Another question for atheists

[Eudaimonist]

It comes in no small part I think from the fact that, even in countries like Sweden or Norway where religion has been suppressed to nigh extinction, people do not tend to become atheists.

While I'm not Swedish, I have lived in Sweden for since 2003. I can't imagine what you are talking about. There is no suppression of religion here.

They simply stop going to church or engaging in organized religion, but they continue to have spiritual beliefs.

One can be an atheist and have "spiritual beliefs", so many of those spiritual non-Christian Swedes are also atheists.

Unfortunately, atheism in and of itself is a nearly meaningless, very limited belief.

That's why there are secular humanist organizations in Sweden.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tnmusicman]

In this example he is talking about an atheist who dosen't know how the universe began.

Actually the example I gave was as follows:
Ok,ok ----atheist says "what happens after death?"
Christian says "our beliefs state we go to heaven or to hell"
atheist says"how do u know?"
Christian says "I don't know,but I believe the bible. Obviously,I can't tell u for sure what happens as I'm not dead yet"
atheist says"well, u don't know your own religion then.Christians are a joke".

I'm not sure how the universe got mixed into this.

 

[ebia]

Actually the example I gave was as follows:
Ok,ok ----atheist says "what happens after death?"
Christian says "our beliefs state we go to heaven or to hell"
atheist says"how do u know?"
Christian says "I don't know,but I believe the bible. Obviously,I can't tell u for sure what happens as I'm not dead yet"
atheist says"well, u don't know your own religion then.Christians are a joke".

I'm not sure how the universe got mixed into this.

In my experience most atheists are perfectly okay with "we don't know" for a a question of fact like "what exactly is hell like", say. On the other hand they do expect questions like "how do you know?" to be answered. And they do expect coherence. and they do expect answers to let questions of faith, quite reasonably.

In some cases they have a particular set of supposedly Christian views they are expecting.

But I can't say I've encountered much of what you've given as an example. Certainly no more of that than you'd see a mirror image of from some creationist posters.

 

[quatona]

Why does it always have to be a win/lose situation??

It does not "always have to".
Since you refuse to give us a specific example that you are thinking of I am left with referring to what I personally experience as the most common example in which I am unsatisfied with the "I don´t know" from a Christian. This I was presenting.
Furthermore, when speaking of "defeat" I was referring strictly to the validity of an argument.
When a person admits "I don´t know" there are several different ways to proceed from there (among them co-operation). Which of them will come to pass depends a lot on the attitude in which the "I don´t know" is presented (perceived).

Admiting defeat is not the issue,its the fact that some can admit defeat and its ok,but Christians admiting that they dont know answers to questions that,frankly,dont have answers are assessed as being a joke.

To me, it´s nothing about the person being a joke, but rather the fact that an entire logical chain (which oftentimes the Christian has presented as superiour) breaks down and turns out to be "a joke".
Examples:
1. Challenging an atheist to explain the mechanism of the coming into being of the universe as though an "I don´t know" answer would be a point for the existence of a god, while actually the Christian himself has no explanation himself (but merely a "it´s miraculous").
2. As can be seen often on this board, a Christian claiming that "without god there can´t be morality" (the claim of superiority for his position, whereas the atheist is pictured as completely empty-handed).
If, in the course of the following discussion of this claim, the Christian can´t support his position and has to admit "I don´t know", his entire position turns out to be unsupported (or "a joke", as you call it).

Granted,certain members of certain groups will be a bit prigish at times but the BULK of atheists (that IVE dealt with--not ALL) seem to fall into a self-righteous pattern when they feel that their "unanswerable" question has foiled another.

I can´t seem to verify this judgement from my observations in years of being a member here. Of course, bias may play a part in my as well as your conclusions.

Im the first to admit there are good christians and bad christians just like there are good atheists and bad atheists but it seems EVERY time i go on youtube I have to hear from the bad atheists. I can recall twice that I dealt with an atheist that was polite and respectful and we agreed to disagree. Oh,btw this all comes from a christian that doesnt "preach" to atheists or anyone else,but if you ask me my opinion,I will tell you.

Can´t say anything about Youtube.
Allow me a question: If you look at this thread so far, do you have the feeling that the majority of responses from atheists was impolite and disrespectful?

 

[quatona]

Actually the example I gave was as follows:
Ok,ok ----atheist says "what happens after death?"
Christian says "our beliefs state we go to heaven or to hell"

Sorry, but I find this example to be quite unrealistic. This is not how things typically start. (I can´t recall an atheist asking "what happens after death?" out of the blue, whereas I can think of countless occasions where the Christian opens the can of worms by telling the atheist what will happen after death.
And that makes a huge difference.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why do I sometimes see ( it's real common on YouTube ) a Christian and an atheist in a back and forth and the atheist will be asking a question that the Christian can't answer. When Christians ask atheists about orgins of the universe and what not most will respond with something like the following:
"I don't know and neither do you"
Christians are expected to accept an "I don't know" answer from the presumably smarter and more logical atheist.
This is fine but then why can't the Christian say "I don't know"?
I was reading the comments on a reason ralley post and the bulk of the comments were ridiculing Christians for not knowing the answer to a question that AronRa was asking. Why are Christians held to a different standard than atheists on questions that don't really have definative answers? Why the ridicule of Christians ( who don't posit themselves as being logically superior ) and yet the atheist is free to say "I dunno" to any question and nobody is calling them a "joke" for not knowing all the answers. Contrary to popular belief most Christians don't claim to know ALL the answers even though our chosen spiritual beliefs may lay claim to knowledge of things. It must be remembered that just because our spiritual books may claim to have answers it certainly can't account for EVERY question asked nor can the followers be expected to know everything asked of them,especially when the questions don't have black and white answers.Any thoughts on why this happens??

There's no double standard going on here at all.

The difference is that the religious viewpoint is arguing from a positive assertion. They have a belief in how the universe was created... If that person makes the case that God created the universe, they have a burden of proof to back up their claims.

If they can't demonstrate how they know God created the universe, they have an unjustified argument.

As for the Atheist view, the only assertion they have made is that the universe exists.... which is pretty well a given.

There are a number of scientific models as to how the universe was formed, or what caused the big bang.... but we can't say for sure which one is correct as of yet. So, we are simply being honest in saying we don't know how it came into being.

That being said, perhaps one day we will have a working model that can reliably show how the universe started. When that day comes, we will also have a burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of that claim.... however if it's a reliable working model, one would assume the evidence for how it works must have already been discovered by that point.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Sorry, but I find this example to be quite unrealistic. This is not how things typically start. (I can´t recall an atheist asking "what happens after death?" out of the blue, whereas I can think of countless occasions where the Christian opens the can of worms by telling the atheist what will happen after death.
And that makes a huge difference.

I didn't say it was out of the blue but to say you've never heard an atheist ask a Christian "what happens after death" is to say that's your experiance and not everybody elses.

 

[yasic]

no, I didn't expect you to do anything. You can if you wish. Btw, the double standard does exist and I'm sure you know it but as anyone else on the side being attacked you do not wish to see it.

And why should anyone believe this double standard exists, when you can neither provide examples of it nor even describe exactly what it is?

If I came up with a random double standard about Christians, would you believe it just because I said it?

 

[KCfromNC]

As an atheist what determins what is and isn't mockable??

Everyone, atheist and theist alike, determines what they will or will not mock based on their own standards. I don't think there's a universal benchmark here.

But certainly confident claims of fantastic magic backed up by nothing are juicy targets, at least when made seriously by adults.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually the example I gave was as follows:
Ok,ok ----atheist says "what happens after death?"
Christian says "our beliefs state we go to heaven or to hell"
atheist says"how do u know?"
Christian says "I don't know,but I believe the bible. Obviously,I can't tell u for sure what happens as I'm not dead yet"
atheist says"well, u don't know your own religion then.Christians are a joke".

Turning this around a bit :

A : My beliefs state that Christianity is a joke
B : How do you know?
A : I don't know, I just believe because I read it in a book.

Are A's ideas a joke, or is "just believing because someone wrote it down" a valid way to establish beliefs? If so, how does this relate to the conclusion from your hypothetical atheist? Seems that if you accept that "just believing cause it's in a book" is a valid basis for belief then you have to accept A's conclusion that Christianity is a joke. If you think that there should be more than that as a basis for beliefs, then you're backing up your hypothetical atheist's point.

Seems that the real double-standard here is that faith-based conclusions are accepted pretty selectively by people who claim they're a useful path to knowledge.

 

[Tnmusicman]

It does not "always have to".
Since you refuse to give us a specific example that you are thinking of I am left with referring to what I personally experience as the most common example in which I am unsatisfied with the "I don´t know" from a Christian. This I was presenting.
Furthermore, when speaking of "defeat" I was referring strictly to the validity of an argument.
When a person admits "I don´t know" there are several different ways to proceed from there (among them co-operation). Which of them will come to pass depends a lot on the attitude in which the "I don´t know" is presented (perceived).

To me, it´s nothing about the person being a joke, but rather the fact that an entire logical chain (which oftentimes the Christian has presented as superiour) breaks down and turns out to be "a joke".
Examples:
1. Challenging an atheist to explain the mechanism of the coming into being of the universe as though an "I don´t know" answer would be a point for the existence of a god, while actually the Christian himself has no explanation himself (but merely a "it´s miraculous").
2. As can be seen often on this board, a Christian claiming that "without god there can´t be morality" (the claim of superiority for his position, whereas the atheist is pictured as completely empty-handed).
If, in the course of the following discussion of this claim, the Christian can´t support his position and has to admit "I don´t know", his entire position turns out to be unsupported (or "a joke", as you call it).

I can´t seem to verify this judgement from my observations in years of being a member here. Of course, bias may play a part in my as well as your conclusions.

Can´t say anything about Youtube.
Allow me a question: If you look at this thread so far, do you have the feeling that the majority of responses from atheists was impolite and disrespectful?

Since the majority responses were more questions than answers and apparently I didn't give enough info to get the answer I was seeking,although one guy guy had a great response and was oddly able to give an answer having the same amount of info as everybody else, it would be fair to say some responses were very respectful and others were less so but I don't think any were near the level of disrespect that I experiance on YouTube. Of course, if this forum allowed everyone total freedom of speech it might have been very different as far as the answers from atheists.

 

[jpcedotal]

yep...society must have boundaries or love for your fellow man will vanish among the secular world.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Turning this around a bit :

A : My beliefs state that Christianity is a joke
B : How do you know?
A : I don't know, I just believe because I read it in a book.

Are A's ideas a joke, or is "just believing because someone wrote it down" a valid way to establish beliefs? If so, how does this relate to the conclusion from your hypothetical atheist? Seems that if you accept that "just believing cause it's in a book" is a valid basis for belief then you have to accept A's conclusion that Christianity is a joke. If you think that there should be more than that as a basis for beliefs, then you're backing up your hypothetical atheist's point.

Seems that the real double-standard here is that faith-based conclusions are accepted pretty selectively by people who claim they're a useful path to knowledge.

cant use this as an example because atheists always point out they have "no beliefs just lack of beliefs" unless of course you are stating you are NOT an atheist and are involved in some religion that specifically thinks christians are a joke.

 

[Tnmusicman]

And why should anyone believe this double standard exists, when you can neither provide examples of it nor even describe exactly what it is?

If I came up with a random double standard about Christians, would you believe it just because I said it?

Im not asking you to believe it--just saying it exists.

 

[Gadarene]

cant use this as an example because atheists always point out they have "no beliefs just lack of beliefs" unless of course you are stating you are NOT an atheist and are involved in some religion that specifically thinks christians are a joke.

Yes, you can use it as an example. It's a hypothetical situation.

I've no idea why this seems to confuse so many people.

 

[dies-l]

Im not asking you to believe it--just saying it exists.

But, if you are asking why it exists, you cannot reasonably expect a good answer if you are not willing to provide a clear example.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Seems that if you accept that "just believing cause it's in a book" is a valid basis for belief then you have to accept A's conclusion that Christianity is a joke.

Alot of our beliefs come from the Bible but its not just "a book" to us. Its not like we're reading an encyclopedia. We believe it to be the inspired word of God. Our beliefs are justified by more than just being in the Bible. I believe Jesus is who He said He was and therefore have good reason to believe in the things He taught.
Do some atheists not hold a faith based position on certain matters? Ive heard on many occasions how science its the best tool for this and that and one day science will answer these questions,so in a way you put faith in science and believe very much in its ability to come up with answers as well as holding other answers on many other claims (untill THAT claim is proved wrong then the belief will change ). Matters not because anyone who says "I believe one day science will have the answer on _____" has faith.

 

[Tnmusicman]

But, if you are asking why it exists, you cannot reasonably expect a good answer if you are not willing to provide a clear example.

already provided example.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Yes, you can use it as an example. It's a hypothetical situation.

I've no idea why this seems to confuse so many people.

ah,so mine has to be an example that actually happened for anyone to "get it" but the atheist can give a hypothetical?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Seems that if you accept that "just believing cause it's in a book" is a valid basis for belief then you have to accept A's conclusion that Christianity is a joke.

Alot of our beliefs come from the Bible but its not just "a book" to us. Its not like we're reading an encyclopedia. We believe it to be the inspired word of God. Our beliefs are justified by more than just being in the Bible. I believe Jesus is who He said He was and therefore have good reason to believe in the things He taught.
Do some atheists not hold a faith based position on certain matters? Ive heard on many occasions how science its the best tool for this and that and one day science will answer these questions,so in a way you put faith in science and believe very much in its ability to come up with answers as well as holding other answers on many other claims (untill THAT claim is proved wrong then the belief will change ). Matters not because anyone who says "I believe one day science will have the answer on _____" has faith.

That's called 'scienceism', and you're right, it is a faith statement (albeit a weak one, given the plethora of questions science has answered). But in all my years here, I've seen maybe two atheists say something like that.

That's why most of us say, "I don't know".