What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

[bluegreenearth]

From Wikipedia -

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.

Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.

According to Christian theology, God desires for people to make the freewill decision to believe he exists and be in a loving relationship with him. Once people freely choose to accept Christ as their one true Lord and savior, the Holy Spirit is claimed to descend upon them to reveal the truth of Christianity in such a way that it is undeniable. Consequently, we would expect cognitive dissonance to never occur in Christians if their sincere belief is true. Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

Once the truth of Christianity is divinely revealed to people by the Holy Spirit, it should be impossible for these Christians to hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. After all, their freewill choice to trust the word of God and acknowledge Jesus's sacrifice for their sins will have satisfied God's criteria for granting them the gift of salvation. As such, we expect there should be no theological purpose for God not to insulate his true Christian followers from experiencing cognitive dissonance now that he has assured their place in his kingdom.

At the very least, if Christianity is true, any secular beliefs that would seem to contradict Biblical beliefs should not be more compelling to a true Christian. However, the fact that Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance demonstrates that the secular beliefs are often more persuasive than the Biblical beliefs they seem to contradict. Otherwise, we would expect an inability for those secular beliefs to routinely elicit experiences of cognitive dissonance in true Christians.

So, what are the apologetic arguments for why apologetics is needed to help true Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience given the aforementioned considerations? Why does apologetics not become obsolete after people become true Christians, but instead, it remains an essential tool for suppressing the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 69 by Don McIntosh]

Kindly read my previous posts in this thread explaining in some detail how in many cases atheism appears to involve cognitive dissonance, and then carefully state your objections.

I don't understand how not believing in gods causes cognitive dissonance which involves holding conflicting beliefs. Cognitive dissonance in theists is easy to understand. They rely on evidence for practically everything that they will accept as true in other aspects of their life, but belief in gods ultimately falls back to nothing more than faith. So the need for evidence clashes with belief without evidence. To alleviate the cognitive dissonance believers will desperately elevate whatever they can to the status of evidence even when it doesn't really qualify.

I think it's safe to say that there is not verifiable evidence sufficient to confirm fanciful tales; otherwise they would not be fanciful tales. The question remains whether the miracles and resurrection of Jesus (who was certainly visible and detectable), for example, can be written off as fanciful tales when all the relevant facts are taken into account.

The miracles and resurrection of Jesus can be written off as fanciful tales because there are no relevant facts to be taken into account. We have anonymous hearsay at best.

To put it another way: it may be that the common assertion that "there is no verifiable evidence" for God or for the Christian faith is simply false.

And yet, when asked to supply this verifiable evidence, it is never forthcoming. In the last two decades of asking believers to provide what they found the most compelling reasons for their belief, every response simply elicited essentially "What, that's it?" from me. I am open to being convinced but nothing I have been presented with has been the least bit convincing to me.

And not once have I heard a professing atheist break down and confess, "I was angry with God and decided not to give him the satisfaction of acknowledging his existence" (though I have heard it in the context of conversion rather than deconversion stories!).

Perhaps because it is not true. I lost my belief at a young age and I was never angry at God. At that time I was not even aware of the bloodthirsty barbarian warlord side of Yahweh as depicted in the Bible. The whole God scenario just came to be more and more absurd and comical to me, on par with the countless other gods humans have invented and spun stories around.

That's why I was careful to say "professing" atheist. Do you seriously think that every self-proclaimed atheist is genuinely without any belief in any gods? Think of it like this: you would agree with me that there are countless hypocrites who profess religious faith but act and believe otherwise, right? I am merely calling attention to the real possibility that there are also atheist hypocrites – people who claim to have no belief in God but in reality act and believe otherwise.

Yes, I think the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists is genuinely without any belief in any gods. Unlike theists, there is no compelling reason for anyone to claim to not believe in gods when they actually do. Theists, on the other hand, risk an awful lot by coming out as atheists. In deeply religious societies they risk being shunned, losing all their family, friends and associates, their job, and in extreme situations their very life. Great incentive to keep quiet and go with the flow.

It's not that I know so much about atheists, but that I've learned a thing or two about human beings and probability generally. Based on that learning experience I would say again that the chances of all theist-to-atheist deconversions being the result of a completely honest, objective and rational thought process are highly remote.

I agree. For most theists there has been too great an investment in their belief and cognitive dissonance will be a powerful factor in preventing them from scrutinising the basis of that belief too closely.

Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and many others have made a good living specifically by explaining why they are without belief in gods and encouraging others to join them.

How does that apply to the vast majority of atheists? It doesn't. To all intents and purposes there really is nothing to be gained from not believing in gods, and, as I have already pointed out, there is potentially a lot to be lost.

Beyond strictly monetary profit, there is also the possibility of doubters finding acceptance and encouragement in the nontheistic community where their skepticism was frowned upon or even condemned in the church. And in many circles these days atheists are thought to be more intelligent and courageous than their religious counterparts; and who doesn't want to be considered intelligent and courageous? I'm sure there are other reasons besides.

I find it hard to accept the suggestion that people will somehow deliberately lose their belief in gods for some sort of social acceptability. I did not choose to have no belief in gods. My brain is simply not able to accept that they exist. That's all there is to it. It is incredibly annoying to have others telling me what my atheism means and why I became an atheist. The attempted indoctrination of god belief from my childhood never really took hold and all god concepts just made their way into the rubbish bin.

[Tcg]

.
I, for one, definitely do NOT want special consideration of any kind by virtue of being Non-Theistic (or being clumped with any group). Perhaps others are differently motivated.

I remember some of the special consideration I received when I became an atheist:

• - My longtime pastor reminded me that I was going to hell.
  
  - Numerous friends refused to talk to me and still do.
  
  - My late sister who died two years ago refused to talk to me when I learned she was on her death bed.
  
  - Same for my late father who died five years ago.
  
  - My mother refuses to talk to me.
  
  - I can no longer make a living as a Christian Counselor given that I refuse to pretend to believe something I no longer do.

If someone is searching for special consideration, I suggest they find a better avenue than Non-Theism.

I became an atheist the old fashioned way. I no longer believed that there was any truth to any of the claims humans make and have made about god/gods.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 72 by Tcg]

Sincere condolences for all the rejection.

Unfortunately, your experience is not uncommon for those who become <shudder> Apostates. It is not surprising that organized religion actively promotes shunning of those who break free of its clutches because they are a shining example that religion is not necessary to live an honorable and fulfilling life.

Perish the thought that other parishioners might come to the realization that religion is a scam and thus interfere with preacher income, status, and influence.

Those who are solidly hooked by religion seem incapable of understanding that anyone would not believe the tales, threats, and promises (including 'afterlife') offered by their chosen religious sect.

Of course, all of this is small comfort for those going through the process of withdrawal from religion. It must be excruciating and lonely for many.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 72 by Tcg]

I remember some of the special consideration I received when I became an atheist:
- My longtime pastor reminded me that I was going to hell.
- Numerous friends refused to talk to me and still do.
- My late sister who died two years ago refused to talk to me when I learned she was on her death bed.
- Same for my late father who died five years ago.
- My mother refuses to talk to me.
- I can no longer make a living as a Christian Counselor given that I refuse to pretend to believe something I no longer do.

But, but......God is LOVE.

I am deeply saddened by what has happened to you Tcg and I can't see how anything could make up for all that loss.

[Thomas123]

Zzyzx Post 70
I do not pretend to know the beliefs of others. Do you?

brunumb Post 71
Yes, I think the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists is genuinely without any belief in any gods

Tcg Post72
 I became an atheist the old fashioned way. I no longer believed that there was any truth to any of the claims humans make and have made about god/gods.

Post 68

Tcg:"There is no single atheistic thought"
Thomas123: "That explains why I could not find it!"
Tcg: "It certainly does."


This has been very revealing for me personally. The individual sincerity displayed by all here is admirable. My preconception of an anti-God invasion needs to be re-evaluated considerably. There is the potential of working with like minds here which is awesome. Imho

I mentally was incapable of embracing Catholicism, which was my birth option. I care so little about it that this rejection has not demanded courage or effort on my part. It continues to be a breeze for me. I want my ashes scattered on "unconsecrated ground" (if this exists), as a mock act of protest for my Catholic past. That's it! I do not even feel capable or compelled to crusade against it as it is in fact probably, 'better than nothing' for huge numbers of ordinary people.

I have studied Buddhism, and find it a wonderful practice. I have dabbled in evangelical atheism but thank God I fell off that horse. My drive appears to be a desire to help through instruction. This is a nightmare ambition.

As a teacher, I found the process and the responsibility of this position to be unbearable. Many people look for instruction and they place their trust in their teachers. I attempt 'best way' teaching in a personal, subjective way.
Self-evaluation is a nonsense so that I feel you have to let your ideas 'out'.

I do what the people mentioned in this post do, I search for answers. I study and consider and I encourage all to do the same. Then I shuffle towards a workable hypothesis.

My psyche is a bucket that can only hold so much before it looses its functionality. I constantly replace. If the god concept is functionally useful then there is no logical reason to discard it in my realm of limited reasoning.
The human has used this modus since the dawn of its consciousness.
The God concept is a human extraction from reality. Our sensory perceptions have consistently felt it, the presence of God.
An exploration of this awareness evolves into nuances of specific worship that we call religions.
Theism has a consistency and apparently atheism has as well.
We are all sincerely looking for answers.

[Don McIntosh]

Kindly demonstrate to readers how “without belief in gods� involves cognitive dissonance

Kindly read my previous posts in this thread explaining in some detail how in many cases atheism appears to involve cognitive dissonance, and then carefully state your objections.

Nice dodge. Again, Kindly demonstrate to readers how “without belief in gods� involves cognitive dissonance.

I wasn't dodging anything. My point, which should have been clear from a dozen contextual clues, was that there is quite plausibly cognitive dissonance at work in the psychology of (many) professing atheists. That was in reply to the OP which asserted cognitive dissonance at work in the psychology of (all) professing Christians.

That said, part of our misunderstanding here may derive from differing understandings of what it means to be an outspoken atheist. The minimalist, weak atheist position ("without belief in gods") is scarcely a position at all, and I doubt whether many participants here actually hold it. The strong atheist position ("firm belief that there are no gods"), on the other hand, requires its own burden of proof.

I take it that you, for instance, are a strong atheist. Just from the brief discussion we've had, I can rationally infer that you hold certain beliefs about theism: that there is no verifiable evidence to support theistic claims, and that theistic claims without supporting evidence can be rightly deemed fanciful tales. (That seems self-defeating to me, since there appears to be no evidence available to support the belief that beliefs without evidential support are fanciful tales – in which case the evidential version of strong atheism would constitute another example of cognitive dissonance.)

Consider this argument, based largely on your own statements:

1. The religious claim that God exists is unsupported by evidence.
2. Religious claims unsupported by evidence are fanciful tales.
3. Fanciful tales are manifestly false (implied by definition).
4. The claim that God exists is manifestly false.

Note that the logic here is perfectly valid, and the resulting conclusion is not a mere lack of belief but a strong affirmation of atheism.

So to squarely address what seems to me an objection without much of a purpose: yes, I agree that "without belief in gods" cannot involve cognitive dissonance, since c.d. entails having conflicting beliefs. But then for all atheists to be clear of any possibility of c.d. would require that no atheists have beliefs of their own to justify their atheism – which is obviously not the case.

Noted. Look, I'm not suggesting that subjective factors have played no part in public deconversion stories. But when push comes to shove, the ultimate justification for atheism (at least in the deconversion stories I've read on these boards) is almost always something much more laudable: a purely objective search for evidence and a rational evaluation of the facts.

Is there just a wee chance of confirmation bias in your evaluations?

Of course. There is a wee chance of confirmation bias in anyone's evaluation of most anything. Should I take your objection here to mean that atheism is not the result of rational objectivity in the considerable majority of deconversion stories? And given that you hold strong atheistic beliefs, and that the flip side of confirmation bias is disconfirmation bias (see https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-01782-001), is there any chance of disconfirmation bias in your remarkably energetic and ongoing public repudiation of Christianity and theism?

The obvious reply is to provide verifiable evidence.

Do you realize that you cannot provide verifiable evidence?

Simply excusing the lack by saying it happened a long time ago is a cop-out. Offering the tales themselves as evidence for themselves is even worse (but is a common apologetic).

Here is your chance to prove those Atheists wrong. Lay out the verifiable evidence for readers to consider (1272 views of this thread so far). Show those viewers the evidence that proves the Atheists wrong.

Okay, but I think you've framed the challenge wrongly from the outset. First, evidence doesn't "prove" anything. It merely renders a hypothesis more probable than it would have been otherwise. Second, evidence lends support in varying degrees to hypotheses already considered plausible enough to seriously search for evidence in the first place, so that anyone who has already judged a certain hypothesis to be a fanciful tale with no evidence in support of it (someone with a strong disconfirmation bias) is not likely to find evidence in support of it. That pretty much goes without saying, and yet while asking me to provide evidence you're on record stating unequivocally that I cannot provide evidence. Lol. (The fallacy there, I probably don't have to tell you, is a variant of "poisoning the well.")

Nonetheless, for anyone else who might have a genuine interest here is a short list of evidence that cumulatively supports the Christian faith in particular (borrowed from an earlier thread: viewtopic.php?t=35156&start=10):

1. Cosmological evidence suggesting an absolute beginning (of both space and time) of the universe.

2. The apparent fine-tuning of life-permitting physical constants regulating the universe.

3. Numerous instances of specified complexity (or "functional complexity" or "irreducible complexity") in nature.

4. General human awareness of transcendent or "objective" moral rules.

5. The historical origin, worldwide dispersion and persecution, and subsequent physical restoration of the nation of Israel, in keeping with the prophetic message of the Old Testament.

6. The miraculous ministry of Jesus Christ, historically attested in thousands of early manuscripts, derived from originals dated to within a generation of his death and purported resurrection.

7. The birth of the early church, in Jerusalem, on the preaching of the resurrection, and in the face of violent persecution.

8. The remarkably sudden, complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, formerly a leader in the earliest efforts to destroy the Christian movement.

Note that the list above is simply a list of facts in evidence, not arguments for why each is supportive of Christianity. But such arguments can be made. For the first example, cosmological evidence suggesting an absolute beginning of the universe is also evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth described in Genesis, because without that evidence we could look out at the universe and just as easily believe it had existed forever; thus the evidence for an absolute beginning makes the absolute beginning of the universe described in Genesis much more probable than it would have been otherwise.

Also, to item 6 I would add that Jewish rabbis of the Tannaitic period alleged that Jesus was guilty of deluding the masses with "sorcery," a charge which lends further support to accounts of Jesus' miracle-working ministry.

I'd rather not take up all the other points you raised and quibble indefinitely about each, but if there's a particular point or two you'd like me to address further, let me know.

[Zzyzx]

.

Nice dodge. Again, Kindly demonstrate to readers how “without belief in gods� involves cognitive dissonance.

I wasn't dodging anything. My point, which should have been clear from a dozen contextual clues, was that there is quite plausibly cognitive dissonance at work in the psychology of (many) professing atheists.

Of course it is a dodge.

My challenge to you (Kindly demonstrate to readers how “without belief in gods� involves cognitive dissonance) is not addressed at all – and has nothing to do with what Atheists do or not do.

“Those guys do it too� doesn't even work in kindergarten recess.

That was in reply to the OP which asserted cognitive dissonance at work in the psychology of (all) professing Christians.

Perhaps the OP question for debate is a bit too complex for some to understand.

So, what are the apologetic arguments for why apologetics is needed to help true Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience given the aforementioned considerations? Why does apologetics not become obsolete after people become true Christians, but instead, it remains an essential tool for suppressing the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience?

When that occurs don't hesitate to ask for clarification.

That said, part of our misunderstanding here may derive from differing understandings of what it means to be an outspoken atheist.

Perhaps it would be prudent to stop speculating about what Atheists do and think – and to present verifiable evidence to support what one says in debate (or at least, lacking such evidence, presenting coherent reasoning).

The minimalist, weak atheist position ("without belief in gods") is scarcely a position at all, and I doubt whether many participants here actually hold it. The strong atheist position ("firm belief that there are no gods"), on the other hand, requires its own burden of proof.

Theist = believe in gods
Atheist ('A' meaning not) = not believe in gods

I take it that you, for instance, are a strong atheist.

Signature that appears on each of my posts clearly states theistic position as Non-Theist and clearly states “ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence�

What part of that is difficult to understand?

Anyone capable of reading without straw-man attempts would know better than to say, 'take it that you are a strong Atheist' –

Just from the brief discussion we've had, I can rationally infer that you hold certain beliefs about theism: that there is no verifiable evidence to support theistic claims,

Correction: I have stated many times “Verifiable evidence has NOT been presented�. Those who disagree are welcome to present verifiable evidence (that which can be checked for truth and accuracy and which does not require taking someone's word

and that theistic claims without supporting evidence can be rightly deemed fanciful tales.

I do not restrict 'fanciful' to religious tales – but apply the concept to ANY claims and stories without supporting evidence. That applies equally to Paul Bunyan and Little Red Riding Hood as well as much folklore of the past (and present).

That seems self-defeating to me,

What it seems to you is of absolutely no significance to me and has no merit in debate.

So to squarely address what seems to me an objection without much of a purpose: yes, I agree that "without belief in gods" cannot involve cognitive dissonance, since c.d. entails having conflicting beliefs.

Thank you for acknowledging the obvious

But then for all atheists to be clear of any possibility of c.d. would require that no atheists have beliefs of their own to justify their atheism – which is obviously not the case.

What beliefs held by Atheists 'to justify their Atheism' do you imagine?

Notice that no cognitive dissonance (or 'beliefs of their own') are required to lack belief in Leprechauns, fairies, or unicorns. Same goes for gods.

And given that you hold strong atheistic beliefs,

Is this an attempt to set a record for misstating my theistic position?

That pretty much goes without saying, and yet while asking me to provide evidence you're on record stating unequivocally that I cannot provide evidence. Lol. (The fallacy there, I probably don't have to tell you, is a variant of "poisoning the well.")

Correction: Read what I actually said and note the question mark (which indicates a question not 'stating unequivocally') “Do you realize that you cannot provide verifiable evidence?� There IS a difference between a question and a declarative sentence. Does this require further simplification or clarification?

Nonetheless, for anyone else who might have a genuine interest here is a short list of evidence that cumulatively supports the Christian faith in particular

1. Cosmological evidence suggesting an absolute beginning (of both space and time) of the universe.

Cosmological arguments are NOT verifiable evidence. They are opinions.

2. The apparent fine-tuning of life-permitting physical constants regulating the universe.

Note 'apparent fine-tuning' – guessing is not verifiable evidence.

Attributing such things, even if real, to a 'god' is pure speculation. Attribution could equally well be attributed to Leprechauns.

3. Numerous instances of specified complexity (or "functional complexity" or "irreducible complexity") in nature.

Complexity indicates complexity – not cause or origin -- and complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Many things which we take for grated as simple now would likely have appeared as extremely complex to people centuries ago.

4. General human awareness of transcendent or "objective" moral rules.

Cannibalism is and/or has been practiced by societies at various times in various locations – indicating the LACK of a supposed 'transcendent or objective moral rules'. Same goes for rape, slavery, theft, etc.

5. The historical origin, worldwide dispersion and persecution, and subsequent physical restoration of the nation of Israel, in keeping with the prophetic message of the Old Testament.

The allies made a big blunder, imo, bowing to Zionism at the end of WWII. However, that is no evidence of a 'fulfilled prophesy'. It is just a temporary situation.

6. The miraculous ministry of Jesus Christ, historically attested in thousands of early manuscripts, derived from originals dated to within a generation of his death and purported resurrection.

The Jesus character was evidently a wandering Jewish preacher who failed to convince Jews that he was the promised 'messiah'. Long after he was dead, Paul/Saul and accomplices made up a new religion using him as its icon and pitched it to Gentiles far from the area Jesus is said to have preached. He was supposedly run out of his own hometown as a fraud.

7. The birth of the early church, in Jerusalem, on the preaching of the resurrection, and in the face of violent persecution.

The Jesus movement made little or no headway in Jerusalem among the Jews. However, Jesus was made icon of the new 'watered down Judaism' that was acceptable to Roman officials and was made official state religion of the empire.

Persecution complex is much touted by Christian lore.

8. The remarkably sudden, complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, formerly a leader in the earliest efforts to destroy the Christian movement.

The tale of Paul/Saul's 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fabrication, or whatever it was) is quite fanciful and theatrical (with lights, sound effects, trips to heaven) as told by whoever wrote Acts. Paul/Saul does NOT describe the event in his writings.

Is there evidence that the tale is true?

There is oceanfront land for sale in Iowa for those who are gullible.

[Diagoras]

That's fair. Likewise, not all Christians experience the cognitive dissonance attributed to Christians in the OP of this thread, and thus that argument also weakens accordingly.

I don’t believe that the OP’s case rested on an assumption of ‘most’ Christians, though. I could be mistaken, but, when I read:

At the very least, if Christianity is true, any secular beliefs that would seem to contradict Biblical beliefs should not be more compelling to a true Christian. However, the fact that Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance demonstrates that the secular beliefs are often more persuasive than the Biblical beliefs they seem to contradict.

I’m inclined to merely replace ‘routinely’ with ‘sometimes’, and would consider that sufficient to maintain the strength of the argument.

Most of that seems reasonable to me. Given your objections, I would be happy to revise my argument to say that in many instances atheism appears to be the product of cognitive dissonance, if not an actively dissonant state. As you noted, once the conflicted believer jumps to one side or other of the fence, the dissonance resolves in principle.

Glad we got to an agreement pretty easily.

Even then I would note that if demographics has anything to say about it, that resolution is more often than not found by getting back to the theistic side of the fence.

I’m reasonably comfortable with taking this claim as being true, even without any supporting evidence. The reason being, we’re not in any position to analyse the relative weighting of those dissonant beliefs, nor the pressures being applied (by family, church, etc) upon the person concerned. Without knowing about the individual circumstances, we can’t really be confident that one ‘side of the fence’ isn’t being falsely ‘promoted’ by external forces.

What still fascinates me here, though, is that after literally decades of reading various deconversion stories, I can't recall more than maybe a half dozen atheists explain their deconversion by saying, in effect, "I abandoned my faith because the God I believed in increasingly seemed cruel and tyrannical to me, and that conflicted with my prior belief that God is good."

This just suggests that the cognitive dissonance created by believing God is both good and bad is either rare, or else more easily resolved.

Instead most of what I get is assertions that there is "no evidence" (not even a shred) that God exists, along with general appeals to the wonders of science.

I’d simply comment that framing such deconverters as ‘appealing’ to science does make it sound more like a logical fallacy. That might have been intentional on your part. Their assertions are (in my opinion) more likely to have been that the evidence was available from scientific observation, whereas it was not for their previous ‘God as explanation’ belief.

If you think about it, the prospect of a public atheist harboring private belief is really no more difficult to imagine than a televangelist using religion simply to make money while not actually believing in God at all. And we all know there are a few of those...

I can imagine it, but don’t see as clear a reason for someone to actually behave this way. There’s no obvious monetary gain for the ‘secretly believing atheist’, and in any case, neither they nor the televangelist would be necessarily experiencing cognitive dissonance - they can rationalise their need for secrecy quite easily.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 76 by Don McIntosh]

For the first example, cosmological evidence suggesting an absolute beginning of the universe is also evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth described in Genesis, because without that evidence we could look out at the universe and just as easily believe it had existed forever; thus the evidence for an absolute beginning makes the absolute beginning of the universe described in Genesis much more probable than it would have been otherwise.

An invalid extrapolation and a classic example of cherry picking. The proposed beginning of space-time may not have been the beginning of everything which would be contrary to Genesis. Then we have the fact that creationists ignore the billions of years of cosmological activity following the Big Bang before the Sun and Earth formed by mechanisms that are nothing like the colourful story described in the Bible. As with biblical interpretation one needs to consider context.

[benchwarmer]

Consider this argument, based largely on your own statements:

1. The religious claim that God exists is unsupported by evidence.
2. Religious claims unsupported by evidence are fanciful tales.
3. Fanciful tales are manifestly false (implied by definition).
4. The claim that God exists is manifestly false.

Note that the logic here is perfectly valid, and the resulting conclusion is not a mere lack of belief but a strong affirmation of atheism.

Incorrect, this logic is NOT valid.

It's fine until (2). At (3) you make a wild leap from "fanciful tale" to "manifestly false". Just because someone makes a tale does not necessarily render it false. It may very well be (and perhaps likely be), but there is no direct relationship between a "fanciful tale" and "manifestly false".

Example:

I saw a large, yellow object hovering in my backyard! I offer you no evidence.

Apparently, you can now guarantee this is true or false based on your 'perfectly valid' logic?