I think I’d be inclined to answer “I can appreciate that you feel that there is no God, but you actually have no idea of the full and complex reasons for my belief, you insult me by attributing it to mere wishful thinking”
(BTW Max, I’m not trying to attack you, just trying to answer your hypothetical honestly)
Okay, I’ve digested my turkey and I’m back on the boards.
To answer a few questions: I’m Canadian, which I’ve made evident in numerous other threads.
We celebrate the same way everyone celebrates Thanksgiving, except our turkeys cook a lot faster than yours. Either we’ve got better ovens, know about new research, or the flames of hell are being put to work in Canadian kitchens 
Thanks for the input, but my biggest question still lies unanswered.
I shouldn’t have limited myself to the boards-- because everywhere I go I run into proselytzing types who want me to convert. I just wanna know why.
Has anyone ever been converted from being an atheist to a theist, on this board or elsewhere? I don’t mean just interested in learning more about faith-- I’ve done that for Jainism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Shintoism. I’m still not convinced.
Yeah, this is probably better in IMHO, but all the folks I want answers from hang out here.
Speaking personally, it happened for me on the loo. Does that count as an answer?
pax
Maybe your turkeys are just smaller…I know we make sure ours are chock full of hormones to get that extra bit of meat on there
Besides…turkeys are MEANT to be cooked slowly. Keep 'em nice and tender and juicy mmmmmmmmmmm
I want some turkey now…I wish I was Canadian.
Yep…my friend G*** was an open atheist through most of high school. It never really came up though. Then one day we were talking about God/religion/philosophy, etc. and we all found out that G*** had quietly converted to theism. Just said he started to believe in God. He doesn’t believe in organized religion, but he definitely shifted from atheist to theist.
What was really weird is nothing really bad was going on in his life, and he wasn’t converted by some proselytizer. He just said he started to believe in his head over the course of a few months. Weird.
Also, my friend R****** went from agnostic to annoying evangelical in college. That was weird, too.
Huh. Look at this little tempest.
OK, I’m not here to prove that God doesn’t exist; that’s a topic for a different thread. The issue here is that Barbarian issued a critique of prostelyzation with which I disagreed, even though he and I appear to be on the same side of the theism issue. In fact, my original post was substantively identical to Mangetout’s first post. Like him, I’m not in this thread to prostyletize, but only here to defend those that do – including myself – on whichever side of the issue.
Perhaps I expressed this less than delicately. There are two reasons. First, I was answering the critique of a fellow athiest, who would appreciate the argument more if I explained what I thought theists were giving up instead of hearing it from a theist who tried to explain what athiests were giving up.
More importantly, I have noticed that in our society, believers are allowed to express their beliefs as fact. I have what, IMO, is better evidence for the factual veracity of my religious beliefs than most theists do (which makes sense, since mine are logically derived and not based on faith, which I personally reject but which many of course accept as a legitimate avenue to truth). As such, I don’t see why I need to temper my own beliefs with a false air of doubt, so I don’t. This is a decision I made about a year ago and more than once it’s caused some tension, but it’s a decision of conscience. The point of which is to show the very many theists I encounter what it’s like when someone rejects as absurd the beliefs that shape your core personhood. This is something I deal with all the time and this is the way I’ve decided to address it. Those of you that are so offended by the way I expressed myself, revisit the post at the top of this thread and recognize that your attacks are exactly the ones that Barbarian has made against your fellow believers.
I’ll state this again. I prostelytize for the same reasons that many theists do. If your belifs are different from mine, I think you’re in trouble and I want to help you. The point of this thread is not to convert anyone, but to merely defend those who seek conversions to either side of the debate.
–Cliffy
There certainly seem to be a greater percentage of outspoken atheists on these boards than in just about any other social circle I have been in, with the possible exception of UU church. And in some UU congregations, it is a running battle to stem creeping theism. I must admit that this contributes to my being very comfortable here. I also acknowledge that it may have a sort of multiplying effect. The presence of a number of atheists and tolerance if not celebration of their views may encourage more outspoken atheists to gravitate here and be more outspoken, etc.
It often strikes me as amusing when christians talk about feeling persecuted. They have little idea how uncomfortable it can be to be an atheist, at least in the portions of America where I have spent time. Moreover, believers seem to have difficullty understanding how bothersome their so-prevalent trappings may be to those who do not believe.
One thing which prevents effective communication is believers’ reference to the Bible as confirmation if not proof of their beliefs. To a nonbeliever, the Bible is just a book written by men. It has a lot of really great moral teachings, a lot of myth and allegory, and a lot of stuff that seems pretty outdated and downright outlandish. The fact that this particular book has been used by powerful institutions with many members for many years, does not make it anything other than a book. I know I have posted this before, but why don’t most mainstream christians accept the book of Mormon? As far as I can see, it has as legit a provenance as the Bible.
Also, the “best” believers must admit that all of their fellows are not as good as they. To nonbelievers, the hypocrisy of the many who talk the talk but do not walk the walk is too apparent. Sorry to the extent you get tarred by that brush.
Unfortunately, that is true. However, I tend to expect more from the posters on the SDMB than what the average American does.
Well, the point being made is that they are still beliefs. And should be stated as such. When I express my belief in God, I try to make clear that it is a belief.
The point that I have been trying to make is that there is a double standard on the board. If one belief can’t be stated as fact without everyone jumping on the believer, then none should be.
Is it efficient? No. Is it practical? No. Is it just some people’s way of making a point about something? Yes.
I, personally, just want people to be aware of it. And I’m not trying to pick out any individuals who are doing this. It’s just a point I’m trying to make, if you see what I mean.
But this is an unfair hijack…if you would like to discuss this further (emphasis on discuss) we can open another thread and hash it out.
You are quite correct here, though. This whole thing has nothing to do with the OP. I just thought I would help try to explain the point that Jodi is making.
CLIFFY –
I’m quite confident that anyone with the ability to read can simply scroll up and see that your first post and MANGETOUT’s first post are not substantively identical.
Perhaps. :rolleyes:
You might keep in mind that the OPer is rarely, if ever, the only person reading the thread, nor are people of his particular bent likely to be the only ones responding. You can also quite easily convey your point without using insulting language such as “absurd beliefs” or “delusional.” Having so labelled my beliefs, it is, of course, up to you to prove that they are absurd and/or delusional, which you are of course entirely unable to do. If you cannot back up insults with even the defense of truth (“it may be ugly, but it’s true”), then you ought to keep them to yourself. My indefensible opinion might be that a given person is a total idiot, but that would not excuse my insulting him or her on that basis.
You are entitled to express your beliefs as fact, so long as they do not insult mine. There is a difference between “I don’t believe in God” and “those who believe in God are delusional.” Kindly do not pretend to be so stupid that you do not see the difference.
This, of course, is IYO. Those are the key letters of your entire post. You are not required to denigrate the truly-held beliefs of others in order to hold or express your own beliefs.
If and when someone tells you that you are full of shit for being an atheist – that you waste your money on humanistic causes; that you are delusional not to believe in God; that your beliefs are absurd – you are of course perfectly free to respond in kind. That is the wrong gun to bring out around here, however, when no one has said anything of the kind. You are the one being insulting, and the argument that unnamed others insulted you similarly in the past cuts no ice.
Utter and complete bullshit, and BARBARIAN should be irritated that you posted it. He did not attack my beliefs, though he made it clear he does not share them. Neither did MANGETOUT. Neither did anyone here, except you.
You will find, as a general proposition, that insulting those you laughably purport to desire to “help” will rarely make them amenable to your assistance. Nor will it foster debate; it will either piss people off or cause them to dismiss you as a person obviously not meriting genuine conversation. Why would I choose to discuss my beliefs with someone who is so impolite as to insult them?
The bottom line is that if someone says I am deluded and my beliefs are absurd, they will invariably be asked to either back that opinion up, or to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
DINSDALE, I similarly am often amused by atheists’ talk of persecution. They have little idea how uncomfortable it can be to be a Christian.
The fact is that neither camp has a monopoly on being derided or misunderstood. The difference is that, in this thread at least, no one has attempted to tell the atheists that they are morons.
What do you mean “confirmation”? Don’t you mean “basis”? The Bible confirms nothing to most moderate Christians, who do not accept it as the unerring Word of God, nor does it prove anything, being in the end just a book, as you have said. A great book, but just a book.
Well, to start with, to a non-Mormon, it obviously does not have as “legit a provenance” as the Bible, being written at least 1500 years after the latest book in the Bible was. The Bible is the holy book of the Christian faith. Added to that is the belief that certain parts of it are not in accordance with Biblical teaching – a position a LDS-adherent would certainly take issue with. Then there is the fact that the Bible itself says nothing is to be added to it – a biggie to Biblical literalists. Then there is the belief that the nineteenth century was not an Age of Prophets, and that while the Bible may be historically backed up by records tending to corroborate many of its factual statements (ie, wars that were fought; kings that reigned; who lived where when), the BoM cannot be.
In the end, believing in the BoM is, like believing in the Bible, a matter of faith. Just because I accept one does not mean I am required to accept the other. Nor does it mean that I am entitled to speak offensively to or about those who accept both, just because their beliefs are different from my own.
The amazing thing about threads is that the OP is right up there. I’ve read, read, and reread it, and I still see no attacks on anyone.
I see some mighty big questions about tactics and reasons, but no attacks at all.
At least, not until Beeblebrox stepped in and said I was proselytizing, which I’m not. In this thread (unlike others, I’ll admit), I’m just asking questions.
Let me first say that when I refer to “atheist” or “Christian/theist” I am making a generalisation, and that this generalisation is not absolute; i.e. if you don’t think you fit my definitions or your beliefs and mannerisms don’t happen to coincide with my points, then you shouldn’t feel that it applies to you. I’ve met my share of idiot atheists and idiot Christians, as well as intelligent and rational people on both sides. There is no definitive Christian or definitive atheist, because these positions in any debate depend on beliefs and each person, having lived differently, believes differently.
Now that the legal department is done, let me further say that in interests of going to bed at some time before, say, noon, I’ve skimmed this thread and therefore some may have brought up the same points that I have. If so, feel free to ignore me grins
I would postulate that there are several answers to this question.
Thus, an atheist says something to the effect of, “God doesn’t exist,” and those who believe in God may take offence. They may feel that the atheist is indirectly calling them naive, stupid, or any of a number of things that the atheist didn’t necessarily mean to say. Their initial reaction is to argue the opposite - that God does exist - and the entire argument devolves into an “I said He does!” “I said He doesn’t!” sandbox dispute.
Or, a Christian may claim that nonbelievers do not go to heaven, and an atheist takes offence at the indirect insinuation that the atheist is not of moral character, and the same sandbox dispute starts up again.
Most debates concerning the existence of God are indistinguishable from Christians trying to get atheists to believe in Him and atheists trying to get Christians to disbelieve. It is difficult to separate the “God exists because…” argument from the “… and because He exists you should believe in Him” argument.
Think:
Poster 1 - “Liver and onions is the best dish in the world! I could eat it every day!”
Poster 2 - “Ewwww! Liver is nasty and onions are even worse! That’s sooooo gross, how can you possibly think that?!”
Poster 1 - “Well I like it! It tastes nummy and the gravy is so rich and luverly and I think that if you don’t like it there must be something wrong with you!”
Poster 2 - “Nuh-uh, there’s something wrong with you, my bevy of liver-and-onions-hating friends proves it!”
Et cetera, et cetera. It’s the same with faith only more vicious.
Much like it’s easier to lie on the internet.Of course there are some atheists too who believe it is their duty to “pull the wool” from all Christians’ eyes. This is not a simply theistic trait, nor should it be addressed as such.
I’m certain there are more answers but the sun is coming up and the evil DayStar’s rays of death are sucking away at my mental capacity, so I’ll leave it at those three for now.
You may be speaking from your particular experience as an atheist - perhaps you do not preach and convert. But there are many atheists who are just as happy to spread the word of God’s non-existance as there are Christians who want everyone to believe that God exists. (Well … I can’t own up to that. There are a lot of Christians in the world, there’s probably more preachy Christians than there are -all- of atheists, but that’s not really the point!)
As much as the “enlightened” atheists would like to deny it, there are those who use their lack of faith as an excuse to commit socially amoral acts, or who confuse atheism with hatred and anger, or who think all Christians/theists are “scum” and "enemies. There are atheists who do not say, “I respectfully disagree” and feel the need to pick fights with theists wherever they go.
As mentioned by another poster, the internet abuse of Christian views and speakers is a commonly accepted practice. When perusing message boards of almost any nature, most especially those that espouse intellectual arguments and the freedom of speech, one is far more likely to find an anti-Christian/anti-theist statement than an anti-atheist one. (This may not be true of Christian-oriented message boards but I’ve never visited one.) This is to be taken as the “norm” and Christians are expected not to fight back, and if they do they are “preaching” or “converting”. Yet if they speak out against other religions they are “hypocrites” or “judging” or “attacking” - it’s a double standard that often goads theists into responding in manners that the “innocent” atheists or non-theists or non-Christians may often take as further fuel to reply harshly. Sometimes, theists keep coming back to defend what they feel is being insulted, I imagine.
Actually to certain types of Christian beliefs and worship-structures, it does bug them, it does offend them, and they do believe they are in danger. There are those theists who, as previously mentioned, believe it is a blight upon their souls if they do not try to convert the nonbelievers; there are those theists who are offended any time someone attempts to negate the beliefs they have held near and dear for their entire lives. There are those who don’t care, who don’t believe they have the right to judge, who believe in leaving that up to God as well. There can be no sweeping answer to these questions.
Keep in mind that there are many different types of belief, in both faith and science.
Having said all that I think I will address my personal beliefs on the matter and then leave this rather lengthy post for the comforts of my futon. nods These are beliefs and not necessarily facts here, I’m just sharin’ a viewpoint
If it is a basic and accepted tenet that all humans are created equal – that does not mean identical, equality comes in many guises and no two people are exactly equal in all things – then all humans’ beliefs are equal. If a human acts in a manner that interrupts another’s rights, that is the only way that human can be considered ‘inequal’ and the only way that the offending human’s rights can be violated by state or law; if a humans’ beliefs require him or her to act in a manner that is harmful to others or their rights, that is the only way that the offending human’s beliefs are ‘inequal’ or ‘wrong’. Unless one’s beliefs do not infringe on anyone else’s rights, then those beliefs are “right” and “true” for them. For the remainder of this post I will assume that “beliefs” do not include any violations of the inalienable human rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and fortune, etc.
Truth, when applied to matters of the heart and soul, is not an objective creature. What makes each human different from one another is their life experiences, and each person with a unique viewpoint will interpret life in a unique manner, and have unique beliefs. Those of us who have not experienced that lifestyle have no right to say that those beliefs are “right” or “wrong”, “true” or “false”, and furthermore have no right to demand that those beliefs fall in line with our own. Just because Johnny-down-the-way believes in God does not mean that I must; but just because I do not believe does not mean that Johnny-down-the-way also must give up his faith. What is right for one is not necessarily right for all.
It is of course my opinion that if everyone believed that last sentence above, the world would be a better place, but I could be wrong
As far as God is concerned, I have a rather simple view on faith. If “without faith” God is “nothing”, then it follows that God relies very heavily on the faith of His believers, and that in fact the more believers He gains, the more faith He receives, and the “more” He is. Now, I don’t know how God thinks, but if you were to put me in that position, I’d want to make myself theologically attractive to as many people as possible - meaning that if there were some people who were more suited to believing in multiple deities, I would split the facets of my personality into individual “beings” for those people to worship. If there were some people who were more suited to believing in only one deity, I would bind the personalities together into one encompassing being. If there were some who wished to believe in physical manifestations like the sun and the moon, water and earth and fire, I would hide my powers within those elements and bestow upon them the gifts they sought. If there were some who believed in science and mathematics, and could not fathom the existence of a celestial or deific being, I would shroud myself in the textbooks and calculators of the times and let them express their faith in me through their equations and debates. I am an atheist; I do not believe in a deific creature. But I fully believe that God is all things to all people, and that even I, with my strict adherence to mathematical and physical proofs, am worshipping Him/Her/It in some way.
bows
And no, I’ve never been good with “succinct”
I just wanted to reply to the question of athiests being antagonistic towards believers.
I have to say based on experience and observation that it is similar to the whole “gay recruitment” theory that homophobes have. The standard reply is that homosexuals don’t have gay kids, heterosexuals do. In much the same way, athiests are almost always raised with some form of religion. I would be willing to bet that the most argumentative nonbelievers were raised with a belief system that was very harsh, I know I was.
I kind of think, based on personal experience that the argumentative thing is kind of a phase, like the recently out gay who belittles “str8’s”. For most, the rage(not really the right word) against society passes.
[sub]another incomprehensible ramble from grendel[/sub]