Finding More Effective Ways For Atheists And Believers To Communicate

[ChronicObsession]

Hey FDD, I might sound a little Goddy to most folk, but I've already been called the Antichrist as well, cheers to my wife on that one.

may i ask why your buddy assumes your the "devil" lol

 

[Heisenberg]

while we may both be atheists, this is where you and i part ways. man does not live by science alone. you would have us throw out art, love and the multitude of human experiences that are beyond the ken of science. you would have us define the poet through a series of ones and zeroes, sterilizing the world by demanding exact definitions for our every thought and action. you pick around the edges of the god myth, demanding sophistication from the primitive and finding fault in literary license, but never touch upon the central theme. you hide behind a facade of the rational, refusing to admit how irrational it is to toss out an entire concept simply because of the errors that surround it. you throw out the baby with the bath water and then pat yourself on the back for a job well and scientifically done.

why are you so afraid of the irrational within yourself? our dreams and our aspirations are so often made up of these imperfections. they are an integral part of what it is to be human and should be embraced just as heartily as our reason.

Equating high standards for belief with rejecting love and art seems a bit unfair. I don't see the reason to connect human creativity to validity of claims. I don't see any need to discount these experiences for the sake of science, and I also don't see any reason for them to factor into the claim of God. Do you feel it is fear that causes us to reject the irrational? Do you think the scientist embraces the reasoning within himself, or embraces the process we have developed to avoid the inherit mistakes contained within our natural reasoning? Mistakes are also inherit to the human experience. You seem to be saying, when science is not available, it is foolish not to trust in these mistakes. It is silly to discount something because others have made mistakes in attempting to understand it, but we believe without these mistakes the subject dissolves. All the skeptic says is, without being able to control for these mistakes we can't place any sort of confidence in the observations, reasoning, or conclusions. Science is after all, systematic doubt.

 

[guy incognito]

Equating high standards for belief with rejecting love and art seems a bit unfair. I don't see the reason to connect human creativity to validity of claims. I don't see any need to discount these experiences for the sake of science, and I also don't see any reason for them to factor into the claim of God. Do you feel it is fear that causes us to reject the irrational? Do you think the scientist embraces the reasoning within himself, or embraces the process we have developed to avoid the inherit mistakes contained within our natural reasoning? Mistakes are also inherit to the human experience. You seem to be saying, when science is not available, it is foolish not to trust in these mistakes. It is silly to discount something because others have made mistakes in attempting to understand it, but we believe without these mistakes the subject dissolves. All the skeptic says is, without being able to control for these mistakes we can't place any sort of confidence in the observations, reasoning, or conclusions. Science is after all, systematic doubt.

Ohh he's a witch! Burn him!

 

[karri0n]

You made blanket statements, Karri0n is gonna bust you on that.

I am, but I fear it will fall on deaf ears.

Pad, I simply ask that you say what you mean. You are talking about Fundamentalist Christians, not "religious people". I understand that Christians are really the only group that you have experience with, and therefore lump anyone with any sort of religious belief into the same category, but this is simply not the case.

_________________________________________________________________


Pad, you prefaced your post with "you cannot be offended", then went on to insult peoples' intelligence. Do you not see the problem here? You're saying "No offense, but you're a fucking idiot." It just doesn't work like that. Regardless, on to my post....


OK, so why do I think atheists are wrong?


I think most of them haven't learned enough about religion so they just assume the main goal of any particular religion is to explain the natural world.


I think most of them feel like religion lies to them because they think it contradicts what science tells them is true. If they were to understand that mythology is meant to be metaphorical and not taken as literal fact, this disconnect wouldn't exist. To be fair, there are a lot of religious people and even some entire religious organizations that need to come to this realization as well.


I think most of them can't understand how there could be any meaning or purpose behind believing in gods


I think most of them think spiritual people are afraid of death.


I think the detailed interactions between spirit/divinity and the physical world, as well as some of the techniques regarding trance, meditation, and prayer are too advanced for the average person to understand, so when they don't understand it, it's easier for them to dismiss it.


I think deep down, atheists feel embarrassed to hold certain beliefs because they know there are events, experiences, and phenomenon they cannot rationalize other than by conceding the possibility of something they consider "paranormal".


I think atheists feel like they know everything, they have all the answers. Agnostics are the only ones saying "we don't know". Atheists think that somehow scientific discovery debunks religion, mainly because they lack a basic understanding of religion and think its purpose is to explain the events of the natural world.

Atheists choose to ignore the many benefits which include community building, charity work, improved mental and physical health, and teaching important life skills such as leadership, responsibility, and respect.


Atheists tout evolution and natural selection, but blame religion for many qualities that are responisble for survival in a survival-of-the-fittest model - namely greed, lust for power and control, prejudice against groups other than our own, gender "inequality", and herd mentality

 

[mindphuk]

I think deep down, atheists feel embarrassed to hold certain beliefs because they know there are events, experiences, and phenomenon they cannot rationalize other than by conceding the possibility of something they consider "paranormal".


I think atheists feel like they know everything, they have all the answers. Agnostics are the only ones saying "we don't know". Atheists think that somehow scientific discovery debunks religion, mainly because they lack a basic understanding of religion and think its purpose is to explain the events of the natural world.

Atheists choose to ignore the many benefits which include community building, charity work, improved mental and physical health, and teaching important life skills such as leadership, responsibility, and respect.


Atheists tout evolution and natural selection, but blame religion for many qualities that are responisble for survival in a survival-of-the-fittest model - namely greed, lust for power and control, prejudice against groups other than our own, gender "inequality", and herd mentality

Talk about blanket statements...

You are still getting the terms atheist and agnostic wrong in spite of having it explained multiple times. Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground between atheism and theism, it is the answer to the question, "is it possible to KNOW" while atheism is a response to the claim, "god exists."

Agnosticism is and always has been about whether it is even possible to know and they believe that certain things are inherently unknowable but say nothing about their existence. Read Huxley's original writings if you don't believe me.

A theist makes a claim that there is a deity, an a-theist denies that claim, either because they believe there isn't one or merely because they haven't been convinced by the theist's arguments. Theism and atheism are true dichotomies, you are one or another with no overlap. One cannot claim doubt about the existence of a god and call himself a theist.

However, you appear to want to give all of these qualities to atheists even though they are not a homogenous group. Atheism is an accusation about what you don't believe. It says nothing about what you do believe. It doesn't even address why you don't believe. The mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any positive belief. You can be an atheist and deny science or be a strong proponent of science. An atheist can be a capitalist or a communist, an ethical subjectivist or objectivist, etc. Atheists as a group, do not share the characteristics that you ascribe to them. The only thing that is incompatible with atheism is theism.

 

[undertheice]

Equating high standards for belief with rejecting love and art seems a bit unfair. I don't see the reason to connect human creativity to validity of claims.

is this any more unfair than expecting the ancient collected works that make up the sacred texts of the world to live up to the standards of modern science? just as we wouldn't expect plato's republic to deal with every nuance of modern political thought, we can't rationally expect such ancient writings to contain all that has come after them.

Do you feel it is fear that causes us to reject the irrational?

my comment was aimed at pad's own irrationality, not any general tendency to reject the irrational. loss of control will always engender a certain amount of fear and, for anyone that demands logic dictate their life path, admitting to irrational actions would seem to be an ultimate loss of control.

You seem to be saying, when science is not available, it is foolish not to trust in these mistakes.

all that i am saying, all that i have ever said, is that error must be proved or no logical conclusion can be reached. hiding behind a list of the assembled fallacies contained in scripture to condemn the entire god myth or even the whole of scripture is pseudo-science. each claim must be addressed if we are to prove that the whole is in error and that original claim, the grand god myth, is beyond our ability to debunk. the mass of errors may lead to doubt, but it is a leap of faith that leads from doubt to the certainty of atheism's claim. doubt is the key. by beginning with the assertion that the claims of scripture are "mistakes", you have already stepped beyond mere doubt. doubt admits the possibility that the subject may be true, an admission that is excluded by atheism.

Science is after all, systematic doubt.

science is not doubt, it is a search for proof. doubt is a tool, a means of validating our proofs, and not the whole of scientific thought. we begin by searching for some cause, why something acts in the way it does. we amass evidence and then form an idea as to what that cause is. in true scientific form, we next doubt our observations and attempt to discredit our own findings. failing to discredit ourselves, we may than believe in that original idea and consider it truth. this is science, not merely a general sense of distrust.

if we attempt to apply this method to the god myth, we immediately run up against a massive road block. all evidence is anecdotal and we lack the ability to reproduce the required events. god is a singular occurrence in this universe, not something we are equipped to test. an incomplete understanding of the concept itself hampers our investigation. do we merely consider the concept false, with no evidence in either direction? if so, we do it on faith and not as a result of rational inquiry.

 

[karri0n]

Talk about blanket statements...

You are still getting the terms atheist and agnostic wrong in spite of having it explained multiple times. Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground between atheism and theism, it is the answer to the question, "is it possible to KNOW" while atheism is a response to the claim, "god exists."

Agnosticism is and always has been about whether it is even possible to know and they believe that certain things are inherently unknowable but say nothing about their existence. Read Huxley's original writings if you don't believe me.

A theist makes a claim that there is a deity, an a-theist denies that claim, either because they believe there isn't one or merely because they haven't been convinced by the theist's arguments. Theism and atheism are true dichotomies, you are one or another with no overlap. One cannot claim doubt about the existence of a god and call himself a theist.

However, you appear to want to give all of these qualities to atheists even though they are not a homogenous group. Atheism is an accusation about what you don't believe. It says nothing about what you do believe. It doesn't even address why you don't believe. The mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any positive belief. You can be an atheist and deny science or be a strong proponent of science. An atheist can be a capitalist or a communist, an ethical subjectivist or objectivist, etc. Atheists as a group, do not share the characteristics that you ascribe to them. The only thing that is incompatible with atheism is theism.

Never have I claimed the existence of any sort of "middle ground", and never have I defined agnostic as anything different from what you are describing here. In fact, I'm the only one who has ever done the explaining you are referencing.

By your own definition, there is no compatibility between agnosticism an atheism. An atheist denies the claim of a deity. An agnostic denies that there is a possibility of knowing whether or not a deity exists. An agnostic will not make a claim that god does not exist, as they feel that it's impossible to make this assertion with validity.

As to the blanket statements, I'll concede to that. I was under the impression that blanket statements were acceptable in this discussion, based on the OP. The fact that UnderTheIce is in this thread and claiming to be an atheist defies my blanket statements, but the fact that I am here claiming to be religious but not denying evolution defies those asserted by the OP.

 

[mindphuk]

Never have I claimed the existence of any sort of "middle ground", and never have I defined agnostic as anything different from what you are describing here. In fact, I'm the only one who has ever done the explaining you are referencing.

By your own definition, there is no compatibility between agnosticism an atheism. An atheist denies the claim of a deity. An agnostic denies that there is a possibility of knowing whether or not a deity exists. An agnostic will not make a claim that god does not exist, as they feel that it's impossible to make this assertion with validity.

As to the blanket statements, I'll concede to that. I was under the impression that blanket statements were acceptable in this discussion, based on the OP. The fact that UnderTheIce is in this thread and claiming to be an atheist defies my blanket statements, but the fact that I am here claiming to be religious but not denying evolution defies those asserted by the OP.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. I took the statement, "Agnostics are the only ones saying "we don't know" as it sounds like you are saying an atheist can't claim that we don't know either. "Only ones" is very definitive. Atheists do not DENY claims of a deity, they reject the claims, a subtle but important distinction. Denial implies a positive claim, IOW, it makes the atheist into one that claims there is no deity when that is only a small subset of people that can rightly be identified as an atheist. Most atheists that I know are nothing more than rational skeptics. They seek knowledge but require some sort of substantive reason to believe in things. Science is only one tool of reason. If you can offer me a good reason to believe in a divinity or spiritual world I might accept that reason regardless of what science says since we know that science can only investigate the natural world. However, in general, I reject personal experience as unreliable as we understand how our brains are easily deceived. So what does that leave us with? What kind of reason can you or anyone else provide that will convince me that this unseen, unknowable world actually exists?

Your statement, "An agnostic will not make a claim that god does not exist" is also problematic because although it is factually true, it says nothing about the nature of agnosticism which has nothing to do with the ontological question of belief, but only of knowledge. This is that middle ground that you appear to be placing agnostics. An agnostic can be theistic and believe that a deity exists. Most theists are agnostic as they claim that god is unknowable, not only in practice but in principle, the very definition of agnosticism. Likewise, an atheistic agnostic may very well say that don't believe in a god. Many atheists will not make the claim that a god does not exist because it is a logically untenable position given our limited knowledge. However that statement says nothing about what atheists do or don't believe just as it says nothing about what agnostics do or don't believe.

I think too many people misunderstand the term atheist as anti-theist which brings us to these types of definition debates.

 

[guy incognito]

I can't know for sure if god exists or not, but i'm 99.999% sure he doesn't.

 

[karri0n]

I think too many people misunderstand the term atheist as anti-theist which brings us to these types of definition debates.

It's not a misunderstanding - big-name atheists have just attempted to change the meaning of the word into a more politically correct one. Rather than trying to change the meaning of the word, most "atheists" should just call themselves what they are - agnostic.

 

[undertheice]

Rather than trying to change the meaning of the word, most "atheists" should just call themselves what they are - agnostic.

this has been the underlying theme throughout most of my posts in this sub-forum of late, that atheism demands an act of will. it is not merely a denial of the supposed proof of a creator, it is a denial of the god myth itself. to be an atheist is, quite literally, to be without a god. while the agnostics may lay claim to all those who find insufficient evidence or who are simply unable to decide, along with those rational enough to realize man is incapable of understanding such an ultimate knowledge, the atheist must have made a decision that is beyond reason.

 

[Padawanbater2]

...oooooooooooor, people shouldn't get so hung up on the terminology.

 

[Heisenberg]

It seems as simple as

Theist = I know conclusively there is a deity

Atheist = I don't currently know anything conclusive or I know there is no diety

Agnostic = I am unable to know or I am unwilling to know

 

[Farfenugen]

If you cross a scientist with a fundamentalist, you get an atheist.

 

[mindphuk]

It's not a misunderstanding - big-name atheists have just attempted to change the meaning of the word into a more politically correct one. Rather than trying to change the meaning of the word, most "atheists" should just call themselves what they are - agnostic.

Many do call themselves agnostic but it is answering a completely different question. Agnosticism doesn't have anything to do with belief, just knowledge. If you ask me if I believe in any gods, I would say no. That makes me an atheist by definition and you have no idea whether I am agnostic toward the idea or not.

this has been the underlying theme throughout most of my posts in this sub-forum of late, that atheism demands an act of will. it is not merely a denial of the supposed proof of a creator, it is a denial of the god myth itself. to be an atheist is, quite literally, to be without a god. while the agnostics may lay claim to all those who find insufficient evidence or who are simply unable to decide, along with those rational enough to realize man is incapable of understanding such an ultimate knowledge, the atheist must have made a decision that is beyond reason.

No, you still are incorrect as you are describing only a subset of atheists.
Atheism literally is without theism, not without god. Theism entails belief in one or more deity, atheism must then be lack of belief in deities. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief or decisions, it is all about whether we can know. An atheist may very well be agnostic and say that they cannot make a definitive statement about existence because of incomplete knowledge. However, if they don't believe in the existence of a god either by choice or because they have never even thought about it, they are still an atheist. You are using the tactics of the theist to put atheism on the defensive when they in fact have nothing that needs defending. You continue to talk about those that explicitly claim that there is no god, the anti-theist, as if all atheists ascribed to that doctrine.

 

[karri0n]

...oooooooooooor, people shouldn't get so hung up on the terminology.

Wow this makes perfect sense. I guess I'm an atheist too. I'm just the kind of atheist who believes in lots of different gods but doesn't follow the Christian bible.

 

[karri0n]

Many do call themselves agnostic but it is answering a completely different question. Agnosticism doesn't have anything to do with belief, just knowledge. If you ask me if I believe in any gods, I would say no. That makes me an atheist by definition and you have no idea whether I am agnostic toward the idea or not.

No, you still are incorrect as you are describing only a subset of atheists.
Atheism literally is without theism, not without god. Theism entails belief in one or more deity, atheism must then be lack of belief in deities. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief or decisions, it is all about whether we can know. An atheist may very well be agnostic and say that they cannot make a definitive statement about existence because of incomplete knowledge. However, if they don't believe in the existence of a god either by choice or because they have never even thought about it, they are still an atheist. You are using the tactics of the theist to put atheism on the defensive when they in fact have nothing that needs defending. You continue to talk about those that explicitly claim that there is no god, the anti-theist, as if all atheists ascribed to that doctrine.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθiːɪst/
Forms: Also 15 atheyst, 15–16 athist(e.
Etymology: < French athéiste (16th cent. in Littré), or Italian atheista: see atheism n. and -ist suffix.(Show Less)

A. n.
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

B. adj.
Atheistic, impious.

There we have it. It's not open for interpretation. The second definition doesn't apply here as it implies Christianity as an absolute.

 

[ChronicObsession]

All fun and games until an "act of God" kills an atheist. Where do they go? To Disneyland's fabricated Hell? No, I suppose God reserved a special place for atheists called "Eternal Sleep". I think you guys are really lucky to skip the whole living a life of God's moral code. Oh well. I once had a best friend who was a sodomite. Don't worry, I didn't hate him
I'm not casting my belief on anyone. I guess you could say I'm throwing my big sweaty sack of religion onto the faces of the innocent atheists

this has been the underlying theme throughout most of my posts in this sub-forum of late, that atheism demands an act of will. it is not merely a denial of the supposed proof of a creator, it is a denial of the god myth itself. to be an atheist is, quite literally, to be without a god. while the agnostics may lay claim to all those who find insufficient evidence or who are simply unable to decide, along with those rational enough to realize man is incapable of understanding such an ultimate knowledge, the atheist must have made a decision that is beyond reason.

 

[Brazko]

If you cross a scientist with a fundamentalist, you get an atheist.

I don't think you get an Atheist that way, but I can understand that you can have an Atheist with a Fundamentalist mentality. Both hold opposing views that take such extreme disregard for the significance's of the other that allow both to share a common dislike from others all the same. It seems that these Fundamentalist types don't realize they are both wading in the shallow part of the pool...

But how can they...

And no, that wasn't a question, because I already answered it....

 

[ChronicObsession]

How about this: Instead of the mentioning of the word GOD making everybody's ears prick up and bring muffled whispers of "religion, religion, burn the witch!", how about we understand God as something outside of religion? I mean, if this is how all atheists feel about God, then I guess Freedom is all about politics and nothing to do with natural rights. Atheism is on a slippery slope just as religious proponents don't know how to appeal to everyone in the right light about God. It's not all about oppression, supposing that we can actually serve Him while appealing to the needs of our own brothers. I think a lot of preachers should be tossed out and replaced, as they make a mockery of one of the last real "non-profit" organizations. Laugh all you want about some jack-assey super churches that eat millions of dollars in "doh-nations" from the pockets of their sheep, because anyone with brains knows, any system, religious or political, stinks from the top down, thx to corrupt leaders. Human behaviour isn't God's fault. Peace, over and out

How about this for an idea: Don't discuss religion. That solves the communication problem quickly.