stufte
Member
TwinIonEngines,
I wish I had the ability to argue a point as well as you do. I was going to contribute to this thread, but I can't imagine being more succinct in my wording than you are. Please continue.
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
TwinIonEngines,
I wish I had the ability to argue a point as well as you do. I was going to contribute to this thread, but I can't imagine being more succinct in my wording than you are. Please continue.
I've pretty much said my piece, but I can reiterate that I'm not even remotely speaking from an atheistic perspective here. The textual analysis I'm discussing was developed almost exclusively by devout Christians, much of it before any of us were born.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Beneficial means that the conversation contains more than dogmatic proclamations and attempts to belittle the position of the person on the other side of the table, which is 90% of what I see when I read these threads. Beneficial means that both parties leave with a greater understanding of the other side. Beneficial means honest questions designed to understand and unravel the topic at hand, and not attempts to bait or lead your opponent into some sort of trap. Beneficial means that we enter the conversation being willing to consider each other's perspective and we aren't spending the entire time looking for killshots. Beneficial means that I try to understand your views and you try to understand mine, and we don't assume that we know everything about the other because of a label. Beneficial means that we don't enter the conversation thinking that we have some moral high ground and the people on the other side need to be fixed, regardless of whether you're talking about religion, politics, economics, or Call of Duty.
If you want me to sum it up, beneficial means that I'm not wasting my time talking to you, and you're not wasting your time talking to me. If I go into the conversation attempting to convert you, or you go in believing that I'm a raving lunatic, then what's the point? We have to come in with at least some respect for each other as rational human beings for the engagement to be worth having.
Lionheart1337
Member
Well then you aren't reading very well at all. 90% is a VERY high percentage and I`m going to call this hyperbole unless you want to show specific instances that fit this criteria of belittlement. Just go ahead and point out this vitriol. I wager it's mostly on one side in your perception. Please don't tell me that you also believe in the atheist boogy man.
I can only speak for myself, but I understand the other side more than ever, partially thanks to this thread.
Beneficial means you can take the gloves off and speak your mind without pandering to social niceties for a change. That's specifically why we can discuss these types of issues on the internet as openly and freely as we do. You're more than free to participate in the conversation if you want, but please do not be another one of these posters who wants to be a referee. I just don't see what degree of respect it is that some people want. There are going to be barbs, semantics and loaded questions on both sides. You can stay in your bubble if it's too personal and uncomfortable for you to discuss. Don't get all self-righteous about what's right and what isn't. There are mods for that.
We all go into the conversation with attempts and desires, I respect people as much as I want them to respect me, and this is not by treating me like a fragile infant. Don't tell me that many theists don't believe that atheists are going to hell, and in more extreme cases the devil incarnate. I don't see why certain beliefs deserve more respect than others. If you want to talk about them, talk about them, just don't expect some particular amount of respect for having a particular political/religious belief.
Count Dookkake
Member
I've noticed that the more painful a truth is, the less likely some are to acknowledge it.
The good news is that it means I am getting to them.
Give you said "it's hard to imagine how it would happen by chance" it usually indicates some sense of being special. I didn't intend to project that though, sorry.
Anyway, I don't think the universe happened by chance. I think the universe happened. You can only observe chances when you are an outsider that can explore the alternatives. We are not, and moreso, we are even the direct result of any chance that may have occurred in the beginning. It is therefore very hard to reason about whether things happened by chance. The best answer anybody can have at this point is that we don't know.
I know the type of respect you are talking about. The kind of respect where atheists do not question your beliefs and think that those who do so are big meanie heads.
I've never agreed with you more. There are a lot of delusional atheists, they are the ones that grant theists unwarranted respect due to this belief in some sort of inalienable right to believe in untenable archaisms. They are truly misguided about just how dangerous you and your unfounded beliefs are to society.
You can believe in whatever you want, but the second your belief system enters politics, or causes you to disregard things that should be secular, but have been co-opted by people that share similar beliefs as you is the second your beliefs become dangerous to secularists.
Did you vote for gay marriage in your respective state (if your state had it on the ballot)? Do you recite the Pledge of Allegiance correctly ("...One nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all")? etc? If you vote in a secular manner, I have no issue with you believing whatever you want to believe.
Devil Theory
Member
It's context. If before the Big Bang there was nothing, then the probability of the universe having so many 'goldilocks zones' purely by chance would be much less than say a scenario where multiple universes existed with varying success. It is purely mathematical probability.
I_D
Member
Obviously atheists realize they're the minority. That's why religion is a problem in the first place.
The stream of questions is derived from Socrates' discovery that probing questions are a good way to educate ignorant students.
So, in the vein of Socrates...
Why are you content with no "smoking gun?"
In virtually every other field of knowledge this is unacceptable, yet religious thinkers love to ignore logic and reason in favor of faith.
If I make a claim, you will say "prove it." Asking for proof of God is no different. The fact that religious people don't want proof is what's mind-boggling to logical thinkers.
Reasonable people get upset with faithful people because faith dictates really important decisions in the world when this should not be the case.
If atheists were to have a manifesto, I think, it would be scientific method.
The scientific method can be credited for just about every major advancement ever, and faith can be credited with none.
Yet, for some reason, the most powerful nations in the world rarely have reasonable, logical, non-religious rulers.
cutmeamango
Banned
Seems like you haven't seen the whole video, of course it's a satire.
Lionheart1337
Member
Read the tags (have to go to video's page)
Arrowgigantic
Member
No theist should offer "respect" to atheists as a prize. We are reminded fairly often that even mentioning that we're atheists results in disrespect. Best-case scenario.
To dangle the prospect of "respect" like a carrot is just another way theists can demonstrate to atheists their tendency to magical thinking (or, in some cases, their insincerity). The most respect we can hope for is the frankness of an admission that we will never be respected by the religious. The latin root of respect means "to see". You cannot see why we're atheists, or else you'd be one too.
Sohter.Nura
Member
Why did kids think Sega was better than Nintendo?
My answer to that question is: Sonic 2.
Seriously, people just believe in things and they take ownership of it, they want to protect it and expand it. I think having people understand your beliefs and hopefully partake in it, be it religious, ideological, political, philosophical, etc, is just part of human social behavior - the closer other people think to us, the less fear of rejection we have by a group as a whole.
I'm atheist, by the way, but I fully respect people for what they are and believe in... I was raised in catholic schools as well.
Tolerance is divine.
My answer to that question is: Sonic 2.
Seriously, people just believe in things and they take ownership of it, they want to protect it and expand it. I think having people understand your beliefs and hopefully partake in it, be it religious, ideological, political, philosophical, etc, is just part of human social behavior - the closer other people think to us, the less fear of rejection we have by a group as a whole.
I'm atheist, by the way, but I fully respect people for what they are and believe in... I was raised in catholic schools as well.
Tolerance is divine.
Hmm... I think I'm going to try to answer the thread title.
They can't back up their faith. It's impossible. But its sort of a loaded question.
No one can back up any faith because faith by definition is believing something without evidence.
In order to back something up, you need to show proof. You can't show proof. Therefore you can't backup faith.
They can't back up their faith. It's impossible. But its sort of a loaded question.
No one can back up any faith because faith by definition is believing something without evidence.
In order to back something up, you need to show proof. You can't show proof. Therefore you can't backup faith.
What about the tolerance of intolerance?
Monocle
Member
Respect is not a precondition for fruitful dialogue. Anonymity can encourage sincerity. Though the internet may impose an additional layer of separation between individuals, isn't it also true that much of our social armor is removed? It could be a better bargain than you'd think. I don't know about you, but I'd rather receive a blast of sincere disdain than the gooey drizzle of microwaved pap that people so often feed one another in daily life.
Tell me more about the broadness of this road.
If you're admitting to an inherent disrespect for my beliefs what is the purpose of this thread?
What is the point in answering your questions if you've already closed your mind to whatever I might have to say?
As I explained, I'm neither unwilling nor unable to explain why I believe what I do if someone has a genuine curiosity. I just have no interest in doing it in the face of open hostility.
I can't speak for Monocle or other atheists, however my mind is not closed. It is open to any claim that can be backed up with a proportionate amount of observable, demonstrable evidence. I suspect that other atheists are for the most part just as reasonable as myself and take a very similar stance. Show me reasonable evidence for your god, and you will have my respect.
Lionheart1337
Member
It seems that we shouldn't give them respect for this reason. Faith alone is worthy of a disproportionate amount of respect, and social shielding. Questioning faith is frowned upon so long as it is within the high walls of religion. Either our foolish desire for evidence too strenuous or evidence isn't needed, or evidence is already there and just we aren't looking hard enough.
Then I will never have your respect because the evidence (empirical) is not there. I'm a theist that is willing to be open minded and not dance around this loaded question. As with all threads before and after this one, it's a classic case of faith vs. evidence. A theist, if not ignorant, will understand and appreciate evidence. I'm not too sure an atheist will understand or want to understand faith. After 40 pages of this thread, I'm confident in my statement.
Oh, we by and large understand faith. You are conflating understanding with acceptance and in no way does one inexorably lead to the other(in either direction!).
Yes KHarvey, poor choice of words on my part. Acceptance is the right word and yes, I don't expect you to accept faith as an atheist.
My best answer to all these: "It's turtles all the way down!"
To add on to divisionbyzorro's point:
Constructive debate can never happen between two or more parties if their premises contradict each other.
In the same way, how one can't proof myth A is more true than myth B, one also can't proof that myth A is less or equal true to myth B.
I guess its more than respect, its also about thinking and taking the possibility that one's own beliefs (no matter how strong) might be wrong due to the limited knowledge of Man. Then, both parties might actually start listening instead of chucking rocks at each other with "holier than thou" scribbled on them.
To add on to divisionbyzorro's point:
Constructive debate can never happen between two or more parties if their premises contradict each other.
In the same way, how one can't proof myth A is more true than myth B, one also can't proof that myth A is less or equal true to myth B.
I guess its more than respect, its also about thinking and taking the possibility that one's own beliefs (no matter how strong) might be wrong due to the limited knowledge of Man. Then, both parties might actually start listening instead of chucking rocks at each other with "holier than thou" scribbled on them.
Monocle
Member
That's a rather confused (almost, dare I say, openly hostile) interpretation of my comments about respect. I never expressed contempt for your beliefs, which at any rate you've kept mysterious enough to evade attention. It is possible to piece together a notion of what you're about from the hints you've sprinkled here and there, but you'll have to make at least a modest effort to explain yourself openly if this conversation is to progress much further.
But no, we're scuttled before we've even made it out of the gate! You've decided to pull a predictable but no less wretched ploy and accuse me of closed-mindedness in advance of staking out a position. You must realize how it looks to other people when you bellow at someone for throwing rocks at your palace before you've so much as propped up a twig in the mud.
As I've said in past religion threads, I would be overjoyed to encounter an argument that convincingly establishes the existence of an intervening god (with all the evidence you yourself would require before you could accept a claim with life-altering implications). I am not an atheist because I'm obstinately opposed to religious concepts, no matter their veracity; I'd want to know if the way I see the world is fundamentally mistaken, because I'm interested in finding out what's true. Overcoming false beliefs is the all-important step in this process.
I know I'm probably echoing someone's post with this one but I doubt any atheist would care about the "normal" person's beliefs if an openly atheist politician was able to compete with politicians that believe in God.
I understand just because he/she would be atheist doesn't mean their ideas wouldn't be any more or less batshit. But just like many places in our society, God just doesn't belong in politics.
I understand just because he/she would be atheist doesn't mean their ideas wouldn't be any more or less batshit. But just like many places in our society, God just doesn't belong in politics.
- Status