The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[PsychoSarah]

Its all about motive.

They both have the motive of informing people of what they think is the truth

 

[Colter]

They both have the motive of informing people of what they think is the truth

Maybe, but that depends on the motive. Some people like to argue more than help. Some people like to make fun of religious people all dressed up as helping. Some people need to feel superior to others as they pretend to help. Some people are trying to wreck faith as they appear to be helping.


And then their was Lucifer whose brilliance lead him to take his conspiracy theories too seriously leading to the promotion of Atheism.

 

[Colter]

​

 

[NamelessHero]

I'm only talking from my experience, but I don't find it hard. I've had some fair debates with atheists. Some of them even turned out to be a friend. About 70% of the "atheists" online are just trying to make someone angry so I ignore the ones like that and only talk to the Atheists that have something productive to say.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe, but that depends on the motive. Some people like to argue more than help. Some people like to make fun of religious people all dressed up as helping. Some people need to feel superior to others as they pretend to help. Some people are trying to wreck faith as they appear to be helping.


And then their was Lucifer whose brilliance lead him to take his conspiracy theories too seriously leading to the promotion of Atheism.

Some people have a motive and desire to find the truth and they will roll over every rock to find it and won't be satisfied unless they have objective evidence that they have found the truth.

Other people, are more motivated and have a strong desire towards faith beliefs and having the feeling, that someone up there is looking out for them. This type of motivation, is less likely to lead to objective investigation, because there lacks objective evidence to support this type of belief, which is why it is called faith.

Nothing wrong with either type of person, because they are just wired differently and developed different psychological needs through their life's experiences. When both of these types engage in debate though, a significant amount of disagreement will unfold, for obvious reasons.

 

[Chany]

The morality of any act is determined by a persons motives.

If I rape someone because I intend to have a child that I will raise to be an altruistic person who constantly helps others, is my action morally correct?

 

[Colter]

"Religion has at one time or another sanctioned all sorts of contrary and inconsistent behavior, has at some time approved of practically all that is now regarded as immoral or sinful. Conscience, untaught by experience and unaided by reason, never has been, and never can be, a safe and unerring guide to human conduct. Conscience is not a divine voice speaking to the human soul. It is merely the sum total of the moral and ethical content of the mores of any current stage of existence; it simply represents the humanly conceived ideal of reaction in any given set of circumstances."UB 1955​

 

[Colter]

Some people have a motive and desire to find the truth and they will roll over every rock to find it and won't be satisfied unless they have objective evidence that they have found the truth.

Other people, are more motivated and have a strong desire towards faith beliefs and having the feeling, that someone up there is looking out for them. This type of motivation, is less likely to lead to objective investigation, because there lacks objective evidence to support this type of belief, which is why it is called faith.

Nothing wrong with either type of person, because they are just wired differently and developed different psychological needs through their life's experiences. When both of these types engage in debate though, a significant amount of disagreement will unfold, for obvious reasons.

I'm a little bit of both, part scientist, part spiritual truth seeker.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm a little bit of both, part scientist, part spiritual truth seeker.

How do you reconcile when the scientific part of you is in conflict with the spiritual side?

I would imagine, you have one side, that tends to dominate when you have internal conflict.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Maybe, but that depends on the motive. Some people like to argue more than help. Some people like to make fun of religious people all dressed up as helping. Some people need to feel superior to others as they pretend to help. Some people are trying to wreck faith as they appear to be helping.


And then their was Lucifer whose brilliance lead him to take his conspiracy theories too seriously leading to the promotion of Atheism.

Nope, most atheists feel 0 drive to spread atheism. Heck, I actively seek belief. But I assure you, no conspiracy to spread atheism exists, because there is no benefits to be had for doing that, from the perspective of a person in power. Atheists don't have any traditions or positions to exploit politically because the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief. Atheist Republicans?You bet there are. Atheist and pro-life? Of course. And not only is there a lack of consensus between atheists on pretty much everything, but we argue with each other at times more than we do with theists.

Informing people might cause them to lose their faith, it happens. But again, consider the possibility you yourself are wrong. Wouldn't it benefit people more to know the truth than praying in the name of a lie? And that applies to me as well in consideration of the missionary. Thus, I view the intent of both people to be equally moral.

 

[Aldebaran]

How do you reconcile when the scientific part of you is in conflict with the spiritual side?

I would imagine, you have one side, that tends to dominate when you have internal conflict.

Do you try to scientifically prove everything you come across?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you try to scientifically prove everything you come across?

Kinda. Not math though, math has its own thing going on.

 

[NamelessHero]

Some questions don't deserve much respect and fail to earn an answer. It's their form of entertainment.

Every serious question deserves some form of an answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you try to scientifically prove everything you come across?

For things that are claimed to be objectively true, I certainly require empirical evidence. Don't you?

For things that are claimed to be preferences or opinions, I certainly don't require empirical evidence. No one needs to prove to me that the Mona Lisa is more beautiful than the van Gogh Sunflowers, but I would require empirical evidence of who painted a painting if someone wanted hundreds of millions of dollars for it.

People are claiming that God is a real thing, an objective truth. Therefore, I require empirical evidence. If people said that a belief in God was just a subjective thing that made them feel better, or a preference, then I would view it as I do all things that are just meant to entertain.

 

[Chany]

Boiling morality down to simply what people feel is right at the time is probably the most idiotic position I have ever heard.

Just because I intend to do good or aim at some higher end does not make my actions moral or, by any degree, make me a moral person. Killing a bunch of people because I want to feed the dead to the hungry does not justify me morally. We call these people sick and psychotic, not the moral standard which we aim at. There seems to be something about the act of killing (at least in this circumstance) that is wrong beyond whether or not my intentions were good or bad.

Also, it comes down to "whatever I personally believe to be good or bad". Without some sort of definite criteria by which to judge something, any "good" or "bad" label you put onto an intention is just a silly, arbitrary thing.

 

[Aldebaran]

Every serious question deserves some form of an answer.

When someone asks a question such as, "If I rape someone because I intend to have a child that I will raise to be an altruistic person who constantly helps others, is my action morally correct?" I find it difficult to take that person seriously, especially considering past questions.

 

[NamelessHero]

When someone asks a question such as, "If I rape someone because I intend to have a child that I will raise to be an altruistic person who constantly helps others, is my action morally correct?" I find it difficult to take that person seriously, especially considering past questions.

Did you even read what he was responding to?
The guy that he responded to was saying that the motive behind something makes it right/wrong. So the guy that asked a ridiculous question to prove him wrong. He brought up a valid point and should be given an intelligent response.

 

[Chany]

When someone asks a question such as, "If I rape someone because I intend to have a child that I will raise to be an altruistic person who constantly helps others, is my action morally correct?" I find it difficult to take that person seriously, especially considering past questions.

Considering that my questions are to bring up the problem of having morality based solely on the intention of an agent, it is serious.

Under his moral system, what I did was completely moral. My intentions were good according to my definition of good; therefore, it is moral for me to rape people if I intend to raise the children towards some altruistic goal.

If you don't understand that questions can be used in philosophy to bring up problems with a position, then I can't help it.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Do you try to scientifically prove everything you come across?

It depends on what you mean by "scientifically." It would be impossible (and unnecessarily tedious) to filter our very sensory experience through rigorous research methods; however, it's important to take away the important principles it establishes. There's a reason scientific methodology is so rigorous even if it's just to uncover natural explanations. That's because the nature of reality doesn't make itself readily known to us. We have cognitive biases, like selection and conformation biases, sensory limitations, fallacious reasoning, etc. and thus we need to employ work-arounds for such limitations and failings. Approaching things with skeptical inquiry is a good start when being asked to take some sort of risk or accept something as true, most especially if we're also asked to revolve our lives around it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Did you even read what he was responding to?
The guy that he responded to was saying that the motive behind something makes it right/wrong. So the guy that asked a ridiculous question to prove him wrong. He brought up a valid point and should be given an intelligent response.

Fine, I'll take the bait then. But watch for follow-ups to try to discredit me since that's what always happens. It's not about actually learning--it's all about the argument.....

If a person rapes someone to produce a child to raise as altruistic, I would say that the person was doing it for a moral reason, but without considering the collateral damage. In short, the motivation was moral if it was the true motivation.