Calling All Atheists and Interested Parties

[Triskadecamus]

Well, well, well.

Okay, first things first.

I am a Christian. No, I don’t feel persecuted, prosecuted, or even much poked at, by mods, or by the population of the board. I find myself unwilling to call someone ignorant, or stupid, or evil because of a difference in beliefs. No, I don’t use the standards of scientific proof as the sole guide to my decision making in life. I try to be respectful to atheists, Hindus, Scientologists, and even the only actual Luciferian Satanist we had on the board. But then, I think that has more to do with personal habits than theology, or philosophy. I just try to be respectful. The only time I really loose it is with Republicans, and I always feel badly afterwards.

But, I don’t much try to convince anyone to be a Christian with logical argument. I don’t much try to intellectually defend my faith. I seldom pray for engineering plans, or political influence, either.

I sometimes get a little bit embarrassed when someone here starts whacking atheists with the bible. That seems to me to be a disrespectfully secular use of the founding document of your religion. But then, I find using it as a biology text is more than silly.

I don’t post much in the theology threads, because most of them are undisciplined, rude, and drowning in the echoes of dead atheists and saints, and past posters. Some people think I am a fool for having faith in the Lord Jesus. I can’t prove them wrong. I don’t even think they are wrong. Being right is not always the most important thing. Being a fool is not always such a bad thing.

I do try to examine the world in ways that reflect careful observation, or at least the reports of people I know are widely believed to be careful observers. I try to understand the incredible complexity of the universe in which many believe we exist. I don’t though. Understand it, that is. And I think that that does not prove it wrong, or right. I don’t all that often find proof.

I have found kindness here. And humor, and a lot of information, some of it even accurate! I have tried to return that in kind. Some kindness, some information, and some accuracy.

The most useful tool I have found for dealing with intransigent hostility on matters of intellectual opinion is the page down key. Try it, you might like it.

Tris

“As I know more of mankind, I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly.” ~ Samuel Johnson, 1783 ~

[Der_Trihs]

@Bryan Ekers

@Badchad

QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS

Out of curiosity, who here aside from you is doing this?

To various degrees, him, me, Cisco, catsix, uglybeech, Merijeek, What Exit, Valteron, Evil Captor, pseudotriton ruber ruber, and probably other’s I’ve missed have pointed out this board’s Christian/religious bias.

@Liberal

Then that makes you more delusional than I, doesn’t it? I mean, here you are attempting to reason with a man who is, in your view, an irrational liar.

Not delusional. I just like arguing with people. I would never expect to convince anyone about religion, because if they were rational on the subject they wouldn’t be religious in the first place. Nor did I say you were an irrational liar, although you might be; I said you were irrational or a liar; that’s my opinion of people who make silly claims without evidence. I’d say the same if you claimed to be communing with the Valar.

@Liberal

And where is the objective evidence of your assertion? What proof do you have that you’ve lived my life and know about my experience? Or is it another case of applying different standards to yourself than you apply to others?

As I and others have pointed out many times, it’s the burden of the believer to come with evidence.

[Zoe]

Der Trihs: As I and others have pointed out many times, it’s the burden of the believer to come with evidence.

No, we don’t have to provide you with evidence. Certain non-believers are the ones demanding evidence. Why should we take on this burden? We can just go to another thread or another forum where two or three fellow Dopers aren’t wanting to hit us with big sticks.

It’s not as if we all want to convince you of anything.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@What Exit?

you cannot convince others when foam is coming from your mouth.

And why beholdest thou the foam that is in thy brother’s mouth, but considerest not the foam that is in thine own mouth?

[Der_Trihs]

@Zoe

No, we don’t have to provide you with evidence.

I’m not talking about me, I’m pointing out that it’s the believer’s logical burden, if they want to be anything other than a self deluding fool. Whether you are trying to convince or anyone else or not.

@Zoe

Why should we take on this burden? We can just go to another thread or another forum where two or three fellow Dopers aren’t wanting to hit us with big sticks.

And you’ll be wrong there instead of here. Quite the accomplishment.

[Liberal]

@CarnalK

The difference I suppose, is that I was under the impression that you felt God was something outside of yourself, as well as within. Nothing in your list of things you’ve gained from God offends my intellectual sensibilities in the least. It’s only if you think we share a God that we would differ in opinion.

Sorry about that, then. There was definitely a misunderstanding. I do stipulate (and actually always have) that from your perspective there is indeed no God, and it is as valid a perspective as my own (in which there is). Experience with God is an intimate, personal, and subjective thing, just like consciousness.

[Liberal]

@Der Trihs

As I and others have pointed out many times, it’s the burden of the believer to come with evidence.

But how could you apprehend my evidence with it right in your face? My wife cannot apprehend why I don’t like social schmoozing. My experience is my evidence, and that part of the universe is completely closed to you. You can’t replicate it. Hence, the silliness of demands for scientific evidence.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Liberal

You have yet to show by what objective criteria the evidence you accept is superior to the evidence I accept. Two jurors at the same trial may vote opposite verdicts having heard and evalutated the same evidence. I’m afraid that, too often, we think that the juror who agrees with us is the one who is smart and who evaluates evidence correctly.

I make no claim that my evidence is superior to your evidence. I’m saying that how we create our worldview is different. My worldview is the result of looking at the evidence. I must take it on faith that i’m not a brain in a jar, but beyond that my worldview is entirely supported by the evidence that I have seen. Your worldview, on the other hand, not only requires faith that you’re not a brain in a jar, but also faith that it works at all. The evidence that you have seen does not fully account for your worldview; you need faith. So while your and my evidence may indeed be perfectly equal, I do not need to add faith to support my worldview. That’s the difference.

[What_Exit]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

And why beholdest thou the foam that is in thy brother’s mouth, but considerest not the foam that is in thine own mouth?

Yeah, but with me it is only usually involving baseball. It might come to blows in a bar or stadium, but never to war in the real world.

Triskadecamus: Well said and I appreciate your position. This is a sound way to go through life, especially if you separate your religion from your politics and where you think scientific research should be taking us.

I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist. I think the fallacies and contradictions of the bible are obvious and numerous, I think the teachings of any Christian church that still insist the Bible is the “Word of God” is far out of step with reality, but I have yet to see any scientifically rigorous proof that God(s) did not set off the Big Bang and directed the acting of physical laws. It is even possible he rigged evolution to produce us humans.

When anyone claims to know what God is or what he wants, I do immediately dismiss him or her as being as crazy as a tinfoil mad hatter.

Anyway, that is why I am not an Atheist and I am a mostly recovered Roman Catholic.

Jim

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@What Exit?

I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist. I think the fallacies and contradictions of the bible are obvious and numerous, I think the teachings of any Christian church that still insist the Bible is the “Word of God” is far out of step with reality, but I have yet to see any scientifically rigorous proof that God(s) did not set off the Big Bang and directed the acting of physical laws.

Look at the portion of **Der Trihs’ ** sig that says “When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.” You’re shifting the burden of proof onto Atheists, demanding that we prove a negative proposition. Whatever reason is sufficient to a Xian for his certainty in knowing that Shiva or Baal do not exist applies precisely to atheists regarding a Xian God.

[What_Exit]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Look at the portion of **Der Trihs’ ** sig that says “When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.” You’re shifting the burden of proof onto Atheists, demanding that we prove a negative proposition. Whatever reason is sufficient to a Xian for his certainty in knowing that Shiva or Baal do not exist applies precisely to atheists regarding a Xian God.

I understand there is a huge difference between someone claiming that only their God is the one true God and an Atheist saying there is no God. Most religious folk I know do not make such claims. I do know a few that do and in most ways they function well in society despite these odd beliefs.

I am not demanding you disprove God, I am merely saying I do not have the certainty that god(s) does not exist and I have never seen any convincing proof that God does not. Nor have I seen any convincing proof that he does.

I do believe that religion has done too much harm in the past and continues to do too much harm currently. I do believe we would be far better off with a lack of organized, Word of God Churches/Temples.

So, while I sympathize far more with atheists than the devout, I cannot completely dismiss the idea of an impersonal Creator. I am left questioning. I am happy with any denomination that lets people live their life, preaches tolerance and does not interfere with birth control and safe sex classes. If they do no harm, they are just another social club to me.

Jim

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@What Exit?

I. I am happy with any denomination that lets people live their life, preaches tolerance and does not interfere with birth control and safe sex classes.

When you find one, LMK.

[twickster]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

When you find one, LMK.

Society of Friends (Quakers).

[JustAnotherGeek]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

When you find one, LMK.

The UU’s.

[JustAnotherGeek]

To badchad:

QUIT ACTING LIKE A BOLLOCK. YOU MAKE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS, BUT YOUR POSTING STYLE IS DETRACTING MORE THAN YOUR INTELLIGENCE ADDS.

IOW: The “beat 'em over the head” approach will not acheive the results you desire. Because of your posting style, you get treated with just as much tolerance as the missionaries that bang on doors at 7:00am on Saturdays. I understand your desire to fight the good fight, but I don’t understand your lack of tact(ics).

[JRDelirious]

And badchad is kind enough to provide his own examples of how on the one hand he has good, strong points worth thinking of:

@badchad

What as I and others have noted is that for the most part our beliefs are not treated poorly, but on a rational basis Christianity (particularly the liberal/nominal version) is treated with far too much respect, at least when compared to other equally irrational beliefs such as Scientology, Islam, psychics, dowsers, fundamentalist Christianity, etc.

[…] Sure it is true some god’s can’t be proved not to exist but that does not mean it’s not incredibly ignorant to believe in any of them, especially ones riddled with contradictions, such as the problem of evil, or a system of justice necessitated on the impossible concept of free will, to name just a couple.

[…] Newcomers come here and say, “damn theses guys know there shit and ideas that are condemned, sure look like they deserve to be.” However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.” “Christians who witness in favor of their beliefs get more respect, thus it must be it for some reason.” “The atheists who criticize it are often berated by other atheists for their intolerance, which isn’t demanded for Scientologists.” “There must be a good reason for it.” Whose fault is this? It’s not the Christians, for their (hopefully) compartmentalized stupidity/delusions really makes it so they know not what they do. Rather it is the fault of the silent and apologetic atheists here who selfishly give the superstition of their friends and family a free ride, when in fact it is quite true that there is no argument Christians can make in favor of their beliefs which we can not shoot down handily […]
[…]I treated these beliefs with the same respect other rationalists here treat beliefs in psychic powers, Scientology, and werewolves, and for that matter the same way many liberal Christians treated the beliefs of their fundamentalist brothers.
[…]
QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS, AND STOP GIVING IT A PASS

That bit I bolded near the end is something that does give me pause: why indeed should someone in the more liberal school of any religion act all censorious towards the more radicals?

And indeed, there is no need to kowtow needlessly. Being frank and firm is not the same thing as being rude.(HOWEVER… the converse is also true.)
… BUT then of course, he also shows how the other hand he can be quite the dick about it:

@badchad

[…] When new people come here they could, and I say should, see the wishy washy liberal Christian get his hat handed to him in a pileup the same way a fundamentalist does and the undecided lurker might think “goddamn, those beliefs are stupid” the same way onlookers think when they read a 6 day creationist get reamed.

People can say badchad is too mean, badchad is too blunt, badchad is too abrasive. But all I have done is treat most respected version of Christianity here (the liberal kind) with the respect it deserves, which is none. ** I took who was arguably the most popular, most eloquent, and most influential Christian one these boards (Polycarp), made him my project and fucked his shit up.** I took his well worded bullshit and pointed out that it was merely bullshit. I took his beliefs apart (not straw man versions either) piece by piece. Some Christians here realized it, I figure most atheist here do, and Polycarp definitely knows it . I did this in part because I thought he was the strongest and best defender of his type of faith, and in part because I thought he deserved a taste of his own medicine. All he can do is hope that I get banned or bored and that the membership of this board has a short memory, because since I have returned a few months ago his theology has again become a non factor.

[…] Sure people might <say/feel> were mean in the short term. To which <I> respond “fuck you were right” […]

Unfortunately, in the Real World of Real People, “Fuck you, we’re right!” is just as effective as the curses PRR gets in hate-mail. All it says is you are yourself an absolutist on your side of the issue, and you’ve made it MORE than just a matter of fighting for truth because it’s good to do so, but have made it a matter of crushing your opponent. (FWIW, “Fuck you, we’re right!” is the official George Bush policy towards the opinion of the international community. Lotsa good it does anybody…)

And that “made him my project” campaign to destroy someone who, though held in high personal esteem, had already made it patent that he should not be held to speak in the name of any institutional interpretation of Christianity but his very own? Speaks volumes to your character; you talk of not fighting ignorance for our own selfish interest, but reveal a streak of pleasure in the carnage. Not for me, thank you very much. If an idea I disagree with neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I have no need to go after it and its supporters all guns blazing, and it pains me not that it may pass later rather than sooner.

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant Threshold

I make no claim that my evidence is superior to your evidence. I’m saying that how we create our worldview is different. My worldview is the result of looking at the evidence. I must take it on faith that i’m not a brain in a jar, but beyond that my worldview is entirely supported by the evidence that I have seen. Your worldview, on the other hand, not only requires faith that you’re not a brain in a jar, but also faith that it works at all. The evidence that you have seen does not fully account for your worldview; you need faith. So while your and my evidence may indeed be perfectly equal, I do not need to add faith to support my worldview. That’s the difference.

I don’t agree. After lots of discussions here on the boards I think we all operate on a certain amount of faith. There’s a movement to remove the protected status of religious belief and to challenge them. I’m all for that. There are plenty of myths and traditions that need to be challenged. What I find interesting is that the same people want to remove that protected status want to keep religious faith in a separate category {one far worse} from the faith we all operate on.

I may operate on a faith that there is a spiritual connection between all mankind and you don’t find that particular bit of faith necessary. You still operate on some kind of subjective system of values in which you have faith and determines your day to day choices. What is the foundation of your value system? It isn’t some nebulous deity , but it may be just as vague and uncertain. In order for us to move forward we must operate on faith.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

And why beholdest thou the foam that is in thy brother’s mouth, but considerest not the foam that is in thine own mouth?

Fundamentalist evangelical Christians get the same reaction that badchad is getting. Is that somehow unfair?

[fluiddruid]

@badchad

…but on a rational basis Christianity (particularly the liberal/nominal version) is treated with far too much respect, at least when compared to other equally irrational beliefs such as Scientology, Islam, psychics, dowsers, fundamentalist Christianity, etc. …And we should remember that the goal of the straight dope is to fight ignorance, not to fight ignorance only when we perceive it serving our immediate selfish needs.

Yet, there are important differences between those things. Saying that any belief that incorporates the supernatural is equally as false and worthless as any other is ignorant. There is a very real and very obvious difference between believing in psychic surgery and Scientology and having an ethical belief system with any notion of a God.

Scientology and psychic surgery are harmful things. Scientology has caused known harm and even deaths, and furthermore harms by holding people away from medical treatments that may benefit them. The same thing applies to psychic surgery (as well as voodoo and certain fatalistic sects of Christianity).

However, one can be a Christian - particularly a liberal one - and find the idea of a personal, loving God compelling, but still put forward ideas and solutions that destroy ignorance. In fact, I think that religion may not be a wholly destructive influence on society - the idea of having ethics reinforced by a supernatural force may indeed be present in society because societies that have religious beliefs tend to thrive, even if their beliefs are not fundamentally true.

However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.” “Christians who witness in favor of their beliefs get more respect, thus it must be it for some reason.”

Frankly, I do not see a problem with this.

I live in a country - as do the majority of Dopers - that is a Christian majority. Screaming “your beliefs are as stupid as believing in satyrs and leprechauns” at Christians is just as stupid, ignorant, and aggressive as Christians screaming at atheists “You’re going to Hell and you’re rejecting God!” It’s extremely arrogant and does nothing to increase rational discourse, and, in turn, holds back progress rather than moves things forward.

You are giving atheists the appearance of being intolerant grumps who want to take away Santa Claus from kids because your opinion of absolute truth can never be compromised nor any other options explored. This makes you the same as a fundamentalist Christian - someone to be criticized and suspect of, rather than respected as you surmise is appropriate.

Saying “all religions are the same” is just as asinine coming from an atheist as it is coming from someone who has a feel-good attitude that we’re all somehow worshipping the same God and, oh, why can’t we just get along? There are qualitative differences between religions just as there are qualititative differences between arguments for atheism. I agree with your premise but not your tactics, nor your reasoning.

[catsix]

Liberal said:
Sorry about that, then. There was definitely a misunderstanding. I do stipulate (and actually always have) that from your perspective there is indeed no God, and it is as valid a perspective as my own (in which there is).

I don’t consider the perspective of belief in an mythical (yes, as in the definition of myth) god as being ‘valid’ at all. Widely held, yes. Valid, no.

What Exit? said:
I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist.

Again the difference between the Big Three and all other religions. If someone showed up here and demanded proof that Thor doesn’t exist, they’d be laughed out of town.

Do you also insist upon proof that the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Great Pumpkin don’t exist?

I am not demanding you disprove God, I am merely saying I do not have the certainty that god(s) does not exist and I have never seen any convincing proof that God does not. Nor have I seen any convincing proof that he does.

Do you believe that unicorns exist?

How about dragons?