They need help

Snopes.com is necessary, but not sufficient.

That's one of the things I started out wanting to say. Then I got a bit distracted as that thought was reinforced by the dismaying spectacle of Sarah Palin's unconditional admirers -- their admiration only increasing with every Katie Couric interview and every repeated, documented lie -- and that initial thought led to others and those led to others, and puzzlement led to exasperation and then to pity and then to resolve and I never quite came right out and said exactly what it was that I had initially wanted to say as precisely as I'd wanted to.

And that again was this: Snopes.com is necessary, but not sufficient.

If you're not familiar with it, Snopes is an indispensable resource, one of those Internet tools that it now seems impossible to imagine living without. They deal with rumors, urban myths, legends and idle gossip, addressing every case with an open mind and subjecting it to a simple test: Is this true? What are the facts?

Facts matter. But facts are, in themselves, rarely persuasive.

The last time I had occasion to consult Snopes involved an acquaintance who is, in many ways, a likable enough person. But he also seems to hear and absorb a lot of information that ain't necessarily so.

This time it had to do with Target, the nationwide discount retail chain. He refuses to shop at Target because they hate veterans. I hadn't heard that. It seemed implausible, since hating on veterans would be just about the most self-destructive PR strategy one could imagine for a retail chain. Plus I know a lot of veterans and I've never heard about this from any of them. Those I know best, in fact, shop at Target all the time.

But OK, I said, let's look it up. And we went to Snopes and there it was. Snopes explains that this rumor is not true. They provide the background of the rumor and trace its history back to a single e-mail from a single person. They cite that person and his retraction and apology. They cite official statements from Target and evidence of the company's support for veterans' causes. They cite veteran's groups gratefully attesting to that support. This is all sourced and linked back to sources and in general a devastatingly thorough and altogether Snopes-like job of debunking and rebutting the rumor.

The result of this, of course, is that the acquaintance still does not shop at Target because he still chooses to believe that they hate veterans, and now he no longer believes anything from Snopes.com because, he says, this proves they can't be trusted.

This might have gone another way. Had this guy merely been misinformed, the Snopes data might have been persuasive. If the root of his problem were only a matter of bad information, good information might have resolved that problem and he could have walked away knowing something true instead of having to manufacture new falsehoods to reinforce the old ones. But misinformation was not the root or the source of his problem, so supplying him with the correct information was not, in itself, sufficient to help him.

And that really is my goal here -- to figure out some way to help this guy and others like him. To figure out some way to help these poor bastards and others like them.

They need help. They need, frankly, liberation.

The weird rumor about Target or the even weirder rumor about P&G are somewhat trivial examples of this, but basing your life on things that aren't true, that aren't real, is a kind of bondage. In simpler, more pragmatic terms: Unreality doesn't work. It is unsustainable. It is a recipe for unhappiness.

The reason I've been writing about/obsessing over things like the P&G rumor or the usefulness of Snopes is that I'm trying to figure out how to liberate the captives of unreality. (I doubt they'd appreciate my stating it that way, but there it is.)

Part of that task, obviously, is to provide them with a dose of reality -- to supply good information that might replace the bad, to offer them facts as a better option than lies. That's necessary, but not sufficient. That throws open the gates, but can't convince them to walk out into the world. Providing information offers the opportunity to choose reality, but it cannot compel or persuade them to take that opportunity or to make that choice.

That's what we're dealing with here: choices. My Target-boycotting acquaintance is making the choice to believe what he prefers to believe, irrespective of whatever the facts might actually be. That's a lot of hard work on his part. It requires an ongoing and exponentially multiplying set of fabrications to maintain. It involves an ever-expanding web of things that he can't allow himself to think about. It has to be, on some level, exhausting.

Take a look at those videos linked above (via). These people have fabricated imaginary monsters that, at some level, they know aren't real and yet they've put those monsters in charge of their lives. They're driven by fear and hatred -- fear and hatred of things they know don't really exist. They are, for whatever reason, choosing bondage to that fear and hatred and it's making them miserable. It's stunting their humanity. It's confining them. It's wearing them out.

They need help.

I'm sure help isn't something they'd welcome. And it's probably not something they'd want (although what they really might want is a more complex question). Whether or not it's something they deserve isn't for a wretch like me to decide.

But it's not about welcome or want or deserve. It's about what they need. They need liberation. They need help. And we're going to have to figure out how to help them, soon, because many of the people in those videos seem to be on the threshhold of real violence and the kind of ugliness that will make it even harder for them ever to escape.

I heard an interview with Don Cheadle recently in which he said, "You can't play down to the cynics." That's an actor's advice, but he wasn't talking only about acting. Ours is a cynical time, and in such a time I realize that any expression of concern will sound to many as merely concern trolling. Attempts to diagnose will sound to many as mere attacks or accusations. But I'm not concern trolling here and I'm not attacking or accusing. I'm just trying to figure out what has gone wrong with these people and why, because allowing them to continue along the path they have chosen would seem, for lack of a better word, cruel.

Information -- facts, reality, the rebuttal and debunking of lies -- is one kind of help that the captives of unreality need. That information is necessary, but not sufficient, for those who have chosen their own captivity. What else is necessary, and what might be sufficient to help them choose not to make that choice, is something I want to continue exploring.

Comments

[damnedyankee]

I think that they choose fear and hate because it's addictive. They've come to live for the adrenal rush that comes from castigating The Enemy. The Enemy fills a hole in their lives and gives them purpose. Never mind that The Enemy is, in actuality, not an enemy at all. The rush is all.

[hapax]

Am I first?

Oh, Fred. I hear your frustration. I admire your compassion. But really, what it comes down to is this:

That's what we're dealing with here: choices.

We can NOT choose for other people. Not "in their best interests." We can provide information that they can use to clear away the lies. (I am so lucky to do that for a living!) We can provide examples of people who choose to walk out of the cave, to live with uncertainty, and are yet not afraid. We can tell stories, good stories they can use to replace the bad -- and share the best stories we know (I get to do this, too -- lucky me!) We can dance and sing with each other and wave beautiful shiny objects to entice and cajole and hold out our hands ready to catch and embrace.

But we can't yank, or pull, or force.

"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."

And some of them will always screw their eyes shut, roll over, and whine, "Turn off that freakin' switch!"

[Frenchkitten]

Maybe people just are to proud to admit they are wrong? Sometimes it is easier to make bad choices than have to go back and tell everyone that they sent a nonsense forward to that they were duped. I mean there is always an alternative to crest, or tide, or target, so holding on to the myth is not that hard in day to day life, but it takes a certain amount of grace to admit you were wrong. I think that is the crux of the problem and no amount of fact checking and myth busting is going to lead people to humbleness.

[Dave Lartigue]

"You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

[emjaybee]

Most people do not reject a falsehood until it actually hurts them...until *their* child is despised for being gay, or *they* are accused of not being loyal to the cause themselves, or otherwise run afoul of the system that surrounds them. And not always then, of course.

I became a feminist, purely and simply, because my mother was not allowed to hold a leadership position that she was well (over)-qualifed for in our church, because she was a woman. No hymns to "submissive womanhood" could ever justify someone treating *my mom* that way, to me. That day, they lost me for good.

I think it takes those kinds of moments to rip off the mask of benevolence that hatred tends to wear; you just can't see it till it hurts you or someone you care about.

[Brandi]

"There are many people for whom hate and rage pay a larger dividend of immediate satisfaction than love. Congenitally aggressive, they soon become adrenalin addicts, deliberately indulging their ugliest passions for the sake of the 'kick' they derive from their psychically stimulated endocrines. Knowing that one self-assertion always ends by evoking other and hostile self-assertions, they sedulously cultivate their truculence. And, sure enough, very soon they find themselves in the thick of a fight. But a fight is what they most enjoy; for it is while they are fighting that their blood chemistry makes them feel most intensely themselves. 'Feeling good,' they naturally assume that they are good. Adrenalin addiction is rationalized as Righteous Indignation and finally, like the prophet Jonah, they are convinced, unshakably, that they do well to be angry. "

-- Aldous Huxley, "The Devils of Loudun"

(Frankly, there's days when I have to keep reminding myself that eugenics has never worked.)

[Caravelle]

What else is necessary, and what might be sufficient to help them choose not to make that choice, is something I want to continue exploring.

And good luck with that...

Tangentially, I get the feeling a lot of people in France believe the US government had a role in 9/11 (and no, I'm not talking about ignoring memos entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US"...). I've heard people I'd always considered reasonable express that belief, the last in line being a coworker just two days ago. They all talk about some documentary they saw on TV... I should probably forward some Snopes to him, see how dogmatic he is on the subject.

Still, I'd love to see some numbers on how many people believe that compared to country of origin. Maybe it's my imagination that it's particularly common here...

[e. nonee moose]

"You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

And this thread has a WINNNNARRR!!!

"...but basing your life on things that aren't true, that aren't real, is a kind of bondage. In simpler, more pragmatic terms: Unreality doesn't work. It is unsustainable. It is a recipe for unhappiness."

At first I found this really ironic in your blog, but I suppose the difference is belief(faith) in something that is provably untrue vs. something that is simply unprovable.

[Geds]

They all talk about some documentary they saw on TV...

Allow me to hazard a guess: Loose Change?

To call that a documentary is an insult to the high standards of truth-telling put out by Fox News and Michael Moore...

[harmfulguy]

I've recently stumbled across the definition of fractal wrongness:

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

I think your friend is a perfect example. He starts off being wrong about Target, and when you drill down to Snopes's rebuttal of his belief, he becomes just as wrong about Snopes in general. If you try and find something to refute his belief in the bias of Snopes, that argument will be proof of bias as well. If you poke a hole in his wrong worldview, he can always find more wrong with which to patch it.

[hapax]

I suppose the difference is belief(faith) in something that is provably untrue vs. something that is simply unprovable

Anonymous, I (and, I expect, Fred) appreciate the irony (and thought of it myself, although my money was on J to post it first).

But the thing is, for many of us, it is exactly our faith (not "belief" in the sense of intellectual assent) that is grounded on this experience of liberation from bondage. There's a reason that angelic messengers often begin their proclamations with "Be not afraid."

Now, I will be the first to concede that maybe we're simply replacing an unreality that hampers, binds, and constricts, with a different unreality that we find to be effective and empowering. But speaking personally, and only for myself, I have never in my life stepped outside of my own story. If I'm going to be perpetually walking in a story, I'd prefer it be one that got me somewhere.

[thebewilderness]

I think that people are conditioned from birth to believe and accept myth over reality. This tends to create an authoritarian world view that is impervious to facts that do not support the myths that the world view is based on. There is an entire social structure, one of which we call entertainment, that promotes and reinforces those myths.

[Caravelle]

Geds : Allow me to hazard a guess: Loose Change?

To call that a documentary is an insult to the high standards of truth-telling put out by Fox News and Michael Moore...

I don't know about the title, but I just noticed I forgot the quotes around "documentary" ! I assure you, I meant to put them there !
I haven't seen the film, but I'm convinced enough that the conspiracy is bunk to automatically dismiss anything that seriously promotes it. So I have no trouble taking your word on that one...

[atheist]

Like people who believe in god(s)?

[Elmo]

You can't have it both ways. You can't be allowed to ignore those facts which don't agree with what your religion says (The world was created in 7 days. God said it. I believe it. That settles it.) and not be allowed to ignore any other inconvenient fact which threatens a deeply cherished belief. We have been allowing people to claim that these are just matters of opinion and that it doesn't matter. But as you see, it does.

[damnedyankee]

Like people who believe in god(s)?

Or those determined to be dickweeds regardless of the subject at hand?

[atheist]

Not to outdo my last stab at "dickweediness," but isn't the subject at hand people who believe something regardless of facts. Is that not the definition of faith?

[Alan]

RE: Loose Change

I have never believed that the Bushies were part of a conspiracy to cause 9/11, mainly because I simply don't think they're competent enough to have ever brought such a conspiracy to fruition. I DO think that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (once it became clear that Bush himself would pay no price for his incompetence in ignoring the terrorist threat), most of the Bushies high-fived each other now that they would be able to play the "patriot vs. traitor" card to their hearts content.

Now the Anthrax mailings, ITOH, ...

[Izzy]

Atheist:

"[Faith] commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct."--W.H. Griffith-Thomas.

In short: *you* think that faith means believing things regardless of facts. Not everyone does. In fact, many religious people don't.

Furthermore, this isn't what we were talking about, so why don't you take your proselytizing for a long walk off a short pier?

P.S. I just had to dig my copy of Alister McGrath out of a way-too-full backpack to get that quote, which is not the most fun thing to do in an airport cafe. So, y'know, fuck you sideways.

Man. I remember reading Jack Chick for laughs and thinking that there was no atheist in the world who acted like the ones in those pamphlets. I really wish a substantial portion of the population hadn't set out to prove me wrong in my old age.

[Caravelle]

Not to outdo my last stab at "dickweediness," but isn't the subject at hand people who believe something regardless of facts. Is that not the definition of faith?

The thing is, when you're talking about an unprovable/undisprovable kind of god "facts" become less relevant. Not to mention, those people who have subjective experiences they interpret as divine - well, from their point of view, they have facts. (I'm thinking of hapax here, tell me if I'm completely off-base)

[hapax]

atheist isn't the subject at hand people who believe something regardless of facts. Is that not the definition of faith?

Short answer: no.

Long answer -- oh, go read St. Paul. Or St. Augustine. Or St. Francis. Or Marcus Borg. Or Desmond Tutu. Or Martin Luther King. Or Gandhi. Or Rumi. Or the Dalai Lama. Or... [anybody else want to contribute?]

[hapax]

Or, heckopete, go back up and read our gracious host, because this:

But it's not about welcome or want or deserve. It's about what they need. They need liberation. They need help. And we're going to have to figure out how to help them, soon

is a pretty good definition of "faith", too.

[hapax]

Caravelle: I'm thinking of hapax here, tell me if I'm completely off-base

On target.

[dzd]

Bad information drives out good, and once people learn to accept counterknowledge in place of knowledge, they usually can't be convinced otherwise. It's like carbon monoxide--it binds to all the same receptors even more strongly than oxygen does, but you'll happily suffocate to death on it.

[CombatQueer]

hapax: Read Sa'di's Gulistan or the Rubayat of Omar Khayam. There are a lot of amazing Sufi writings on the struggle between the choice and the essential nature of an individual.

Also, Khayam's poetry is the only poetry I've ever been able to get into.

[Me!]

Long answer -- oh, go read St. Paul. Or St. Augustine. Or St. Francis. Or Marcus Borg. Or Desmond Tutu. Or Martin Luther King. Or Gandhi. Or Rumi. Or the Dalai Lama. Or... [anybody else want to contribute?]

How about just reading this blog? :) Fred goes into some detail about it here.

I'll quote the pertinent portion for you:
"Evangelicals are hardly alone in believing that faith and the intellect are incompatible. This misconception is quite popular among people who misunderstand one or the other (or both). Miracle on 34th Street was on cable the other night. Edmund Gwenn is terrific, but I still can't abide that film's refrain: "Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to."

No. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "Believing when common sense tells you not to" is something else. That's called "denial." The former involves belief in something that cannot be proved true, the latter involves belief in something that can be -- or has been -- proved false. The former requires a vital intellect, the latter necessarily regards the intellect with fear and suspicion"

[SMQ]

Having grown up in a dysfunctional family with an alcoholic parent, I'm afraid the very first comment nailed it -- the situation Fred describes feels eerily familiar: you can't help someone who doesn't *want* to be helped. Period. All you can do is show them that you'll be there when (and if) they do "hit bottom" and admit they need help.

--SMQ

[harmfulguy]

...isn't the subject at hand people who believe something regardless of facts.

I thought the subject at hand was people who believe in something despite the presence of opposing facts.

Is that not the definition of faith?

To me, faith is belief despite the absence of facts.

[Cowboy Diva]

Sometimes I hate the english language, because quite frankly I do not feel belief and facts belong together AT ALL.

Facts just are. They cannot change. We may look at them differently depending on our perspective, but they do not change regardless of how we think about them.

Belief, OTOH, is what you want something to be. You may want that something to be TRUTH!, you may want it to be invisible, you may want something to be better this time around, but you get to decide if you believe in something and then act on it to make that true for you and anyone else who shares your belief.

Where things get tricky in english is that we can say we believe in facts. This makes no sense. "I believe in the color blue!" see? nonsense.

2 different things, not related. Really. At least, I believe this is so...

[Cat Meadors]

Wouldn't it be nice if there were an answer?

Right now, my stepfather's brother is dying of cancer because he believes the government suppresses all real medical knowledge. It's too late to do more than keep him comfortable at this point, but, had he gone with the Evil Western Medicine approach when they found the cancer, he'd probably be ok now. It's not like people who loved and cared about him didn't try their damnedest to convince him to maybe try what the doctors had to offer.

People will die rather than admit their worldview might be wrong.

[Cat]

As a Pagan, I consider myself fortunate--really, I do--to represent a group that a certain subset of the population demonizes. Literally. Over the summer I found my own circumstances almost duplicated by the villainess in a Christian horror novel.

I consider this fortunate because it gives me the strongest counterargument I can think of: I plunk myself down in the midst of these folks, and just be human with them for a little while. I'll talk with them, swap stories and good wishes, answer their questions and ask some of my own, even politely argue with them a little.

My beloved--an atheist--kids me for doing "missionary work," and warns that I'll never bring anyone around to my way of thinking. If someone did come to agree that my own conception of the world made sense, that'd be swell, but it's not my goal. If one of the folks I've been talking to is in a conversation where witchcraft is equated with hatred and evil, and says, "Actually I know one, and she's not like that," then I will consider that a victory.

[harmfulguy]

Where things get tricky in english is that we can say we believe in facts. This makes no sense. "I believe in the color blue!" see? nonsense.

That puts me in mind (as too many things do) of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, a fantasy series where gods really do exist in the world. Witches and wizards are occasionally described as not believing in gods, simply because that would be as silly as believing in a table. Then again, if you're going to be an atheist in the Discworld, you'd really better be lightning-proof...

[hapax]

Cat: If someone did come to agree that my own conception of the world made sense, that'd be swell, but it's not my goal. If one of the folks I've been talking to is in a conversation where witchcraft is equated with hatred and evil, and says, "Actually I know one, and she's not like that," then I will consider that a victory.

Funny, that's EXACTLY how I view my job at *Christian* mission.

[smiles across the coffee table and toasts Cat with her mug]

[JessicaR]

Man Fred you've got so much more faith in people than I'll ever have. Watching clips of how people are behaving at two minute hate/Palin speeches I don't see people deserving of pity or who were hoodwinked or who need to be saved. They're eating the hate up, they love it. I understand not being cynical but at a certain point if it talks like a hateful, bigoted bastard, walks like a hateful bigoted bastard, and acts like a hateful bigoted bastard well...I think the most helpfull thing we could do for these people is convince them to stay home on election day.

[Tonio]

I agree with Fred that faith is compatible with a vital intellect. Many organized religions and many individual beliefs have a interior logic that is not only reasonable but also beautiful when viewed from the inside. However, when I view those religions from the outside, the logic seems to be supported by presuppositions, such as life having an inherent meaning or purpose. (Or that life has to have an inherent meaning or purpose.) I strongly condemn the notion that believers who hold onto those presuppositions are illogical or unreasonable. I simply prefer to subject all presuppositions to scrutiny (even my own) and to question the concept of interior logic.

[SchrodingersDuck]

Not too long ago, someone explained to me that they wouldn't be voting for Boris Johnson in the London mayoral elections because he'd claimed that women enjoy being raped, and that it shouldn't be a crime. I replied that while I'm no fan of the guy, he hadn't ever come out and supported rape (in fact, they were thinking of the BNP candidate at the earlier assembly elections). Yet they still claimed that they weren't voting for Boris because of he was pro-rape, saying that it must have been that it must have been that were both pro-rape, or perhaps I was mistaken.

It's odd because they also had lots of valid reasons for opposing him as well - his transport policy, for instance - but they always led with the rape thing. I suppose it makes it easier to prevent dissonance - Boris's rival had his share of problems too, and it's easier to internalize the argument without having to seriously consider whether you've made the right choice if you imagine the rival is a total monster.

Likewise, it's much easier to say "Obama is a gay muslim black-power terrorist antichrist!" than to seriously think through "well, I agree with some of his policies, and I'm not so keen on McCain...", especially if you're in a group where this opinion is unpopular - a town of fundamentalist Christians, say, or deepest Texas. And don't forget, no-one likes to admit they're wrong, not just in what they knew, but what they believed. Sometimes clinging to obviously faulty but deep-set beliefs is less painful than having to massively reconsider your entire mindset.

[atheist]

Now that I've been called a dickweed and asked to fuck myself sideways, I will stop my proselytizing after this. Thank you for having a civil discussion with someone who asked a simple question.

This topic (from my point of view) is the same as when people tell me that dinosaurs were killed in "the flood" even if that doesn't square with facts. Can they be helped? Sure, you'll say THOSE beliefs are clearly wrong, but my belief that I will get to live in a happy place after my body ceases to function is TOTALLY rational. You can't disprove that Jesus loves me!

I am NOW overreacting. I know that this isn't an atheist friendly place because my beliefs are different from people with faith. Do you tell Muslims or Jews to fuck themselves sideways? I think that it is an interesting topic: how can you use facts to convince someone to disbelieve a non-rational idea? I THOUGHT that I'd get a reply with a little more respect and open a discussion: are 9/11 conspiracy theory believers and judeo-christian myth believers susceptible to persuasion by exposure to facts? (At least 9/11 theorists have videotape of building 7. haha now I'm a dickweed! :P )

[Perry]

My wife sometimes questions why I don't speak up to relatives who hold these types of beliefs. It's because you can't help these people. It just is not possible.

[Caravelle]

Likewise, it's much easier to say "Obama is a gay muslim black-power terrorist antichrist!" than to seriously think through "well, I agree with some of his policies, and I'm not so keen on McCain...",

I think in this particular case, saying "Obama is a gay muslim black-power terrorist antichrist" is easier than something all right, but it's not thinking through the issues, it's saying "I don't want to vote for a black person".

Seriously, previous candidates were smeared a-plenty, but it seems to me it was always that they were soft on terror and crime, that they sympathized with terrorists at worst, while with Obama it's that he is a terrorist. If I'm right, the difference is completely not a coincidence. Just listen to what the people themselves say : they know he's a terrorist because of his "bloodline". And his name.
Am I misremembering ?

@ atheist

1) the comments of Fred's blog has a history of individuals identifying as atheist being rather jerkish, and it may be that
2) your first - rather pointed - comment came across as somewhat combative, and led to
3) perhaps the other commenters on the board jumped on you a bit harshly.

not to excuse anyone. I'm just saying it's possible we have a misunderstanding here. but then again, I don't get to the comments section very often, so I don't know if you have established a history in your comments here yet or not.

[Izzy]

Atheist:

No, you didn't get a civil reply because you didn't ask a civil question. You came in making assumptions ("everyone who believes in a god has decided to ignore facts"), promoting your own worldview, and acting like an ass; people reacted accordingly--oh, to hell with it.

Yes, we're all in this to persecute atheists. Yes, we all hate anyone who doesn't believe in God. That's why Froborr and Tonio and Geds never have a civil conversation with me or hapax, and, you know, it's not like I've been dating an atheist for a year or anything. Nope. Total intolerance of atheism, here.

In short: CRY MOAR, NOOB.

[hapax]

atheist: haha now I'm a dickweed!

Um. From your mouth to God's ears.

Seriously, I thought most of us *were* having a civil discussion, although the course of the discussion demonstrated that it is anything but a "simple question."

I beg you to reconsider your tone, and stick around for a bit. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the folks who comment here are not Christians, and a quite a significant number (perhaps a plurality) identify as agnostics or atheists.

Almost all of us are valued for any contributions of wit, insight, scholarship, eloquence, or even just for our presence.

[cjmr's husband]

I have no idea how off topic this is, since I haven't read the article yet:

Twelve hours ago, cjmr self-delivered a healthy baby girl in the front seat of our little Saturn station wagon. Parked in front of the Emergency Room entrance, in the two minutes I was at the desk getting a doctor.

7lb9oz, 20 inches. (3.43 kg, 51cm) (0.54 stone, 120 pica)

[Izzy]

Woot! Congratulations!

@ Caravelle

yes, the bit about him being a terrorist because of his name I thought that was somewhat amusing (in a sad and frustrating way), myself. it's not like he got to pick his name out any more than most kids did.

[Myriad]

whoops, that was me @ 5:33

[SchrodingersDuck]

I know that this isn't an atheist friendly place because my beliefs are different from people with faith

Piffle. We have plenty of atheists and agnostics here (me for one). It's just that most people here have a little more patience. Besides, if we went on a big "Christians are stupid/Atheists are evil" flame war every day, we'd never talk about any of the fun off-topic stuff.

You can't disprove that Jesus loves me!

That's a completely different kettle of fish. We have concrete (literally!) proof that dinosaurs died millions of years ago and did not co-exist with man. On the other, we don't have any conclusive proof either way on the existence of God. If there was giant burning letters high in the sky saying "I'm God and I'm real" surrounded by choirs of angels and people said "you know, I don't believe in this 'God' guy", or alternatively if someone came back from the dead and said "yeah, I saw what was on the other side. No God there. I've even got photos that prove it", and people were still going "God is definitely 100% real", then you'd have an argument.

[Hawk]

I'm with you, Fred. Denial: it's not just a river in Egypt.

The problem is, you're attempting to change someone's heart with a fact-based argument targeted at their head. If their position is based on emotion, or a belief that exists in the absence of fact, then no volume of facts in the world will change that person's position until they themselves decide they are open to considering the facts and that their position may not be irrefutable -- much like the alcoholic must first acknowledge alcoholism before any treatment has a reasonable change of working.

[Caravelle]

I know that this isn't an atheist friendly place because my beliefs are different from people with faith.

That's unfair. This isn't an atheist proselytiser-friendly place, but then it isn't very friendly to proselytisers, period. Or haven't you noticed a lot of atheists post here ? I'd almost say it's a disproportionate number, for the US at least.*

And you got plenty of reasonable responses, why do you ignore them ?

*funny thing : I was looking at the religious demographics in France on Wikipedia, to check on some numbers given by Conservapedia (this is getting stupider by the minute, isn't it ?), and do you know "Catholics" are broken down into "believing Catholics", "agnostic Catholics", and "atheist Catholics" ? Methinks some religion wants to inflate its numbers here :)