All Theists Aren't Bad People!

[factfinder]

Hi,

It's me, that weird pseudo-disbelieving theist freakazoid!

I know that there are some unbelievers of the opinion that all theists are culty, imposing creatures who wish nothing more than to bring you along to their way of thinking. Now, I would agree that all theists would welcome an unbeliever's conversion, but many of them (I was one of them) believe that kindness is the Great Commission.

I grew up in a rural, Baptist church (I still attend). The people there are a)very old b) very nice c) very - this is the shocking part - nonjudgemental. Even the minister is not inclined to go door-to-door beating on people about Jesus Christ and the scriptures, and repentance, etc.. He is inclined to drop a load of groceries off (anonymously) to a poor family that needs the goods. He is inclined to be there at the hospital when I was in a fairly serious car accident 3 years ago with my 3 kids & wife (He was skating at the public rink at the time and, he tells me, he felt a nagging desire to call his wife at home to check in - 'course he believes that this was God talking to him).

I'm telling ya from experience, regardless of what you believe, not all Christians are as imposing as Jerry Falwell. Not all of them see the unbeliever as a cleverly disguised form of satan. Rather, they see the unbeliever as an extension of themselves.

I felt compelled to share this as I know & care about many Christians. I do this in spite of my tendency to disbelieve the doctrine.

[orpheus last chant]

Originally posted by factfinder
I know that there are some unbelievers of the opinion that all theists are culty, imposing creatures who wish nothing more than to bring you along to their way of thinking.


Most of my friends are Christians. My piano teacher who is a great person, is Catholic. The people I know aren't preachy, it's those vocal strangers who knock on my door or turn up in the weirdest of places that are annoying. And those generalising atheists (actually for what you are reffering to, it's more anti-theist), they pretty rare in here.

[Rational BAC]

Well I am a theist and I don't think I'm all that bad.

There are some atheists who seem to get very emotionally involved in their anti-theism and strike out. Just like there are some theists who get emotionally involved in their theism and strike out against the "unsaved".

But both types are a minority.

[factfinder]

That's good to hear.

[dayton]

Most theists are great people, some of my best friends are theists of the Christian variety. It is the judgemental fundamentalists who tell me I am going to HELL if I do not "accept Jesus" that really bother me.

Dayton

[blindwatchmaker]

I think anyone reasonable would agree that to generalize theists (thus incorporating anyone from any faith or belief that includes a god or gods) as bad people is pretty ignorant.

I'm sure we all know plenty of believers who are great people.

There is however a more subtle point.

Written into the scriptures and books of many religions are beliefs that are in themselves socially unacceptable in my view. I'm sure the minister at your church is a lovely guy, but he still represents a system of belief that would have children taught that they are sinners, or deny equal rights to gay people. The list goes on and is by no means particular to xtianity.

It is my belief that religion has been the source of more man made suffering than anything else in the world.

[Yahzi]

Of course not. Most people are good, decent people, and this applies to theists as well.

But, as somebody said, "good men do good, and bad men do bad: but only religion allows good men to do bad."

People who don't understand why there must be strict separation of church and state are, for the most part, decent, compassionate people. They are also dangerously naive.

Keep in mind that Germany in 1936 was a nation of hard-working, responsible, creative, intelligent, morally upstanding people.

[King Rat]

Some of my best friends are theist's. ;)

[braces_for_impact]

I know many Christians, some of them are really nice people.

But most still believe I am going to hell, regardless of my actions, and worst of all they support this idea.

In all but the most liberal Chritians, the religion of Christianity causes an 'us and them' attitude. The saved versus the unsaved.

[Family Man]

I think we need to keep a separation between a board like this and real life. Most of the people don't spend much of their time discussing religion. I can't remember the last time I'd had a serious discussion about religion outside of this forum. My brother-in-law bent my ear about the happenings in his church a couple of days ago -- I just nodded politely and moved away when I had the chance.

Don't let the discussions on this board warp your perceptions of how atheists relate to Christians. I realize your characterization "theists are culty, imposing creatures who wish nothing more than to bring you along to their way of thinking" was tongue-in-cheek, but it doesn't come close to the perception of theists in real life. 99% of them are fine. It's the few freakazoids in forums (and we have a few) that skew things.

[factfinder]

----But most still believe I am going to hell, regardless of my actions, and worst of all they support this idea. ----


But by the Christian's own doctrine, they are prohibited from adopting this outlook: Ya know, judge not lest ye be judged and the like.

A theist who proclaims that all atheists, buddhists, muslims, zoroastians, [insert 'n' worldview] are condemned to the fiery pits of hell trips over their own theology.

[factfinder]

----It's the few freakazoids in forums (and we have a few) that skew things.----
:(

(Sigh). That's me you just described.:cool:

[christ-on-a-stick]

Greetings factfinder,

Hmmm, the title for your thread would probably read more accurately as "Not All Theists Are Bad People!" ;)

Which is true, of course! I often think that it is kind of sad that my grandparents, for instance, who are lovely and giving people, truly believe that they are only "good people" because of their faith. I think that they are good people in spite of it (some of their disturbing beliefs about hell, etc.)

[factfinder]

If I cannot obtain forgiveness from God for my doubt then, I'm hoping that I can at least obtain forgiveness from the moderators of this site for my horrid grammar.:D

[Queen of Swords]

I found an old book in a box in the attic, and I opened the book to a random page. In my little brother's handwriting were the words, "Raina sent me a note today in class, and she said she likes me! Thanks, God!" Then a paragraph down, it said, "When I was online, I went into an adult chat room. Sorry, God."

I stopped reading there, because I realized it was his diary, but I thought it was one of the sweetest expressions of faith I'd ever seen. Just because this kid isn't trying to convert me or anyone else, and just because he doesn't believe the bible has to be literally true, doesn't make him any less of a christian than the bible-thumpers I see online. In fact, it makes him a better person, to me at least.

[braces_for_impact]

But by the Christian's own doctrine, they are prohibited from adopting this outlook: Ya know, judge not lest ye be judged and the like.

Yet, so many do it. They are good people. But they still believe that most of the world is going to hell. To me that's just another contradiction in Christian doctrine. "Don't judge, but see those people over there? You don't want to be like them, because they're going to hell."

I think for the most part, many Christians haven't really thought this issue through though.

I'm not denying they're good people, but they have a degenerate belief system if they believe in hell. I see no way around this, unfortunately.

[Proudatheist]

Just because a person is a theist does not make them a bad person. No thinking, educated atheist would make the case that belief in a god or gods makes you inherently "bad". There are good and bad people on both sides of the fence.

I make the case that people who believe in belief systems with long historical traditions are akin to children living at home. It's a lot easier to have daddy and mommy lay out what the belief system, moral positions, appropriate behavior are, and have a ready-made community of like-minded people who will support you and accept you, than it is to strike out on your own, think for yourself, not depend on anybody else's values or beliefs.

The very nature of religion and religious training is to keep the children within the fold. We atheists have left home.

As for Hell, there is no such place, never was, never will be. It's a symbolic concept that was introduced historically by Roman Catholic priests over centuries of debate in medieval Europe, long before Luther attacked the hypocrisy of the Church. Hindus believe in reincarnation, Christians and Muslims believe in Heaven and Hell, most religions have some concept of after-death experience. Atheists know how to think clearly and rationally. You die and that's the end. Scary? No. Spending your whole life being afraid of inevitable death....that's scary.

[Howard]

Originally posted by factfinder
Hi,

I grew up in a rural, Baptist church (I still attend). The people there are a)very old b) very nice c) very - this is the shocking part - nonjudgemental. Even the minister is not inclined to go door-to-door beating on people about Jesus Christ and the scriptures, and repentance, etc.. He is inclined to drop a load of groceries off (anonymously) to a poor family that needs the goods. He is inclined to be there at the hospital when I was in a fairly serious car accident 3 years ago with my 3 kids & wife (He was skating at the public rink at the time and, he tells me, he felt a nagging desire to call his wife at home to check in - 'course he believes that this was God talking to him).
. Go tell these fine people that you're an atheist and see what kind of response you get. You might be surprised.

[factfinder]

Hi Howard,

I'm not an atheist. I'm too cowardly to make a decision just yet.

But, if I ever did decide to become an atheist, I would never share it with my parents or anyone in my church (I probably would keep going). 'Cause, after all, I like the people there & I see no harm in the religion. The people would be deeply hurt by this and I have no reason to hurt them. If my kids decide they want to abide in faith, I'll have no problem with it.

I know that I will be labelled dishonest for this, but this is my outlook nonetheless.

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by King Rat
Some of my best friends are theist's. ;)


:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by factfinder
Hi,

It's me, that weird pseudo-disbelieving theist freakazoid!

I know that there are some unbelievers of the opinion that all theists are culty, imposing creatures who wish nothing more than to bring you along to their way of thinking. Now, I would agree that all theists would welcome an unbeliever's conversion, but many of them (I was one of them) believe that kindness is the Great Commission.

I grew up in a rural, Baptist church (I still attend). The people there are a)very old b) very nice c) very - this is the shocking part - nonjudgemental. Even the minister is not inclined to go door-to-door beating on people about Jesus Christ and the scriptures, and repentance, etc.. He is inclined to drop a load of groceries off (anonymously) to a poor family that needs the goods. He is inclined to be there at the hospital when I was in a fairly serious car accident 3 years ago with my 3 kids & wife (He was skating at the public rink at the time and, he tells me, he felt a nagging desire to call his wife at home to check in - 'course he believes that this was God talking to him).

I'm telling ya from experience, regardless of what you believe, not all Christians are as imposing as Jerry Falwell. Not all of them see the unbeliever as a cleverly disguised form of satan. Rather, they see the unbeliever as an extension of themselves.

I felt compelled to share this as I know & care about many Christians. I do this in spite of my tendency to disbelieve the doctrine.

First of all, who ever said that all theists are like Falwell? You appear to be attacking a Straw man (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman). However, it can be shown that all theists are immoral, even if they are not like that particular piece of garbage.

In order to believe in any religion, one must use faith rather than reason, because reason leads one to disbelief. For some reasons for that, consider the arguments that can be found via:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html

(What typically happens is that people are raised to believe such drivel as there is an invisible being who created the universe, and then they later find arguments which they then can pretend are the reason they believe, but 1) are not the real reason for their pre-existing belief, and 2) are invariably fallacious as arguments for the conclusion that their particular brand of religion is true. Either that, or they just admit that they have faith.)

It is immoral to have faith, because one's beliefs affect one's actions, and one's actions affect others. Therefore, one has no right to be careless about one's beliefs any more than one has a right to be careless about one's actions; reckless driving is a crime, and, ethically speaking (rather than legally), carelessness about one's beliefs is equally or even more immoral. See:

http://www.ethicsofbelief.com/

So, all theists are immoral. QED.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by factfinder

(Sigh). That's me you just described.:cool: [/B]

Then perhaps you ought to reevaluate your own behavior. Are you really going to be one of those who come on the board, make a bunch of provocative posts, then go away convinced they proved that atheists are a bunch of angy nutcases?

[Amos]

Originally posted by factfinder
Hi,


I'll take that one step further and say that not all protestans are bad people.

[Rational BAC]

Pyrho---

All theists are immoral?

It is immoral to state generalities as if they were the truth and apply to all people of a group.

So I guess both of us must be immoral.

[luvluv]

And those generalising atheists (actually for what you are reffering to, it's more anti-theist), they pretty rare in here.

You lie like a dog.

[sodium]

Originally posted by Family Man
Then perhaps you ought to reevaluate your own behavior. Are you really going to be one of those who come on the board, make a bunch of provocative posts, then go away convinced they proved that atheists are a bunch of angy nutcases?
I just read through a bunch of factfinder's past posts, and I think you're leaping to conclusions here. His posts aren't particularly provocative. I don't find the current thread provocative, just a reminder not to over-generalize.

[factfinder]

---Then perhaps you ought to reevaluate your own behavior. Are you really going to be one of those who come on the board, make a bunch of provocative posts, then go away convinced they proved that atheists are a bunch of angy nutcases?---

No. Did I say that?

What was it about my behaviour that demonstrates that I am 'out to get' the atheist? The way I see it...I am not a theist nor you an atheist when we converse. Right now, I don't even know what I am so do you think I would be judging you?

We are people. One thing that I definitely want to take with me from my approach to Christianity is to always strive to love my fellow man. Yes, I even agree that 'loving enemies' makes me feel better.

I have no desire to fight. I'm way too exhausted for that. In my initial post I said that 'some atheists' feel a particular negativity toward all theists (of course the converse is true - some theists feel a negativity toward all atheists).

I'm just reminding all sides of the equation that we are here on this earth together. Let's try to put aside our doctrine (unless one is interested in hearing the other side of the equation).

If I offended you somehow it surely was not my intent.

Merry Christmas!

[Family Man]

In my original response to factfinder, I said that the vast majority of Christians are fine people that I have no problem with; it is a small minority of Christians that show up on this board that tend to warp perceptions (as related to the OP). It was factfinder who identified himself as belonging to the latter group. Perhaps he misunderstood what I was saying, but I immediately suspect anyone calling himself a theistic freakazoid of not being tremendously sincere. Frankly, I wrote a serious and considered post, and got a flippant sound bite in return. So, sodium, I wasn't overgeneralizing. I was responding to a mildly offensive post.

And no, factfinder, you didn't say that we're a bunch of angry nutcases. I'm telling you that this is a frequent pattern seen on this board. It ought to be obvious that all theists are not bad people. It ought to be equally obvious that very few (if any) atheists consider all theists to be bad people.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by dayton
Most theists are great people, some of my best friends are theists of the Christian variety. It is the judgemental fundamentalists who tell me I am going to HELL if I do not "accept Jesus" that really bother me.

Dayton

There is a not necessarily fundy variety that bothers me. Some are quite liberal even. It's the hard core evangelists. The ones that are overtly always "giving the glory to god" when they hit a home run or score a touchdown etc... Then when you don't join in their team prayer they decide the you MUST be saved. Then they gather around and hammer on you. ""You must believe. You're life is empty without a relationship with HIM. You're dirt without him. """ You tell them to leave you alone but they keep on until you snap and tell them what you really think of their beliefs. Then they're offended because you attacked them. Never mind that they had you backed into a corner for an hour in the locker room while you politely said "no thanks" repeatedly.

They mean well in their mind. I don't want to hate them for it. They aren't bad people. Why do they have to inflict this action on others?

The man for which I have more respect than any other was the most ignorant man I've ever met. He had a fifth grade education and was about as fundy as a Black Southern Baptist could be. But he lived his conviction. He practiced what he preached. He never condemned me or anyone else to hell or even intimated that god might do so. He showed up for work 1/2 hour early every day no matter what. He loned other employees that he hardly knew money when they were in a bind. He didn't always collect. He said, "I've had my needs met, they needed it more than me."

No Christians aren't all evil. Some are like him. Some are like my fundy Baptist grandmother that was the most caring person that I have ever known.

Others have this strange conviction that they are going to get you to believe just like them no matter what they have to do. Peer pressure. Make up or embellish stories about how god has intervened in their lives.... They mean well, but I can't stand them.

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by luvluv
You lie like a dog. That wasn't very nice, nor very Christian. Where is that other cheek?

If you look at the total number of members versus the usual number of posters, one could surmise that the vast majority of members here are atheists or agnostics that do not only not generalise, but don't even post that often. Lots of lurkers here.


Warrenokie

[HaysooChreesto!]

Originally posted by Family Man
but I immediately suspect anyone calling himself a theistic freakazoid of not being tremendously sincere.

Methinks you missed the self deprecating humor of that statement.

To turn it around a bit though, I believe that more theists think that atheists are generally bad and morally corrupt than the other way around. Xtian doctrine states that this be so.
In scripture we are damned, called fools, and portrayed as demonically influenced provocateurs (I feel so red using that word!).

To deny that there is a general ill will towards atheists on the part of firm believers is to ignore reality.

[Gawdawful]

There probably are people here that think all religious people are up to no good. But, I know there are lots and lots of well-meaning Christians that are my neighbors and coworkers. Most of them are very good people that wouldn't ever harm anyone intentionally. However, I think most of them would probably treat me much differently if they positively knew I was an atheist. I don't really discuss it unless asked. To many of them an atheist is equivalent to a Satanist. I know this because I've heard it from many of them throughout my life. My youngest daughter gets this all the time from her Christian schoolmates when she tells them her father is an atheist. This has led to her near 100% ostrasization at school. She doesn't like that and neither do I. It seems terribly judgemental of them.

Actually, we don't get all that many well-meaning Christians visiting here. Some come here trying to proselytize, some merely to confront "the enemy" (those usually find the exit soon after), some come to learn (some , and some merely to socialize in a civil manner (a non-confrontational form of proselytization if you ask me).

If you get a negative reaction to your posts from the more militant atheists or get critical review of your religious claims from our learned colleagues, you should probably have expected it because this is the Internet Infidels after all. However, as the moderators and administrators would like, and so would I, that we maintain a mature level of civility toward one another no matter our personal beliefs.


Warrenokie

[luvluv]

That wasn't very nice, nor very Christian.

Tis both nice and Christian to tell the truth.

If you look at the total number of members versus the usual number of posters, one could surmise that the vast majority of members here are atheists or agnostics that do not only not generalise, but don't even post that often.

The majority of atheists who post regularly here generalize like it's going out of business. I have a very hard time right now honestly coming up with the name of a single one who doesn't. These boards are largely anti-theistic and anti-Christian. If it weren't somebody would have reminded you by now that even the title of this thread is quite bigoted.

Wouldn't it raise an eyebrow if I titled a thread "Not all Jews are bad people"?

What does that implicitly say about the rest of the Jews?

Or if I started a thread that said "Not all Mexicans steal"?

You have to be pretty far gone to congratulate yourself for the enlightenement of a statement like that.

Well, friendly, that's what "Not all theists are bad people" looks like to a theist. (You know, most of the people on this planet?)

[Kevin]

Originally posted by luvluv
Tis both nice and Christian to tell the truth.



The majority of atheists who post regularly here generalize like it's going out of business. I have a very hard time right now honestly coming up with the name of a single one who doesn't. These boards are largely anti-theistic and anti-Christian. If it weren't somebody would have reminded you by now that even the title of this thread is quite bigoted.

Wouldn't it raise an eyebrow if I titled a thread "Not all Jews are bad people"?

What does that implicitly say about the rest of the Jews?

Or if I started a thread that said "Not all Mexicans steal"?

You have to be pretty far gone to congratulate yourself for the enlightenement of a statement like that.

Well, friendly, that's what "Not all theists are bad people" looks like to a theist. (You know, most of the people on this planet?)

So the sole evidence you adduce in support of your claim that "these boards are largely anti-theistic and anti-Christian" is the title of a thread started by a self-identified Christian theist (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=12743). Brilliant. :banghead:

[Astoria_Paraonia]

I have nor problems with rational, sane, understanding, liberal theists. If they have compassion towards all people, no matter what race or religion or sexuality and they don't try to convert me I have no problems with them. A number of my friends are like this and religion isn't a problem.

However, there are a rabid bunch on both sides who try to demonise the other - all Theists are bad, all athiest are inherently evil etc etc. There has to be a middle ground for both groups

[DoubleDutchy]

Originally posted by luvluv
You lie like a dog.

Dogs never lie.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by warrenly
.....
Actually, we don't get all that many well-meaning Christians visiting here.Correct --- this is one of the major failures of SecWeb. Alll sorts of reasons and aspects to it, but on the whole, it's simply a major failure. SecWeb is not fulfilling its mission on that score. ....If you get a negative reaction to your posts from the more militant atheists or get critical review of your religious claims from our learned colleagues, you should probably have expected it because this is the Internet Infidels after all. Critical reviews are fine, and that's the whole point. More power to critical reviews.
But where the more "militant" atheists sabotage themselves and spoil it for genuine critical reviews is by indulging in automatic, over-generalizing plain small-minded animosity.
Mind you, we also sometimes get over-generalizing plain small-minded animosity from some theist posters here.

And now I'll go on to luvluv's post.
:)
Originally posted by luvluv
.....
The majority of atheists who post regularly here generalize like it's going out of business.It's not the "majority", it's a minority who simply happen to be very vocal and repetitive.
But that doesn't explain why you, luvluv, ignore the atheists who don't over-generalize or get simply mindlessly antagonistic.
In fact in my experience here, theists who actually visit this board tend to engage far more with blindly antagonistic atheists than they do with the intelligent, mature atheists.
It's a sucidal pattern of behaviour, and I wonder why it occurs so much.
Originally posted by luvluv

I have a very hard time right now honestly coming up with the name of a single one who doesn't.
Then you just haven't paid attention. You've visited many of the "higher" forums around here, and yewt you still can't think of people like Hugo Holbling, Luiseach, Diana, Nowhere357, LiviusDrusus, COAS, Warrenly, or myself ?
I think you're just not trying. It's all a matter of attention. Those posters and multitudes of posts are there if you would only pay attention to them.
These boards are largely anti-theistic and anti-Christian.It's an implicit part of the mission. It would help far more if you counld come up with a balanced critique revealing flaws than a wholesale denunciation.
Or, IOW, you are over-generalizing yourself. And that just can't be good.

[Gawdawful]

[Edited out commentary]


Sorry for the crosspost, Gurdur. You have pointed out luvluv's weakness far better than I.


Warren, Okie

[luvluv]

It's not the "majority", it's a minority who simply happen to be very vocal and repetitive.
But that doesn't explain why you, luvluv, ignore the atheists who don't over-generalize or get simply mindlessly antagonistic.
In fact in my experience here, theists who actually visit this board tend to engage far more with blindly antagonistic atheists than they do with the intelligent, mature atheists.
It's a sucidal pattern of behaviour, and I wonder why it occurs so much.

I think it's more of a matter of the intelligent, mature atheists on this site refraining from engaging the theists. They sort of hang back and let the theists and the antagonistic atheists tear each other apart.

Then you just haven't paid attention. You've visited many of the "higher" forums around here, and yewt you still can't think of people like Hugo Holbling, Luiseach, Diana, Nowhere357, LiviusDrusus, COAS, Warrenly, or myself ?

Out of that group, the only one who I would describe as not being anti-theistic is Hugo Hobling. I'd also add bd-from-kg, who I have enormous respect for. And I think Vorkosigan has his better days. Other than that, I personally am no aware of anyone who is a major, regular contributor to this board who consistently, as a matter of principle, is simply atheistic and not anti-theistic.

I perhaps did over-generalize (but I was being honest at the time, I couldn't come up with anyone who wasn't anti-theistic). But I posted in respons to the transcendantly uninformed opinion that anti-theists are rare on this site. Even if they supposedly constitute a numerical minority of the actuall members of this board, there are certainly too many of them to say that their numbers are "few."

[Family Man]

Can you define what you mean by anti-theistic? There are several theists on this board that I've had non-confrontational discussions with. Ask Bede sometime how he would characterize his conversations with me. Or perhaps Seebs.

It takes two to tango, luvluv. Sometimes, it appears to me that you are merely anti-atheistic, rather than simply theistic.

[Family Man]

Since I don't think I was as clear as I like to be, so I'd like to add the following.

You are an asset to this board, luvluv. You often bring fresh perspectives and tend to avoid the older, tired arguments that are often rehashed on this board. You try to maintain a civil tone. But like many on both sides of the issue, you don't tolerate stiff opposition very well, often to the point that you start making questionable interpretation of arguments and indulging in condescending behavior. (Consider the Clifford-James debate we had earlier, which I think was a low point for you on this board.) You frequently (though not always) have difficulty recognizing strong arguments from the other side.

So, while I would agree with you that there are antagonistic athiests on this board, there are far more reasonable atheists than you're willing to credit. And the reason you can't make that concession is that you aren't willing to allow others to their point-of-view. If I think James is dead wrong, I'm obviously anti-theistic and I must be dismissed. Needless to say, luvluv, I think you're the one in the wrong on that particular point.

In short, the problems you have on this board are, at least in part, self-inflicted and that you ought to be checking the mirror before you start making generalized claims about nearly everyone that posts on this board.

[Gawdawful]

I guess taking people to task on their claims is being anti-theist. If so, I am guilty as charged. I know I sure hate it when people make me back up or clarify my claims. As a minor contributor here on this board, I certainly do not consider myself to be one of the intellectuals here. So, I'm not sure if am to be complemented or insulted to be painted with that broad brush of yours, luvluv.

I think that for the most part I have been as much of a defender of those that are religious as "anti-theist". Having a background grounded in pretty much mainstream Protestant Christianity, Southern Baptist in a Southern state, I think I can see where most of these people are coming from, even if I don't agree with them. I certainly agree that most Christians are good people with good intentions, but it is that vocal minority that give them a bad name, just as many Christians view the confrontation with some of the more militant atheists does for us Infidels.


Warren

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by luvluv

I think it's more of a matter of the intelligent, mature atheists on this site refraining from engaging the theists. They sort of hang back and let the theists and the antagonistic atheists tear each other apart. Really ? I haven't seen much of an effort from you to engage the more mature atheists here. Despite the opportunities. I think you are begging the question of why you choose to engage only with the blindly antagonistic on the whole.
Out of that group, the only one who I would describe as not being anti-theistic is Hugo Hobling. I'd also add bd-from-kg, who I have enormous respect for. And I think Vorkosigan has his better days. Other than that, I personally am no aware of anyone who is a major, regular contributor to this board who consistently, as a matter of principle, is simply atheistic and not anti-theistic. Good heavens, I think you really haven't been paying attention at all.
Let's see. I cited Hugo Holbling, Luiseach, Diana, Nowhere357, LiviusDrusus, COAS, Warrenly, and myself.
Now why don't you check, just for example, my post count, my contributions in the Philosophy and Morality forums (thus proving I am a "major, regular contributor" as much as anyone), and then tell me on the basis of which of my posts you then implicitly judge me as "anti-theist" ?
Certainly I am against many, many theist arguments: But I really doubt you will ever come up with any evidence from my over-8,000 posts to describe me as prejudicially "anti-theist". And plenty of evidence against your judgment.
Now do the same for Diana.
Now do the same for Nowhere357.

Like I said, I think you just made an erroneous judgment based on your not paying attention.
I perhaps did over-generalize (but I was being honest at the time, I couldn't come up with anyone who wasn't anti-theistic).
But then you suddenly declared Hugo Holbling and bd-from-kg, so you could come up with examples if you had only wanted to. Even if they supposedly constitute a numerical minority of the actuall members of this board, there are certainly too many of them to say that their numbers are "few." *shrug*
How about you answer my above questions ?
Since, BTW, I've already pointed out that the blindly antagonistic anti-theist posters are a minority, and since only around 250 people post regularly and often on SecWeb, it ain't all that many anyway.
How many in this forum ? No more than 5 or 6 I am aware of.

[luvluv]

Family Man:

Can you define what you mean by anti-theistic?

Certainly. I would define as anti-theistic anyone who believes that in order to be a theist, one has to be uninformed about the evidence (or supposed lack thereof) for God's existence, or somehow be engaged in an act of self-deception.

I would consider as anti-theistic anyone who assumes that all theists are either ignorant or dishonest, which is what the above claim amounts to. This board, in my experience, is full of people who hold to the opinion that it is simply impossible to be an informed, intelligent, intellectually honest theist. Regardless of how pleasant a person is in promoting this position, the implication is that something has to be wrong with a person intellectually in order for them to be a theist. This strikes me as anti-theistic.

By contrast, I don't think someone has to be intellectually defficient in anyway to be an atheist. I happen to think atheism is factually incorrect, but I don't think you have to be dishonest and/or misinformed to hold the position. It's a reasonable conclusion from the evidence we have. But many atheists on this board seem to think it is the ONLY reasonable conclusion from the evidence we have, reinforcing again the idea that there is something intellectualy wrong with all theists.

I do not mean by anti-theistic merely someone who is unpleasant. If that is what you mean, it seems there is some equivocation going on. This board is generally very civil, certainly when compared with other message boards acroos the internet. (Though I would argue that this board does not suffer fools well.)
This may be the source of our confusion.

It takes two to tango, luvluv. Sometimes, it appears to me that you are merely anti-atheistic, rather than simply theistic.

What do you mean by anti-atheistic? As I've explained above, I'm certainly not anti-atheistic in the sense that I consider many on this board to be anti-theistic. That is to say I certainly can see that atheism has some intellectual merit and the simple adherance to it is not a sign of some intellectual defficiency.

But like many on both sides of the issue, you don't tolerate stiff opposition very well, often to the point that you start making questionable interpretation of arguments and indulging in condescending behavior. (Consider the Clifford-James debate we had earlier, which I think was a low point for you on this board.)

I admit I sometimes give the appearance of being condescending, but in fairness to myself that is often because I am conversing with people who, in all fairness, don't know what they are talking about. There are lots of atheists on this board who are new to atheism, apologetics, philosophy, and theology... yet this does not restrain them from making pronouncements about some of the deeper and more problematic issues involved in these disciplines. I think a major disease in this forum, and frankly in "freethinking" in general, is a strong temptation to a form of intellectualism by association. There is a vague and unconcious assumption that atheists are smarter than theists simply by virtue of being atheistic (a conviction which owes a great deal to the afforementioned tendency to assume an intellectual pathology in all theists). Also, lots of people simply consider theism to be intellectual lacking without having looked into the intelectual history of the faith at all. The end result of this intellectual prejudice is that many people on these forums go on and on about topics that they really aren't informed about. I admit this is a pet peeve of mine so I make a habit of pointing out to certain individuals that they don't know as much as they think they know. I consider it an appropriately Socratic enterprise that is as necessary here as it was in his day. The biggest intellectual problem on this forum is the abundance of people who don't know how much they don't know. If pointing this out is condescending, I'll be that.

That is not to say that I won't take this criticism to heart, and if anything I ever say is truly and inexcusably condescending in an inexcusable way, I'll look to correct that in the future. But there have been a few occasions when I have been accused of being condescending simply for pointing out that someone doesn't have their facts together, and I don't think that's the case.

You frequently (though not always) have difficulty recognizing strong arguments from the other side.

On what do you base this?

If I think James is dead wrong, I'm obviously anti-theistic and I must be dismissed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you think James is dead wrong. You are making unwarranted personally antagonistic assumptions here. If you consider theism to not be an intellectual option for an intelligent, well-informed, honest person, then I view you as anti-theistic.

In short, the problems you have on this board are, at least in part, self-inflicted

I don't have any problems on this board. I don't mind anti-theists; I think it's part of my job as a Christian to engage them and challenge them in their complacent rejection of theism. In fact, I think it's awful obliging of you folks to congregate in one place and save me the trouble of looking for you.

warrenly:

I guess taking people to task on their claims is being anti-theist. If so, I am guilty as charged. I know I sure hate it when people make me back up or clarify my claims. As a minor contributor here on this board, I certainly do not consider myself to be one of the intellectuals here. So, I'm not sure if am to be complemented or insulted to be painted with that broad brush of yours, luvluv.

I explained above what I take it means to be anti-theistic. You are being very presumptuous in assuming that I categorize as anti-theistic simply those who disagree with theistic statements or who demand a rigorous defense of those statements. You are essentially doing what you claim is rarely done on these boards. You are operating under the generalizing assumption that theists don't like being forced to defend their statements.

Gurdur:

Really ? I haven't seen much of an effort from you to engage the more mature atheists here. Despite the opportunities. I think you are begging the question of why you choose to engage only with the blindly antagonistic on the whole.

What are you talking about? I engage whoever engages me. I participate in public forums and if I do say so I take great pains to respond to everyone who responds to me. You guys don't wear bagdes that state "simple atheist" and "anti-theistic" so that anyone could avoid the one and chase around the other. I don't know who has what prejudices until they engage me in discussion. I both start threads and participate on threads as a function of what interests me. In all of these threads any theists who considers himself to be "theist-friendly" can participate if they wish. I don't dodge or duck anyone. I'm right here in the open, all day. If anybody wants to discuss anything with me they have ample opportunity to do so. If anyone is speaking on a subject that I have something to say about, I say it. I never take into account who started the thread or what attitude about Christianity is before engaging in a discussion. I take on all comers, and if I haven't taken on anyone it's because they haven't shown up yet.

In fact very recently I've had lively debates with Nowhere, LivusDrivus, and in the not too remote past Dianna. My last few bouts with COAS on pornography raged through two or three threads which averaged about 200 responses a piece. So with all due respect, in terms of who I engage with and who I don't, you seem to not know what you are talking about.

Now why don't you check, just for example, my post count, my contributions in the Philosophy and Morality forums (thus proving I am a "major, regular contributor" as much as anyone), and then tell me on the basis of which of my posts you then implicitly judge me as "anti-theist" ?

I've explained my criteria for the label "anti-theistic" above. Do you think that a person can be informed, intelligent, and intellecutaly honest and be a theist? There aren't many people on this board who do. The assumption, then, is there is something wrong with me and other theists intellectually. This I consider to be anti-theistic.

Like I said, I think you just made an erroneous judgment based on your not paying attention.

Possibly in the case of Nowhere. He seems to hold that theism is an intellectually tenable option. But as far as I know all the others fit into my definition of anti-theistic above.

But then you suddenly declared Hugo Holbling and bd-from-kg, so you could come up with examples if you had only wanted to.

So you're accusing me of lying now? Is this an example of the productive and enlightened discourse that you claim to desire for this forum?

How many in this forum ? No more than 5 or 6 I am aware of.

If you define anti-theistic simply as antagonistic, probably so. If you define it as I defined it above, I'm almost completely convinced that the majority of the major posters on this forum are anti-theistic.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by luvluv
.....
I would consider as anti-theistic anyone who assumes that all theists are either ignorant or dishonest, A precise claim. Now we have something to work with.I admit I sometimes give the appearance of being condescending, but in fairness to myself that is often because I am conversing with people who, in all fairness, don't know what they are talking about. Then you better clean up your own act, because I get the same feeling about you, as I will detail below.Gurdur:
What are you talking about?I'm talking about your claim:The majority of atheists who post regularly here generalize like it's going out of business. I have a very hard time right now honestly coming up with the name of a single one who doesn't.
I think you just don't try, and therefore your claim was dishonest.
Which makes your accusation of someone else in this thread as a liar rather ironic. Pot, kettle, black.
I engage whoever engages me.But your claim that you couldn't honestly come up with names of atheist posters here who do not over-generalize with regard to theism is crap, and not an honest statement. You guys don't wear bagdes that state "simple atheist" and "anti-theistic" D'oh, try reading peoples' posts and remembering who each poster is.In fact very recently I've had lively debates with Nowhere, LivusDrivus, and in the not too remote past Dianna. So your claim about lack of non-over-generalizing atheists was crap, pure and simple.
you seem to not know what you are talking about.The impression is mutual. However, rather more evidence is on my side than yours.
:)
Do you think that a person can be informed, intelligent, and intellecutaly honest and be a theist?
Yes.
And I've often said so here.
So your claim was crap, no ?
There aren't many people on this board who do. They exist. You simply take no notice and made a crappy over-generalizing claim that cannot be considered honest under the circumstances.
The assumption, then, is there is something wrong with me My only assumption --- on the basis of the evidence --- is that your claim was crap and you are busy trying to evade that.

Originally posted by Gurdur

But you suddenly declared Hugo Holbling and bd-from-kg, so you could come up with examples if you had only wanted to. Originally posted by luvluv

So you're accusing me of lying now? Is this an example of the productive and enlightened discourse that you claim to desire for this forum?ROFL. Coming from you --- remember you posted in this thread:You lie like a dog I have immense problems accepting your putative integrity. Plus of course there's the matter of your crap claim, and your evasions about it.
I'm almost completely convinced that the majority of the major posters on this forum are anti-theistic. Until you clean up the matter of your crap claim, I'm not terribly worried about your impressions, since I think you simply look for what you want to find, not what's there.

[luvluv]

Well, this is going nowhere. Nice talking to you Gurdur.

[Hugo Holbling]

Given all the talk about me here, i should like to reject being called an atheist.

Originally posted by Pyrrho
In order to believe in any religion, one must use faith rather than reason, because reason leads one to disbelief.

The arguments at the link do not prove this claim and emotive rhetoric does not make it any more likely.

It is immoral to have faith, because one's beliefs affect one's actions, and one's actions affect others.

People have beliefs about all kinds of things, not just religion. In any case, how do you decide when a person has been "reckless" and when they have not? Was Millikan reckless to be such a strong theist? What immoral consequences did his beliefs have on twentieth century physics, his nobel prize and the world in general?

So, all theists are immoral. QED.

Try again, this time explaining why Michael Dummett is immoral.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Pyrho---

All theists are immoral?

It is immoral to state generalities as if they were the truth and apply to all people of a group.
....

That may be when the generality is unsupported by evidence. That, however, is not the case here.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pyrrho
In order to believe in any religion, one must use faith rather than reason, because reason leads one to disbelief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The arguments at the link do not prove this claim and emotive rhetoric does not make it any more likely.


What kind of argument would you consider to "prove" such a claim? And do you believe it is necessary to have an absolute proof before something is believed or asserted, or simply a preponderance of evidence?

Suppose instead we consider belief in Santa Claus. Do you think that an adult believing in Santa would have such a belief only as a result of either defective reasoning or simply having faith (i.e., belief without being supported by the available evidence)? Please take a look at:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59581

Would you be willing to assert that all adults who believe in Santa Claus are not forming their beliefs on the basis of available evidence? If not, why not?



Originally posted by Hugo Holbling

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is immoral to have faith, because one's beliefs affect one's actions, and one's actions affect others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People have beliefs about all kinds of things, not just religion. In any case, how do you decide when a person has been "reckless" and when they have not? Was Millikan reckless to be such a strong theist? What immoral consequences did his beliefs have on twentieth century physics, his nobel prize and the world in general?

"Faith" and "belief" are not synonymous; please read the essay by Clifford to which I already provided a link. (Reading the essays that follow it would also be good, but Clifford would be an excellent start.)



Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
...
Try again, this time explaining why Michael Dummett is immoral.

I have no wish to look at Dummett in particular. If he believes things without evidence, then he is immoral. Take a look at the essay by Clifford to which I already provided a link for reasons for such an assertion.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
What kind of argument would you consider to "prove" such a claim? And do you believe it is necessary to have an absolute proof before something is believed or asserted, or simply a preponderance of evidence?

The arguments at the link do not provide a "preponderance of evidence", unless you intend to explain why instead of offering still more links without commentary.

Suppose instead we consider belief in Santa Claus.

Suppose instead you stick to the point and explain why reasoning leads - apparently inexorably - to disbelief.

"Faith" and "belief" are not synonymous; please read the essay by Clifford to which I already provided a link. (Reading the essays that follow it would also be good, but Clifford would be an excellent start.)

I have read the essays before; offering them as links on repeated occasions does not help those who have not.

I have no wish to look at Dummett in particular. If he believes things without evidence, then he is immoral.

If you think Dummett is immoral then perhaps it is time to reconsider your definition of the term? You could try answering my questions about Millikan again, given that his faith was probably his defining characteristic.

Take a look at the essay by Clifford to which I already provided a link for reasons for such an assertion.

Thank you for continuing this mantra. It is quite clear that beliefs have consequences; cautioning against holding them in the absence of good reasons to do so is poor methodological advice and you would perhaps do well to look into the history of science to see what the result would have been if it had not been ignored. Thus it is that:

it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence

fails to take account of the kind of criticisms you could find in the literature. Since we are giving out suggestions instead of arguments, you could try Lakatos' Methodology, Feyerabend's Philosophical Papers, Galison's How Experiments End, as well as Hanson, Koyre and others. You could also try to interpret Maxwell's experiments in his Treatise according to this advice and see how you cope, or Einstein's thinking after his 1906 paper. Good luck.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by luvluv

Well, this is going nowhere.Precisely, owing to your abysmal failure to deal with the points.
You seem rather at a loss since I've answered your questions honestly ---- I suspect your campaign to confirm your prejudices is not going well, and I hope every time you try making similar claims in future, people will remind you of this thread. Nice talking to you Gurdur. Now, was that really sincere ?
:D

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
.......
It is immoral to have faith, because one's beliefs affect one's actions, and one's actions affect others. Therefore, one has no right to be careless about one's beliefs any more than one has a right to be careless about one's actions; reckless driving is a crime, and, ethically speaking (rather than legally), carelessness about one's beliefs is equally or even more immoral. You know, I still don't buy that.
Pyrrho, you never did get around to refuting my comments to the effect that (non-religious) faith is an integral part of daily human transactions; you merely insisted that it was always experience on which my example actions were based, even where it was manifestly in situations where no prior relevant experience was availbale --- i.e., you simply redefined the problem away to your own satisfaction, but hardly answering the argument.
And IMHO, it's an impoverished argument ---- since your false dichotomy between faith and reason cannot handle the existence of presuppositions necessary to daily life.
Any good theory about theism must also be able to encompass life as people experience it daily, and to offer interesting insights and explanations, and IMHO yours simply doesn't.

You could have made the much more interesting and far deeper argument about when the abuse of faith leads to problems and is then immoral, but you've chosen despite the manifest difficulties to stick with the flat and shallow false dichotomy.

[Family Man]

luvluv --

I don't want to dump on you in public because, for the most part, I think you're a decent guy and I don't want to derail the thread with past grievances. I just think that you're so intent on blaming atheists for their biases that you fail to notice that your own bias has a tendency to lead you to exhibit exactly the type of behavior that you decry in others. Consider the generalizations you've made on this thread. Are there really only two atheists on this board that you've had productive conversations with? And, if not, why the generalization in the first place? Don't you think it's ironic that you yell "Generalization!" while doing the same yourself?

Otherwise, if you want an honest critique, I'll be happy to PM you one.

[Family Man]

Pyrrho --

As much as I like Clifford's essay, I have to agree with Gurdur and Hugo that claiming that all theists are immoral is going a bit far, though for different reasons.

I don't think that Clifford is saying that inadequate foundation for belief automatically leads to immorality. As I read it, he argues that believing something on inadequate grounds will tend to lead to mistaken actions that might lead the believer to be morally culpable. (Note to theists: these beliefs are not necessarily religious.) Thus, the wise do not believe in any non-trivial proposition without having a strong foundation for that belief. It doesn't follow, in my opinion, that someone who chooses to believe is necessarily doing something immoral. I know plenty of theists who believe mostly because they want to believe but lead a life as moral (or perhaps more) as my own. Personally, I think this is because God-belief by itself doesn't necessarily lead to any action at all. (More specific actions, like charity or gay-bashing, seem to require beliefs of its own.)

In other words, while I think that Clifford's dictum is wise and, if adhered to, reduce the risk of immoral behavior, I don't think it is necessarily the club against theists that you'd like it to be.

And, if this is to be explored further, it needs to be in a thread of its own.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Gurdur
You know, I still don't buy that.
Pyrrho, you never did get around to refuting my comments to the effect that (non-religious) faith is an integral part of daily human transactions; you merely insisted that it was always experience on which my example actions were based, even where it was manifestly in situations where no prior relevant experience was availbale --- i.e., you simply redefined the problem away to your own satisfaction, but hardly answering the argument.
And IMHO, it's an impoverished argument ---- since your false dichotomy between faith and reason cannot handle the existence of presuppositions necessary to daily life.
Any good theory about theism must also be able to encompass life as people experience it daily, and to offer interesting insights and explanations, and IMHO yours simply doesn't.

You could have made the much more interesting and far deeper argument about when the abuse of faith leads to problems and is then immoral, but you've chosen despite the manifest difficulties to stick with the flat and shallow false dichotomy.

Your claim that we must have faith is unsubstantiated. Since you have made the claim that we must have faith, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

However, I will go ahead and make a few comments about why faith isn't necessary. Whenever we act, we do not have to believe that the action is necessarily the right one. We often act on probabilities, and sometimes we just know that some choice must be made, without knowing which thing is best or even without having any idea which action would be best. In such cases, we may choose without first believing that it is the right choice. Burger puts it this way:

It is also worth mentioning that one who waits for evidence before obtaining a belief might not wait to act. For example, if you are crossing a road, and a car is racing toward you, you may need to act quickly—either continue across or return to the side from which you came—but you do not need to believe that you have made the correct choice in order to act. One may need to act without much evidence, but one need not believe with insufficient evidence. All one need believe, in this case, is that if one wishes to live, it will be most effective to get out of the path of the speeding car—a fact for which one has abundant evidence. One may act without first believing that the choice will turn out for the best. This will generally be true in cases where one has evidence that one needs to act quickly, but lacks evidence about what action would be best. Consequently, emergencies do not require faith, but rather actions based upon the best available evidence. Of course, in such cases, one may make the wrong choice and be run over by the car—but, then, believing that one would not be run over would not help.

At:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

In the case of scientific discoveries, one may form hypotheses without believing that they are true, and one may test them to find out if they are true or false.

The idea that one must believe that what one is doing is correct before one can act is obviously false. Indeed, one need never come to any firm conclusion about many important matters in order to live one's whole life.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
In the case of scientific discoveries, one may form hypotheses without believing that they are true, and one may test them to find out if they are true or false.

This is a hopelessly naive understanding of scientific discovery. I have read your link; now it is time for you to work through the first volume of Lakatos' Methodology and then answer this: when did belief in Atomism become immoral?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Family Man
Pyrrho --

As much as I like Clifford's essay, I have to agree with Gurdur and Hugo that claiming that all theists are immoral is going a bit far, though for different reasons.

I don't think that Clifford is saying that inadequate foundation for belief automatically leads to immorality.



That is a rather surprising thing to say, given Clifford's explicit remarks:

To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.



Originally posted by Family Man
As I read it, he argues that believing something on inadequate grounds will tend to lead to mistaken actions that might lead the believer to be morally culpable. (Note to theists: these beliefs are not necessarily religious.)

Yes, but also Clifford says:


No man holding a strong belief on one side of a question, or even wishing to hold a belief on one side, can investigate it with such fairness and completeness as if he were really in doubt and unbiassed; so that the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty.


No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may some day explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.



But forasmuch as no belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind, we have no choice but to extend our judgment to all cases of belief whatever.


It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

It isn't just the actions that are directly suggested by a particular belief that matter, as each belief affects other beliefs that one will have, and those other beliefs may lead to troublesome actions.



Originally posted by Family Man
Thus, the wise do not believe in any non-trivial proposition without having a strong foundation for that belief. It doesn't follow, in my opinion, that someone who chooses to believe is necessarily doing something immoral.

See quotes and comments above, and:


If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.




Originally posted by Family Man

I know plenty of theists who believe mostly because they want to believe but lead a life as moral (or perhaps more) as my own.


According to Clifford, the mere fact of their belief (unless they have sufficient evidence for it) is an example of immorality that you do not have. In other respects, you may be more or less equally moral, but I suspect that it is likely that that is not really the case if one were to dig deep enough. For one thing, being religious encourages others to also be religious. Following the example one sets by having faith can lead to a different and more dangerous faith.

As Burger notes:

And, indeed, everyone who encourages faith may be said to be partly responsible for the actions of this couple, and others like them. For to encourage faith is to encourage such beliefs, which lead inevitably to such actions. It will in vain be objected that they were not encouraged to believe what they believed, for they were encouraged to believe how they believed. And once faith is believed to be acceptable, there can be no justifiable restrictions on what is to be believed, for to ask, ‘Why have faith in this rather than that?’ is to ask for reasons or evidence for the belief—which is to give up on having faith. And, indeed, the couple who burned alive the four-year-old girl had as much reason for their beliefs as many others who imagine themselves innocent—or even virtuous—for having faith.




Originally posted by Family Man
Personally, I think this is because God-belief by itself doesn't necessarily lead to any action at all. (More specific actions, like charity or gay-bashing, seem to require beliefs of its own.)


Believing that the Bible is the inerrent word of god is enough for such purposes as gay-bashing and other such activities.

God-belief never comes without some other baggage (though obviously not necessarily a belief in anything in the Bible).



Originally posted by Family Man

In other words, while I think that Clifford's dictum is wise and, if adhered to, reduce the risk of immoral behavior, I don't think it is necessarily the club against theists that you'd like it to be.

And, if this is to be explored further, it needs to be in a thread of its own.

As for Clifford being a club against theists, this is dependent upon whether or not evidence points in the direction of theism. Although that is a separate issue, they are both very relevant to the conclusion that I drew for this thread.

I have nothing against discussing these matters in another thread. Or, if you prefer, we could discuss it via PMs.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
This is a hopelessly naive understanding of scientific discovery. I have read your link; now it is time for you to work through the first volume of Lakatos' Methodology and then answer this: when did belief in Atomism become immoral?

[REMOVED-Aqua]

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
[REMOVED-Aqua]

It is not ad hominem and i have already offered several references for you to look at; apparently you are unwilling to do so. I have explained why this will be of use to you in my earlier posts, but you could also look here (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=18) for an introduction. All you are able to do, it seems, is repeatedly post the same link - so your protests are not very convincing.

To be clear: your argument fails for methodological reasons. I have told you where you can look into this more and, given your inability to offer argument other than by links, i am merely proceding as you do in thus doing. The question you could answer if you read through Lakatos is: when did belief in Atomism become immoral? If you are not prepared to do the work that you expect of others when giving the same link over and over, then do not waste my time again.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Family Man
As much as I like Clifford's essay, I have to agree with Gurdur and Hugo that claiming that all theists are immoral is going a bit far, though for different reasons.
I agree that saying all theists are immoral seems over-reaching: but saying that theism is immoral seems perfectly reasonable.

Is it moral to believe in something against all evidence? Is it moral to act on a believe you hold without any evidence?

Perhaps it is possible to be a theist whose particular belief is not counter to the evidence you posess (through ignorance, for instance). Perhaps it is also possible to believe something (like the existance of an afterlife) without ever acting as if it were true (like my brother-in-law). Thus, perhaps it is possible to be a theist without being immoral.

But it doesn't seem very likely. To maintain your naive belief means to endorse ignorance, or sooner or later negative evidence will make itself known. To believe in something that cannot, even in principle, be determined true or false seems remarkably indistinguishable from wishful thinking. And people generally act on things they believe in, otherwise we tend to claim they don't actually believe it regardless of what they say.

I think Clifford's point is that believing in things under these conditions (when there is evidence against but not for, or when the belief is untestable, or when it is irrelevant) is fundamentally irrational, and therefore immoral. I can't say all theists are immoral, because by that logic everyone is immoral: we all fall short somewhere. The question is, however, is faith in and of itself immoral? (I mean religious faith, not merely confidence in expectations). It is irrational (by definition), so then the question becomes, do you have a moral duty to be rational when you can be rational? I think the answer is clearly yes, because you expect other people to.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Yahzi
To maintain your naive belief means to endorse ignorance, or sooner or later negative evidence will make itself known.

It does not; consider Einstein's attitude to the refutation of his 1906 paper within the year of publication.

To believe in something that cannot, even in principle, be determined true or false seems remarkably indistinguishable from wishful thinking.

It does not; consider moral realism, for example, and anti-realist arguments to the fact that truth values cannot be determined for moral (or aesthetic) propositions.

...do you have a moral duty to be rational when you can be rational? I think the answer is clearly yes, because you expect other people to.

On the contrary, it could be that we expect people to be rational when it is appropriate to be rational.

[King Rat]

do you have a moral duty to be rational when you can be rational? I think the answer is clearly yes, because you expect other people to.

If you value rationality (as atheists we try) this would make sense. However, if we look into statements made by Calvin and Luther, rationality is not necessarily a trait that xtians value. Especially those of the fundamentalist stripe. Doesn't the oft used aphorism; "cognitive dissonance" spring from this forced split?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pyrrho
What kind of argument would you consider to "prove" such a claim? And do you believe it is necessary to have an absolute proof before something is believed or asserted, or simply a preponderance of evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The arguments at the link do not provide a "preponderance of evidence", unless you intend to explain why instead of offering still more links without commentary.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose instead we consider belief in Santa Claus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suppose instead you stick to the point and explain why reasoning leads - apparently inexorably - to disbelief.


It is sticking to the point. The situation for Santa is very much like the situation for God. The same kinds of reasons that lead to a rejection of Santa lead to a rejection of God.

Of course, which exact arguments will be relevant will depend upon which Santa story and which God story we are discussing; for example, there is no problem of evil when discussing Zeus, as traditionally understood by the ancient Greeks (keeping in mind, of course, that there was not universal agreement about Zeus among the ancient Greeks).



Originally posted by Hugo Holbling

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Faith" and "belief" are not synonymous; please read the essay by Clifford to which I already provided a link. (Reading the essays that follow it would also be good, but Clifford would be an excellent start.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read the essays before; offering them as links on repeated occasions does not help those who have not.


The point is that the two terms are not identical in meaning, though you appeared to be using the term "faith" to mean "belief" in your previous post to which my remark was a reply. I am certainly not saying that having beliefs is always immoral.



Originally posted by Hugo Holbling

...

Thank you for continuing this mantra. It is quite clear that beliefs have consequences; cautioning against holding them in the absence of good reasons to do so is poor methodological advice and you would perhaps do well to look into the history of science to see what the result would have been if it had not been ignored. ...

Looking at the history of science does not show what would have been if everyone had followed Clifford's advice. It shows that some who ignored his advice also did things to advance science (as well as showing that some who ignored his advice did things to retard science). It does not show that by ignoring his advice that science was advanced. The introduction to the philosophy of science that you provided later does not conflict with Clifford's advice:

http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=18

The idea that wild theories may be entertained does not run counter to Clifford; just believing them before one has adequate evidence. One can take an idea, and think about what it would mean if it were true, and run many experiments, and consider the implications of the idea without first actually believing it. Furthermore, Clifford's idea that nothing is to be taken as "final", and that anything may be considered, fits quite well with advancing science:


Inquiry into the evidence of a doctrine is not to be made once for all, and then taken as finally settled. It is never lawful to stifle a doubt; for either it can be honestly answered by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by King Rat
If you value rationality (as atheists we try) this would make sense. However, if we look into statements made by Calvin and Luther, rationality is not necessarily a trait that xtians value. Especially those of the fundamentalist stripe. Doesn't the oft used aphorism; "cognitive dissonance" spring from this forced split?

Indeed, different people do value different things, and these different values are often a result of different beliefs. But this does not mean that everyone is equally correct to value what he or she values, nor to believe what he or she believes.

At the risk of the ire of another person, you might find the book found via the following link to be of interest:

http://www.ethicsofbelief.com/

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Looking at the history of science does not show what would have been if everyone had followed Clifford's advice.

No, it shows what would have happened to certain paradigmatic instances if the advice had been followed - a methodological test.

The idea that wild theories may be entertained does not run counter to Clifford; just believing them before one has adequate evidence.

You are still missing the point; that is why i pointed you in the direction of specific research in this area. Not only did people believe before they had "adequate evidence", but they often did in spite of (apparently) decisive refutations; hence the question about Atomism. When you read Lakatos, you will be able to see this for yourself.

Furthermore, Clifford's idea that nothing is to be taken as "final", and that anything may be considered, fits quite well with advancing science:

That was Mill's advice also; perhaps you should look into his ideas on the question of immorality?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
...You are still missing the point; that is why i pointed you in the direction of specific research in this area. Not only did people believe before they had "adequate evidence", but they often did in spite of (apparently) decisive refutations; hence the question about Atomism. ...


I am aware that people have sometimes held beliefs without evidence that later turned out to be true (or at least seem to be true now). But that does not show that it was necessary for them to actually believe what they believed in order to advance science. To say that that method is the one they selected does not show that it was the only way, or even the most effective way. Furthermore, sometimes people have held onto a position "in spite of (apparently) decisive refutations" for various theoretical reasons; that is, just because two people disagree, it does not necessarily follow that one of them must be rejecting Clifford's advice.

For example, one may consider the idea of rejecting the Aristotelian notion that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects on the basis of the thought experiment of tying two objects together, and considering whether or not that would make the two objects fall faster than if they were not tied together. Or that, if two people jump off of something, that they would fall faster if they held hands than if they did not. Such ideas do not seem sensible, so one may think that being heavier does not make something fall faster. However, someone who does not ever think about such thought experiments is unlikely to reject the idea based upon such considerations.


There are reasons to think that Clifford's advice would be an aid to the advancement of science when one considers that many who have been scientists have also had beliefs that were superstitious nonsense, and that these are likely to have impeded their development of useful ideas in other areas. To say that one can aid science and still believe superstitious nonsense only shows that one may improve the state of knowledge in spite of such things.


Your position appears to be that it is necessary for people to believe beyond the evidence in order for science to progress. However, you have not shown that to be the case at all.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Your position appears to be that it is necessary for people to believe beyond the evidence in order for science to progress. However, you have not shown that to be the case at all.

Nor would i attempt to, given that this is not my position. It appears that you are unwilling or unable to apply the principle of charity here, or you have no interest in understanding my objection; i am not interested in your mischaracterisation of my posts or the references i have given you.

In any case, you may read through my suggested resources or you may not; until you do, this discussion is over.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Your position appears to be that it is necessary for people to believe beyond the evidence in order for science to progress. However, you have not shown that to be the case at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor would i attempt to, given that this is not my position. It appears that you are unwilling or unable to apply the principle of charity here, or you have no interest in understanding my objection; i am not interested in your mischaracterisation of my posts or the references i have given you.

In any case, you may read through my suggested resources or you may not; until you do, this discussion is over.

My apologies for misunderstanding your position. What is your position? You have not stated it clearly in any of your posts in this thread.

[luvluv]

I just think that you're so intent on blaming atheists for their biases that you fail to notice that your own bias has a tendency to lead you to exhibit exactly the type of behavior that you decry in others.

I'm not blaming atheists for having biases. We all have biases. That was my point. I don't see any reason for warrenly to deny that there is a substantial population of anti-theists on this forum. I'm not decrying that fact; it's an your forum (you meaning atheists). You can be anti-theist if you want, I just don't see any reason to be dishonest about it.

Consider the generalizations you've made on this thread. Are there really only two atheists on this board that you've had productive conversations with?

That wasn't my criteria. I said I've only had discussions with two or three atheists who I noticed didn't generalize about all theists. I'm also quite confident that there is a substantial minority (I'd guess from my own interactions somewhere around the 30-40% mark) who consider theism to be an indefensible and irrational position. That in itself is a generalization on theism and theists, and that is enough to justify my claim. It is simply false, in the old fashion sense of the term, that atheists who generalize about theists on this board are rare. Thems the ugly facts. I did not know this was such a controversial statement, and frankly I'm shocked at the kind of anger it has generated. It's an opinion I stand-by nonetheless.

If you really look at my claim for what it is, you'll find it's very uncontroversial.

I hold that:

1) A substantial minority of atheists on this board consider theism to be so absurd a propostion that in order to believe it, one must suffer from some intellectual dysfunction.

2) 1) contains a generalization about theists (i.e. that most or all theists suffer from some intellectual dysfunction, be that a lack of information, an inability to correctly evaluate the information, or some form of intellectual dishonesty/ self-delusion)

3) From 1 & 2, a substantial minority of atheists on this board generalize about theists.

Now which one of the above 3 points are in dispute?

You guys seem to not be content in examining my claim, but in harrassing me personally about my behavior on the board. I didn't want to get into personal discussions because, as the remarkably low level of this dialogue suggests, they can get unproductive really quickly. I think, however, that as a general statement my position is quite reasonable and will have the ring of truth for anyone who's spent a considerable amount of time on these boards.

The atheists on this board who give the impression that they consider theism to be a position which is intellectually respectable are very, very few and far between. The number of threads produced here daily in which theists and theism are ridiculed are numerous. If so many people dismiss theism and theists out of hand, how can it possibly be said that generalizing and anti-theism is rare?

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by orpheus last chant
And those generalising atheists (actually for what you are reffering to, it's more anti-theist), they pretty rare in here. To which luvluv said:
You lie like a dog.An uncharitable and insulting statement regardless of your POV. My reply to this was:If you look at the total number of members versus the usual number of posters, one could surmise that the vast majority of members here are atheists or agnostics that do not only not generalise, but don't even post that often. Lots of lurkers here.Then you responded with this:The majority of atheists who post regularly here generalize like it's going out of business. I have a very hard time right now honestly coming up with the name of a single one who doesn't. These boards are largely anti-theistic and anti-Christian. If it weren't somebody would have reminded you by now that even the title of this thread is quite bigoted.A perfect example of generalization if I ever saw one, but you've gone from saying a "majority" to this in your last post:I'm also quite confident that there is a substantial minority (I'd guess from my own interactions somewhere around the 30-40% mark) who consider theism to be an indefensible and irrational position.So, in light of this exposure of your inconsistency, do you now admit that you have been guilty of the same sort of generalization as you accuse the "anti-theist" atheists and agnostics?

Warren

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
It does not; consider Einstein's attitude to the refutation of his 1906 paper within the year of publication.
Did Einstein expect anyone else to share his belief before the evidence was available? You keep dredging up this example, but you never seem to acknowledge that while Einstein believed in his theory, he didn't expect anyone else to until he could prove it. This dichotomy of meanings of "belief" destroys your argument. While it is true that Einstein "believed," he did not "believe." There, see, we are both right.


It does not; consider moral realism, for example, and anti-realist arguments to the fact that truth values cannot be determined for moral (or aesthetic) propositions.
Considered, and rejected. Please do not ask me to explain my rejection until you provide your arguments.

On the contrary, it could be that we expect people to be rational when it is appropriate to be rational.
And how are we to determine when it is appropriate? Perhaps by some rational analysis? I suggested a method for determining appropriateness: the Golden Rule. You argued that my suggestion was inadequate, but did not offer any counter-suggestions. As usual.

And now I expect you to demand that I read some quantity of literature (preferably in a different language) or you'll refuse to discuss the issue any further.

{Personal comment deleted}

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Yahzi
You keep dredging up this example, but you never seem to acknowledge that while Einstein believed in his theory, he didn't expect anyone else to until he could prove it.

That is not so, of course. Almost every did not believe him at first and he complained vociferously; later almost everyone did in spite of new falsification. He offered theoretical - not empirical - reasons why people should believe, and insisted on them even when disproved by the latter.

Considered, and rejected. Please do not ask me to explain my rejection until you provide your arguments.

You can see them in my intro threads.

You argued that my suggestion was inadequate, but did not offer any counter-suggestions. As usual.

I do not have to offer an alternative; your arguments stand or fall on their own.

And now I expect you to demand that I read some quantity of literature (preferably in a different language) or you'll refuse to discuss the issue any further.

Is there any reason why you choose to drag the discussion down in this manner? You violate the GRD guidelines, particularly (1).

{Deleted for consistency}

{Personal comment deleted}

[Postcard73]

Please remember that personal comments directed at other users violate the rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70259) of this forum. Focus your frustration on your opponents arguments and not on your opponent. If a user is making you angry then add them to your ignore list or just don't read their posts. Personal comments can derail threads, and they will be deleted...

Scott (Postcard73)
GRD Moderator

[Hugo Holbling]

I publically apologise for any conduct that has caused offence or violated the guidelines, particularly given my recent efforts in GRD (and previously) to help improve the place by means of a positive example.

[luvluv]

warrenly:

So, in light of this exposure of your inconsistency, do you now admit that you have been guilty of the same sort of generalization as you accuse the "anti-theist" atheists and agnostics?

Sure. I never said I didn't generalize. But I generalize based experience, and limit my generalizations to a legitimate scope of discourse.

It is reasonable for me, after two and a half years and 1800 some-odd posts, to draw conclusions about all the atheists ON THIS FORUM. Atheists on this forum who generalize about theism and theists in general, however, are generalizing over a range of discourse over which they can't possibly have enough evidence for their conclusions to be warranted. I said a substantial minority* of atheists ON THIS FORUM generalize about theism. By contrast, many of the atheists on this forum who generalize are generalizing about all theists in the history of this planet, a clearly unwarranted generalization.

Look, I'm genuinely sorry I ever got into this discussion now. So I'm going to take my leave of it at this point. I apologize if I offended anyone. The first comment I made was genuinely intended as humourous ribbing (notice the smilie in my first comment in this forum). I didn't think it would draw that kind of ire. I apologize for offending anyone who may have been offended, in particular I apologize to you and Gurdur. I hope we can have more productive conversations in the future.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by luvluv
......
I apologize for offending anyone who may have been offended, in particular I apologize to you and Gurdur. Oh well, fair enough and thanks.

[Gawdawful]

luvluv, I am not angry at all. I just think you are wrong about this one thing. It is possible for me to agree to disagree and just go on. OK?


Warren

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
Is there any reason why you choose to drag the discussion down in this manner? You violate the GRD guidelines, particularly (1).
I wasn't trying to drag it down, I was trying to end it. You and I have nothing constructive to say to each other. As evidence, I offer:

I do not have to offer an alternative; your arguments stand or fall on their own.
I simply have no desire to enter into any discussion on that basis.

For the record, I refuse to believe that Einstien expected people to believe him based solely on his own personal authority.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Yahzi
For the record, I refuse to believe that Einstien expected people to believe him based solely on his own personal authority.

Of course nobody on this thread is making any such claim, so your refusal to believe it is not enormously significant.

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
He [Einstein] offered theoretical - not empirical - reasons why people should believe, and insisted on them even when disproved by the latter.

The point is simple: Enstein argued his case using his brain and math, not experiments. When the experiments seemed to show he was wrong, he said they were wrong instead. As it turns out, Einstein was right and empiricism was wasn't.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Yahzi
For the record, I refuse to believe that Einstien expected people to believe him based solely on his own personal authority.

Given your philosophical background, then, i am confident you will take the time to go over his papers and check for yourself instead of dismissing a notion without evidence. After all, that is how we work in this area - by referencing other discussions and expecting people interested in challenging their ideas to look into them.

I look forward to reconsidering this at a later date, then.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by livius drusus
The point is simple: Einstein argued his case using his brain and math, not experiments.

It should be stated, for completeness, that Einstein was also an excellent experimentalist and his work with de Haas on testing Ampère's hypothesis - to name but one instance - is a nice example of this; indeed, he gave up working on the general theory to do it.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by livius drusus
...
The point is simple: Enstein argued his case using his brain and math, not experiments. When the experiments seemed to show he was wrong, he said they were wrong instead. As it turns out, Einstein was right and empiricism was wasn't.

I would be happier if, instead of saying "empiricism" wasn't correct, you would say that the experiments or their interpretations were flawed. Those are common problems, so when Einstein rejected the conclusions that others were drawing from those experiments, he was not necessarily going against the best evidence available to him.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Of course nobody on this thread is making any such claim, so your refusal to believe it is not enormously significant.
I refer you to Hugo's comment, above, which indicates to me that is exactly what he is claiming.

Plus, I claim bonus points for the part where he asks me to read an entire collection of a German scientist's papers before discussing this particular issue further.

The point is simple: Enstein argued his case using his brain and math, not experiments. When the experiments seemed to show he was wrong, he said they were wrong instead. As it turns out, Einstein was right and empiricism was wasn't.
And how did we eventually figure out Einstein was right? I mean, how did all the rest of us come to agree with him? Why, through empiricism...

The fact that you sometimes get lucky and guess the truth does not justify guessing as a valid method of gaining knowledge.

"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

The difference between the cranks and the scientists is that the scientists understand that belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Einstein believed as much as you want to say he did: but he did not know, and he knew that.

In general, however, discussions in this forum use belief as a synomyn for knowledge, because for religion they are. Science starts with belief and promotes it to knowledge through the public practice of the scientific method: religion, however, has no method to promote belief to anything else Consequently, bringing up Einstein's belief when we are talking about religious belief just confuses the issue. It is not necessary to get into a full-blown discourse on the difference between belief and knowledge to acknowledge that there is indeed a difference, Einstein was aware of that difference, and applied it appropriately.

[lobotomyactivist]

what? all my friends, save for two, are Christians. I actually go to my best friend's church on Xmas eve so I can hang out and sing with the nice, non-preachy people there. The pastor there does not talk about how you should pray, he says things that even I, an atheist, can use in life.

I do not hate Christians...just the in-your-face obnoxious "convert-em-alls"

[Hugo Holbling]

If anyone is concerned, i am no longer going to post in GRD. Please contact me privately if anything i contributed was of interest to you.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by lobotomyactivist
I do not hate Christians...just the in-your-face obnoxious "convert-em-alls"
Well, the obnoxious ones don't consider your friends Christians.

And sadly, I have to agree with them. I think your friends are very nice people, who believe in a god: but I don't think they can legitimately call themselves Christians, or pretend that they believe in the god of Abraham.

[Postcard73]

This thread will be re-opened in the near future...

P73- GRD Mod

Like right now...