Wyrdsmyth

Andrew Theist,

I’ve noticed that many theists would rather try to "turn the tables" and attack what they’ve often had to defend against. This seems to be your tactic. Instead of defending your theism, and producing evidence and arguments for your positive claim, you continuously try to turn the tables and attack atheism. Even your website is titled “Challenging Atheism.” And that is why you nitpick about the definition of atheism. You want to get away from defending your own positive claim, and attack the questioners. Instead of defending your claim that “there is a god,” and why you believe in this you would rather act as if we atheists have a competing positive claim which is “there is no god,” and present these as two rival but epistemologically equal worldviews.

But now, when you come up against someone who won’t let you control the course of the conversation, you want to take your ball and go home. I simply won’t grant you that atheism is a competing positive claim that needs to be defended just as much as theism does. You want to bog the conversation down in semantic nitpicking over the correct definition of atheism in order to establish precisely this. But no matter what tactic you use, I simply won’t grant that atheism is a “knowledge system” – because it isn’t. It merely means not-theism, the negation of theism, the lack of theism... all of which are symbolically equivalent. If p stands for theism, ~p is atheism. Stop trying to make atheism into a q.

If you think leprechauns exists, and you want me to believe in them, you need to show the proof. You can’t say, “Well, I think you need to defend your knowledge system based on a world in which leprechauns don’t exist!” That’s just absurd… it’s you trying to unnecessarily complicate the matter. It’s an obfuscation, intended to shift attention away from the fact that you don’t really have any proof. If you think fairies exist, and you’re trying convince me of that, it’s up to you to produce the evidence. It’s not up to me to somehow demonstrate that they don’t exist.

The same applies to any and all positive claims, about all entities... natural or supernatural. Maybe it irritates you that so many atheists make analogies between your god and “silly” supernatural creatures, like leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus and unicorns. But those entities are usually invoked to elicit an intuition from you – not irritation. The intuition is that no one expects YOU to believe in those fairy-tale beings, or the gods of Greek and Norse mythology, and so on, without any proof for them. Most of us share a disbelief or lack of belief (whatever you want to call it) in those mythological creatures. So, we atheists are just trying to get you to consider that your god may be the product of similar myth-making.

You line up well with one of the answers of my original post, as Hobbs pointed out. You fall in the camp of option (A). You seem very insistent that atheists "don’t like" the idea of God, and reject it for that reason. You wrote that maybe we find God "abhorrent on personal grounds." But I already addressed that in option (A) in my original post. It is one of the three major reasons that theists seem to think we are atheists: “We don’t want it to be true.” But speaking for myself, it’s not that I don’t want it to be true, I just don’t find enough evidence for it. There are many things that I don’t want to be true, yet which I believe. I would prefer to believe the Holocaust never happened, and that Pearl Harbor was never bombed. Yet, I believe those things happened. Conversely, there are things I'd like to be true, but don't believe are... like an afterlife which rewards people for good deeds in this life. It may make some people feel better, to slap that god label up on the big, cold, unknown. But that, in and of itself, isn’t a reason to start believing. And not liking something isn't a reason to not believe it. That's why people who disagree about whether whether a proposition is true or not need to focus on proof, not preference.

Maybe you think I’m being arrogant or condescending in claiming to know what theists think. But I have reasons for presenting those pre-made choices – I’ve heard them all used by theists before, in one form or another. I can’t read minds, I’m only re-stating answers theists have given themselves. Maybe it irritates you that I seem to be stuffing answers in your mouth, by presenting those options. But I did say in my original post that if you have an answer that differs from those presented, please feel free to state your own.

Notably absent from the options was the one answer that Helen gave, which was

(D) It's the conclusion you have come to from assessing all the evidence available to you for and against the existence of God.

Helen is a notable exception; she listens to us atheists, and takes our reasons at face value. If more people were as open-minded as she seems to be, we’d have a lot less misunderstanding in this world. Instead of insisting that we atheists are either self-deluded, deluded by devils, or using the wrong approach, she actually listens to us, which is all most of us really want. Personally, I don’t want agreement so much as understanding. I don’t want to be misrepresented or falsely caricatured. I don’t want theists stuffing answers in my mouth that are not the ones I would give, and then holding their hands over their ears when I try to talk.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

ecco

From Andrew_theist
A “naturalist explanation” for the beginning of the universe? We don’t know how the universe began. We can live with that. We do not have to create a make believe god to explain it. Long before Christianity, long before Judaism, man invented gods to explain what they did not know: Gods created the earth, gods made the universe, gods made it rain, gods guided the stars, gods caused the sun to rise and set, etc, etc.

When a naturalist explanation for the cause of rain became common knowledge, belief in the rain gods went down the drain. We may never come to understand the origins of our universe, so I guess some people will always prefer to say “god” rather than “I don’t know”. I guess that it’s more reassuring somehow.

My preference for a naturalist explanation is that I’m quite comfortable in saying “I don’t know” regarding the origins of the universe. I also prefer the naturalist explanation for the age of the universe, for the evolution of mankind, for the reasons that people “on the bottom” of a sphere don’t fall off. Science has come a long way in answering questions since man first invented gods.

Your comment “because they just as soon there be no meddling deity raining on their parade”, is really nonsense. I glanced at some of the posts on your website. Some people there like to take polls. Have you done a poll on the “meddling” question? What were the results from atheists? I have been a member of this board for a long time and cannot remember any atheist giving this as a reason for their atheism. Take the time, if you’re really interested, to look at the “Atheists testimony” thread in the Secular Lifestyle forum. Seven pages of reasons atheists lost their beliefs in religion. Then tell us how many converted because we didn’t want god meddling in our affairs. Do you believe that Santa Clause meddles in your affairs? Probably not. Probably because you don’t believe in Santa Clause. You don’t believe a non-existent entity meddles in your affairs, neither do we.

If there is meddling on my parade, if comes mostly from right wing conservative Christians who use THEIR VERSION of Christianity to impose their narrow views on everyone else. Two quick examples: Prohibition (I still can’t buy hard alcohol on Sundays or get a bloody mary with Sunday brunch before 1:00 PM); Anti-abortionists.

brighid

Science is not static and unmoving; it is ever changing and evolving. Science seeks to negate itself, not prove itself correct. The things we know today through the discoveries and advances of science will not be the same things we will come to know 20, 200 or 2,000 years from now. Unless of course, over that time period a particular theory or parts of that theory cannot be negated with exhaustive trials! How much as Christianity changed in 2,000 years – except when forced to and very often forced to by the advances of science?

As an atheist, and as one who places high authority in science and it’s findings, I know that perhaps even as soon as tomorrow science will make a discovery that may possibly turn everything we know about a particular subject on it’s ear (for instance gamma bursts within our own galaxy and those at the farthest distances of the universe). Science will be forced to adapt to this new evidence and it will change. I expect this and welcome this. This is as it should be. Perhaps one day science will advance to a point where they discover this god of yours, or perhaps a different god completely different from the Judeo-Christian one, and perhaps none at all. I doubt I will live to see the day that such a thing happens. My mind certainly wanders to what life will be like in the future and I hope that science and mankind will advance to a point where divisive labels are considered archaic and we are able to tap the full human potential of all human beings. I hope that someday we are able to view our neighbor as he is – our brother or sister and treat them better than we would treat our own family – depending on what kind of family you were brought up in – and therefore see each individual human as unique, but interconnected, worthy of protection, freedom, respect and dignity. In this life I will work to help create those opportunities for future generations and hopefully I will leave a legacy that will bring those seeds to fruition, even if for only a miniscule portion of this world and it’s inhabitants (human or otherwise.)

But today, with the knowledge I possess I cannot put faith in something that appears to be arbitrary, cruel and in many cases immoral – and in this I mean the Judeo-Christian faiths that dominate our world cultures. If I earnestly search for the truth, with as little bias as humanly possible, and I come to a conclusion that the god of the Bible either doesn’t exist or is not worthy of my worship – and yet this alleged god cannot see my earnest search, done with honesty and lots of hard work and judges me by a belief rather than my actions as a human being – well, then I am damned to hell and I will go there with my head held high for I will give into tyranny simply because there is a god label on it. If this is not good enough for your god, so be it. If this is not good enough for the theist – then I truly feel sorry for the theist. Judge me not by the labels you wish to fit to me, or in this case a definition contrary to what I define myself as, but rather judge me by the only things that are representative of ones character – actions. Let my actions be my words. I wonder who would surprise you?

And please, don’t bash Helen! If anything, she deserves the utmost praise because out of all the Christians who frequent this forum she is by far the best representation of what a Christian aught to be! Or better yet, what people aught to be. She is kind and considerate to all people and truly listens and considers the points of view of others, even when contrary to her own. A lack of belief in god needs no apologetics, for there is nothing to apologize for. And if for a moment, you place the shoe on the other foot and see through the eyes of an atheist and take the disdain you now have and apply it to Christian apologetics, perhaps you too will gain some insight. Please understand that a vast majority of us have been in your shoes and we understand your perspective, intimately, perhaps even more intimately than most believers in many cases but you cannot understand the opposing perspective because you have yet to walk a mile in our shoes.


Brighid

HelenM

Oh, I expect I do it only to annoy people like you, Andrew.

Funny, I thought that whether I was a believer had to do with my beliefs. Silly me

love
Helen

Dr. Retard

Regarding the whole weak atheism / strong atheism thing: I should hope that if there's one thing in the whole world that is obviously, manifestly, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt stipulative or conventional or "up to us", it's the damn definition of a philosophical term. Live and learn, I guess.

In any case, here are some ways of dealing with people who insist that they've unearthed the "true" meaning of a stipulative term:

1. Make them a gift of the word. "OK, you're right on about the meaning of 'atheism'. I was talking about 'schmatheism' the whole time, by mistake".

2. Continue to argue with them, insisting that your definition is the true one, and hope that after enough time, they will begin to sense the futility of the enterprise and re-examine their assumptions.

3. Find their bed and take a shit on it.

[edited for clarity]

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Hello Wyrdsmyth,

There is really no reason for me to respond to this post since you made no attempt to respond to mine. Nonetheless you bring up some interesting points so I will comment briefly.

I’ve noticed that many theists would rather try to "turn the tables" and attack what they’ve often had to defend against. This seems to be your tactic. Instead of defending your theism, and producing evidence and arguments for your positive claim, you continuously try to turn the tables and attack atheism. Even your website is titled “Challenging Atheism.” And that is why you nitpick about the definition of atheism. You want to get away from defending your own positive claim, and attack the questioners. Instead of defending your claim that “there is a god,” and why you believe in this you would rather act as if we atheists have a competing positive claim which is “there is no god,” and present these as two rival but epistemologically equal worldviews.

The title of this thread is why are we atheists? And that is what I was responding to. Were it titled why are you a theist and I elected to respond I would be on the hook for providing such reasons. I don’t act as if atheists have a competing positive claim, atheists do have a competing positive claim. They (you) are entering the thought into the market place of ideas that this world, our lives and the universe are best explained (a theism) without God. When I as a theist promote that such is best explained with God then I defend that statement. Again this is part of the rationalizing and creative imagining some atheists indulge in to avoid defending and being accountable for the thoughts they enter into the market place of ideas. Since you won’t listen to me maybe you will listen to other atheists.

What is an Atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.
Richard Carrier
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/atheism.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/atheism.html</a>

skepdic.com/atheism.html

Atheism*
Atheism is the disbelief in God. An atheist must believe that humans created God rather than the other way around. To say that man created or invented God is to say that the vast majority of humans are deluded. It should go without saying that being deluded is not the same as being mentally unbalanced, but since some defenders of belief in God (e.g., D.E. Trueblood in The Trustworthiness of Religious Experience) do not seem to know this, we mention it.

*Note: in this entry we are limiting our denial of the existence of God to the denial of the God of the major western religions. [/i]

But now, when you come up against someone who won’t let you control the course of the conversation, you want to take your ball and go home. I simply won’t grant you that atheism is a competing positive claim that needs to be defended just as much as theism does…

The conversation that you engaged in was why are we atheists? Which is what I have responded to. You are controlling the course of conversation and shifting it to some discussion about a defense of theism.

It isn’t a matter of me taking my ball and going home, why should I feel obligated to respond to a thread you are changing in midstream? If you are interested in my reasons for theism you can visit my website and view the debate I had regarding the existence of God.

You line up well with one of the answers of my original post, as Hobbs pointed out. You fall in the camp of option (A). You seem very insistent that atheists "don’t like" the idea of God, and reject it for that reason.

There really aren't any atheists, since deep in our heart of hearts, everybody knows that God exists. But some people repress that knowledge, because they don't want it to be true.

I’ll admit a very subtle difference. I used the word creative rationalizing not repressing.

Maybe you think I’m being arrogant or condescending in claiming to know what theists think. But I have reasons for presenting those pre-made choices – I’ve heard them all used by theists before, in one form or another. I can’t read minds, I’m only re-stating answers theists have given themselves. Maybe it irritates you that I seem to be stuffing answers in your mouth, by presenting those options. But I did say in my original post that if you have an answer that differs from those presented, please feel free to state your own.

No, I think the tension occurred when I presented reasons for my response.

Helen is a notable exception; she listens to us atheists, and takes our reasons at face value. If more people were as open-minded as she seems to be, we’d have a lot less misunderstanding in this world. Instead of insisting that we atheists are either self-deluded, deluded by devils, or using the wrong approach, she actually listens to us, which is all most of us really want. Personally, I don’t want agreement so much as understanding. I don’t want to be misrepresented or falsely caricatured. I don’t want theists stuffing answers in my mouth that are not the ones I would give, and then holding their hands over their ears when I try to talk.

I spend a great deal of time visiting atheist websites, examining the claims of many atheists. As I mentioned a few posts back many atheists reject theism for some well thought out reasons. I have chatted with a few who I felt had no axe to grind and were willing to concede a point when one was made. On the other hand I have heard and scrutinized many reasons for atheism that are very poorly thought out and upon close examination fall apart like cheap watches. I find far too many people decide for atheism for such reasons and never examine their own claims with the same skepticism they apply to theism. I find that many accept any reason for atheism without applying a shred of critical thinking. Also many reject the reasons of theism because they have bought into an alternative belief such as naturalism, which excludes such evidence on a priori grounds.

PS. I agree that many theists believe what they do for the reasons you cited. I agree many believe in God because they wish there to be one. It is a part of human nature to have our thinking influenced by wants and desires. Since I don't think atheists have risen above human nature their disbelief can be influenced by desire also.

GunnerJ

Really?

Andrew_theist

To the rest,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I have read them all and would love to respond only time doesn't permit.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Photocrat

IANABI (I am not a Biblical Inerrantist -- I'm not even convinced that that doctrine is scriptural; best reference to it is a later document, probably not written by one of the apostles & likely referring only to the LXX...) But you probably already knew that.

If I define "natural" broadly enough, it encompasses God :] There have been times that I've seen it invoked in such a way as to be logically equivalent to "the natural is whatever exists" or "whatever we percieve" ...

Not necessarily; that is, if you intend to offer some kind of evidentiary arguement for God...

Not one you'll catch me using. Especially since I happen to be one of them... :] I'm certainly not "too biased against God" [if anything, I have to defend myself from the objection that I'm biased *for* God :]

Which is why I have no such presupposition :]

HelenM

So...God told you to come here then told you you don't have time to answer what people post to you?

What sort of a God is that, Andrew? What sort of message are you trying to send. Uh, Jesus died for me and I don't have time for you - is that Christlike? Why come here at all if you don't have time to interact with people? Just to advertise your own site?

It doesn't really matter what I think of you or what you think of me. Everyone else will form their own opinions from our posts, won't they?

*sigh*

love
Helen