Rational Response Squad

[FadingWhispers3]

Hate the faith, not the believer?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is a statement of faith.

I'm sorry, but my lack of belief in God is a conclusion, not simply something I "assume". Even if it were true that I'm making assumptions in epistemology that underlie my conclusion, that still wouldn't make my lack of belief in God a faith -- it would be those assumptions in epistemology that are.

I will agree only that I do have positions on god, life, and Man. Of course. I have a philosophy of life. This is not a faith, however.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FadingWhispers3]

For some reason I'm wary of people who defend their positions through definitions, which are often not mutually agreed upon and can be disputed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For some reason I'm wary of people who defend their positions through definitions, which are often not mutually agreed upon and can be disputed.

Yes, there is something very "political" about a war of words. In politics, the first rule is "define, or be defined." It gets Orwellian after a while.

Regardless, this discussion smells of presuppositionalism, and I reject this particular way of looking at reason and faith.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Am I the only non-fundie slightly uncomfortable about these guys?

http://www.rationalresponders.com

I understand that some will tell me that these guys are part of the latest "outdo them all" sensationalistic deals. They remind me of the 700 Club only dealing the other way, that God does not exist.

I´m an atheist. I do not really feel comfortable with their methods and approaches.
It´s instrumentalizing pop culture as apparently dictated by media society. I understand how they want to put a counter weight to the Christian presence in the media, but that´s just not my kind of thing.

Another thing that gets me uneasy is that they seem to ONLY want to go after Christianity. Why not other religions, especially the other more well-known religions like Islam, Scientology, and Buddhism?

Why would it make you less uneasy if they "went for" other religions as well?
In order to investigate a god concept you have to work from the characteristics and particularities of this god concept. This is often hard enough even only if trying to address Christian god concepts - there is such a broad variety of utterly different Christian god concepts each of which require and deserve their individual refutation. The calvinist god concept does not have much in common with the universalist god concept, and an argument against the first is not an argument against the latter, and vice versa.
Thus, I would find it highly unreasonable to broaden the range of god concepts addressed even more. It leads to lack of precision and provokes undue generalizations.
I guess they simply focussed on those god concepts that they are most concerned with and that have the greatest impact in their society. Makes sense, to me.

 

[quatona]

After read several of the posts in this thread from RRS members, I take away that RRS members think their Atheism is not a religion. Anytime I here this kind of an argument, I know that the person making this argument is not grasping the full scope of their own thinking.

A religion can be defined as being composed of statements in the following three categories. At least one statement of belief in each category must be a statement that cannot be "proved" and hence are faith statements. These three categories are:

1. God
2. Life
3. Man

Now, lets apply this to atheism:

1. atheism says that God does not exist.
   1. To says that God does not exist is a faith statement.
2. atheism says that there is not life after death, or that the life after death has no bering on this life.
   1. Again, these are both faith statements.
3. Atheism says that man is nothing more than a big accident. Man has no soul.
   1. Again, saying man has no soul is a faith statement.

Hence, since Atheism make faith statements about the three central categories needed to have a religion, Atheism is a religion!

Now, for any Atheists who wish to take issue with what I claim are central tenets of Atheism, please do so, buy also show that your correction is not a faith statement.

Conclusion: All men have beliefs in these three areas. Your beliefs are faith beliefs, so what ever you call yourself, you have a religion. The difference between the Christian and the Atheist, is that the Christian is honest about what they say is by faith.

Equivocations, strawmen, semantics trickery, generalizations.
Doesn´t sound good to me.

I don´t believe in your god concept.

Put whatever label on this statement you like. Call it religion, call it faith, call it banana milk shake. Just do me the favour and don´t forget what my position and statement actually was when having a conversation with me.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's a bit like saying that because Bush declared war on Iraq and most Americans are against the war means that America isn't at war with Iraq.

Christians who are not at war with atheism are merely submitting to worldly political correctness and do not see God's demands for what they are. God demands our worship and threatens harm to those who do not. Atheism put the wellbeing of our nation at risk by denying God.

If you don't believe me look at 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Where did these take place? New York Washington and New Orleans. The headquarters of Godlessness in America.

If God were truly meting out punishment for Godlessness (read, not this guy's precise brand of Christianity) wouldn't we expect to see really bad things happening in India, China, the Middle East, Japan, and so on first? Seems like there are considerably more appropriate targets for God to inflict suffering on before cities in a largely Christian country.

Not to mention, why would God send a hurricane to flatten everything, when he could simply stop the hearts of all those who displease him? I'm pretty sure that Katrina and the September 11 attacks didn't distinguish between people based on their religious beliefs.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Another thing that gets me uneasy is that they seem to ONLY want to go after Christianity. Why not other religions, especially the other more well-known religions like Islam, Scientology, and Buddhism?

I hang **** on scientology all the time! I sincerely suggest anyone interested check out :

Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology[SIZE=-1]The Church of Scientology is a cult that destroys people, so it needs to be exposed. To back up this strong claim I need to collect some of their secret ...[/SIZE]

Everything you'll ever need to make scioentologists look REALLY stupid when you take one of their "personality tests"

Oh, and By the way... I don't think Scientology really qualifies as a religion. Neither do several countries' supreme courts, who deny CoS tax exempt status

 

[sheatrader]

Equivocations, strawmen, semantics trickery, generalizations.

Accusing my arguments and reasons of these things without showing me the errors in my logic is nothing more than name calling. Are we in kindergarden? I have tried to show in my posts where I think someone has used a strawman argument as to why this is the case by giving examples.

Call it religion, call it faith, call it banana milk shake. Just do me the favour and don´t forget what my position and statement actually was when having a conversation with me.

I'm sorry, but I did'nt realize that we were actually having a conversation. To my knowledge I posted a general statement and then I specifically responded to Savage78 and Mike. These are the only conversions I have engaged in. However, I am very happy to have a conversation with you and to study your particular viewpoint so as to not make these mistakes.

PS - As I have time.

Steven Shea

 

[quatona]

Accusing my arguments and reasons of these things without showing me the errors in my logic is nothing more than name calling.

Whilst it is not name calling, it is indeed lacking a detailed explanation of your errors. I think your request for such an explanation is justified. I won´t give it to you, though, because my interest in these sophisms of yours is not that high. As I told you: Call it whatever you want it, yet don´t expect me to accept conclusions that different thing become equal or comparable just because you can different meanings of a word makes it applicable to both.
I understand your frustration with the fact that I have no inclination to give you a detailed refutation. I guess since being unwilling to provide that I better had ignored your post altogether than attacking it without a detailed refutation.

Are we in kindergarden?

Not that I am aware of.

I'm sorry, but I did'nt realize that we were actually having a conversation. To my knowledge I posted a general statement and then I specifically responded to Savage78 and Mike. These are the only conversions I have engaged in. However, I am very happy to have a conversation with you and to study your particular viewpoint so as to not make these mistakes.

I went back to reread your post in question. It was not directed to one of these two posters or both, neither of them was quoted, and the operational term was "atheists" without further qualifiations. So I do not see how I was not included in the target audience as well as the group your post was about.

 

[sheatrader]

I went back to reread your post in question. It was not directed to one of these two posters or both, neither of them was quoted, and the operational term was "atheists" without further qualifiations. So I do not see how I was not included in the target audience as well as the group your post was about.

My post was directed at any athiest. However, to expect me to already know your particualr views before I post is unreasonable and unfair. It simply is not possible for me to every athiest's views on this site before I post.

Whilst it is not name calling, it is indeed lacking a detailed explanation of your errors. I think your request for such an explanation is justified. I won´t give it to you, though, because my interest in these sophisms of yours is not that high. As I told you: Call it whatever you want it, yet don´t expect me to accept conclusions that different thing become equal or comparable just because you can different meanings of a word makes it applicable to both.

Thank you for saying that I'm justified in wanting an explination. However, I disagree with you on the name calling. To post comments like that is indeed an attack on the level of name calling. It is ment to hurt. I have been direct in my posts, but I have tried very hard not to attack. I have found though that most of the responses to me only include one or two word replies. This is a tactic that is good at preventing a deeper discource on the subject and preventing enlightement on issues. I feel I have an extreemly good model for religion. This model is successful at identify the core elements of any religion and it will identify something as a religion that is not considered a religion. Now maybe I'm all wet behind the ears, but no reponses yet have touched the depth to which this model reaches.

Maybe what made you post was that my model sheds light on a way of thinking about life that you have not considered before and is threatening to you?

Steven Shea

 

[quatona]

My post was directed at any athiest. However, to expect me to already know your particualr views before I post is unreasonable and unfair. It simply is not possible for me to every athiest's views on this site before I post.

It was not necessary to know my particular views, and the "I" in my caveat is applicable to everyone who we have a label for. I was warning of misconclusions based on careless use of labels.

However, I disagree with you on the name calling.

I didn´t call you names, so it wasn´t name calling. I didn´t even say anything about you personally. I criticized your post.

To post comments like that is indeed an attack on the level of name calling.

That depends on how broad or fine your resolution of levels is.
Even if, by any categorization, it could be considered to be on one level with name calling it isn´t name calling.
This is exactly the sort of careless use of language that I meant to criticize in your post.

It is ment to hurt.

I´m sorry, but you cannot know what it is meant to be. You would first have to show me your diploma in mind reading. I am world´s leading expert on what my intentions are in doing something, and I tell you that it was not meant to hurt. I regret that you felt offended, it was not my intention.

I have been direct in my posts, but I have tried very hard not to attack.

Neither have I attacked you.

I have found though that most of the responses to me only include one or two word replies. This is a tactic that is good at preventing a deeper discource on the subject and preventing enlightement on issues.

Again you are resorting to intention reading. Whilst I have already agreed with you that it would have been a good idea to pass a detailed analysis of your mistakes along with the rejection, I can certainly think of different reasons why people didn´t bother to do it than the ones you are insinuating.
I personally have spent an incredible amount of time before in explaining the problems with these sorts of equivocations of religion and faith, and I am simply tired of doing it. This is by no means anything I could blame on you (you have presented it here for the first time, after all), but it is meant to show you that the motive behind being short is not necessarily the intention to hurt or preventing a deeper discourse. To me your concepts didn´t promise a deeper discourse, because I have often seen where discussing these claims lead, and it was by no means deep.

I feel I have an extreemly good model for religion. This model is successful at identify the core elements of any religion and it will identify something as a religion that is not considered a religion. Now maybe I'm all wet behind the ears, but no reponses yet have touched the depth to which this model reaches.

Any such conceptualization and categorization is designed to force those distinctions and similarities into relevance and significance that the person who hold them is interested in being significant and relevant. It is no surprise that your distinctions appear to be particularly good and deep to you.

Maybe what made you post was that my model sheds light on a way of thinking about life that you have not considered before and is threatening to you?

You seem to have a strong inclination towards mind reading. I for one do not like such attempts, and I think they don´t belong in a discussion.
Actually, it´s quite the opposite: I was bored by these all too often brought up points refuted a thousand times.

 

[Savage78]

It simply is not possible for me to every athiest's views on this site before I post.

What is alsoobvious is that you have no idea about atheism, I blame your faith. You are so used to having faith in the unknown and fables that your parents told you that you cannot comprehend in your mind what a faithless life is like.

 

[sheatrader]

What is alsoobvious is that you have no idea about atheism, I blame your faith. You are so used to having faith in the unknown and fables that your parents told you that you cannot comprehend in your mind what a faithless life is like.

Savage78,

You have no ides what my parents told me or did not tell me. You have no ides what my upbring was like! So leave me parents out of it.

 

[marblehead]

Savage78,

You have no ides what my parents told me or did not tell me. You have no ides what my upbring was like! So leave me parents out of it.

You also have no idea what an atheist is. So quit telling atheists what they supposedly believe.

 

[sheatrader]

You would first have to show me your diploma in mind reading. I am world´s leading expert on what my intentions are in doing something, and I tell you that it was not meant to hurt. I regret that you felt offended, it was not my intention.

You are right. It was mind reading on my part. My wife gets me on this from time to time and I need to watch myself on it. Please continue to confront any mind reading you perceive on my part.

Whilst I have already agreed with you that it would have been a good idea to pass a detailed analysis of your mistakes along with the rejection, I can certainly think of different reasons why people didn´t bother to do it than the ones you are insinuating.

Yes, there certinally can be many reasons why people respond other than the one I suggested.

I personally have spent an incredible amount of time... To me your concepts didn´t promise a deeper discourse, because I have often seen where discussing these claims lead,

and

I was bored by these all too often brought up points refuted a thousand times

I am unconvinced by your reasons. If I am tired of responding to a particular argument which I have responded to a "thousand times", and I am convinced that there is no opportunity for a deeper discourse, then there is no emotional impact on me. I have no motivation to respond. Your shortness suggests that there was an emotional impact on you. In my opinion, the two don't jive. My orriginal post did strike a cord with you to the point that it overcame the "incredible amount of time" you have spend dealing with people like me and the lack of a promise of s deeper discourse even though you have already responded "thousand times" before. That's a perrty big hill to overcome. So, what was that emotional response too? What was your reasons for your first post?

and it was by no means deep.

You right on the surface. So far, there has not been enough good quality discusion to get deep. Buy that is not what I said. I said:

"...but no reponses yet have touched the depth to which this model reaches."

The depth has not yet been demonstrated. And at any rate, models in and of themselves don't have depth, they only provide a tool to go deep.

I will lay out my model again in an additonal post. I have currently run out of time.

PS - If I have not resonded to something in your previous post, that does not mean I'm in agreement with your view. I am only trying to move byond this swirl.

Steven Shea

 

[sheatrader]

You also have no idea what an atheist is. So quit telling atheists what they supposedly believe.

Can you please quote where you think I have told you what to believe? Also, instead of just crtiicizing me for not understanding athiests, please enlighted me beyond just a one or two word response.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Savage78,

You have no ides what my parents told me or did not tell me. You have no ides what my upbring was like! So leave me parents out of it.

Rather than getting indignant... how about you confirm or deny that your current beliefs are very closely aligned to those of your parents?

 

[sheatrader]

Rather than getting indignant... how about you confirm or deny that your current beliefs are very closely aligned to those of your parents?

How is my upbrining and background relevant to the dicussion? I will say that I have never been an athiest. Is this what your are looking for? Will this give you enough reason to ignor my post and write me off rather than dealing with my arguments?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How is my upbrining and background relevant to the dicussion? I will say that I have never been an athiest. Is this what your are looking for? Will this give you enough reason to ignor my post and write me off rather than dealing with my arguments?

Huh? I don't want to write anyone off.

I've never been an atheist either.

However, it is a psychological axiom that people will go to extreme lengths to defend a long held belief, even in the face of extremely contrary evidence.

I know that when I encounter someone who seems to go to extreme lengths to justify his existing beliefs rather consider alternatives, I tend to wonder about just who told them such things in the first place.

The technical name is "confabulation"... and its pretty simple to detect... ask yourself, honestly (don;t feel you have to answer here) is there ANY amount of evidence that would change your beliefs? And if so, what is it? If the answer is "no, nothing will change my beliefs", or you demand an excesively high, or worse yet, intentionally unobtainable amount of evidence to sway you from your position... then you are probably confabulating rather than using objective reason.

Don't feel bad, I'm sure most people do it in relation to some things.