Why Atheism?

[tk102]

"Some others"? What others? The people I've seen holding a double standard on this matter are uniformly religious. I've never seen an atheist try to restrict the free speech of religious people. I HAVE seen religious people try to restrict the free speech of atheists.

Surely you've heard of Richard Dawkins of Flying-Spaghetti-Monster fame. (Not really fair perhaps to Dawkins, he's not in a position to restrict free speech, though he would happily support atheism in Congress.)

 

Here's an article that was published in Wired magazine a two months ago for others to acquaint themselves with him in their leisure.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,228,Battle-of-the-New-Atheism,Gary-Wolf--Wiredcom

[Jae Onasi]

No offence, but your intent has nothing, NOTHING whatsoever to do with it. My initial post was an analysis of your text. Not your "intent".

Actually, it has everything to do with my intent. How can you possibly separate my intent from my message? You are making incorrect assumptions and reading something into my statements that I never said or meant. Or are you doing this just to make fun of me?

If you can find any logical flaw in my analysis of your text, let's discuss it.

Your assumption that I find logic somehow 'unattractive'. Your assumption that because I, in your view, lack logic on this matter, I must therefore lack logic on all matters. Your assumption that I must be unable to grasp truth simply because I ask why atheists/agnostics choose individually to believe in this worldview. Your assumption that all atheists choose to embrace this worldview based solely on logic when there may be other factors--hatred of the Church from a very bad experience with it and thus turning away from God, embracing atheism/agnosticism because parents were atheist/agnostic, disliking religious hypocrisy, embracing the philosophy because they admired someone influential who was agnostic/atheist, and a host of other reasons that are not necessarily logic based.

 

Logic may be the reason for you to be atheist, but it is not necessarily everyone else's reason.

Sure I would. I have no problem with logical debate and utilitarian attitudes to debate. It would make something of a change, in fact.

Did you really have to make that last statement? That sort of dig is meant solely to cause pain.

Listen, to be moral in a discussion forum one must debate by the rules.

But it would be quite IMMORAL for me to gloss over the truth; to bend facts out of fear that you or anyone else might be irrationally upset by them.

It is not the facts that bother me, nor your message of your interpretation of facts that lead you to the atheist worldview. I treasure all my atheist and agnostic friends and respect their beliefs, and they respect mine. They may consider my thoughts on religion misguided, but they still treat _me_ with respect.

 

I didn't ask you to gloss over the truth. However, there are ways to present 'truth' that are better/more effective than others. Your message is getting lost in your style of delivery, and your sarcastic and belittling style is what I find so upsetting. In fact, your style of delivery is detracting tremendously from your message. Has it occured to you that more people might contribute and actually take you more seriously if you didn't first browbeat them with your comments (implied and real) about how stupid they must be for not agreeing with you? Rules of debate also include respect for your opponent, even if you disagree completely. You've got the logic down pat, but you lack the respect--when you make demeaning comments about someone's level of sanity or lack of logic, or use oblique reference semantics in an attempt to be sarcastic without quite going over the official line of rude, you are not exhibiting any form of respect for them. You can argue through eternity that you have the right to treat people in that manner because they are deluding themselves on x issue and it's your duty to point out their idiocy, but you are hobbling your arguments by taking that attitude. Just because you have the right to do that doesn't mean you should. Just because I think something uncharitable doesn't mean I have to say it. If you have not read Dale Carnegie's works, I suggest you find a couple of his books, absorb the principles, and learn. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a classic. If you've read it, review it. You may not want to win friends here, but I can tell that you do want very badly to influence people. We flies like honey, not your vinegar.

And make no mistake, this recurring theme in your posts that "Your argument is invalid because it upsets me"... I don't consider it to be rational or valid in any way.

It would be irrational if I had said that, but I have not, and this is an assumption on your part. Your arguments may or may not be valid, but that's not what distresses me. I don't want to debate (much) with you because your delivery of your message and your continued sarcastic tone is very offensive to me. We haven't even begun to reach a level together where we can address the validity of the arguments themselves. If the discussion of arguments is the finish line of a race, we haven't even made it off the start line yet.

When you choose to alter your approach, then we can begin to make headway on the issues themselves. I will try to treat you with respect, though I can't promise I'll be perfect at it, because you have managed in a few posts to irritate the hell out of me, which is quite the achievement, believe me. Humor mode way on--if that somehow amuses/pleases you, you win the 'I p!ssed off Jae' t-shirt and the cookie.

Sigh. The topic is "Why Atheism?" and all my posts have been firmly on-topic. It would be nice if you actually engaged me in a logical debate for once, instead of just telling me to "go away".

Be nice to me and quit the flame-baiting/flaming/semantic of your choice comments, even if you don't agree with my stances on certain issues. The topic is why people choose to embrace atheism on a personal level. You stated it's logic for you. That's the answer I was looking for, not a discussion of my level of intelligence/sanity/etc. for not embracing that philosophy.

Your assertion that non-religious morality is changeable or subjective is a nonsense. Morality is (and must be) logically arrived at, is objective, universal and has nothing to do with theism. For more detailed argument go to this thread: Moral Relativism

I would if I had the emotional resources to deal with the highly probable likelihood that I'll get flamed/semantic of your choice because I have a couple questions and points. However, I've had a thoroughly crappy 2 months (which include the kitchen ceiling nearly falling on my head and finding a hole in our garage roof that will be expensive to fix, and that's just for starters), and I don't know that I'd have the resources at this time to be able to sift through attitude landmines to get to the heart of the issue before getting frustrated/angry and saying something unpleasant myself. I choose to defer unless you can give me an assurance of a more positive tone (which does _not_ mean agreement), or I can get past this really annoying insomnia that I've had the last few months that is taxing my physical and emotional resources. Unless you're able to make some changes in your style of presentation, I'm not able to get far into that argument at this point.

I suppose in theory, if one is deluding oneself into believing that prayer will have ANY practical effect at all, it might actually trigger a placebo effect in oneself, speeding one's recovery by making one's attitude more positive. In this respect, the prayer-friend might actually have a more positive effect than the thinking-of-you-friend.

Placebo effect works on average 35% of the time, and in some studies on the placebo effect, upwards of 70-80%. It's a fascinating phenomenon. I've had a couple middle school girls over the years who managed to convince themselves they couldn't see very much at all ("hysterical blindness"), and I determined a. they weren't lying to get glasses, b., they had no real prescription, and c. they had absolutely no other eye/neuro problems that could be causing the vision decrease. So I held up a lens with no power in it at all and told them it could really help. Suddenly, they could see again normally. The brain is a pretty amazing thing.

 

I wonder if the cheese monster is ever afraid of getting possibly eaten by a starving worshipper.

I'll let the teens make the crass remarks about cutting the cheese. Naw, if the worshipper eats the cheese monster, the worshipper is automatically relegated to Cheez Whiz Hell and is sentenced to an eternity of enduring 'processed American cheese substitute' and the Muzak version of any Paul Simon song.

Edit: sleeping in with kids--there's no such thing til she's able to get her own breakfast. Our kids are up before 7am and our youngest loves to crawl into bed with us on the weekends if we're still not up when she gets up. Since that gets us up, we may as well go to church anyway.

 

Edit:

The O.P. question is why atheism and it looks like Jae is upset at Spider's reasoning, but I have to agree with him. The reason for "why" is reason. The claims of theology aren't tenable and therefore should be criticized or, at the very least, discarded by the reasoned mind.

I am not upset at his reasoning in the least. I'm fine with his choice of 'reason' as his reason why he embraces this philosophy.

I'm upset at how he chooses to present that reasoning in his statements to me. He can choose a sarcastic, belittling tone or he can choose a more respectful tone to express his views. I detest disrespect and flaming, and I see no reason for it to be allowed on any of these boards. I may disagree with your or another's choice not to agree on a certain point in any argument, but I'm never going to call you or anyone else stupid, misguided, or insane, nor am I even going to make strong implications to that effect in order to dodge the strict interpretation of the flame/flame-baiting rules here. I think I deserve the same courtesy in return, even if you find my stance on the issue of religion itself untenable.

And another edit: I didn't see your post below before adding my reply to you.

[SkinWalker]

Spider Al,

 

I agree with all of your points. But Jae's criticism of your delivery is spot on. We'll be more effective at conveying reason if more care is taken to avoid condescension, though I'm probably guilty of it too. I admit, it is very hard *not* to sound condescending to believers when you argue with them that their beliefs are deluded, however, there are some choice words here and there in your posts that could have been omitted or re-worded that would have made your point in such a way as to not bait your opposition.

 

I say this not just as a moderator (perhaps not as a moderator at all), but rather, as one who agrees with your points and would like to see them understood and even mulled over. I've known many who have been swayed over time by reason and logic. I've even witnessed a hard-core theist become an atheist in another forum I moderate. But regardless of whether Nancy or Jae are convinced by your arguments, there will always be those that lurk and never post who are truly undecided, and it might be your words that convince them one way or the other.

[Samuel Dravis]

@Sam--which of the Natural Laws would you like to follow? What if I don't agree with the laws you like? What if mine conflict? Who's right at that point? How do those types of questions get resolved without creating inconsistencies?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think the natural law is essentially "do good and avoid evil," which sounds pretty much the same as the atheists' beliefs here, though the particulars on a given subject may be slightly different. If your interpretation of doing good is different from mine, either I see it to cause harm or I don't. If I do, then I'll be sure to point that out, using reason, logic and whatever else is available to show you why I think that action is harmful. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then I've got no place to tell you what to think; you're a free actor capable of deciding for yourself, just as I am.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Nope. Moral rights and responsibilities supercede legalistic/professional rights and responsibilities. Even if the teacher had no certificates, even if certificates weren't required to be an accredited teacher, the teacher would still have a moral right to speak rational truths, and a moral responsibility to teach rational truths.

Oh okay.

 

There is (as you are aware) a leeeeetle more to determining what is rationally correct, than relying on the "general consensus".

Yeah, but you mentioned moral responsibility before - I wouldn't call it morally responsible to just allow someone to go about thinking that three and five are seven when everyone else thinks they're equal to eight and will think he/she is an invalid for thinking otherwise.

 

 

By the way, and this has been kind of bugging me for a while, instead of quoting people by adding italicized letters inside the quote tag, you can simply use

[quote name='username']Something about a cheddar cheese slice?[/quote]

[SkinWalker]

Surely you've heard of Richard Dawkins of Flying-Spaghetti-Monster fame.

 

Dawkins is famous for several things, the FSM isn't one of them.

[tk102]

I must have been led astray by that article. "For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant of the tiny orbiting teapot used by Bertrand Russell for similar rhetorical duty back in 1952." I read as: "For instance, [his] Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant..." since that came right after a quote where he used that analogy. Seemed original enough to me at the time I read it ... but reading arguments for atheism is something new to me (obviously).

[Jae Onasi]

Spider Al,

. But regardless of whether Nancy or Jae are convinced by your arguments, there will always be those that lurk and never post who are truly undecided, and it might be your words that convince them one way or the other.

 

And, believe it or not, I'm willing to entertain the idea that I could be wrong and there's nothing out there. (Humor mode on: don't have a heart attack at that. I can't do electronic CPR. ). At this point, though, if I'm wrong, then I die, then pffft, that's it, and I had a few delusions during life. It's not going to alter my decision to try to make my life and the lives of those around me better. Christ's example of love for humanity is going to continue to be inspirational and relevent whether or not I believe, and some of the practical life tips in Proverbs will still be practical, and prayer/meditation/time of contemplation will still have the benefits that come with sitting down and tuning out our over-busy society for a short time to think of other things besides ourselves. So the underpinnings of those actions, be it humanism or faith, aren't as important at that point. If I'm right, then Heaven awaits at some point, but that doesn't negate the need to treasure life here as if there was no afterlife. Life is too precious to be squandered, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.

 

You know, the idea of reverse proselytizing just weirds my brain out, but at this point I also badly need a nap, fwiw.

[ChAiNz.2da]

Perhaps not "famous" for, but he likes dropping the name in his arguments

 

http://www.venganza.org/2006/10/04/richard-dawkins.htm

[Nancy Allen``]

There's something called 'freedom of religion', if Atheists seek to abolish the faith people who follow religion have then that's a direct violation of that right.

[Razaki]

If Atheists were seeking to abolish religion directly, say by burning churches or murdering clergy, then yes, that would be a violation. Saying that religion is irrational is no more a violation of the freedom of religion than saying that 2+2=4 is a violation of your right to free speech if you say that 2+2=5. As Spider has pointed out, it's a matter of rationality.

 

There is a great difference between violating a person's right and choosing to point out falsities in their thinking. Certainly you have a right to believe whatever you want. That is an unalienable right that all humans possess. Every single person, however, also has an unalienable right to search for logic, rationality, and truth. It is only natural to discuss these things in a debate format and to attempt to persuade others to your side of belief.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

There's something called 'freedom of religion', if Atheists seek to abolish the faith people who follow religion have then that's a direct violation of that right.

Some religions involve human sacrifice, should those be allowed?

 

I don't think anyone has suggested the abolishment of religions that don't involve dangerous/deadly/murderous activities, they've just discouraged the practice.

[Nancy Allen``]

Arn't those more cults than actual religions? I know there are people who use their belief to justify their actions and this could well be the case here, but I could be wrong. Someone who knows a lot more about religion than I do would be better to cover it.

 

What pisses me off about Atheism is that there are some, like SkinWalker, who are able to accept that others follow religion (that bit I have no problem with, in fact I'm exactly the same) where as some believe they have the right to monster people who follow religion out of their beliefs. They have no such rights, not only is such an idea morally wrong you do not want to see the day that such practices are accepted, because that's where problems begin and they end with Nazi Stormtroopers and death squads. People follow religion, those who cannot accept that have problems far greater than any number of people Atheists can convert from religion can solve.

[Tyrion]

What pisses me off about Atheism is that there are some, like SkinWalker, who are able to accept that others follow religion (that bit I have no problem with, in fact I'm exactly the same) where as some believe they have the right to monster people who follow religion out of their beliefs. They have no such rights, not only is such an idea morally wrong you do not want to see the day that such practices are accepted, because that's where problems begin and they end with Nazi Stormtroopers and death squads. People follow religion, those who cannot accept that have problems far greater than any number of people Atheists can convert from religion can solve.

 

That's not just a quality of Atheism though - there are countless examples of followers within every possible belief trying to convert others through platitudes of arguments or by violent coercion. To suggest that it is only a quality of Atheism and a point of derision that cannot be applied to any other religion, is quite a bit foolish.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What pisses me off about Atheism is that there are some, like SkinWalker, who are able to accept that others follow religion (that bit I have no problem with, in fact I'm exactly the same) where as some believe they have the right to monster people who follow religion out of their beliefs.

This goes for all groups of people - some people can accept different things, others cannot. The only major difference is the power each group holds, take, for example, Christians (wasps in particular), the amount of power this group holds is tremendous - which is why I find your post a bit... odd. You seem to be focused on Atheists offending your beliefs, and ignore the fact that religious people offend the beliefs (or lack thereof) or Atheists. Personally, I'd rather not have anyone tell me I'm going to burn for all eternity because I don't go to church or believe in a god, or legislate what I can and cannot do because they think they know what's best for me.

[Nancy Allen``]

Of course it is, and I'm equally pissed off that people from any type of religion try and force others to their will. The same as Christians bomb abortion clinics to impose their views should have God's wrath brought onto them when they're deader than Elvis, the same as Islamic extremists commit terrorist acts to force the world to their blasphemus to the Quran ways should be confronted by the full might of the world's counterterrorist forces, so too should Atheists who seek to convert others should learn to sit down, shut up and see whether or not people who follow religion want the help Atheists say they give and have their eyes opened to the evils of believing in something that is not real.

[Samuel Dravis]

What? There's not much to believe about atheism (heh), and no one has ever said that there are no gods. They've only said that since there is no objective evidence for them they shouldn't be believed in. That doesn't completely rule gods out, and it's silly to think so. There are limits to how far incredulity can be stretched, and if you're already past that point then I see no real argument as to why you cannot still hold your beliefs legitimately. However, that's obviously a subjective measurement, so don't expect to get far in an argument with it...

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod:

Now, here's the problem I have with that. It's the supposition that god or gods being unproven relegating them to effective nonexistence. It doesn't leave open the possibility ...

I'm going to unceremoniously halt the quote there, because of course it leaves open the "possibility" of error. In theory, even the existence of the sentient slices of cheese is a possibility. In rational terms.

 

But because something (that has no evidence to suggest that it exists) may possibly exist, does one say "it exists"? No, one doesn't. One says that it doesn't exist. One says that it doesn't exist, until such time as some small shred of evidence is put forward that suggests that it DOES exist.

 

I could say "there's an invisible elephant sitting on your head" and sure enough, there's a remote possibility that my statement is correct. But until I put forward some evidence to support my ludicrous assertion, the elephant does not exist. The cheese-slices do not exist. And gods do not exist.

 

This isn't just a question of terminology, either. It's a question of rational use of language.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

I wonder if the cheese monster is ever afraid of getting possibly eaten by a starving worshipper.

Why, you heretic! There is more than one cheese-monster, as I've previously stated.

 

Looks like the new religion has undergone its first schism. Perhaps we can organise a small holy war at some point to settle the issue.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

Surely you've heard of Richard Dawkins of Flying-Spaghetti-Monster fame. (Not really fair perhaps to Dawkins, he's not in a position to restrict free speech, though he would happily support atheism in Congress.)

Dawkins is not an opponent of free speech. Quite the reverse.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Actually, it has everything to do with my intent. How can you possibly separate my intent from my message? You are making incorrect assumptions and reading something into my statements that I never said or meant. Or are you doing this just to make fun of me?

How can I separate your intent from your message? I would ask, how can I possibly LINK the two? I don't know what's going through your head when you type what you type. I just READ what you type. The text. Not your mindset when typing. That's not something I can read.

 

And frankly, you yourself have admitted to typing things you did not mean (As I'm sure we all have done at some time or another.) in past threads. The (quite understandable) reason you cited at the time was fatigue. But I am not psychic. I cannot know what you MEAN to type, only what you ACTUALLY type.

 

Intent is an irrelevance. I do not care about your intent. I do not expect others to care about MY intent. I care about the text of others. I expect others to care about MY text.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Your assumption that I find logic somehow 'unattractive'.

First, I give you credit for finally addressing specific points in this paragraph. I never said this specifically, but nonetheless it is essentially true. Let me explain why:

 

1. Part of your original question amounted to "why do atheists find atheism attractive?"

2. Atheism is pure rationality. It's a rational, logical position.

3. Therefore your question could be legitimately interpreted as: "why do you logical people find logic attractive in this area?"

4. Since you are by your own admission a religious person, this means that your thought is illogical in this respect. (The theistic respect.)

5. You quite literally wished to KNOW why these logical people find their logical "worldview" attractive, AND you are religious, therefore you necessarily do not find logic as attractive as atheists find it.

6. If you were "attracted" to logic to the same degree as atheists are, you would BE an atheist.

 

QED.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Your assumption that because I, in your view, lack logic on this matter, I must therefore lack logic on all matters.

I never said this, or anything close to this.

 

I stated once that if someone is capable of ignoring rationality in one area of their life, their lack of rationality is unlikely to be limited to that one area. Which is a statement that would seem axiomatic to me, and which I stand by.

 

That is however a far cry from "religious folk lack logic in ALL MATTERS".

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Your assumption that I must be unable to grasp truth simply because I ask why atheists/agnostics choose individually to believe in this worldview.

I never said you were "unable" to grasp any truth.

 

I DID point out the obvious, that if you have to ask:

 

"What I don't get to see from that is why atheists/agnostics like to believe in atheism/agnosticism (for lack of better phrasing at the moment). What is it that is attractive about this particular worldview?"

 

Then you clearly haven't grasped the basic truth that atheism is simply rationality, and that religion is irrational and ludicrous. Otherwise you would be an atheist. I didn't say you were incapable of grasping this truth, however. For all I know you might be an atheist in five years' time for this very reason.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Your assumption that all atheists choose to embrace this worldview based solely on logic when there may be other factors--hatred of the Church from a very bad experience with it and thus turning away from God, embracing atheism/agnosticism because parents were atheist/agnostic, disliking religious hypocrisy, embracing the philosophy because they admired someone influential who was agnostic/atheist, and a host of other reasons that are not necessarily logic based.

 

Logic may be the reason for you to be atheist, but it is not necessarily everyone else's reason.

It is the only valid reason. In fact, logical reasons are the only valid reasons for doing ANYTHING.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Did you really have to make that last statement? That sort of dig is meant solely to cause pain.

I stated:

 

"Sure I would. [Want to be on the receiving end of the attitude I myself take] I have no problem with logical debate and utilitarian attitudes to debate. It would make something of a change, in fact."

 

And I stand by every single word. There are no "digs", only plain, verifiable statements. Do you know how long it is since I have debated in the Senate with someone who opposes my views with logical arguments? The last time was in October. I was debating the nature of morality with Edlib in the thread on Moral Relativism.

 

Do you dispute this statement? You certainly don't have a leg to stand on in the matter, because you yourself are quite literally REFUSING to debate with me in a rational, logical manner... until I am arbitrarily "nice" enough for your liking.

 

So yes, some logical debate WOULD make something of a change. I stand by that, it is literally true.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

It is not the facts that bother me, nor your message of your interpretation of facts that lead you to the atheist worldview. I treasure all my atheist and agnostic friends and respect their beliefs, and they respect mine. They may consider my thoughts on religion misguided, but they still treat _me_ with respect.

Yes, they treat YOU with respect, because they're your friends. But if they were really atheists, I find it hard to believe that they would "respect your beliefs". They might respect your right to hold such beliefs... as I do.

 

But I certainly don't "respect your beliefs". I think they're irrational and invalid. I don't see how any rational atheist could feel differently if they were thinking logically.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I didn't ask you to gloss over the truth. However, there are ways to present 'truth' that are better/more effective than others. Your message is getting lost in your style of delivery, and your sarcastic and belittling style is what I find so upsetting. In fact, your style of delivery is detracting tremendously from your message.

 

...

I'm actually somewhat flattered by this statement, because many many great rational thinkers have this same criticism thrown at them all the time. Richard Dawkins for instance is almost constantly accused of "losing his message in his delivery" by people of various types. Chomsky is accused of this regularly. (Not that I am REMOTELY putting myself on the same intellectual level as these giants, these brilliantly shining lights of intelligence and reason, by the way.)

 

But of course, the criticism is an irrelevance when it's levelled at them, and it's an irrelevance now that you're levelling it at me. Because in virtually all cases, this criticism is a REPLACEMENT for a valid counter-argument. You're not making any secret that you're unwilling to even address my arguments. And regardless of the subjective emotional reasons you cite for your failure to address the arguments, in a debate the important things are the arguments.

 

And you're just avoiding them. Which is telling.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Rules of debate also include respect for your opponent, even if you disagree completely.

No they don't. I don't know where you get this from. A valid debate is a debate in which two or more people work through a series of logical arguments, and challenge each other's assertions with logical and tangible evidence.

 

They don't have to respect each other. They don't have to like each other, they don't even have to be "nice" to each other.

 

They DO have to conform to the- rather universal- rules of rational debate: That is, no personal attacks, no logical fallacies and no irrelevant non-sequiturs. And then they'll have a valid debate.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

You've got the logic down pat, but you lack the respect

Thanks for the compliment. But as for lacking respect... I don't HAVE any respect for irrational beliefs, be they conventionally political, dogmatic, theistic or amoral. So of course I lack "the respect". And that's not a problem for me or my arguments.

 

Do you want me to lie to you, Jae? Do you want me to tell you it's "okay that you believe what you do"? Do you want me to tell you "I respect your beliefs"?

 

1. I won't, 2. It isn't and 3. I don't.

 

If my honesty in this respect offends, that's unfortunate. But this honesty is morally necessary, so if it offends... That also is necessary.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Just because you have the right to do that doesn't mean you should. Just because I think something uncharitable doesn't mean I have to say it.

Actually having the right to do something means that- morally speaking- you can morally do it. This idea that "just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it" is a classic fallacy- curiously enough often employed by governments who are trying to institute a totalitarian regime. (No, before you say it, I'm not comparing you to any totalitarian figure, merely making a (true) observation.)

 

Once you start putting subjective restrictions onto a right, it is no longer a "right".

 

And if whatever uncharitable thing that you're thinking is rationally true, then YES, of COURSE you have to say it, morally speaking.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a classic. If you've read it, review it. You may not want to win friends here, but I can tell that you do want very badly to influence people.

If you seriously believe that I'm remotely concerned with influencing anyone else with my arguments, you haven't been reading what I've been posting. I've stated on many many occasions that debates are NOT about convincing ANYONE of ANYTHING. Debates are about truth and searching for the truth. I debate to search for the truth for myself, and to speak the truth because it's moral to do so.

 

I don't debate to convince you of the truth. It's up to you to convince yourself of truths.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

It would be irrational if I had said that, but I have not, and this is an assumption on your part.

No it isn't, I never said you "said" it. I stated that it was a recurring theme in your posts, and I stand by that. It was the same thing in the previous Iraq-related threads, no doubt it'll be the same thing in future threads.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The topic is why people choose to embrace atheism on a personal level. You stated it's logic for you. That's the answer I was looking for, not a discussion of my level of intelligence/sanity/etc. for not embracing that philosophy.

No, it's a discussion topic and that topic is: "Why Atheism?" Just because one starts a thread, doesn't mean one gets to dictate what course a debate takes, provided it remains pertinent to the stated topic.

 

And I've never questioned your intelligence or your sanity, you're just grossly misrepresenting now. I have and DO question your rationality when it comes to the topic of theism vs. atheism. But that's nothing personal, I question the rationality of ALL religious folk.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I would if I had the emotional resources to deal with the highly probable likelihood that I'll get flamed/semantic of your choice because I have a couple questions and points.

Hey, then don't post in the thing. Just read through it. It's fascinating stuff, it was a very enjoyable and instructive debate for me. I particularly enjoyed the exchange with Edlib.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by SkinWalker:

Spider Al,

 

I agree with all of your points. But Jae's criticism of your delivery is spot on. We'll be more effective at conveying reason if more care is taken to avoid condescension, though I'm probably guilty of it too. I admit, it is very hard *not* to sound condescending to believers when you argue with them that their beliefs are deluded, however, there are some choice words here and there in your posts that could have been omitted or re-worded that would have made your point in such a way as to not bait your opposition.

You've been saying this for some time, Skin. And I'll respond in the same way that I always respond:

 

There is nothing condescending about my posts. If I appear condescending, it is because I always choose to debate with people I consider to be touting irrational arguments / holding irrational beliefs. And pointing out their irrationality (as you noted in the above paragraph) is hard to do WITHOUT sounding condescending to some people. (Mainly them.)

 

I reject utterly the notion that my arguments and the delivery of my arguments are two separate, easily delineated things. If you give me an example of an argument of mine which has been re-worded to make it "inoffensive", I will show you how the argument has effectively been neutered by the attempt to make it more "palatable". Every single word in my posts I deem necessary to make the points that I'm trying to make.

 

And you know, often I feel as though I should be harsher in my criticisms than I currently am. But I gladly sacrifice purity of argument to abide by the forum rules. But to ask one to sacrifice MORE of that purity than is absolutely necessary... I don't think that's a useful request.

 

Furthermore if the worst anyone can say about my posts is: "All your arguments are correct and logical... but I don't like your presentation", then frankly I'm doing a pretty good job.

 

Originally Posted by SkinWalker:

I say this not just as a moderator (perhaps not as a moderator at all), but rather, as one who agrees with your points and would like to see them understood and even mulled over. I've known many who have been swayed over time by reason and logic. I've even witnessed a hard-core theist become an atheist in another forum I moderate. But regardless of whether Nancy or Jae are convinced by your arguments, there will always be those that lurk and never post who are truly undecided, and it might be your words that convince them one way or the other.

And I'd agree with you, if I believed that my arguments would influence anyone one way or another.

 

I've been debating on these and similar topics for years and years now. Much longer than merely in the Senate. Much longer than I've been on teh internets. And not once have I convinced any irrational person of anything rational. And not once have I SEEN an irrational person convinced of the rational.

 

Your personal anecdote notwithstanding, it's clear to me from personal experience that any such occurances are aberrations, hardly worth worrying over. Call me cynical, but I believe- from active observation- that people are either-or. Either you're rational, or irrational. Moral, or amoral. Right, or wrong. Sad, but true. People gravitate towards the truth if they're going to gravitate towards it, WHATEVER I say. But if they're not going to gravitate towards it... they won't. Whatever I say.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

Yeah, but you mentioned moral responsibility before - I wouldn't call it morally responsible to just allow someone to go about thinking that three and five are seven when everyone else thinks they're equal to eight and will think he/she is an invalid for thinking otherwise.

Let's invert your assertion for a moment: If everyone else thought three and five was SEVEN, i.e: If the general consensus was incorrect but socially acceptable, would it be moral for a teacher to go along with this, and teach inaccurate things to a child to make them more socially well-adjusted?

 

Of course it wouldn't be moral. Because it's the moral duty of a teacher to teach what is rationally correct. And it's doing a disservice to one's pupils to teach anything but what is right. The social implications are negligible by comparison, morally speaking.

 

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

By the way, and this has been kind of bugging me for a while, instead of quoting people by adding italicized letters inside the quote tag, you can simply use

Yeah J, I'm fully aware of that. I've created my own quote tags because my own quote tags save space on my screen when the post is sent, and are- in my personal opinion- better suited to the task of organising my (often unusually large) posts.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

There's something called 'freedom of religion', if Atheists seek to abolish the faith people who follow religion have then that's a direct violation of that right.

As Razaki has said, atheists point out logical flaws in religious belief. To say that because of this they are "seeking to abolish faiths" is inaccurate. It's arguable that the reverse is true, however: That various religions are actively seeking to "abolish" atheism through legislation and active campaigning.

 

As stated before, if logic causes someone to lose their religious belief... that's not the atheist's problem. And it wouldn't be a bad thing, either.

 

You persistently use the term "convert people to atheism". But this is strictly speaking an inappropriate term. People are "converted" from one religion to another. But atheism is an absence of delusion. So to say one can be "converted to atheism" is somewhat redundant.

 

And also... Answer the cheese question.

[Nancy Allen``]

I answered your ****ing cheese question several times. If you're not happy with it find some other damned patsy who'll say what you want to hear, preferably one with more knowledge of religion and less of what you're trying to do.

[Mace MacLeod]

*pokes head out of ground* Whoa..we're back.

 

To add a bit more to my original post, one of the reasons I can't accept any religion in particular is that there's a tendency some religious people have to think only in the most literal terms. "I believe in X. As I know that my particular bit of religious dogma was beamed down directly from God's own fax machine, X is unquestionably true, therefore everything else is by definition wrong. Contradicting X or saying it's wrong is offensive to me, and should never be done." Then there's the ones who take that a step further and say, "As X is the one sole spiritual path to Heaven/Nirvana/Paradise/anything other that fiery damnation, I have a duty to make sure everyone follows this one path. I also have a permission slip written on God's own stationary to do whatever I have to to carry this out." These have often turned out to be the most dangerous people on the planet.

 

And for the religious people who are terrified that Atheism is going to wipe out the Church or religion in general, if logic and reason really were enough to do that, they would have done so centuries ago. Besides, if someone's faith is really so weak and tissue-thin that it can be shredded by an online message board, they're probably better off without it.

[Nancy Allen``]

You have a point there, that people would be better off if their grasp on religion is so teneous that it'd be destroyed through a message board then they're probably better off. My issue however is Atheists who believe they have a right to force others to Atheism, especially when they condemn religions trying to get people to join them.

[Windu Chi]

And, believe it or not, I'm willing to entertain the idea that I could be wrong and there's nothing out there. (Humor mode on: don't have a heart attack at that. I can't do electronic CPR. ). At this point, though, if I'm wrong, then I die, then pffft, that's it, and I had a few delusions during life. It's not going to alter my decision to try to make my life and the lives of those around me better.

None of us can be sure of what the hell is out there, until one of us or our society get off their ass and explore the universe.

We can't figure out all the answers of the infinite existence of reality by remaining static in one perspective of existence.

So, don't believe that bullsh*t that your belief in God is a delusion, Jae.

Spider AL and Skinwalker isn't being fair to you.

They don't know completely what the hell is out there until they at least, explore the universe and existence.

 

Possibly no person on this planet know for sure if there is a God or a afterlife.

The dead ones might know but I'm not sure you can interview them yet.

It is apparent all of our individual beliefs, concerning the afterlife, God or Gods on this planet is, bias.

I believe these beliefs will remain bias until further answers and evidence is obtain from the future exploration of our universe and probably some of the infinite universes of existence.

But if that fail, then death will provide the final answer.

Well, final from our perspective; it maybe infinite levels of the afterlife.

Now if that still don't work, then the hell with it.

 

 

 

Also the condescending behavior of Spider you have notice, seem to be a constant behavior of his.

So, I think you are wasting your time trying to ask him to be less condescending.

His arrogance is very apparent in most of his posts.

[Mace MacLeod]

My issue however is Atheists who believe they have a right to force others to Atheism, especially when they condemn religions trying to get people to join them.

Who's trying to do that? Where are these mysterious Atheists who force others to drop their religious beliefs that you keep talking about?

[Windu Chi]

Who's trying to do that? Where are these mysterious Atheists who force others to drop their religious beliefs that you keep talking about?

I think Nancy is talking about Atheists who use logic to try to manipulate religious people that their God or Gods don't exist, because of apparent contradictions in the evidence for their specific religious beliefs, that Atheists observe.

So, they should conclude that their religion is flawed, as Atheists would argue.

And join them by accepting the most reasonable explanation.

If they don't accept the Atheists reasoning, then they are open to ridicule and will be looked as ignorant fools.

So, it's in religious people interest to accept that God or Gods don't exist, as some Atheists would be making the point as.

 

Is that what you are arguing, Nancy?

[Spider AL]

I answered your ****ing cheese question several times. If you're not happy with it find some other damned patsy who'll say what you want to hear, preferably one with more knowledge of religion and less of what you're trying to do.

Once again you claim to have answered several times... But I haven't seen you answer it once. I've just read back over the thread too, and I still can't see a single answer.

 

Listen, if I really HAVE missed your answer, please just repeat the answer, and then we can examine it.

 

My issue however is Atheists who believe they have a right to force others to Atheism, especially when they condemn religions trying to get people to join them.

As Mace asked, where are these nefarious people, these atheists that FORCE others to hold rational, logical beliefs? Where are they? Where have you seen them?

 

As regards Windu, I'm not responding to his assertions for the same reasons as usual.