to believe in God and the Catholic Church with the understanding that reason and evidence should not expressly contradict the Catholic faith.  But I studied the Catholic religion for a while, and I could not avoid noticing that the Bible was a mess, the Tradition was a mess, and Magisterial teaching was a mess.  Worse, when I looked outside of Catholicism, an all-too familiar pattern emerged: Eastern Orthodox Tradition is a mess, the history of Protestantism, including Anglicanism, is a mess, the Book of Mormon is a mess, the teaching of the line of prophets in Salt Lake City is a mess, the Koran is a mess.  It doesn't take a genius to see that there is something fundamentally wrong with all of this.  Atheism, in my opinion, provides a beautifully simple explanation of *all* of these messes.  Simply put: no "true faith" exists; all of them are wrong, because God is a figment, and not a reality.

Lastly, Kory wrote:

as a closing thought, if a single true faith exists, then it seems objective reasoning should lead us toward that faith.

My $0.02: Yes.  Precisely.  And that is what led me here.

Conor

______________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

   ....just had to say "thank you", Conor, that was so buddha cool !   , me is chanting "buddha buddha buddha"  .... those xains need some buddha real real bad ..... NO I am not a buddhist, I drink tons of beer .... my new plan is too get fundy buddhists drunk .... that would be Real Progress ....

!

Conor (paraphrased):
What Rich did was arrange for a public debate ... research his opponent ... and turn the tables.

I agree and neither do I see any issue in this type of approach.

Conor:
My point was that if conversion is a legitimate goal for Christians, then deconversion is a legitimate goal for atheists...

I absolutely agree. My point was simply that for it to be effective, there needs to be dialog. Not preaching, nor satirical attacks. Only then can conversions (or "deconversions") occur. I presume we both see communication as an opportunity for (de)conversion.

Conor:
The situation that I was talking about was not even comparable to the debate Rich described. And if he got someone to do some serious thinking...

I would agree that Rich did not force his opinion on others. If that were the only faux pas of evangelizing (for or against Atheism) then I'd say that you are correct; it would not compare to your incident. But, to reiterate my original post, I suspect (though admitted there was not enough information to conclude) that he was so proud of what (somehow) flustered his opponent, that he may have come across as derisive to the audience. If this was the case, Rich's situation could be comparable to yours, though perhaps only in its final effectiveness. I thought (and still think) we could agree on that. At any rate, I wasn't trying to sound oppositional and I apologize if I came across that way. I just wanted to promote effective dialog. And, as I stated, my reply was made primarily for an entirely different reason...

Conor:
... I wonder whether *you* understand *me.* In the first place, I gave no "argument." I did indeed make a smart aside, but I don't see that as being the same thing.

Gee whiz, I wasn't intending to imply that I could fully understand you. All I said was that "you argue that faith should fear reason" (emphasis added), which you clearly do. I don't want to get into a semantical debate, but to argue is to present a position... does not your "smart aside" express an oppositional view to that of the Pope's? But please understand that, though I disagree with you, I was not trying to accuse you of being unreasonably argumentative or something. My use of the word was simply for its literal meaning, and not for any characteristic flaws it may improperly imply.

Conor:
Second, my "understanding" of the Pope's position is that, in the considered opinion of His Holiness, reason, properly employed, provides no obstacle to faith. What part of this, if any needs correction, and why?

I stand corrected; you do understand the Pope's statement. But then, I am even more confused by your response to it. Surely you'd agree that, properly employed, reason provides no obstacle to your Atheistic faith. Your signature should then say that you disagree with the Pope's reasoning. I'm sure you can come up with a clever quip to make it derisive if you tried, but, rather, I'm going to challenge you to draft something that will encourage Catholics to hit the books. But, anyway, I suspect you can see where I'm coming from in thinking the Pope's statement by itself should not need to be negated.

I should also mention that your response to this article is why I suspected that you had a "lack of understanding of the Catholic position". A well-versed Catholic would not be phased by the tactic outlined in this article because we do not believe faith proves God's existence. I was not aware that any protestant faiths taught such a thing. It would then seem that loss of faith would make God... what... disappear!? [I believe] God exists whether or not we have faith in Him and, therefore, with or without proof. So I don't understand the minister's folly... unless he was offended and derailed by Rich's atypical behavior for a standard, civil debate. But, frankly, I never liked standard debate and would applaud Rich's tactics as a great strategy IF he returned to the podium with humility and expressed that his actions were only to make a point. ... though still I guess I don't understand his point... So, I guess, with humility AND a good point the actions could have been well received by the audience; which, of course, is the whole purpose of public debate in the first place.

Conor:
...Atheists don't have faith...

Rich says, "I have FAITH that Christianity is completely and unequivocally false!!" (emphasis NOT added) and goes on to explain it is his faith that disproves the fundamentalist's position. I've met a variety of adherents, but honestly, Atheists are among the most faithful I have met. Anyway, I must apologize again; I didn't mean for my statement (that you were replying to) to be offensive. Of course, I know your signature wasn't written in context of this article... I just thought I'd point out that it doesn't work in context of the article. Perhaps I shouldn't have, as it probably just came across as a cheap jab. I'm sorry.

Conor (paraphrased):
[Everything except atheism is a mess.]

Please forgive my condensed version of all of your truly good points. I mostly agree with the messes you referenced. Indeed, humanity can take something good (even perfect) and make it look messy. Though, in all the messiness, I didn't see specific evidence of how Catholicism contradicts reason. As for the "messy" bible; yes, translation lends itself to error, but, thus far I've found, it's nothing that cannot be resolved through research. But I don't see how Magisterial teaching or Tradition are a mess. Though, there is a great deal of mess with how some fail to properly practice what is taught.

Conor:
Simply put: no "true faith" exists; all of them are wrong, because God is a figment, and not a reality.

If you are stating this as fact without any ability to prove it, then it is with faith. That's what faith is. I'm not trying to convert you by saying, "prove a god doesn't exist." That'd be ridiculous. But, whether you are stating with certainty that a Flying Spaghetti Monster either does or does not exist, you (by definition) are stating such with faith. As an aside, I hope we all have faith that there is no FSM, but I'm probably just inviting a response from someone who has no desire to dialog.

Conor (with bits of my statements inserted for context):
My $0.02: Yes. Precisely. And [that objective reasoning should lead us toward (the true) faith] is what led me here.

So basically, as I understand it, you researched Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, and a number of other -ism's with the filter of reasoning and it led you here. I respect that you took time to do some research; many people don't even bother. As stated in my closing, I believe objective reasoning leads toward truth. Unfortunately, flawless use of objective reasoning is impossible for any human. Occasionally, we all make mistakes. Anyway, maybe Atheism is just your current -ism of choice. Perhaps an opportunity to explore some of the seemingly unreasonable things of another faith (along with a little heavenly grace ;-}) will lead you back toward Catholic-ism... (meant to be read with tongue-in-cheek) ;-} (... but seriously)

- Kory

  "Faithful Atheist", umm, is that really an oxymoron? .... dang solphism, twisted words and confussion.     Dictionary:  Babel  http://www.answers.com/topic/babel-1

more Proof , that "god of abe" hates us !   ah shucks, the serpent was right .... bad bad god of abe. 

I would like to see how these chistians debate and try to disprove the positions of Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
   "I have a faith that pasta god is real , Look it says right here in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! read it! Its full of evidence!  now disprove me!"

How about this , next time you debate you do it this way.Infiltrate a one person into the middle of the public and as soon as pastor who opposes you earns an applause to hes "fact" that god is real , that sphatetti monster fanatic runs out of the public , places a Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on your table and screams  "i knew pastor was right , the god is rea! Look!Look , i got even hes picture here (shows large picture of "you know who&quot ! I prays the lodr and hes wonderful Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Everyone , have faith in him!" 

Or maybe you should just call someone out of the public , because he has important "evidence" and reason why hes belief in Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more real than the christians faith in theyr religion ? And even more , he can point out to that "holy" book and read out alot of "evidence" Make them debate the damn Flying Spaghetti Monster at least for a few moments . dudes!

Kory,

Faith requires a positive position. By your definition then, you have faith that things you have never heard of, nor could ever possibly imagine, do not exist. For instance, you have had faith your entire life that purple pixies do not roam persia.

We as atheists just dont believe your proposition that a God exists. That is it, nothing more. There is absolutely no positive assertion there.

  yeah cyberdaemon , laughing is my defense, because it's SO scary   

Based only on his name and his images actually disproving the "mythology" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is quite easy.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster supposedly created the universe according to the intentionally rediculous "religion" designed to mock theism in general.  The problem, however, is that this leads us naturally to a contradiction.  Spaghetti is man made.  Now either the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and thus created man, or man created spaghetti which became the Flying Spaghetti Monster through some complex process allowing it to defy physics, biology and all known laws of common sense.  You can't even appeaal to the supernatural to defend the concept.  Because the concept of spaghetti is entirely man made, thus it didn't exist before man existed.  And actually long after.  Same with the concept of flying, which doesn't exist in space, only within a gravitational field.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster would not have though of himself as a "Flying" Spaghetti Monster.  Just a Spaghetti Monster, except that it would have had no concept of "Spaghetti", or "Monster" so it would be an interesting and conveniently formed entity and then we would spontaneously develop a dish that just happened to be identical to it.  That would be quite the coincidence.  One could argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster inspired the dish, but why would the Flying Spaghetti Monster need to exist in a material form edible to humans?  Plus, in this case, the complete lack of historical sources referencing the creation of the dish as having any relation to the existence of a conveniently edible flying deity, is sufficient as proof that, at the very least, the dish was independantly concieved of by some humans long after our "creation".

A "realistic" god concept, however, (and this includes the christian god) is not so vulnerable to these same objections.  And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an argument I object to solely on the basis of it's status as an informal logical fallacy.  It is an Appeal to Ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule), I don't like to use logical fallacies as arguments in any form of debate.  Formal or Informal, mostly because I don't like them used on me, but also because such arguments are only convincing to people who are weak minded and irrational.  I'd like to see more rational people, thus I avoid arguments that should only convince irrational people, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.