The stuff I snipped is very reasonable. There is no doubt that religion exists, and I thin that belief in a mythological creature might well have beneficial effects. Only the actual existence of the creature is up for argument here. Belief in Santa has beneficial effects also - for parents, at least.
I was in alt.atheism about the time the IPU was invented, and the reason for it was special pleading on the part of theists. Specifically, there were some posters whose argument against atheism was more or less that God is just different. The IPU was not invented to mock anyone or to call them ignorant, but rather to shock theists by forcing them to recognize the atheists argument applied to something they didn’t have an emotional stake in.
We see it, expressed more subtly, here. How else to justify the argument from faith for god vs the IPU except by saying God is just different. It is far less mocking than invoking magic sky pixies. The IPU says nothing directly about god.
Say some doubter of science claimed that the work of a PhD chemist was no more believable than what is found by a ten-year-old kid using a chemistry set. After making sure that the kid isn’t some sort of genius, you’d refute this by showing how they are different, not by having a fit about how insulting the comparison is. Why can’t theists do the same? Then they are free to get insulted if atheists keep bringing it up.
Strikes me as pretty clearly indended as mockery, not any sort of actual serious “argument”. The point is to make fun of those who preach on alt-athiesm, where preaching isn’t wanted (though serious discussions by thiests are), by making some mock preachery.
It’s a self-described alternative to flaming. I think you guys are taking it too seriously - I would assume from this FAQ that if I showed up on alt-athiesm and made an argument that was greated by reference to the IPU, it was a sign I’d transgressed the bounds of politeness there and was deserving of a little mock.
If you think it’s just mocking without making a valid rhetorical point, then you aren’t really trying to understand it. Please expalin why belief in the IPU is ridiculous while belief in a Canaanite sky god called Yahweh is not.
You are missing my point - as I’ve said before, I’m no theist. I am merely critiquing the effectiveness of this particular argument against theism, which I think stinks.
Point is, you cannot use something both as an clear and intentional insult and mockery, expressly stated as being reserved for bad behaviour, and as a serious argument for those who behave well but with whom you honestly disagree.
Otherwise, there is really no difference on that website between those who intend to argue in good faith, and those who show up to preach. How is it that, as several have said, theists are being “oversensitive” in seeing mockery where none was intended, if the athiests make no distinction between those they intend to insult and mock for bad netiquette and those they don’t?
First of all, Mickey didn’t do the deep theological arguments. And you notice that she refers to the IPU etc. as silly,. and then talks about how preaching is viewed. The point remains that preaching is viewed by atheists as noncredible, and the IPU is a mechanism to help theists understand why that is. all they’d have to do to stop the IPU argument is to give good reasons why belief in a god is different. That seems to be too difficult.
The IPU is not an argument against theism, and it is certainly neither evidence nor proof of the nonexistence of god. The IPU is there to help the theist understand an atheist mindset. Remember that belittling references to god used to be blasphemy and against the law. While we seem to have gotten over that, in the West at least, I have observed Christians not hearing atheist arguments because they are talking about God and God is different from every other entity to be discussed. The sensitivity to the IPU argument seems to me to be a remnant of the ban against blasphemy. Ditto the “how dare you call belief in god irrational” argument.
I don’t know about you, but I’m a lot more sensitive to criticisms of things where I’m not sure about the justification of my beliefs versus those where I think I have good justification.
Can we get some actual theists in here who are offended by the Santa Claus/IPU comparison premise to explain why they are offended? I’ve seen Malthus claim it’s offensive about ten times now with no indication of a viable alternative (except a vague “be nice”, I guess) so we may as well cut out the middleman.
He’s correct about offense being taken, and about how the reason for it is the perception that we are comparing god to the IPU. The point is either too subtle for the theists, or they find it easier to take offense than to address the real issue.
Oh, come on. You’re drawing a comparison between the object of one’s most deeply held spiritual beliefs and a contrived transparent myth used to deceive children into behaving better until they are old enough to see through it. I’m not even a theist and I can see the offense in that. It strains credibility that you say you can’t. Want a viable alternative? Compare Yahweh to Brahma (or a figure from another well-established world religion). They may still disagree, but at least you’re not implicitly saying “awww, your heartfelt religion, what a cute children’s story.”
The whole point is to make a comparison between the object of someone’s deeply held belief and something obviously made up. That means Santa, a tea pot, a unicorn, the FSM, anything. As soon as the made-up object also needs to be respectful we end up with something (semi-)religious (you know - some mythical energy field spreading love throughout the universe, that kind of thing) anything less wouldn’t be respectful enough. And the theist side would likely happily claim the respectful thing is if not exactly the same as their deity, at least close enough to shades of the same thing.
Again, it needs to be obviously made up. That is not automatically ridiculing, but it is probably automatically disrespectful, since we need to have a non-reverend view of the topic in order to discuss it without the totally unwarranted heaps of special exemptions from reason that God-like beings get from their believers.
Respectful is the word I should have used in my description of the talk.atheism discussions. We’re being asked to give special respect to their deity, quite unlike the lack of respect they give to Wiccan deities (whatever they might be) or Thor. I’d guess that in all be the most liberal of churches (and maybe them also) disrespect of god is the ultimate no-no. But it is very hard to give arguments against god as being imaginary while still respecting him. I’m all for respecting real life people, imaginary deities, not so much. Not that the IPU argument actually disrespects god, unless one thinks that the slightest casting of doubt is disrespectful.
I was just taking a shower and it occurred to me that the best counterpart to any posited deity would be a something that matches that deity in as many respects as possible except some very trivial details, but those details should also make it immediately unbelievable. That would be the best that could be done respect-wise and also make the point the most strongly.
In other words; the FSM is probably the best counter hypothesis to the christian god that I know, and I defy anyone who claims comparing the christian god to the FSM is by itself disrespectful to come up with a good reason why. Note that I’m not talking about pastafarianism, but the FSM itself, and also that I’m not claiming people won’t be offended.
I didn’t say I couldn’t - I just wanted to see an actual theist say it rather than self-appointed spokesmen who repeatedly claim to not be of their number. I get it. You believe they’d be offended. Fine. Hoo-ray. Now can we hear it from an actual member of the allegedly offended group?
If one cannot use ridicule, or compare belief in one deity to another being that is just as unlikely to exist, or ask for evidence, how can one effectively debate atheism vs. religion?
Is there a way to do it that will not offend the religious? Could someone give me an example?
The problem with this approach is, when you ask them why they don’t believe in other gods, you’re likely to get the answer “Because my god told me not to believe in it” instead of the desired “because the evidence is poor”. In order to avoid this, you have to avoid anything that might have been tagged as false god by their religion, and unless I’ve missed something that leaves you with only the overtly ridiculous and the childish.
A while back there was a thread analyzing some video of a debate between a creationist and three scientists (well, actually, it looked more like an opportunity for the creationist to play out tired jokes to a friendly audience). I also had a “shower” moment when it occurred to me that one of the scientists, in response to the claim the Genesis was scientifically accurate, should have held up a book and said:
Would a theist find that offensive? Hell, I dunno, but it’s essentially identical to invoking Santa or the IPU.
And it would be fun to see how long that debate can remain so civil and genteel. Just for giggles, how do you think a theist would reply (while we wait for an actual theist to show up) and what do you think Hentor’s follow-up should be? I mean, that’s a nice way to open the debate, but what are you gonna do for the other 59 minutes?