
Sometimes The Bad Guys Win - stravid
http://ittybiz.com/sometimes-the-bad-guys-win/
======
gabaix
"At midnight www.letterstodavenavarro.com will launch with all the SEO force I
can muster." I searched for "dave navarro", and could not find the site in the
first 100 results. There's a famous "dave navarro" that takes most of the
results. So I am not sure Dave's reputation did get that much trouble.

------
DanielBMarkham
Anthony is mentally ill. This is what restraining orders are made for.

~~~
VladRussian
the problem isn't Anthony, or at least he isn't the biggest problem here. The
main problem is that there are people who would listen to and act (for example
by doing or not doing business with the victim) upon the Internet gossip. It
doesn't really matter whether Dave and the author had or didn't have the
affair - even if they had it would be their private life that is of no concern
to anybody else.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I would say that a man who's repeatedly threatening to murder you is
definitely a big fucking problem. I'd rather have my reputation ruined than be
murdered by a guy who hears voices telling him divorce is bad.

------
parfe
<http://letterstodavenavarro.com/> MeanSite1

[http://saltydroid.info/naomi-dunfords-death-threats-and-
hate...](http://saltydroid.info/naomi-dunfords-death-threats-and-hate..).
(This is MeanSite2)

<http://saltydroid.info/letter-to-two-dave-navarros/> more background

I stand behind my comment from the original post here. Her account was
fictionalised to the point of not being recognisable. The other side of the
story could have be its own fiction for all I care, but this isn't about a
strong successful woman. It's about some fundie religious guy stalking his
brother to prevent a divorce caused by allegedly falling into the "internet
marketing lifestyle" that MeanSite2 rallies against.

Internet drama is a great way to relax at night.

Edit: And after upon further reflection this Dave Navarro fellow didn't like
his life and found a new family unit online, which includes our heroine. Not
agreeing with the fundie's methods (which do seem psychotic) but it does seem
this guy ditched his family for the fast and furious world of internet
marketing.

------
pavel_lishin
That's probably the most terrifying thing I've ever read.

------
jarin
Not to be the guy who takes it there, but religion isn't always just a
harmless quirk (if you consider a willful disregard for facts a harmless
quirk).

~~~
zaphar
Believing a "Scientist" isn't always harmless either. History is full of
people who used this or that pseudoscience to justify their actions. People do
stupid, harmful, hateful things to other people. What they use to justify it
has little bearing on their likelihood of doing it. Religion is an often used
scapegoat but just about anything can be a scapegoat for anyone so religion
isn't special in that regard.

(full disclosure: I'm a devout christian myself and what she describes is just
about as anti-christian as you can get.)

(Edit: spelling and grammar)

(Edit2: In case the above was misunderstood the anti-christrian behaviour was
on the part of Anthony the brother and those who joined him. Not on the part
of Dave or the Articles author)

~~~
true_religion
I don't see anything anti-christian about this. Can you please elaborate?

~~~
zaphar
The brother doing the harrasing was very anti-christian. Attacking and
defaming another human being violates the foundation of the Christian Faith
which states that all people are deserving of respect, love, and unconditional
forgiveness. Mounting a compaign of hate against another is the polar opposite
of "What Jesus Would Do" to borrow from a popularized religious phrase.

If you thought I was referring to articles author I apologize as that's not
what I was meaning to say.

~~~
potatolicious
This is a little bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy, no? The problem I see with
religion (Christianity in particular, but thats mostly due to where I live
rather than the religion itself) is that everyone has their version of what a
"real Christian" does.

The problem is that the Bible is not very internally consistent. At some
points it tells us to love everyone regardless. At others it tells us certain
people deserve to die. As far as I can tell, there is no _objective_
definition of what being a "true Christian" entails.

Every consistent guide to life via some religion is just going to be cherry-
picked from the grander whole of the religion's beliefs and texts.

While I'm inclined to agree that unconditional forgiveness and following WWJD
is probably the better Christian (well, one I'd like to share this Earth
with), keep in mind the crazies also believe they're standing on solid
scriptural ground.

This generalizes to just about every religion, for what it's worth...

~~~
lotharbot
Crazies often believe they're standing on solid scientific ground. Yet it's
not "No True Scotsman" [0] to point out that their "science" explicitly
contradicts solidly tested science, violates scientific principles, and is
total garbage.

The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to
disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are
figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are
certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are
agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone
claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately
practicing that religion.

[0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to
exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point
out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not
actually a Scotsman.

[1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be
better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or
contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make
sense of; in the Bible, _everyone_ deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and
offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at
all surprising.

~~~
sixcorners
Whether we should or should not kill, much less harass, other humans is not
one of the fundamentals that is agreed upon by many diverse sects of
Christianity.

Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is
trying to rationalise.

~~~
lotharbot
I am aware of disagreement between Christian sects on matters of killing _as a
part of warfare_ and killing _in self defense_. Every sect I am aware of
agrees that you should not kill someone simply because they anger, disappoint,
or "dishonor" you. Likewise, I am aware of disagreement between sects on how
far one should go to avoid giving offense, but I am not aware of any sect that
considers the sort of threats given in the parent article to be acceptable
behavior.

US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a
reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied
here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about
killing _as a part of warfare_ , but I do not see any way a "reasonable
person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this
guy's behavior is acceptable.

Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a
"reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.

~~~
sixcorners
How do Christians in Uganda or Christians of old stack up in all this? Isn't
the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?

Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown
children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable
and do that not because of their own faith?

You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity
don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that
attributable to outside influences?

~~~
lotharbot
> _"Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?_ "

It's only in the past hundred years or so (with the rise of Christian
Fundamentalism in the 1920s) that "faith" has been used to mean "the opposite
of reason" or "believing something without evidence". In ancient religious
writings (particularly Christian and Jewish) and in most of religious history,
"faith" means acting upon something you know from experience to be true,
particularly in the face of adversity. Far from being unreasonable, it can be
thought of as the _triumph_ of reason and experience over temporary emotion.
This also matches with the ordinary meaning of "faith" when used to describe
something other than religion.

> _"western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally
> to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?"_

I would say the opposite -- most of the "hostile" versions of Christianity
were/are such because of influences outside of scripture (for example, it
became militant after being adopted as a state religion), and most of the
shift away from hostility came about as a result of return to scripture (note
the significant pacifist movements of the early 1500s, as the printing press
was putting Bibles into peoples' hands.)

> _"do you consider WBC to be unreasonable?"_

 _Everybody_ considers WBC to be unreasonable.

More to the point, as I said in the parent, crazies _think_ they're standing
on solid ground, whether scientific or religious. The question is not "do they
do this because of their faith", but "do they do this because of a
_reasonable_ understanding of Christian scripture?" Neither WBC, nor the
Ugandan LRA, nor parents who disown children, have _reasonable_ basis in
scripture.

~~~
sixcorners
WBC doesn't have a reasonable understanding of the scripture? By merit of
what? For every part of the book they are ignoring aren't there parts that
everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?

So faith in its current form is unreasonable? Faith instead should be
scrutable? Thou shall test the Lord?

~~~
lotharbot
> _"aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy
> rationalizations for?_ "

One of the things "crazies" and cults do is take single verses or single
sentences, decide that they are universal principles written in a literal and
strict legal fashion, draw a series of conclusions, and ignore or rationalize
away anything that contradicts those conclusions. Often, a single charismatic
leader chooses which verses the group follows and which they ignore; this is
the case with WBC.

On the other hand, a "reasonable person" will look at how different teachings
relate to each other, consider the scope and context of each teaching, and try
to build a coherent understanding of the whole. It's an iterated process; a
study of passage A might change your understanding of passage B, while
exposure to new historical or geographic information might change your
understanding of passage C. Serious study, historical research, discussion,
and reasoned, cordial disagreement (often of the form "I think you overstate
the importance of X" or "I think you misunderstand the symbolism in Y") are
characteristic of this approach.

To an outside observer who is not familiar with the whole of scripture, it's
easy to slip into the misconception that both groups are making "flimsy
rationalizations" or ignoring inconvenient passages. The only way to really
clearly see the difference is to become familiar with the source material
yourself.

Consider the prior analogy: crazies often believe they are standing on solid
scientific ground, as they rationalize and ignore science that contradicts
their ideas. To someone with inadequate understanding, it may appear that
scientists also rationalize and ignore the crazies' data. With a strong enough
scientific background, it becomes clear that the crazies' reasoning is flimsy
while the scientists have solid, sensible, principled reasons for rejecting
the crazies' conclusions.

> _"faith in its current form is unreasonable?"_

Faith, in the sense that a certain (rather vocal) Christian minority means it,
is anti-reason. Despite your incredulous tone, faith, in its current and
traditional form for most of the rest of Christianity, is reasonable -- as I
said before, what it means to most of us is "acting upon what past experience
has shown us to be true, even though present emotions make it difficult".

Your reference to "testing the Lord" provides a great example of what faith
means. In Exodus 14, Moses leads the people to the Red Sea, where God lets
them cross and drowns Pharoah's army; then to Marah, with undrinkable water
that God shows Moses how to purify; then to the desert, where God gives them
bread from heaven. Each step of the way, they whine about impending death. By
now, experience has shown them that God is providing for them, so (per my
definition above) they should have _faith_ as a result of _experience_. Yet
the next time they come to a place with no water, they again complain about
impending death. It is at this point (Exodus 17:2) that Moses says "why do you
test the Lord?"

They're not being criticized for unbelief in the unseen, but for unbelief
_when they should know better_. They're not being criticized for wanting to
see a sign from God; they're being criticized for _challenging_ God for _yet
another_ sign. The expression "do not test the Lord" is always used in this
sense -- when someone already has the experience to know better. (When people
who do not have such experience ask God for a sign, He often gives it.)

~~~
sixcorners
Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing
of evidence and all that. The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian
who doesn't like that I point out that their experience, like all the others,
can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be
falsified, I will just say that they don't know what faith really means and
they are not a true Christian. That they are being unreasonable. That the way
they use the word "faith" is different from the other majority 10% of
Christians.

> Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial
> disagreement So I presume that using this method Christianity as a whole can
> begin to understand the true nature of the scripture and eventually coalesce
> into a single coherent religion? Instead of say, many many many different
> churches all believing things totally opposite of what the next does?

I am sorry for my incredulous tone but it's just so foreign to me that any
group that says that the skeptical will be punished can also be intellectually
honest. I'm glad that you and presumably many like you take faith to be
something that must not be anti-reason. To me that is rare, but then again
that might be biased by all of the crazies that seem to get lots of attention.
And I'm not talking about the Harold Campings of the world, just the average
politician who rejects science.

~~~
lotharbot
> _"The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian ... I will just say
> [stuff]"_

A lot of the "unreasonableness" in modern American Christianity has a specific
basis; understanding that basis is important if you want to respond
effectively. Christian Liberalism was an intellectual movement in the late
1800s that sought to discard the supernatural aspects of scripture by
inappropriately assuming most of it was figurative; Fundamentalism arose in
the early 1900s as a response that included a series of overreactions --
treating scripture hyper-literally, embracing anti-intellectualism, and
treating even the smallest everyday occurrences as supernaturally significant.
While few today claim the label, a lot of ordinary American Christians have
been influenced to some degree by this sort of thinking.

Correcting this sort of unreasonableness is not as simple as telling them
they're wrong and stupid; a less snarky and less belittling approach is
usually more effective. Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true
Christians" doesn't help, but rather, it is helpful to explain the details of
why they are mistaken and help them understand better. (The downside is that
this takes more effort than the standard reddit-style "OMG UR DUMB" comment;
the upside is that it's actually productive.)

> _"their experience ... can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be
> reproduced, and/or can't be falsified"_

It is tremendously important to treat one's experiences just like any other
sort of data. One of the mistakes certain people make is treating common
events as significant. One mistake a different group makes is treating all
experience as insignificant. Do not be a part of either of those groups.

Recall that "falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. An
experience is not falsifiable. A generalization drawn from experience should
be (otherwise it is a worthless generalization.)

Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced -- historical
observations, astronomical observations, fields like economics, and so on. We
have systems and best practices for dealing with non-repeatable data; if it's
carefully recorded, it can be analyzed and discussed rationally. It's not as
good as lab experiments, but it's what you have to settle for when dealing
with systems that can't be constrained to the lab.

The key to dealing with experience as data is to understand the probabilities
involved. Finding one's car keys after prayer and searching is not
particularly signficant (after all, one normally finds their car keys after
searching); praying and hearing turn-by-turn directions in your head to a
place you've never been is significant. While both scenarios could
theoretically be "blind chance", one is significantly harder to justify in
that manner.

> _"Christianity as a whole can ... eventually coalesce ...?"_

The Bible isn't written like a legal document or a mathematical proof. In
attempting to understand a fairly complex and sophisticated system with many
parts contributing to the whole, there are estimates and prioritizations and
judgment calls involved. Thus, there is a certain expected level of
disagreement that is reasonable -- and modern Christian theologians are at
that point (the "rank and file" are a little behind.) Most of the _seemingly
huge_ disagreements between churches or denominations are actually _small_
disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors (I say this as a
pacifist married to a defense contractor -- we are not "totally opposite", we
just disagree on the relative importance of two statements.)

~~~
sixcorners
> Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help

So would it be accurate to say that your argument is that the brother
harassing the divorced brother from this linked article and the "god hates
fags" people are not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs
from the same body of understanding as a group of theologians. However
Christians who call themselves sheep and who would deny reason to uphold their
own "unreasonable" nonmatching interpretation are still true Christians
because they didn't do any of the things the group considers wrong even though
embracing non-reason is one of the things that group detests. I guess I just
think that the differences between the denominations are a lot larger then you
do. Where the former is excluded for believing crazy unreasonable things, it
seems like the latter should also be excluded on that same criteria.

Anyway, if one of the things that the true Christian crowd believe is that
everyone is deserving of death then I'm not sure it matters. How can that be
justified? Original sin?

>"falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data.

I guess I should have said that their explanation of their experience is not
falsifiable. I can't tell if that sound you heard was a ghost or white
noise/pareidolia and you can't either.

>Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced

Why should we need to rely on past data? What role does God take in the world
today and how can we test for it? God giving GPS directions? Oh yes, I
remember. He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will
actually know right? "That would take away free will." It has to be a way that
can also be explained by causes outside of God.

>Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations
are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important
factors

Like how many snakes to wield around at the next meetup or how to best
cannibalise the blood and flesh of Jesus? I would think that the person who
authored the mathematical laws of the universe would be the one most qualified
to write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is
understandable. That is the important stuff right? It made it in over stuff
like germ theory. Now if you want rank and file, the Islam religion seems to
have things going. I don't know anything about them though..

~~~
lotharbot
> _"your argument is [some are] not true Christians because they do not take
> their beliefs from [theologians]"_

That is not an accurate characterization.

The core of Christianity can be summed up thusly: everyone sins and is
controlled by a sinful nature, and therefore everyone deserves death. Christ's
death frees us from slavery to sin and redeems us from the deserved penalty of
death, and Christ's resurrection "births" us into a _new and transformed life_
(which grows over time.) That transformed life is characterized by love,
patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, humility, and so forth. Certain
people are "not true Christians" because they do not display even the
slightest hint of that _new and transformed life_.

Having wrong ideas, even a lot of them, does not disqualify a person from
being Christian. Living a life that _hasn't been transformed by Christ_
disqualifies a person from being Christian.

> _"write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is
> understandable. That is the important stuff right?"_

The "important stuff" is the stuff that gets mentioned repeatedly and gets
described in detail. For example, a large percentage of the Bible is dedicated
to teaching the concepts listed above. The ideas of sin, death, repentence,
resurrection, and transformation are each given significant attention on their
own. Additionally, several passages discuss the ideas all together; the book
of Romans is a 16 chapter long, well-formed, detailed discussion of those
principles.

Exorcism and laying on of hands are very minor, being mentioned on perhaps a
dozen separate occasions, none warranting more than a few sentences as small
parts of an ongoing narrative; as a whole they might make up a tenth of a
percent of the Bible. Even so, when they are talked about, the discussion is
_very clear_ and _completely understandable_. There is no complex ritual
surrounding either. Jesus, or someone Jesus has given explicit authority to,
simply gives a command to a demon to "come out" or places their hands on
someone, and the demon obeys or the sickness is cured. On occasion there is a
simple prayer along the lines of "Father, heal this person." That all there is
to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're
unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize.

> _"He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually
> know [because of] free will"_

Several times in the Bible, God blatantly shows His presence and power, and
yet someone still rejects or disobeys Him. Overwhelming evidence does not
render "free will" invalid; proof does not prevent disobedience. God's
decision not to offer proof is clearly not about "free will".

I think it's simpler: God is more interested in _advancing His goals_ than
_impressing people_. Consider Jesus' miracles -- He never performs them as
"proof" or in order to show off; He performs them as teaching or as acts of
compassion. The few times proof is offered in the Bible, it's to someone who
already follows God and is looking for confirmation that a specific message or
messenger is from Him, in order to move them to action.

This is consistent with the experiences my friends and I have had. when my
friends got GPS-style directions in prayer, they weren't "proof", but a means
to an end. When friends gave, or were given, very specific gifts (often
to/from strangers) because of a command given during prayer, it wasn't about
"proof" but about God meeting someone's needs. When God told me to make myself
vulnerable to someone who hated me, it wasn't about "proof", but about showing
His love.

God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers.
Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then
X is wrong, the theory would be disproved -- so the theory is falsifiable.
Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is _not_
falsifiable; while I would expect ghosts and white noise to make the
occasional mistake, they could just get really lucky.

~~~
sixcorners
> God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers.
> Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and
> then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved

That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It
would not disprove if God talks to his followers.

> Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not
> falsifiable

That's what it was: an example of a falsifiable theory. You told me that I
couldn't say that someone's experience isn't falsifiable, I came back saying
that their nutty explanation isn't falsifiable.

> God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people.

He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to
impress people. Isn't it an even bigger ego trip to make people believe based
on his word alone than to provide some sort of proof?

> That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply
> demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to
> criticize.

So tell me then, who is authorized to practice it? Do you believe that Pastor
Popoff, or anyone else on this planet are able to perform this feat? If you do
they could get an easy million dollars from those suckers over at JREF. I say
that they are unclear because there is such a great amount of disagreement
over the things I listed.

> Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person
> from being Christian.

I would argue that the lives of the members of the WBC have indeed been
perverted by Christ although not with the attributes you have listed. While
that tale of human sacrifice always makes me scratch my head, I understand
that you believe this process results in the followers living better lives. I
have also heard it put that the act of killing Jesus resulted in us being
forgiven for our sins rather than unshackled from our innately sinful nature.
Anyway following the core of Christianity, even if all Christians did believe
in the same core beliefs, doesn't mean that you agree on what parts of
scripture trumps other parts of scripture.

~~~
Dove
(Note--To avoid confusion about sock puppetry, I am Lotharbot's wife; we've
been discussing your ongoing conversation a bit, and I wanted to say some
things, too.)

> > God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His
> followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me
> X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved

> That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It
> would not disprove if God talks to his followers.

Actually, it kind of would. I mean, if I judged what was the word of God by
what was reliable and true, you'd be right -- that would be circular and
immune to any sort of experiment. It would be saying "things that come true
come true." And when I was first learning to pray, I did exactly that; I wrote
things down, I tested them, I compared them with what I knew and checked them
out.

But look, after years of this, I know what the voice of God sounds like. It's
pretty common for experienced Christians to say the same. So if someone I knew
to be experienced in such matters (or I myself) heard something that turned
out to be false or worthless, I wouldn't just say, "Well, I guess that wasn't
God." I would have to rewrite major chunks of my worldview.

You have to understand, this experience is so real and constant for me (and
for many Christians), that books have been written about what its absence is
like.

But I want to be perfectly clear that this is a bit off the beaten path. I
think most Christians I have talked to have, once or twice in life, personally
observed something that I think is empirically, clearly a miracle: being told
specific information they couldn't know, gaining the temporary (or permanent)
ability to speak or understand a language they don't know, experiencing very
specific shared visions. But let me be clear: _This isn't one of the
"important things."_ Faith doesn't revolve around miracles, and isn't built on
private revelation. In fact, such things are so far from the center of our
faith there is a debate in theology as to whether they occur at
all([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism))!
Life as a Christian is about faithfulness to Jesus, not divine intervention.

I mean, such experiences generally aren't even used in apologetics -- they're
too unverifiable, and too sacred anyway; you want to keep them private. I do
mention them when people ask if my faith has any current, rational foundation.
But when one seriously wants to talk about the intellectual foundations of
Christianity, we go to _big_ , _well-documented_ miracles, like Jesus'
resurrection.

>> God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people.

> He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to
> impress people.

A rather tame display for someone who can cause supernovas without breaking a
sweat, don't you think? And anyway, I doubt he actually commissioned all of
those. They seem to me pretty inconsistent with God's commands to devote our
wealth to taking care of the poor.

But perhaps it would be better said that God impresses, but he isn't upset by
people who aren't impressed.

Let me give you an example. When Jesus was alive, he did a lot of miracles. (I
know you don't agree with that, but roll with it for a second -- I'm trying to
show you, based on the story, how he feels about proving himself to people.)
Anyway, Jesus did a lot of miracles. He raised people from the dead. He healed
incurable disease. He restored birth defects. He walked on water in a storm.
At one point, he fed 4,000 people on a few loaves of bread. _Right after he
finished that_ , some folks came up to him and said, "When will you give us a
sign that you are really from God?"

And he said, "Look, if you don't think what I've done so far counts, then you
aren't going to get one."

(Mt. 15:29 - 16:4)

It's like . . . if you've ever argued with a troll, you know there's no such
thing as absolute proof. People can explain away _anything_. There were people
who _watched Jesus do miracles_ and didn't follow him.

So what do you do? Well . . . you do pretty much what I'm doing right now with
you. You put the information out there. And if they want to explain it away
rather than thinking about it, that's on them.

I think God takes that approach, too. There is no shortage of evidence that he
is real and acts in history. The content and history of the Bible, the
historical fact of Jesus' resurrection, the experience of the modern church,
and the origin of the universe -- those are the big ones. But if you're
determined not to believe in him, there's no such thing as proof. People say,
with Ebeneezer Scrooge, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of
mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato (or a space
alien!)". They prefer to believe they are hallucinating over believing that
God is speaking to them.

And that's _their_ prerogative.

At the end of the day, I think such resistence isn't based on reason. It's
based on emotion. If someone desperately doesn't _want_ God to exist, nothing
will prove it to them. And even if God went so far out of his way as to make
belief really unavoidable, what would that accomplish? It's not like they'd
hate him any less knowing for sure he was real.

~~~
sixcorners
> If someone desperately doesn't want God to exist, nothing will prove it to
> them.

Proof that God exists: everyone in the world wakes up with a plate of
cheesecake next to them and a note saying "I'm sorry for all the stuff that's
messed up. I'm trying my best. -Yahweh" Done. Just an example. I'm sure an
omnipotent omniscient omni-something omni-somethingelse person could figure
out something equally convincing if he/she didn't want to do that. The best
part is that it would actually be appropriate now that we have video recording
and a huge communications network so that future generations won't have to
rely on "copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors of
which we have no originals" (quote taken from this video
youtu.be/DAuFJKQh83Y#t=6m , I really like the show... sometimes).

> There is no shortage of evidence that he is real and acts in history.

None of those things prove the existence God. If you pick a different book the
first two could prove that Hogwarts exists. What experience of the modern
church? Aren't they the ones having trouble keeping cops away from pedophiles?
Lastly, what makes you think that we are going to find out that the origin of
the universe (which is not yet known) has been caused by something
unnatural/supernatural unlike everything else we have ever discovered?

> I think most Christians I have talked to have, once or twice in life,
> personally observed something

Personal experience is kind of a strange thing. I don't really know how it
relates to proof or evidence. However, I do know that there are people you can
go and talk to who will explain how they were abducted by aliens and had
children by them. It's not hard to believe that they experienced something,
but it is hard to believe their story. I sometimes wonder if the same might
happen to me, then I would be one of those crazy people. Anyway, right now I
am of the opinion that you need something independently verifiable for it to
be considered evidence.

> I know what the voice of God sounds like.

> heard something that turned out to be false or worthless, I wouldn't just
> say, "Well, I guess that wasn't God."

And you are certain that it isn't from another agent like the devil? People
have been communing with the Gods for a long time. I kind of wonder how you
evaluate someone else as having that ability. You don't accept that the Oracle
of Delphi was legitimate right? Anyway, I think you are right that your claim
is closer to out of body experience claims than other unfalsifiable ones.
Still though if your claim proves to be false, that doesn't mean that God
doesn't talk to humans. That claim is still unfalsifiable. I also have to ask
if people can communicate with God then why don't people use that to finally
solve all of the differences between the different denominations? Is Jesus
really against minimum wage?

Lastly, I didn't want to be a huge bother to anyone. I'm really not trained in
any of this so do take my words as someone who is just that. If I say anything
sophomoric or otherwise annoying, I'm sorry. If you point it out I will try to
explain why I said it and/or apologize again.

~~~
Dove
> Lastly, I didn't want to be a huge bother to anyone. I'm really not trained
> in any of this so do take my words as someone who is just that. If I say
> anything sophomoric or otherwise annoying, I'm sorry. If you point it out I
> will try to explain why I said it and/or apologize again.

You're not a bother. I believe it's important and worthwhile to talk to people
who believe differently than you -- they have different ideas, and can expose
weaknesses in your own thinking that you wouldn't expect.

That's why I'm telling you what I _actually_ think, and _why_ I actually think
it, even if it sounds dumb. A hostile reader such as yourself provides me a
type of critique I can't get from friendly ones.

I've talked to atheists a lot over the years, and I've found the experience
enriching. And while I still think you're wrong, I wish the church would
listen to you a lot more. Because you're _damn right_ about some of the stuff
we do wrong.

~~~
sixcorners
If you care, I have responded here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2996708> Sorry that it has been so long..

------
tzs
> No, I can’t sue anybody because nothing that has been done publicly is in
> violation of any enforceable law

I'm not specifically familiar with Canadian law, but isn't its legal system
descended from and greatly influences by English common law (well, except for
Quebec)? There should be a few common law tort causes of action that would
work here.

------
steve8918
This is terrible.

If I were Dave, I would post on a website "Please forgive my brother Anthony.
He is mentally ill and unfortunately given the current laws, there is nothing
I can do to help him."

------
dethstarr
That is pretty scary.

------
Swizec
And people think I'm weird for refusing to be in a Real Relationship (tm).

... or publishing my home address/real name online.

The world is full of crazy people.

~~~
bradleyland
This is the guy's brother doing all this. Being in "virtual hiding" isn't
going to stop this kind of thing.

------
lukevdp
That's crazy. As I was reading it, I thought it was a joke or a publicity
stunt it's so crazy

~~~
davorak
Unfortunatly these kinds of events are untirely too common and unnoticed.

