Atheism, theism and jelly beans

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 3, 2019.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    Tiassa:

    There's plenty more to say than "I don't believe...". My point in the opening post, however, was that the theist is often so busy trying to tell the atheist what he (the atheist) does and does not believe - even in the face of what the atheist himself is telling the theist directly and clearly - that the discussion never gets to progress even to the point at which the theist is willing to accept that the atheist really believes what he says he believes. My point is that the following exchange, which we see repeated so often, is a waste of everybody's time:

    Theist: You atheists all deny God.
    Atheist: No. I just don't believe that your God exists.
    T: You believe there is no God!
    A: No. I'm just not convinced there is a God.
    T: You're denying that the obvious Creator of the Universe exists.
    A: No. Show me some convincing evidence that your Creator exists and I'll happily change my mind.
    T: Nothing could ever convince you there's a God.
    A: Wrong.
    T: Then tell me what proof you would require.
    A: I don't know what would be sufficient proof. Why can't we start with whatever it was that convinced you?
    T: Nothing I could say will ever convince you, because you're in denial.
    A: There's nothing to deny, until you've established that God's existence is at least likely to be true.
    T: See! You believe there is no God!
    A: No. I just don't believe that your God exists (yet).
    (repeat, ad nauseam)

    Yes, that quote is all about me, in the sense that I'm stating my actual position for the theist, so he understands where I'm coming from. But the reason I need to make that statement at all has everything to do with the religionist. It is the religionist who refuses to acknowledge my basic position, and who insists that I "really" hold a position other than the one I'm explaining to him.

    I think the real problem is that the religionists who do this kind of thing occupy a mental space to which the very notion of skepticism about religion is unthinkable. The result is that explanations like the jelly bean thing fly right past them. They just reset and act like they never heard it.

    I have posted nothing about religions in this thread. I have made no criticism of any religion. This is nothing other than a baseless personal attack from you.

    You're telling me you think it's unreasonable to ask theists what their God does in the world? Asking them to explain such a thing is equivalent to calling them out for a fight? I think you're giving them a free pass. And I think the reason you do that is that your beef is with me, about other stuff you've got into your head, and not really about this at all.

    Meh. Even if that were true, maybe there's no need for more, especially given the typically poor showing by the theists in those threads.

    A text about religion, more likely.

    My only "argument" in this thread is theists would do better to engage with atheists without telling themselves lies about what atheists believe. They should engage on the basis that the atheists actually believe what they say they believe, and not on the basis that the atheists believe what the theists would prefer to think they believe. That's if they actually want a constructive discussion.

    The analogy is not a fallacious construction. It rather nicely highlights the one and only point I wanted to make in this thread - which is why I posted it in the first place.

    You talk about "atheistic depictions of religion", but this thread is about the opposite: common mistakes in theistic depictions of atheism.

    No no no! Unfortunately, you seem to have completely missed the point of the thread.

    If the subsequent list had the impact that it should have on theists, there would be no problem. Experience tells us, however, that the subsequent list has zero impact on at least a certain brand of theist. Hence the need for an analogy. Telling it like it is, in brief, clear terms, has failed when it comes to those theists, so another tack becomes necessary. Jesus was fond of parables, so let's try one of those and see if we can get the point across that way.

    There's nothing fallacious in what I've posted. You're not one of those theists, are you?

    In a universe in which rational thought is considered a superior path to knowledge than superstition.

    In case you didn't notice, when atheists and theists debate one another as to the existence of God, there is some sort of contest afoot. Sure, it is possible for the people in the pub who hold differing opinions to just ignore one another, but they don't have to.

    I don't recall. Photograph? What are you talking about?

    You know, one of these days, you really ought to demonstrate one of my many supposed fallacies.

    This is the point at which your post goes way off topic, into that private room you keep that contains all the things about me that irk you. If you don't mind, I think I'll take a pass this time around and stick to discussing the topic of my thread instead.

    I did have a bit of a chuckle at that bit at the end of your post where you complained that this thread is all about me. Maybe you thought it should be all about you. Here's the thing: it is personal to the extent that it was prompted in part by my personal experience, here and elsewhere, of a certain behavioural pattern I have observed in certain theists. It is also personal to the extent that I am an atheist who is interested in discussing things with theists. Beyond that, read into it what you like. I'm not particularly fussed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    Interesting.

    So, any thoughts on the actual topic of the thread?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,784
    If your disposition is impartial to the existence of faith, you wouldn't be interfering with the truth of faith, therefore this theist had no reason to get uneased. Good post James R
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    Unable to parse this string of words.
     
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,784
    I'm talking about nihilism.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    Nihilism and comprehensible sentence structure are not mutually exclusive.
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,235
    In here they are.
     
  11. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,074
    James R:

    Anyone can do this part... believe there is a God, but few gentiles actually know what it means, faith, then knowing there is a God. Just look at DNA & the red rain India, and DNA, yet you believe in aliens and/or chance. I think faith is a much more useful attribute. I do understand many people are weak in the faith department hence the creation of atheists/agnostics.
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,235
    I've seen red rain. If you are climbing a mountain at sunrise and it's raining in the distance you get red rain.
     
  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,074
    Check out orange rain india, i think it's that, hold on:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala
     
  14. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,821
    So, you're not one of those theists who think any curtailment of their meddling in the law, medical practice, marriage, education and culture is thereby infringing on their freedom of religion?
    That's good.
    Because while atheists like me are indifferent to your god and your faith and whatever you do with other consenting adults, we take a very dim view, indeed, of your attempts to force others to live according to the rule of Abraham, or Moses, or Paul or Muhammad, or Calvin.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,074
    Interesting article:

    https://slate.com/technology/2010/06/are-the-ten-commandments-really-the-basis-for-our-laws.html
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    How do you know they don't know what it means?

    Do you mean 'few people think it means the same thing as I think it means'?

    And see what? God?
    I see it as compelling evidence of the works of the Cosmic Unicorn. Prove me wrong.

    'Useful' is an interesting choice of words.

    I'm not looking for 'useful'; I'm looking for the truth. You can't get truth from faith, since faith is, by definition, belief without evidence.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  17. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,784
    If you believe in heaven it's a good thing
    If you believe in hell it's a bad thing
    If your skeptical to Heaven it's a bad thing
    If your skeptical to hell it's a good thing
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    Fixed that for you.
    This is the second time you've kind of made the point of the thread for us.

    Your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs. Heaven and hell do not apply to the rest of us. They're tales to keep children under the covers at night.
     
  19. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,074
    To the best of human reason they do.

    If he exists.


    I've just told you the truth.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    These are all personal, unsubstantiated opinions.
     
  21. Thus Spoke Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    I’m picturing you running around like a madman with a jar of jelly beans, but you’re talking to theists, why is that, James?

    Tiassa might have a point, if only you’d listen.

    Nietzsche’s madman is speaking to atheists rather than the theists. Why?

    To think of God as dead is not to think of him as merely nonexistent.

    I could be wrong, as I so often am, but perhaps Tiassa is suggesting that simple disbelief in deities is as childish as believing in them.

    Perhaps the madman was suggesting that merely terminating the belief in a supernatural entity is the least of our concerns. It’s the framework that we should contend with. This quest for absolute certainty created an environment that still directs us in everything that we say, think, and do.

    The madman was right. You can still smell the stench.

    Delusional deniers…that’s what we are.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    It is apparent that you utterly missed the entire point of this thread.

    To reiterate: there is a qualitative difference between not believing that something exists and believing something doesn't exist.


    There are an infinite number of things that each of us (you and Tiassa included) don't believe exist - gargleflargs is just one example.
    Do you believe gargleflargs exist? Probably not.
    Do you believe gargleflargs do not exist? You probably have less of a conviction to that.

    In other words - all of us - theists and atheists alike - uphold the tenet that, generally, we don't believe something exists until there's a reason to think it exists. And further, that not believing something exists is not an assertion that it does not exist.

    But I simply restate the OP...
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  23. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,074
    Look at the state of the world, it is getting funnier i suppose.

    you believe that? great, whatever works for you.

    like a utility belt.

    [/quote]
    I'm not looking for 'useful'; I'm looking for the truth. You can't get truth from faith, since faith is, by definition, belief without evidence.[/QUOTE]

    Have I answered this post?
     

Share This Page