The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

[Tom 1]

You could surprise me, I'm not nearly that myopic, online tone is not always so cut and dry as it might be perceived

Do you have an argument you think is really good based on the suggestions in the thread? That's all I'm asking, but if you're going to keep circling back to the bible, then you might want to start with defending that rather than the belief in God as the initial point of contention

Could you read the thread through? I’m not sure what you’re responding to, but it isn’t anything I said.

The basic point is that the bible exists, as a book. There are endless resources that can be used to understand it from any number of perspectives. This isn’t an esoteric or even complicated idea. For some reason however there are people who spend a fair amount of time trying to put it in terms of something like an equation or hypothesis, and then demanding that someone should ‘prove’ their idea - some notion that only has existence in their own mind - in some fashion. It’s a bit daft.

Arguments can be interesting as arguments, as ways of thinking about something that can be illuminating, or at least provides a perspective. I was thinking about starting a thread about different arguments for God, not because they offer proof as such but because those kinds of discussions can be interesting. If I get time I’ll start that thread.

 

[muichimotsu]

Could you read the thread through? I’m not sure what you’re responding to, but it isn’t anything I said.

The basic point is that the bible exists, as a book. There are endless resources that can be used to understand it from any number of perspectives. This isn’t an esoteric or even complicated idea. For some reason however there are people who spend a fair amount of time trying to put it in terms of something like an equation or hypothesis, and then demanding that someone should ‘prove’ their idea - some notion that only has existence in their own mind - in some fashion. It’s a bit daft.

Arguments can be interesting as arguments, as ways of thinking about something that can be illuminating, or at least provides a perspective. I was thinking about starting a thread about different arguments for God, not because they offer proof as such but because those kinds of discussions can be interesting. If I get time I’ll start that thread.

The thread is dense enough as it is and I've been away since March 10, only came back about a week ago from a ban, not sure I have the time in the first place, or what precisely you think I'm missing. Is it effectively that you think it shouldn't be about "converting" atheists, but finding common ground of sorts? Because that would at least be building proverbial bridges of sorts, an almost ecumenical method

Never used the word proof, so you're putting words in my mouth in the same breath as accusing me of doing it to you

I don't deny people can try to understand the bible, that's still not to the point of making any real conclusions about reality from it that are unique to the bible or that aren't arguably rooted in the faith one has about its inspiration and such.

I would think most people would reasonably, if pressed, not use proof in regards to what they more likely think are arguments that can convince someone, that are compelling and warrant something in regards to belief in God.

When you use proof, it becomes dangerously dogmatic and also so certain that it makes the idea of faith hollow when you can have some conclusive idea that makes God on the level of gravity or such that is proven in some scientific notion of consistent evidence.

Or if we use the more mathematical/logical notion of proof, it still reduces God to something mechanical and that isn't what evangelists would generally want to present, even if they also try to utilize natural theology instead of arguing from the bible except after the fact of certain "agreements"

 

[Tom 1]

The thread is dense enough as it is and I've been away since March 10, only came back about a week ago from a ban, not sure I have the time in the first place, or what precisely you think I'm missing. Is it effectively that you think it shouldn't be about "converting" atheists, but finding common ground of sorts? Because that would at least be building proverbial bridges of sorts, an almost ecumenical method

Never used the word proof, so you're putting words in my mouth in the same breath as accusing me of doing it to you

I don't deny people can try to understand the bible, that's still not to the point of making any real conclusions about reality from it that are unique to the bible or that aren't arguably rooted in the faith one has about its inspiration and such.

I would think most people would reasonably, if pressed, not use proof in regards to what they more likely think are arguments that can convince someone, that are compelling and warrant something in regards to belief in God.

When you use proof, it becomes dangerously dogmatic and also so certain that it makes the idea of faith hollow when you can have some conclusive idea that makes God on the level of gravity or such that is proven in some scientific notion of consistent evidence.

Or if we use the more mathematical/logical notion of proof, it still reduces God to something mechanical and that isn't what evangelists would generally want to present, even if they also try to utilize natural theology instead of arguing from the bible except after the fact of certain "agreements"

Proof is a reference to the OP, and other threads of this type, that’s what I’m referring to.

If you dial back a bit further what you are saying you get to a useful starting point, as regards the bible that is, taking it on its own terms. That’s the only useful way to evaluate what it has to say.

 

[Tom 1]

Is it effectively that you think it shouldn't be about "converting" atheists, but finding common ground of sorts? Because that would at least be building proverbial bridges of sorts, an almost ecumenical method

Not as such, speaking for myself I find some discussions useful and interesting, those which are framed so that the question is both relevant to whatever that topic is, and can be covered usefully in a series of posts. People can have that kind of discussion and come to whatever conclusions they like, the point for me is that I can perhaps come across some new perspective or idea.

 

[muichimotsu]

Proof is a reference to the OP, and other threads of this type, that’s what I’m referring to.

If you dial back a bit further what you are saying you get to a useful starting point, as regards the bible that is, taking it on its own terms. That’s the only useful way to evaluate what it has to say.

Not sure the OP was demanding proof in the sense I tend to use it and the vernacular notion wouldn't necessarily be that precise in what it is asking rather than just honesty in applying standards fairly to all things of importance rather than the apologetics tapdancing I see more often than not about their deeply held faith

Why should one take the bible seriously in regards to the claims it makes? That's the essential question and the arguments have been consistently found wanting, either rhetorical spin or outright fallacies in my experience

 

[muichimotsu]

Not as such, speaking for myself I find some discussions useful and interesting, those which are framed so that the question is both relevant to whatever that topic is, and can be covered usefully in a series of posts. People can have that kind of discussion and come to whatever conclusions they like, the point for me is that I can perhaps come across some new perspective or idea.

Discussion rather than argument or debate, perhaps, as nuance, would be a good notion to convey.

Though for some, it's as if they cannot suffer the idea that their deeply held ideas could be wrong, which, while not remotely exclusive to the religious/spiritual, it certainly seems to be more easily galvanized by the nature of the claims and justifications therein, does it not?

 

[Tom 1]

Not sure the OP was demanding proof in the sense I tend to use it and the vernacular notion wouldn't necessarily be that precise in what it is asking rather than just honesty in applying standards fairly to all things of importance rather than the apologetics tapdancing I see more often than not about their deeply held faith

Why should one take the bible seriously in regards to the claims it makes? That's the essential question and the arguments have been consistently found wanting, either rhetorical spin or outright fallacies in my experience

Well, for my money, scholars like David Rosenberg and John Walton, the first being Jewish, a translator of ancient Hebrew and a poet (like many of the original writers) to boot, the second an expert on the ancient world, provide the best avenue into an understanding of the world of thought the bible came out of. This provides the means to evaluate what the bible has to say on its own terms. There’s no real substitute for that I’m aware of. ‘Is it true’ and such only become useful questions once it is understood what was actually meant.

 

[Tom 1]

Discussion rather than argument or debate, perhaps, as nuance, would be a good notion to convey.

Though for some, it's as if they cannot suffer the idea that their deeply held ideas could be wrong, which, while not remotely exclusive to the religious/spiritual, it certainly seems to be more easily galvanized by the nature of the claims and justifications therein, does it not?

Maybe. In my experience though people, all of us, tend to think in more or less similar ways, just about different content.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, for my money, scholars like David Rosenberg and John Walton, the first being Jewish, a translator of ancient Hebrew and a poet (like many of the original writers) to boot, the second an expert on the ancient world, provide the best avenue into an understanding of the world of thought the bible came out of. This provides the means to evaluate what the bible has to say on its own terms. There’s no real substitute for that I’m aware of. ‘Is it true’ and such only become useful questions once it is understood what was actually meant.

Understanding the world of the bible's context does not mean that one must conclude the stories told are actually reflective of reality, especially in regards to supernatural claims.

Evaluating the bible should not be based purely on its own context, but whether the claims and narrative have real warrant in regards to guiding one's life or, more importantly, whether they are true in any meaningful way that is unique to them and not rooted in human sentimentality over any kind of objectivity

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe. In my experience though people, all of us, tend to think in more or less similar ways, just about different content.

Similar ways is not the same as similar intensity of conviction, methinks, which is of more importance than just that we all approach life as individuals first before we consider others most of the time and have to balance the two perspectives

 

[Tom 1]

Understanding the world of the bible's context does not mean that one must conclude the stories told are actually reflective of reality, especially in regards to supernatural claims.

Evaluating the bible should not be based purely on its own context, but whether the claims and narrative have real warrant in regards to guiding one's life or, more importantly, whether they are true in any meaningful way that is unique to them and not rooted in human sentimentality over any kind of objectivity

Sure, but you need to know what a thing is before you can evaluate it. Sentimentality isn’t really a very useful shorthand, neither is objectivity really in any kind of broad sense. Regardless of how many facts or figures are bundled into it, everyone’s worldview is something that seems or feels right in some way, no-one can claim an objective understanding of ultimate reality, just bits of what we can figure out about this and that. It’s a bit misleading to think of that as being ‘sentimental’.

 

[Tom 1]

Similar ways is not the same as similar intensity of conviction, methinks, which is of more importance than just that we all approach life as individuals first before we consider others most of the time and have to balance the two perspectives

I’ve found that there are people with very definite convictions at both poles of any argument. I don’t think I get your second point.

 

[muichimotsu]

Sure, but you need to know what a thing is before you can evaluate it. Sentimentality isn’t really a very useful shorthand, neither is objectivity really in any kind of broad sense. Regardless of how many facts or figures are bundled into it, everyone’s worldview is something that seems or feels right in some way, no-one can claim an objective understanding of ultimate reality, just bits of what we can figure out about this and that. It’s a bit misleading to think of that as being ‘sentimental’.

Absolute and objective are not strictly the same thing unless you use particular equivocating definitions, which just muddies the waters in semantical variation

Sentimentality as the primary motivation is my concern as to someone's justification: not that they cannot be rational at all, but more that they will rationalize to avoid undermining deeply valued beliefs that have emotional/sentimental importance rather than having humility and valuing truth

 

[muichimotsu]

I’ve found that there are people with very definite convictions at both poles of any argument. I don’t think I get your second point.

We don't start off as a collective, we grow to understand our place within it and still primarily view ourselves as individuals within that. We are egocentric to some extent, that is our individual perspective is seen as more primary in nature, which gets into solipsistic issues of epistemology, arguably

 

[Tom 1]

We don't start off as a collective, we grow to understand our place within it and still primarily view ourselves as individuals within that. We are egocentric to some extent, that is our individual perspective is seen as more primary in nature, which gets into solipsistic issues of epistemology, arguably

Ok that's one way of looking at it.

 

[Tom 1]

Sentimentality as the primary motivation is my concern as to someone's justification: not that they cannot be rational at all, but more that they will rationalize to avoid undermining deeply valued beliefs that have emotional/sentimental importance rather than having humility and valuing truth

When you put it like that it sounds like you are making yourself the judge and arbiter of other peoples motives and what truth is. That's when discussion becomes a bit futile, if one party has ideas they just think are right, and that's that. I suppose you could get around that by offering some convincing definitions of what you mean.

 

[muichimotsu]

When you put it like that it sounds like you are making yourself the judge and arbiter of other peoples motives and what truth is. That's when discussion becomes a bit futile, if one party has ideas they just think are right, and that's that. I suppose you could get around that by offering some convincing definitions of what you mean.

My provisional assessments are hardly on the level you're insinuating in what I state, it's something that is open to correction and has in many cases

If the person's words suggest they focus more on how something seems or feels, that tells me at least partly they are concerned less with genuine truth and only what seems convincing to them. Even if they don't think so, it doesn't mean someone else cannot point out patterns in their speech that entails something like that, even partly.

 

[muichimotsu]

Ok that's one way of looking at it.

Much of this is rooted in my general conclusion that any notion of a soul or persistence of consciousness after death is not founded in any reliable evidence and also that the emphasis on the self can blind one to actually considering that your perspective is not necessarily fixed, that we are always in flux, not only biologically, but psychologically.

 

[Tom 1]

genuine truth and only what seems convincing to them

What do you see as being the difference?

 

[Tom 1]

Much of this is rooted in my general conclusion that any notion of a soul or persistence of consciousness after death is not founded in any reliable evidence and also that the emphasis on the self can blind one to actually considering that your perspective is not necessarily fixed, that we are always in flux, not only biologically, but psychologically.

Fair enough.