Magus55

The problem comes when atheists tell theists that they have to be wrong automatically because they didn't use the atheist's "method". I see a lot of bias coming from atheists regarding the way we draw different conclusions. I'm convinced God is real. I came to the conclusion my way. But an atheist will come back saying, no God isn't real because you didn't use "appropriate" science or evidence to find out. Atheists have to be right, and can't accept that we are confident in God's existence; they just claim we are stupid and irrational.

seebs

This is exactly what "we" (speaking broadly) do to them. They say "I haven't found anything that convinces me of God's existence", and they get angry demands that they use methodology they've never had much success with.

rfwu

I believe that there is a good and bad side to every group, and it's not good to judge a group by it's bad side.

I'm Agnostic, and I guess I'm fromt he good side, though it's nearly impossible to prove that.

beyelzu

Magus, it seems to me that we metaphysical naturalists can point to how good science is at describing the universe. Note how many of us condemn the pseudoscience used to back paranormal claims.

Faith just doesnt seem to be an effective method for convincing others, just like subjective experiences that some theist's use as testimony of god's existence, it really isnt convincing to other people of a scientific bent.

And, to bring this back more inline with the op, I agree with seebs, these differeing methods do lead to a gap between xians and atheists.

Personally, I can not accept faith as a means of creating a worldveiw, so maybe it isnt a straw atheist argument, for me anyway.

Gurdur

Tiddely om pom pom. much has gone on since I last checked.
Let's deal with it:
That is only the point when dealing with claims like Magus55's.
It has no relevance at all to describing the inner mental world of feelings and ethics; which is why religion exists, as well as secular humanism.
Claims such as those made by Magus55 fall into the natural theology category; a crossing-point between science and theology and philosophy.
It's fascinating that Magus55 has resurrected the old Omphalos argument first published by Gosse in 1857, but it's completely irrelevant to the huge majority of Christians, and therefore stereotyping based on that is doomed to failure --- even when Gosse came out with his theory in 1857, much of the main criticism was from other Christians, let alone anyone else.
Debating simplistic natural theology simply doesn't address at all the claims made by the great majority of Christians, which today fall into a fideistic category.But the problem in this thread is atheists also using faith.
heh.
Were more atheists here to actually use logic and stringent naturalist metaphysics, we'ld all be better off.
Most Christians would find the arguments most commonly used here as simply irrelevant to them --- and the concentration here on Creationists (a minority) and the demands from some atheists that all Christians should be Biblical literalists make atheism simply irrelevant to the actual concerns and feelings of many, perhaps most, Christians.
*shrug*
Whether or not you accept it, you still have to address the reasons why so many religionists use faith as a basis. Apparently it means something to them, and you must address why it means something to them

contracycle

[Easy. What it means is they can just believe themselves to be good and moral without having to do anything. It's a cowards way out of moral dilemmas.

You came to this specific thread to advance this lazy straw atheist stereotype?

Gurdur

And that was a glaring and false over-generalization, wasn't it ?
In other words, you've simply created an unsubstantiated stereotype and then made a subjective judgment about it --- and that is neither logical, nor scientific, nor therefore in keeping with stringent naturalist metaphysics.

I came to this thread to debunk some specific false claims and to advance discussion.

seebs

This is supposed to be the thread for hatred directed at strawman stereotypes of atheists. Please stay on topic.

beyelzu

I was pointing out that it may not be a staw atheist argument, so this part of your post is kind of lost on me.

Ok, I was pointing out my personal view, why I need to address other's use of faith to describe the universe is beyond me, So, my question to you, gurdur, is why do I have to address the reasons why religionists us faith?

for the hell of it.

My stab at it would probably something like, there was a time when science and god werent antithetical, in the modern age faith helps put belief firmly outside the realm of science, and thus resistant to science.


In earlier times the call for faith could be used to get a member to remain in a particular sect when faced with other, perhaps more appealling options.

Gurdur

Because if you don't, not only do you fail to address the problem, you also reinforce the lazy atheist stereotype picture among theists.
Wrong.
Faith is a rather integral part of human nature: it's essential to love and pair-bonding , for example.
Additionally, most Christians today appear fideistic --- that is, their faith appears quite on a live-and-let-live basis with science. Most Christians today in the Western world accept various forms of evolution --- they simply aren't Creationists in the generally accepted definition.

My point to you and others is that by using false stereotypes of Christians, and even demanding that Christians should adhere to those sterotypes (for example, the rather constant demand around here that Christians should be Biblical literalists, and therefore cherry-pickers are bad), the lazy atheist stereotype gets reinforced among Christians --- and that renders atheism irrelevant to them, since it's simply not talking to them, but to a strawman.
Wildernesse and Seebs have made that point a lot of times.
The outside world makes that point a lot more.

A false stereotype of your own; the history of religions shows much experimenting with thoughts and forms of faith.