Philosophy Now Forum

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:It would be great if you could edit this to sort out the 'quotes' - thanks !

Ooops! I completely forgot to check that it came out right. I'll fix that right now.

EDIT: Fixed. I made one change to make sure my answer addressed your point better than it had.

Thanks - as you can see, I too have a problem with quotes

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:You know what, this is one of the reasons I don't usually join in a philo/religio thread.
The generalised 'We' - the 'Us and Them' - the black and white thinking.
The continued lack of understanding.

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall. Wonder if it'll ever come crashing down...

For my part, I think atheism vs theism is black and white. It certainly seems to me that they're in competition insofar as they are mutually exclusive propositions. But that doesn't mean I think of atheists as competitors. I try to separate ideas and people, and generally ignore those who can't. If I've presented things as "us" and "them," it's only because, on this particular point, it seems a fair delineation. But that certainly doesn't mean I put weight on the distinction beyond the confines of a particular forum post. I'd happily have coffee with you and talk about all manner of topics unrelated to philosophy/religion (except maybe professional sports in America).

I agree it can be seen as either all or nothing. However, as has been discussed before - there is more of continuum.
I'm a tea-drinker - sorry, don't mix with coffee-drinkers; it's against my religion

Melchior wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"We 'atheists' are not interested in debating with you or anyone. We don't give a shit what you think. There is nothing new in what you say; it is all very old and tired, lame bullshit that we heard growing up. Go away and bother someone else."

Wish folks would stop talkin' for other folks.

To hell with all this 'we' crap.

Speaking for myself as representative, I would think most non-believers really don't care to discuss it that much. It's a dead issue.

Speaking for myself. I'm ready to hear something new, and although I won't hold my breath, I am willing ready and able to listen to anything that might be of interest to the claims of the Theists.
But whether or not H quirk is right, there is no doubt that atheists have thought about the issue far more than most Theists.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:You know what, this is one of the reasons I don't usually join in a philo/religio thread.
The generalised 'We' - the 'Us and Them' - the black and white thinking.
The continued lack of understanding.

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall. Wonder if it'll ever come crashing down...

For my part, I think atheism vs theism is black and white. It certainly seems to me that they're in competition insofar as they are mutually exclusive propositions. But that doesn't mean I think of atheists as competitors. I try to separate ideas and people, and generally ignore those who can't. If I've presented things as "us" and "them," it's only because, on this particular point, it seems a fair delineation. But that certainly doesn't mean I put weight on the distinction beyond the confines of a particular forum post. I'd happily have coffee with you and talk about all manner of topics unrelated to philosophy/religion (except maybe professional sports in America).

I was raised Roman Catholic. At the age of 20, I stopped being Catholic after beginning classes in philosophy at university. I have no regrets at being raised Catholic, nor regrets at having dropped out. I don't believe in any supernatural forces, and regard those who still do as I do as relics from a pre-scientific culture, much like cargo cult people from the islands in the Pacific Ocean:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/i ... 82/?no-ist

This is of related interest:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fascinati ... 22303.html

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:I could turn your question round and ask:
Do (most) theists think it is important to correctly describe and understand the atheist or non-believer position?

Of course not. And I think this is a mistake, just as it is for the atheist (and I have said as much on several occasions here).

The usual arrogance.
Atheist don't have a position. They don't need one. They are not making any claims. They are denying the ones they hear as they do not equate with good sense or reason; are incoherent' inconsistent; unnecessary; lead to moralising; are false; oppressive....

There is no entity "Atheist" in the sense that they have or require a system of belief. For most atheists I know, it is belief that is the problem. But Atheist is simply a place-marker for no being a Theist, which can be a range of incompatible beliefs.

marjoram_blues wrote:

ReallyStupidNot wrote: This is part of me trying to understand the “competition” and represent it fairly and accurately.

Melchior wrote:
Look: We don't owe you an explanation. There is no reason to believe in deities, the supernatural, gods, devils, angels, or souls. They don't exist. For the most part I regard the religious as something annoying, like jock itch.

You know what, this is one of the reasons I don't usually join in a philo/religio thread.
The generalised 'We' - the 'Us and Them' - the black and white thinking.
The continued lack of understanding.

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall. Wonder if it'll ever come crashing down...

I understand the religious perfectly, which why I am not one of them.

henry quirk wrote:"We 'atheists' are not interested in debating with you or anyone. We don't give a shit what you think. There is nothing new in what you say; it is all very old and tired, lame bullshit that we heard growing up. Go away and bother someone else."

Wish folks would stop talkin' for other folks.

To hell with all this 'we' crap.

I don't know if this really adds to the discussion, but for whatever reason your comment gave me reason to go ahead and give some personal background (nothing messy, thankfully). I'll not be offended in the slightest if none but me finds this worth reading.

Almost 30 years ago, I "found religion" (Southern-Baptist Christianity, to be precise). I'd been raised in the church all my live and even considered myself a Christian, but I was never as devout as my family was. I wasn't a rebel, per se, but I was the kid who asked God to help me remember to pray each night and then couldn't understand why I didn't remember to pray. I bit my fingernails (still do), and asked God to help me stop. Didn't work. So basically, in the back-and-white ways in which kids think, I had no confirmation from God that "He" was there. At the same time, I had no doubt that God existed, so it basically just translated to a lack of any real commitment to the "faith." Fast forward to college and, after 4 years of living it up, I hit "rock bottom" (which is really just two C's and two F's in one semester, the resulting academic probation, and a small scrape with the law during a Christmas prank, but for a Southern Baptist? ). After a year at home, I returned to college to finish up, got rather zealous about Christianity, joined a church, worked with the youth, and ended up thinking "Hey, God wants me to go to seminary." So I did.

About a semester later, while studying for a New Testament exam, I "lost" my faith (never have remembered where I put it). Pretty low moment to have right before a final exam but that was that. I chucked it all. Any and all beliefs were up for grabs. I became the pain-in-the-ass seminarian who was reading the same texts my colleagues were, but with an (overly) skeptical eye. The debates we had were great because I had the same toolset they did, plus a bit extra from some outside reading (Jesus Seminar, readings in buddhism, etc). I became the guy that people sort of dreaded debating (though Southern manners kept me from being too much of an ass in person, thankfully). I graduated with no real job prospects (what church would hire an apostate?) and went into teaching high school Math.

So now that the boring stuff is out of the way, here's where I think it gets relevant. The very first question I felt had to be decided was whether God existed. I still felt, deep down inside, that God was real, but this was an intellectual pursuit, so I took the position of a sort of "theoretical atheism" and set about trying to settle the topic. The problem was, I never did encounter an atheist who knew enough about theist (and Christian) positions on God to disprove them. Certainly, there were plenty of Appeals to Emotion ("But God has to be a royal ass to send poor people in Africa to Hell for not believing in Jesus"), straw men ("God sacrificed an innocent person to die rather than take responsibility Himself"), Arguments from Incredulity, question-begging, and so on. Of course, they weren't all logical fallacies (those tended to come from the most vociferous). I found quite a few thoughtful atheists who gave me their own reasons for not believing and shared honest stories of suffering and pain at the hands of Christians (more often than not, these were LGBTQ folk, many of whom have become fast friends). But when we got down to brass tacks, and they would say something like "The Trinity isn't even logical," and I would respond "So what do you think is illogical about the Hypostatic Union?" I would get blank stares and then something like "Well, three can't be one" and that would be that. I simply never found an atheist who could describe Christianity in the way (informed) Christians could describe it and then take it apart. I certainly don't think such a thing is impossible, but I certainly never found an atheist who could rise to the task. What I found were plenty of thoughtful people who believed what they did for honest reasons, but they seemed no different in that than most Christians I knew (which is to say, good people).

That went on for more than a decade, through a second Master's degree in "Theology and History" at a Divinity School, and on to my acceptance into a Ph.D. program in Religious Studies to study, of all things, Islam. Since this program was based in a confessional school, I was surrounded by Christians. In fact, I was the only apostate—the only non-Christian even. Everyone else was a believer, though with varying degrees of "liberal-ness" or "conservative-ness." And throughout the whole program, my own objections to Christianity—based both on conversations with atheists and my own continuing work (e.g. the second Master's)—and theism were tested. And almost without fail, I was greeted with an admirably robust and coherent defense. And while I never did find that their arguments concerning Christianity to be convincing, I did find that their arguments concerning theism were. So, I made my choice: theism. I also changed my opinion on Christianity from that of "complete baloney" to "a coherent religious system that I simply find unconvincing." So now I defend the Christian position in the face of straw men and other fallacies in an attempt to see if they are solid refutations out there, or if all that's left is just "it's simply not convincing to me."

So there's my background. And now maybe it's a bit clearer why I'm so keen to see if atheists can offer defenses of their positions that show an awareness of the counterclaims theists make, and whether they can support their dismissal of Christianity by demonstrating an accurate understanding of the very arguments they're dismissing. I'm no longer interested in it for personal "gain" (I'm quite solidly on the side of theism, having found no strong arguments for atheism being any more plausible on logical grounds than theism), and I'm certainly not here to "convert" anyone. This is all very much an academic exercise,* though with a steady undercurrent of honest inquiry.

*And since I teach undergrads about religion, and treat atheism as effectively one of many theological positions (and perhaps even a religious one), a professional one as well.

marjoram_blues wrote:I agree it can be seen as either all or nothing. However, as has been discussed before - there is more of continuum.
I'm a tea-drinker - sorry, don't mix with coffee-drinkers; it's against my religion

I'd be interested to read the threads on it being a continuum if you can link them without too much trouble. I've missed them somehow.

As for being a coffee-drinker, I'm happy to apostatize if we ever happen upon one another in the "real world."

ReliStuPhD wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:I agree it can be seen as either all or nothing. However, as has been discussed before - there is more of continuum.
I'm a tea-drinker - sorry, don't mix with coffee-drinkers; it's against my religion

I'd be interested to read the threads on it being a continuum if you can link them without too much trouble. I've missed them somehow.

As for being a coffee-drinker, I'm happy to apostatize if we ever happen upon one another in the "real world."

The discussions were some time ago. I would have to use the Search button - and I don't have time for that, sorry.
My guess would be that Skip was involved somewhere - or HC - or...
Enter 'Atheism' and enjoy the Scroll

"Speaking for myself as representative, I would think most non-believers really don't care to discuss it that much. It's a dead issue."

Do we -- you and me -- have a contract in place (one wherein I give you the right to speak for me)?

No, no such contract exists, so -- again -- leave off with the 'we' crap. You represent 'you' and I'll represent 'me'.

And: if a subject is irrelevant to you, then trundle off to greener pastures. Not seein' any point in expressing distaste in the topic...just stop following it and let others pursue the "dead issue" as they like.

'nuff said.

henry quirk wrote:"Speaking for myself as representative, I would think most non-believers really don't care to discuss it that much. It's a dead issue."

Do we -- you and me -- have a contract in place (one wherein I give you the right to speak for me)?

No, no such contract exists, so -- again -- leave off with the 'we' crap. You represent 'you' and I'll represent 'me'.

And: if a subject is irrelevant to you, then trundle off to greener pastures. Not seein' any point in expressing distaste in the topic...just stop following it and let others pursue the "dead issue" as they like.

'nuff said.

Oh, Hennery - 'we' agree

HA!

henry quirk wrote:"Speaking for myself as representative, I would think most non-believers really don't care to discuss it that much. It's a dead issue."

Do we -- you and me -- have a contract in place (one wherein I give you the right to speak for me)?

No, no such contract exists, so -- again -- leave off with the 'we' crap. You represent 'you' and I'll represent 'me'.

And: if a subject is irrelevant to you, then trundle off to greener pastures. Not seein' any point in expressing distaste in the topic...just stop following it and let others pursue the "dead issue" as they like.

'nuff said.

I said 'I would think', which meant that I was qualifying my statement. Are you illiterate? I didn't take a survey, obviously. In my experience, most people who are non-religious don't go around talking about it. I visit a local café near where I work on a regular basis. The café is not too far from the local major university. I cannot help but overhear conversations among the youngish crowd that patronizes the place. The only conversations I hear about religion are those among the religious. There is one young woman who comes there occasionally, and who is quite a talker; she is apparently quite involved in her church. The conversations between her and her friends are bizarre. She seems to dominate them. On the other hand, I never hear people discussing atheism, why they are atheists, or anything remotely like that. Never. Since this café seems to be a microcosm of society, I would think using the people there as a sample of the population at large would not be inappropriate. And as I said, I never hear people talking about atheism or why they are atheists. It simply doesn't happen. I do, though, overhear conversations about religion and church from a few patrons.

As you like, Mel.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"We 'atheists' are not interested in debating with you or anyone. We don't give a shit what you think. There is nothing new in what you say; it is all very old and tired, lame bullshit that we heard growing up. Go away and bother someone else."

Wish folks would stop talkin' for other folks.

To hell with all this 'we' crap.

I don't know if this really adds to the discussion, but for whatever reason your comment gave me reason to go ahead and give some personal background (nothing messy, thankfully). I'll not be offended in the slightest if none but me finds this worth reading.

Almost 30 years ago, I "found religion" (Southern-Baptist Christianity, to be precise). I'd been raised in the church all my live and even considered myself a Christian, but I was never as devout as my family was..

Here's an example of why I find religion suspect.
There are so many religions and sect, divisions, schisms etc. They all claim to be right, and offer the adherent the received wisdom about the nature of God and the right way to live your life; to achieve goodness and salvation; that there is but one god. That being the case why is there not more agreement?