You're listed as "Other Religion." What viewpoint would you like to change atheists to?
I would like atheists to hold whatever viewpoint makes the most sense to them. This includes atheism.
If I'd like to do anything, it would be to take part in dialogue where all people, any variety of theists, agnostics and atheists, come away with greater understanding of where other people are coming from.
Especially if anyone wants to criticize, isn't it better to do so from a base of knowledge and not from unwarranted assumptions?
(P.S. I'm a she -- not that that matters really.)
That happens sometimes, but other times I observe a very different phenomenon of one side using rationalism and empiricism and the other... just not.
Oh, I see this too. However, I do not find constant use of the fallacy of sweeping generalization on the part of uninformed atheists especially logical either, and I do see that quite a bit.
Certainly I'm no fan of antiscientific attitudes. Empiricism, like anything in epistemology, has some limits, but that doesn't mean it should be tossed out altogether, and most certainly not as an effort to maintain an overly literal understanding of some ancient text.
Yes, obviously I notice the atheist/agnostic/humanist/non-religious one invoking rationalism more-so than I do the theist and that speaks to a passive bias of sorts, but I tend to observe these things objectively.
I've had my feet in the world of theist and atheist. I do find one side invoking rationalism more, but there are problems on the atheist side as well. What I would call the biggies are these:
1. A myopic view of religion, which is, seeing the warts and ignoring the good aspects as if they do not exist.
2. Conflating the most familiar form of religion (usually Christianity) with all religion in all its various forms.
3. Asserting reason and empiricism while forgetting that not all of life can be understood using those tools alone. Religion is not a hard science -- it's in the field of humanities. Use the tools of the humanities to examine it.
The problem is in these debates that even people who argue poorly against or for a proposition dislike the possibility that they are wrong.
Most often, yes. I won't lie and tell you I love the possibility that I may be wrong, but let's just say that I've been wrong so I'm maybe not so likely to get my knickers in a twist over the possibility that I might be in for yet another paradigm shift. Honestly, if I need to shift to something more accurate and missed that, it would be the greater tragedy.
Their position, to them has moral value and heavy personal meaning to them. This makes it very likely that they will argue poorly for it just because the truth of what they're saying means a lot to them and essentially, they don't want to consider the implications of an error.
I find this with atheists as well though. It really depends on the individual. It seems to come down to whether the conversants are willing to speak from a position of mutual respect and whether there's some genuine curiousity at work on both sides.
I meant in debate/discussion community setups. We can point out some obvious ones in society, but I've seen threads here where people announce their deconversion and I've seen some here point out they changed their beliefs after coming here.
Yes, that's true. Exposure to a wide range of beliefs (or lack thereof) does cause many people to reconsider what they actually believe and why.
With all due respect to "pinkputter", I am not sure she could explain much on this at all.
I was thinking of her more as an example of someone who is not interested in debates generally. Not everyone is, and that's okay.
I sort of like a bit of knock down drag out...within reason, but I also realize I'm in the minority. I'm afraid no one has ever accused me of being especially touchy-feely, but some people are and they will be unlikely to be interested in debating anything. Discuss...sure.
True - but it should tell them something beyond that (those that removed it).
Well, I've said for years any religion that isn't able to withstand some heated debate (even "attacks") probably isn't worth much.
LOL a corollary of sorts is any religion that can't support itself financially and has to go outside itself to look for material means probably has outlived its usefulness too.
