streamline

I have been following the debate between Krueger & McHugh with strong interest ... or rather, it was with strong interest that I initially tuned in when the debate was announced. However, the moment it was revealed that McHugh was going to go with some form of the ontological argument, well, my interest hit the floor with a resounding thud. Ugh. As an atheist who looks forward to reading (and critiquing) the best the god-talkers can muster in their and our forums, there is nothing like the mix of disappointment and disgust when yet another version of the ontologicalifragilisticexpialidosis song and dance is trotted out as proof for the existence of a god-thing (or not-thing, I suppose).

[The many and varied flaws in this argument have already been flogged well enough and frequently enough in previous posts, so I shall not repeat them in mine. McHugh's god seems to be one that most theists would not recognize, and certainly not the one Krueger anticipated when he prepared his inaugural post. In fact, I can't quite figure just what McHugh's god is good for -- er, excuse me, not-good for besides a vague, warm-fuzzy tingle that piggy-backs somewhere inside that fleeting and pathetic intui-wish that *shucks* the universe luvs me]

Anyway, the reason I didn't just tack the preceding commentary onto the Krueger-McHugh Debate thread is because I am after something much more elusive and maddening to me (and I am curious to read what you all think). More to the point, I read philosophical paper after philosophical paper from these armchair Truth seekers and theists, and maybe it's just me, but after proffering yet another anemic variant of some tired and long-since demolished argument, or re-treading the now well-shelled ground of previously shot-down god-talkers, they can't seem to help themselves and almost always conclude their papers/sermons with some breed of “..since I have shown blah blah blah in the preceding piece, therefore, God exists.” Sure, some confidence in one’s assertions would seem needed, certainly if they are being put forth as truth (or The Truth) in a critical forum. Yet, there seems to be an unsaid corollary to this matter – that being, should someone come along and poke holes in said assertions, then the conclusion that followed from them can no longer be held as true. So, if I am for the moment to take it all literally (and no doubt, be terribly naïve), when this happens, does the theist who made the assertions suddenly become a non-theist? At least, until he or she can repair or remake the damaged argument, and regain his or her confidence in the truth of its conclusion? Is their situation akin to that of me and my recently expired CA driver’s license? At one point, in the recent past, I was driving around a legally certified driver. Then, purely by accident, as I was still under the impression my license was current (who the hell bothers to read such things, anyway?), I was informed by the guy behind the counter at Uhaul that I couldn’t rent their truck because my license had expired the day before. Doh! Problem was, it was Saturday, and I couldn’t get into the DMV until Monday morning, which left me running around for the rest of the weekend as an illegal driver (never mind there are plenty of them on the CA freeways). Is this the plight of the person who was a theist based on supposedly-reasoned argument(s), but upon having these arguments successfully blitzed by critics, is suddenly running about a non-theist, at least until he or she can put forth a new argument whose conclusion is (his or her) god exists? And, of course, then that argument is set upon by the critics, it falls apart, and the drama starts all over again etc al. Do these would-be theists actually endure what must be an emotional roller coaster of a ride in regards to self-identification and worldview? Great Scott! -- depending on how many times they post on the II forum, and how resourceful they are at tweaking their arguments, they might find themselves as non-theists several times before lunch. Or is it really not like that – is the success or failure of their arguments to withstand serious scrutiny from opposing viewpoints ultimately irrelevant to their belief in a god? If one can claim “faith” as a source of belief, shouldn’t he or she openly admit to forgoing any sort of reasoned stance to their theism? If so, what of this entire project? Isn’t it more than a bit disingenuous and dishonest on the theist’s part who engages in debate, if he or she also doesn’t admit to riding that roller coaster I just mentioned? That is, either they believe on faith, and we have nothing to discuss .. or they believe because of reasoned arguments, and when said arguments are soundly beaten down, their stance on the god issue must (if only temporarily) reverse. Why do I not get the feeling any debating theists would agree with this post?

Does any of this strike a chord with other atheists/non-theists? Do I make any sense? And why do these bloody driver’s license photos always end up accentuating my sleepy-eye? It's happened again, dammit.

scumble

My theory is that many "intellectual" theists are not satisfied by faith, and need to reassure themselves that they are being rational to a certain extent. Their minds want to work on concepts, and not just accept them. It gives them something for their minds to work on, endlessly chewing over the same things so they feel like they are very clever.
It's true that most of the main arguments do not stand up to real scrutiny, but it's enough to comfort a very intelligent person who really doesn't want to think he's just taking things on faith, and nothing else.

Stephen T-B

The need to believe in the supernatural has nothing to do with intelligence, which leaves the intelligent believers in it with the problem of making it seem sensible.

Since it is only sensible in terms of their need, if they are not able to admit it (unlike our very own Emotional) they are obliged to propose a mix of convoluted and spurious arguments.
Attempting to knock them down is as futile as attempting to knock over one of those big wobbly clown figures which always comes upright because it’s standing on a weighted, semi-spherical base.

Jobar

Streamline, though they are few and far between, every once in a while we *do* have posters who, when all their attempts at logical justification are beaten down and shown to be irrational, break away from their belief, and de-convert.

By and large, though, Stephen and scumble have the right of it...

pmurray

BWAHAHAHAHA! As If!

More seriously, I collect deconversion stories on my site http://www.exchristian.org . There are a couple of common themes. Fact is, we are still just naked apes and deep motivational things like religious beliefs are tied to our emotions, not our reason. Most people who deconvert do so because of emotional dissonance (I can't belive in a god that would ...).

Those of us who deconvert for intellectual reasons almost always do so not because of external argument, but as the end result of an internal quest for truth. People find their own way out - attempting to push them just doesn't work.

At least, that's my reading. These days, no one trusts argument as a legitimate way to find truth - everyone knows that a skilled lawyer can prove that black is white.

Hypnos

I think this is a very valid question. My feeling over many years of "arguing" with Xtians is that only two results occur:

(i) they get upset and cry
(ii) they disappear into the sunset, leaving me a bible and a note that says I can still be saved.

I think they argue because they naively think they can convert us, and we argue because its all terribly interesting that anyone could be so silly.

Koyaanisqatsi

There's also the problem of cognitive dissonance. The "intelligent" theist can't reconcile his/her irrational belief, so they go to great lengths to make it appear rational. The problem is, of course, that the entirety is skewed from the beginning, because it's based on a false premise that is presupposed to be true.

To them, they're arguing rationally because this initial false premise has turned a zero into a one prior to any processing; thus any crunching of zeroes and ones from that point forward is always off. The process may be the same, but the outcome will always be incorrect, because of the false initial premise.

That's why the accept circular reasoning to be valid; they have no choice. It's all circular when you begin with a presupposition of truth.

Randy X

You left out denial too.The argument cannot be refuted unless the theist achknowledges that he is delusional and impertinent.Thats an important theist criteria.God is my saviour, and his son is my heavenly saint

[rolls over and sobs in corner]

Regards

Normal

:notworthy

That actually put a picture in my head that made me laugh out loud. In the middle of work too!

Randy X

First both combatants need to give a coherent definition.Somehow in the midst of a debate, both parties get confused and the arguments turn into circular arguments.You have to be specific in your reasoning, otherwise its all meaningless.

Regards