Sophistry and Illusion
“So accepting atheism logically entails rejecting theism, and thinking theists are wrong”
You won’t believe me, but my very next post in this thread was going to be about making that very point (albeit in a less eloquent way).
I think part of the motivation for an Atheist comes from knowing the ‘others’ are believing in, and making decisions based on a non-truth.
Well, great minds think alike and all that. 
:smack: I think you just bloody nailed it. It’s the “act of converting” that turns people into assholes. They have converted their belief system so they need to validate their new-found beliefs … and dog the opposition in order to rationalize or justify their new values. I get it now…
Atheists who have always been atheists don’t need to prove anything to anyone; same for theists… But a converted person would probably have some disgruntled anger issues they want to spew to validate their conversion … That explains everything.
I don’t think spiritual folks are stupid… I’m semi-quoting what atheists have said here.
Because although I am a theist, I think the atheist pov is intriguing and most definitely interesting - those that do not bash theists, that is. the atheists rationaliziations are enlightening, no doubt.
:rolleyes: I didn’t say you think spiritual folks are stupid. I said you think “atheists” think folks being spiritual necessarily makes them stupid.
Where have atheists here said one who is spiritual is stupid?
You didn’t say “bashing” theists; you said bashing theism. My response was to show you that one can’t support atheism without “bashing” theism. See Sophistry and Illusion’s reply as he explained it more in depth.
Me. Along with delusional and/or dishonest. Which flaw or combination of flaws makes them “spiritual” is different from person to person of course.
Okay then, we have one. Although I haven’t seen where Der Trihs has actually said here that being spiritual makes one stupid until just now.
Right… from what I’ve read here, I think “some” atheists believe being spiritual necessarily makes people stupid.
Go to any number of atheist/religious threads that have been started here in the past few weeks and you’ll find them…
See, I believe one can indeed support atheism without bashing theism. All one has to do is state why they are atheists without making it personal or insulting for theists… it’s very easy indeed. But if an atheist is looking to discredit theists in order to validate his own beliefs, it takes away from his character.
I haven’t found them. Care to point me towards one?
Ahh, if you are defining 'bashing" as being insulting, that’s another story. I think it’s because many atheists are sick and tired of some theists, especially those in power, pushing their agendas on everyone else.
But you’re just assuming that some atheists bash theism in order to validate their non-belief. I doubt this is a very common reason.
You kinda have to discredit theists in order to explain why you’re an athiest, though. I suppose it depends what you mean by “discredit”; do you mean specifically say why a certain theist is wrong? Sure, you’re right with that. Do you mean avoid any mention of why a certain theistic belief is wrong? Because that can’t be avoided. How else can I explain why i’m an atheist without mentioning why I don’t hold particular beliefs?
The reverse is also true.
Theists don’t have to be discredited to justify atheism. The theist is convinced. I am not. Personal credibility does not enter into it.
Possibly we’re just using different definitions of discrediting. I just think that giving reasons why something isn’t so naturally discredits the belief that something is so, and therefore those who hold that view.
But atheism requires no argument that something isn’t so. It’s just a lack of conviction that it IS so.
No one said atheism, or being an atheist, requires an argument. Where talking about what Johnny said about “supporting” atheism, or making arguments for it. Kinda hard to do without making an argument which discredits theism.
But atheism cannot be “supported” because it does not assert anything. It’s not a hypothesis or a belief in itself. It’s an absence of belief. There’s nothing to support or argue for.
I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, on several forums I’m the first one to correct theist arguments that atheism is a belief, that it takes faith to be an atheist, etc. But when I do this, I am supporting atheism and it’s definitely my atheism I’m making an argument for.
Yes. Atheism in and of itself is essentially a “null” position. A positive position, as most religions are, can be stated without having anything alternative. “I believe this” doesn’t require someone else saying “I believe* that*”. However, an atheist argument is a response to a positive position. I can’t say “I don’t believe this” without there first being a “this” to not believe in.
Boiled down to it, you could just explain your atheism as “I lack belief in any gods”. But that is itself still discrediting, as it effectively says to all believers “I disagree with you”. Not exactly hugely discrediting, but discrediting nonetheless. The amount of discrediting may increase as arguments against certain deities are brought in.
In response to Lobsang’s original questions, I did not convert because of anything I read on this board. I can’t even say that it was a sizeable part of my reason to convert. But participating in religious threads does boost my faith, because the lame arguments and bad behavior of some of the atheists on this board serve as a reminder of why I’m glad that I’m not an atheist any longer.
(Some will doubtlessly think this is a troll post or an attempt at sarcasm. It is not. It is an honest answer to what Lobsang asked.)
I don’t expect to convince anyone of anything during a debate. The most I hope for is that 5 years later, the other guy will sit bolt upright in bed at 3AM and say, “Wait a minute; coffeecat had a point!” The day is short, the task is great, yada yada.
**Theist turned Atheist here, thanks to SDMB. **
I can’t say I was so much swayed by any posters (although Opus1 and Diogenes the Cynic did a terrific job), because I never argued in a religious thread as a pro-theist.
I came in May 1999 thinking:
The bible was inerrant; no contradictions or interpolations or errors. As a fundie (Intl Churches of Christ) my faith was based on the Bible being the inspired Word of God, so by definition, it was error-free.
The Universe was created by God. Evolution had too many holes and it was only a theory. All this perfection could not be an accident. Cosmology and abiogenesis were lumped in with evolution, of course. Creationism was the default alternative.
I remember being most shocked by two things:
The Bible has true contradictions. There is no way to reconcile the resurrection between the without going through insane loops. For instance, 11 apostles (minus Judas) saw Jesus resurrect in the 4 gospels. 1 Corinthians has 12 apostles. One HAS to be wrong.
The New Testament was not written in order. I had always assumed that the four gospels were written right after Jesus rose. The epistles were written as commentary after the gospels. In the contradiction above, 1 Corinthians was written before the four gospels.
A visit to Talk-Origins (linked from an SDMB thread) cleared up the Evolution-Creation thing for me. So, that big ball of energy does affect entropy