seebs

Same reason that anyone's beliefs, when directly questioned by someone who doesn't accept them, come across as tired platitudes.

Demigawd

Perhaps. But also consider the position I hold in which I grew up with those tired platitudes being the order of the day, and accepting them as truths, because I was told over and over again they were true, until the time came when too much evidence contradicted them, and I had to concede that faith in Christianity was revealed as nothing more than culturally-reinforced stubbornness and prejudice.

livius drusus

It was obvious to me from the seriousness and detail in your OP that you were looking for answers, not an Elsewhere style brawl, hence my choice to move it here. I should have changed the title before sending it up the ladder, but my error notwithstanding, you're not quite powerless. You can always PM or email the mods to request your modification. In fact, I have already done so.

seebs

I think that's an overgeneralization. I know people who hold to metaphysical naturalism for the same reasons... The mere fact that mere stubbornness *can* lead to a given position doesn't mean that's the only way to get there. I mean, from here, dismissing faith as "nothing more than..." sounds like a tired platitude; I've heard it before.

People are not very good at divorcing themselves from their positions.

ex-xian

I am very much inclined to agree with demigawd. Perhaps this subject is an important one to me because my deconversion is still so new. When I first began posting here, it was with the intent to find the truth about religious matters. Unless someone is here to evangelize, I see no other reason for a xian to post. But when their collective backs are against the wall, they seem to bail.

I suppose that it's much easier to retreat under the covers of faith when one is unable to answer challenges to one's belief, however I believe that this is a dangerous thing to do; it can only lead to cognitive dissonance. It was the increasing pressure upon me that forced me to try to force my faith to line up with science and reason that eventually caused the whole thing to bust wide open, to mix my metaphors. Even Jesus said that one cannot store new wine in old wineskins. It is my firm belief that when a xian bails on a debate, it is not b/c he or she has lost interest, but b/c the person has been confronted with truths that they cannot accept without a drastic upheavel of their life.

ex-xian

[johnny carson]I did not know that.[/johnny carson]

Many thanks!

seebs

In my case, it's a combination of things. I'm chatty, I enjoy debate, and so on... but it's just for fun, in general.

Wow, and I thought telling people what their motives were out of unbridled arrogance was a predominantly Christian trait! When atheists bail on debates, is it because they've been confronted with truths that they cannot accept? Of course not. There's dozens of reasons to bail. I'll bail on a debate if I think it's going in circles, or if it looks like it's not going anywhere new, or for any of a dozen other reasons. I might bail on this debate because CF's servers will be back up, or because I'm going to be writing my book soon.

It would be reasonable to believe that such a thing happens *sometimes*. To believe that it is the primary reason for people to bail on debates smacks of the exact same traits you're deriding in others; a desperate need to have your position be somehow "better" than the other one.

Most people, whatever their beliefs, can't actually hold them up to the kind of intense scrutiny outsiders can apply. Eventually, the constant indirect attacks and such are just too painful, and you decide you'd rather do something else. That's true whether or not your position is coherent, or true, or well-considered, or anything; it's just frustrating.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't be the one to deny that I've seen people do what you describe. I've seen fundies and atheists do it, I've seen liberal Christians do it... But of course, since I'm mostly a liberal Christian, I see it *more* in fundies and atheists, which is probably an indicator that I have the same filters everyone else does.

Demigawd

*sigh*

Yeah, and "some of my best friends are black" as well. Simply taking my stance, and twisting it to mirror yours will not do.

Fact: I am an agnostic, not an atheist. However, I have strong sympathy with atheism because it's closer to observable, personable experience than any brand of theism. Atheism, supported by naturalism (forgetting the fallacy called metaphysics), is much more honest than the wishful thinking that lends credence to theism.

The burden is on those who proclaim there is such a thing as metaphysics, supernaturalism, or whatever else you want to term it. For me to accept a Christian stance as credible means I must accept Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddist, Paganism (of the thousand different variaties), etc., as credible. This I have honestly done.

What I'm left with is an understanding that we humans have a powerful imagination which fills the holes of our knowledge with extraordinarily fanciful explanations.

seebs

Huh?

This reads exactly like what the fundies always preach, only you've used the word "not" a few times.

It's obvious that metaphysics as a field of inquiry exists. Whether it *denotes* anything, well, that's another matter. However, no one owes you anything, any more than you owe them anything. No one is obliged to support a position to your standards in order to hold that position.

Burden of proof applies only when someone is trying to convince you. Some people might decide that, given how firmly committed you are to your position, there's not much point, and go look for more interesting debates.

That's one common interpretation, yes. So what?

ex-xian

First, I'm not an atheist; I am still torn between panentheism and agnosticism (I can't decide what I believe about kant's "in and of themselves" argument). Have you had "conversations" with the individuals that I described in my OP?

So you deride me for assuming things about others while you assume that I have to be making these statements out of a "desperate" attempt to make myself feel better?

xians are commanded in the bible to prove all things and to always be ready to give a defense of their faith. When I was a xian, I saw it as my god imposed duty to seek the truth. I'm a truth-junkie, blame it on those two scriptures and on carl sagan. I just have a problem understanding why a xian would come around here unless they were truly seeking the truth or were trying to make converts. Either way, bailing on a debate that is neither boring nor going in circles is fruitless.