Perchance

Wow. Thank you. That is a very nice compliment.

And you're welcome.

I must admit I hadn't thought about that (I was thinking more on the level of language that atheists use to describe themselves). Hmmm. Perhaps focusing on a specific harmful religious belief, and talking about the consequences, would work.

I've heard a lot of people insist that there isn't anything harmful about liberal Christianity, though, only the fundamentalist kind (or the fundamentalist branch of any religion, for that matter). Do you think that these theists don't attack atheists at all? Would just explaining to them the nature of the word "atheist," if they have a misconception about it, work?

Perhaps different tactics would need to be adopted concerning what kind of theist you're talking to?

That is pretty powerful. Unfortunately, I've rarely heard something of that caliber. The level of education about drunk driving in my high school, for example, was limited to, "Let's not drink and drive" and "Alcoholism is a disease."

I'm having trouble thinking of any specific consequence, though, that would provide the same kind of warning for religion without describing the religion as a cult. (Of course, it may be cultish, but starting off that way probably isn't the best tactic to get anyone to listen to me ). Perhaps, "Imagine how the family of an abortion doctor would feel to learn how she had been killed on the way to work," would be something along the same lines, but not all Christians are that extreme.

Did you have a specific group or belief in mind?

Hmmm. Yes, perhaps describing the consequences of, for example, an outed atheist losing his job would work if we could then turn around and ask the theist to imagine what it would be like if that person were of his religion. It would probably take developing a definite vocabulary about it, though, and making some pretty delicate distinctions.

Yeah, I think so. Just not coming up with anything at the moment.

But then, it's not like we're going to solve all the problems of theist-atheist relations in a few hours .

I've never understood that part either. But apparently the "logic" goes something like this:

Satan is the embodiment of all that's not godly; ergo, he's the embodiment of things like lust and "worldly" pleasures. So, if atheists do things like have sex without thinking about sin (and some fundies seem to think that all atheists hold drunken orgies in their houses every weekend, or maybe every day), then they are doing things that Satan wants them to do, and are therefore worshipping Satan, or "in bondage" to Satan.

I suppose it's a mixture: not only belief in Satan, but wrong impressions of atheism and atheists, and puritanical beliefs, all tied up in a neat little package.

I'm not sure how to begin attacking it.

-Perchance.

Amos

Go you girl. You're a lot of fun and just be glad somebody put some fire in you.

No, atheism is not a religion and you don't have to prove anything to anybody. I actually think that your four letter word is a good way to settle the argument. I honestly do.

Amos

The reason for this is that the divine essence we refer to as God resides within our own mind. To come to this realization is to transcend our own human understanding.

To be sure, if the bible urges us to obtain the mind of God, the mind of God must be available to us.

john_v_h

Here is an argument I used in a recent letter:

1. I can only believe in a finite number of things.
2. It is impossible to believe in things about which I have no knowledge.
3. There are an infinite number of things about which I have no knowledge.
4. Therefore, I do not believe in an infinite number of things.
5. Assuming that disbelief in the existence of a thing were equivalent to belief in the nonexistence of a thing, then I would hold an infinite number of beliefs about nonexistent things.
6. But I cannot believe an infinite number of things (1.); therefore, the assumption of 5. is false.

diana

That'll leave 'em scratching their heads!

Of course, all they have to do is ask you to provide a proof of (1) and/or (2). Both of these premises are arguable.

I also think your argument scrambles "belief" and "faith." We tend to use them interchangeably, but the meanings under discussion are quite different. For example, I believe I'm sitting at my computer typing right now (based on evidence of my senses which I accept out of pragmatism), but I cannot have faith that this is so because this "belief" doesn't involve any expectation despite the evidence of my senses based entirely upon hope.

The usual comeback I encounter when I insist I don't have faith is this: "Everybody has faith." Not all insist that I have faith in "no-God"--an argument which requires a special kind of stupid--but most will argue that I have "faith" that when I turn on a light switch, for instance, the light will come on; that when I walk across the street, some madman won't run me over...and so on.

I see this as a form of equivocation of the word "faith," but have a hard time finding an effective way to communicate this idea to the sort of person who'd make this argument. There are some things that I'm at a loss to explain, and one is answering a person who'd say, in all seriousness: "You have faith that a car won't run over you when you cross the street and I have faith in God. What's the difference?"

Honestly, this argument is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin answering. Something like, "Let me get this straight. My reasonable expectation that a car I can see and hear and physically avoid, if necessary, with a driver that more than likely isn't a psychopath whose self-interest is served by avoiding running over me in an exercise I must perforce occasionally undergo anyway is somehow equivalent, in your mind with your belief in an omni-everything being (which you have no evidence for and is logically impossible) with no beginning and no end who is Love itself and is fighting with the Forces of Evil over the fate of your soul so he can 'save' you from his own eternal revenge? What?!"

Hence the need to differentiate between "belief"--which would include you thinking you can cross the street safely this morning--and "faith"--belief in an invisible puppetmaster and his Armageddon.

It is impossible to believe in things about which I have no knowledge.

Ah...but that is what faith is for.

d

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

diana

Pardon me. I'm just thinking aloud...

A side note about "faith": most Xns who profess to have it don't fully understand what it means, according to the bible (a belief based entirely upon hope and perforce without any physical evidence).

I say this because I enjoy asking theists why they believe in God (because it usually shuts them up, but also because I like to watch their faces as they struggle with this one). The standard "answers" I get are:

1. Because all this (nature) couldn't have made itself. (Their reasoning is flawed, of course, but they think they have evidence--which negates actual faith.)

2. Because the bible says so. (Again...bad logic but the person sees this as evidence.)

3. The bible is flawless even though it was written over many centuries by many different men. (I separate this one from 2, because not everybody argues the Infallible Word. Flawed in the "flawless" bit, of course, but God's Perfect Word is seen by many as evidence of God's existence.)

4. Faith. (And I say, "How do you know what to believe in?" and they say, "The bible tells me." Back to 2.)

In short, if you pursue the question, you'll find that all of them think they have a good reason for believing in their god, which means they don't have real faith that he exists, at least.

Of course, perhaps I'm confusing two different objects of faith in my arguments, to be fair. The bible says (Heb 11:6), "And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." So there are two things that must be taken on faith: that God exists and that he'll bring you presents at Xmas if you're a good little boy.

In order for it to be real faith, though, by definition, your only reason for believing may be your hope itself. But how do you know what to believe in?

The more I think about it, the more I think that actual faith is logically impossible. I don't think you can hold any belief without having a root cause for the belief itself. Even the first man who came up with the notion that some mighty being needed appeasing had a reason (perhaps to explain a freak storm that wiped out the village, or because he didn't understand thunder and lightning).

What do y'all think? By biblical definition, is real faith possible? If so, how?

d

diana

Perchance,

I'm not really thinking about any specific group, I'm afraid, other than those who insist that atheism is a religion. So far as I know, they come from all manner of backgrounds.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your observation that these people cannot imagine anyone not being religious, not having some sort of superstitious belief. Perhaps the root of the problem is that they refuse to examine this one false assumption.

So I wonder...if everybody has faith, then, why is the bible so adamant that we have it? If the condition of faith is as unavoidable as they are assuming it is, why would it be necessary to preach it? You don't read about them insisting constantly that man breathe air, do you?

I've heard a lot of people insist that there isn't anything harmful about liberal Christianity, though, only the fundamentalist kind (or the fundamentalist branch of any religion, for that matter).

Oh yes. The lesser evil.

Do you think that these theists don't attack atheists at all? Would just explaining to them the nature of the word "atheist," if they have a misconception about it, work?

Probably not, I think. Even if you explain what "theist" means, then explain how the prefix "a-" alters its meaning, you are still up against a plethora of connotations they have unwittingly attached to the word. The only way I know of to get them to see past it is to demonstrate something to the contrary.

An example of what I mean is the old riddle: A man and his son are in a car accident. The man is killed and the boy is rushed to the hospital in critical condition. The surgeon on duty takes one look at him and says, "I can't operate on him! That's my son!" How is this possible?

This riddle gives most people fits because of the connotations they attach to words subconsciously. Until they encounter this riddle, most have never even realized that they attach the characteristic of [male] to "surgeon."

By the same token, I think the only way to change people's opinions of what "atheist" means is for us to to make known that we are and to go about our business, live a respectable life, and demonstrate our ethics so people are forced to rethink the connotations they unwittingly attach to the term.

The level of education about drunk driving in my high school, for example, was limited to, "Let's not drink and drive" and "Alcoholism is a disease."

Sad, isn't it? I think the only way most people absorb such information is when/if the information is somehow made intensely personal to them. Unfortunately, this often comes in the form of avoidable tragedy. The greater the bias, the more personal the truth must be before the person will rethink his mental schema.

d

Perchance

Hi Diana.

Darn. I was hoping maybe one group was more tolerant than others... and maybe that's true, but I suppose not tolerant enough to accept that atheists just exist, and leave it at that.

I've never really understood faith, either, since when I ask about it it turns out to be tangled up with knowledge and belief. If I could find just one theist to give me a coherent definition of faith, I would be happy.

On the other hand, maybe its very incoherency is faith's best defense. Perhaps if it could be forced into one definition, it would be easier to crush.

Cynical? Me?

That sums up my feelings quite well. .

Yes, probably. I also think a large part of the problem is that "atheist" seems to be among that rare company of words that can completely change one person's perception of you if you utter it. (For some people, "homosexual" is another). Once someone knows that I'm a non-believer, I think that my next problem is convincing them not to run away from me .

I'm ashamed of how much time it took me to figure out that riddle when I first encountered it. And it seemed so simple, too.

I wonder: if someone devised a similar riddle concerning atheists, how long would it take theists to figure it out? If we told people that, for example, one of three people- an atheist, a Christian, and a Muslim- may have robbed a bank, and who should the police investigate first, how many people would answer "the atheist?"

Although that might vary too much, depending on religious background, to be useful...

Again, I think the main problem with this is people giving us a chance to show that our lives aren't that different from others' once they hear the word. I saw the way some long-time friends of a man I knew slightly in college reacted when he announced he was bisexual. It was as if he had become a completely different person.

Hopefully, "atheist" wouldn't produce that reaction, at least not in everyone.

Unfortunately, I think this is harder with teenagers because so many of them still have the "immortality complex." They can't conceive of dying. And the schools are very careful not to "distress" them. Showing a video of a violent death might help, but it probably wouldn't be allowed.

-Perchance.

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

joedad

Their reasoning is only flawed insofar as they think that only their god can be so "eternal." The obvious response is to ask them why they believe a god can be eternal and not the stuff of the universe. And of course, creating something from nothing makes such people nihilistic.

Believers often accuse atheists of being nihilists. I'm told, "You believe in nothing!" But after some effort I am usually able to persuade them of the opposite, that they are the nihilists, not myself. It can actually work on those willing to dialogue. Anymore, I even look forward to this turn in the conversation.

I don't try to convince believers anymore that their god is unreal, but only that belief in a creator-god makes them nihilists, and that in turn thy have a double standard, one for their god, and one for everything else.

Works for me.

joe

diana

joedad,

Believers often accuse atheists of being nihilists. I'm told, "You believe in nothing!" But after some effort I am usually able to persuade them of the opposite, that they are the nihilists, not myself.

Interesting. How do you do this?

Someone pointed out that he'd never actually encountered a nihilist--that to the best of his knowledge, all "nihilists" are fictional constructs of theists who are making exaggerated points about nonbelief. (And I think he had a valid point.)

How does that work, anyway? "You don't believe in my god so you must not believe in anything?" That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

d

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>