[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Challenge one of them.
[/QUOTE]
I did. The very next sentence refutes your must and obliged definitively. Let’s not play that sort of pedantry, okay?
Daniel
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Mainly a matter of style. IMO. I’m all for cutting a long, complicated debate short by asking my adversary “Please prove how your beliefs are supported, other than by your personal, subjective testimony.” This often gets called “rude,” because I’m not really interested in discussing and glorifying someone’s witnessing. If that’s all you have, finally, fine, but please don’t get me in a whole muddle of theological fine points supporting your subjective take on things. You’re content to belief in something without evidence, and that’s fine with me. I may not want to discuss it at length with you, but you have a perfect right to believe in whatever you like. (I’m not obliged to show a whole of respect for your belief system either, as you are not obliged to show enormous respect for belief systems you consider a lot of hooey, either.)
[/QUOTE]
Don’t worry. I’m only interested in a discussion with those who are mutually interested. I don’t think it’s rude to honestly say, " I don’t have any respect for your belief system" I do think it’s rude to add " and I think you’re a moron for having it" even if that’s eactly what you think, because in the act of saying that you’re elevating your own subjective opinion in order to put down someone elses.
{not that you said that, it’s just an example}
I wouldn’t want to waste time and energy trying to convince a firm atheist to believe. I respect their right to form their own belief system and live accordingly as long as their belief system doesn’t infringe on my right to do the same.
When Fundamantalist, Militant, Evangelical, atheists call people fools and morons for believing something they don’t then they deserve to be challenged the same way any like believer should be. It’s the “I’m right and you’re an idiot” thing that get my hackles up no matter who it’s coming from.
I have no problem with people expressing disdain for spiritual beliefs in an IMO forum. Thats just an honest expression of their opinion. My problem is with those who claim to be oh so rational and logical and then make their own irrational and illogical claims and are unwilling to defend them or even admit that it’s just their opinion rather than obvious fact.
The manner or the symantic vehicle of how that disdain is presented also matters. It reflects intent and motivation. Do someone want to have a discussion or do they just want to vent and spit? Is someone more concerned about proclaiming “I’m right and I win” or an actual exchange of ideas that may lead to better understanding.
For me to show you how my thought process makes sense in a rational world you’d have to follow me around and observe my interactions with others. That ain’t gonna happen. It’s okay if you don’t agree. I feel no burden of proof whatsoever because I understand the emotional and subjective nature of a belief system. Work out your own and if you don’t fuck with mine I won’t fuck with yours. Seem fair?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Indeed. Imagine you were leading a discussion on a poem and you said, “I think this is Shakespeare’s most powerful sonnet about death,” and a student responded by demanding you provide evidence for the assertion that this was his most powerful such sonnet.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t chap my ass at all. It’s just a purely subjective, personal opinion, which I cheerfully admit is meaningless to anyone other than to me. Even when a student asks (or axes me) why we need to study Shakespeare at all, I just say as cheerfully as I can, “We have to study something, and this is an English class, so we’re studying various poets who write in English. When you have a class to teach, we can study some of your favorite poets.” IOW, the entire field of study is arbitrary, if you want to see it that way, and is utterly indefensible. Next question?
That’s what Xians refuse to concede, much less cheerfully. My subject matter may have meaning to me, but I’m teaching it ultimately not as vauable in itself but as a means to show people how to form an argument, how to support their cases, how to present evidence so that it’s persuasive, how to do research, etc. . If you want to argue that Shakespeare was actually three women, go right ahead.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
In other words, hate the bullshit, not the bullshitter? 
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
beautiful… I can’t wait for an opportunity to use it.
I can only hope it’s a conversation with some conservative christian about homosexuals, and they’d laid their “hate the sin” line on me.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
On a more serious note, there are things that exist, but only because people believe that they exist - the absence of chaos brings about material changes.
[/QUOTE]
Excuse me–I wonder if you wouldn’t mind clarifying that?
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
IOW, the entire field of study is arbitrary, if you want to see it that way, and is utterly indefensible. Next question?
That’s what Xians refuse to concede, much less cheerfully.
[/QUOTE]
cosmos, whaddya say: given how prr has explained it, is this something you’d concede? The word “indefensible” isn’t the most diplomatic term, but given what he means by “defensible,” would you cheerfully concede that your religion ain’t?
Daniel
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I’m not addressing the OP here–I’m addressing Sevastolpol’s attempt to poison the well by beginning with the assumption that those who disagee with him are inherently arrogant by dint of their disagreement.
In any discussion of “Does X exist?” you must begin with “the answer has not yet been clearly demonstrated,” meaning that those who argue that X does exist are obliged to make their case. By labeling those who want to start at this point as “arrogant” is clearly skewing the debate from the get-go. Play fair, or don’t play at all.
[/QUOTE]
Obliged to make their case or what? Not allowed to have an opinion about it? They are obliged only if their goal is to convince others rather than just express themselves.
Now apply that same principle to the statement " the world would be better off without religion" Is someone who makes this statement obliged to prove it before asserting it as fact? What if they can’t?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I did. The very next sentence refutes your must and obliged definitively. Let’s not play that sort of pedantry, okay?
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
The very next sentence is “Folks can have the discussion however they like.” This is far from clear or persuasive. How would YOU like to begin the debate “Does X exist?” with any other starting point besides “the answer has not yet been clearly demonstrated.” I assert (not much of an assertion) that the discussion MUST begin there because, otherwise, you have no need to ask the question: it has already been answered. Likewise “those who argue that X does exist are OBLIGED to make their case.” This is similarly a truism. If you want to argue something, but don’t feel obliged to make a case, then you are assuming facts not in evidence. Not much of a discussion, either.
But if you are discussing something entirely subjective in nature, then I’ll have to bow out (and I’ll thank you to bow out of threads I may start that assume that your beliefs are entirely subjective in nature). It’s a discussion-killer, Daniel, and I’m not interested in playing that game. I’m interested in discussion, not in going round and round in circles.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
The very next sentence is “Folks can have the discussion however they like.” This is far from clear or persuasive. How would YOU like to begin the debate “Does X exist?” with any other starting point besides “the answer has not yet been clearly demonstrated.”
[/quote]
Again, that post has already addressed this point. My starting point would be, as I said, “Huh. Why do you say that?” Since I can start the discussion there and have one interesting to me, your “must” is wrong.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
“Atheist Fundamentalist” is a contradiction in terms. The word “fundamentalism” (as it is applied to religion) is defined by a strict adherence to a particular sacred writing or doctrine. It doesn’t just mean “devout” or “militant.” It denotes a specific relationship to a doctrine or writing, not strength of belief or attitude towards non-believers. You can be a zealot without being a fundamentalist and vice versa. Since atheism has no doctrine, there is no way to be a “fundamentalist” about it.
There are atheists who could rightly be called “activist,” “militant,” “zealous,” etc. but “fundamentalist” is the wrong word.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks Dio I was intrigued when a comment about one of the articles said something similar to your post. He suggested the possibility of evangelical atheist, which fits with the “marked by militant or crusading zeal” definition.
I think we’ve made the observation here on SDMB that some strong atheists behave in a similar manner to the fundies but I agree with you given the details of definition.
No such thing as fundamentalist atheists…but lets’ not close the thread just yet. There was a side issue.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Something’s true if it’s true, not because people believe it’s true.
[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of stuff exist based only on belief. Money being the obvious example. The paper has almost no value in itself and the only reason it works is because it’s backed by belief. Watching the value of a currency change is watching the belief go up and down.
On a more philosophical level, there are things like justice, equality, honesty ASF, which are all based in faith or belief. I’m going to walk across a street, because I believe that the guy in the car, waiting on red, will not suddenly push the peddle and run me over. Much of what both atheists and theists regard as moral have no real existence. There is no equalitum or justificium atoms to be meassured and classified.
Many of these moral standards have been collected and distributed by differents churches in different corners of the world. I declare myself religion free, as I have no belief in any deity or any form of afterlife. However, that doesn’t prevent me from seeing all the good things different churches have made throughout history. Zealous atheists often go on and on about all the evil churches have done (and do) and the evil done in the name of some religion. My view of humanity is that many of those bad things would’ve happen without a church instigating or condoning it. And basically, religion still has more things on the positive side than on the negative, as I see it. I can’t prove it though.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Obliged to make their case or what? Not allowed to have an opinion about it? They are obliged only if their goal is to convince others rather than just express themselves.
Now apply that same principle to the statement " the world would be better off without religion" Is someone who makes this statement obliged to prove it before asserting it as fact? What if they can’t?
[/QUOTE]
People who want merely to express themselves can do so, of course, but I can’t think of many of these people i want to engage in discussion with, much less respectful discussion of their selected subjects of expression. Aren’t these termed “rants” typically, and aren’t we doing well to sidestep them?
We’re probably well off avoiding all hypothetical discussions of what the world would be like, especially if we disagree violently witih the hypothesizer’s thesis, but tthat’s different from asserting that the world IS (right now) a particular way. You can’t prove a hypothetical, but you ought to be able to prove an assertion of fact.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Thanks Dio I was intrigued when a comment about one of the articles said something similar to your post. He suggested the possibility of evangelical atheist, which fits with the “marked by militant or crusading zeal” definition.
I think we’ve made the observation here on SDMB that some strong atheists behave in a similar manner to the fundies but I agree with you given the details of definition.
No such thing as fundamentalist atheists…but lets’ not close the thread just yet. There was a side issue.
[/QUOTE]
I think “evangelical” works ok. There are definitely some activist atheists out there who express a goal to “deconvert” theists and do so with a zeal comparable to Christian evangelicals.
I’ve encountered very few (if any) atheists who say they want to make religion illegal but there’s no question some of them can be extremely antipathetic and hostile towards religious institutions and people of faith.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Again, that post has already addressed this point. My starting point would be, as I said, “Huh. Why do you say that?” Since I can start the discussion there and have one interesting to me, your “must” is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Cool. Then you can have discussions of “Why Baal is great” on that basis with any nutjob Baal-worshippers you come across, if that’s your idea of interesting. I need to start at “Who is Baal?” and “Why do you think that Baal exists?” before I’m going to invest any serious time in such a discussion, and I refuse to be labelled “rude” or “dismissive” for wanting such essential points clarified.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
cosmos, whaddya say: given how prr has explained it, is this something you’d concede? The word “indefensible” isn’t the most diplomatic term, but given what he means by “defensible,” would you cheerfully concede that your religion ain’t?
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. He’s certainly right that many, far too many, believers see their beliefs as not only an unshakable truth for themselves but for everyone else as well.
As for me, I’ve freely admitted my beliefs are based on subjective experiences and I don’t see any reason to defend them to anyone, or impose them on anyone. I do enjoy a healthy discussion and asking questions and being questioned.
Is that what you meant?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
As for me, I’ve freely admitted my beliefs are based on subjective experiences and I don’t see any reason to defend them to anyone, or impose them on anyone. I do enjoy a healthy discussion and asking questions and being questioned.
Is that what you meant?
[/QUOTE]
I think so–I think that prr is wrong when he says that Christians won’t admit what you’ve just admitted. He’d do well to pay attention to the conversation taht other people are trying to have, I think.
Daniel
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Cool. Then you can have discussions of “Why Baal is great” on that basis with any nutjob Baal-worshippers you come across, if that’s your idea of interesting.
[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of approach to religion that comes across as arrogant. It’s not your disbelief in the existence of Baal that’s the problem: it’s your dismissal of Baal’s worshippers as nutjobs or your conflation of “Why do you think that” with “Why Baal is great” that is arrogant.
Daniel
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
People who want merely to express themselves can do so, of course, but I can’t think of many of these people i want to engage in discussion with, much less respectful discussion of their selected subjects of expression. Aren’t these termed “rants” typically, and aren’t we doing well to sidestep them?
We’re probably well off avoiding all hypothetical discussions of what the world would be like, especially if we disagree violently witih the hypothesizer’s thesis, but tthat’s different from asserting that the world IS (right now) a particular way. You can’t prove a hypothetical, but you ought to be able to prove an assertion of fact.
[/QUOTE]
Mark your calanders folks. I think we’re close to agreeing on something. If someone wants to witness to me then they should be prepared to listen to me as well. If they’re not then I’m not interested in listening to them and feel no obligation to do so. It’s not rude to honestly say, " I think your beliefs are false and I’m not interested in hearing about them," substitute “ridiculous superstitious myth” for false if you will. If they are willing to tell me what they think without an invitation, then I am free to do the same’
OTOH if believer or non believer makes the choice to participate in a discussion and an exchange of ideas then they should show some consideration to their opponets or just not participate. "Thats all bullshit, or “You’re a moron for believing that” isn’t any more of a contribution to discourse than “Jesus is Lord, bow before him or burn in hell”
Exactly the point. “The world is better off without religion” should be taken as a hypothetical and an opinion and not presented as if it’s an obvious fact. It isn’t.
So we agree on that right?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think “evangelical” works ok. There are definitely some activist atheists out there who express a goal to “deconvert” theists and do so with a zeal comparable to Christian evangelicals.
I’ve encountered very few (if any) atheists who say they want to make religion illegal but there’s no question some of them can be extremely antipathetic and hostile towards religious institutions and people of faith.
[/QUOTE]
I have nothing against a deconversion goal. My own is to try and get people to think about thier belief system. Don’t accept the meme because it’s popular or tradition, or what the people you like believe.
I can even respect an honest “You know I haven’t really thouhgt about it that much”
I have begun to suspect that we need some of the atheist zealots to instigate the discourse and the thought process. I enjoyed “The End of Faith” and like to see Sam on talk shows. One poster in the blogs linked to Beyond Belief which I will check out when I get time.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I think so–I think that prr is wrong when he says that Christians won’t admit what you’ve just admitted. He’d do well to pay attention to the conversation taht other people are trying to have, I think.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
I agree. FTR I don’t call myself a Christian even though I have reverance for what JC taught. It just irritates me when people make smug blanket statements about spiritual beliefs , hence, this thread.