The way atheists think?

[ebia]

I'm sure that's quite impossible. I can ask you to trust that I'm telling you what I believe, in the same way I trust that you are truthful in expressing your beliefs.

Let me take the claims separately:
In fact, the way I approach this is to first examine the method. How do Christians receive the message that defines their way of life? I have learned from another thread that this comes unequivocally from the Bible, from absolute faith in God, and through study and prayer. All three of these components are required; without one, the system would fail. (This is no condemnation, only an observation.) I have deep concerns about this method because of my view that important decisions should be based on reason, on logical analysis of verifiable, empirical evidence. And I find (as I believe most atheists do) that absolute faith in God, and acceptance of the Bible as His word, are not compatible with the system for defining truth that I value.

You are quite correct in saying that Christianity is not compatible with an absolute faith in a modernist viewpoint.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that any value system is - some pretend to be, but all seem to import assumptions from outside any evidence and reasoning model. Certainly the enlightenment has completely failed to produce a value system that works any better than those produced by religions - the last couple of hundred years hasn't seen the massive reduction in human-caused attrocities promised.

I admit this makes no sense to me. If it were true that a loving God is watching over us, concerned with our everyday lives, wanting us to succeed and be good, that would be perfectly lovely. Fear is not a part of this. I am not here to prove to you that your beliefs are wrong, though if you were interested in a debate on this, we might have a reasonably interesting and lively debate. But if you were to invite me to take a crack at it, my strategy would be to try to convince you that logic and reason and evidence are important. Then I would try to reach agreement with you on what those words mean. Then I would try to show you that belief in the supernatural requires suspension of those values.

And it wouldn't work, any more than it would work for you to try to convince me to abandon logic, reason and evidence (and what those words mean to me). But I wouldn't be working from fear, I'd be working from a standpoint that my method for striving at truth is more likely to produce a result consistent with the universe we live in.[/quote]

 

[ebia]

I'm sure that's quite impossible. I can ask you to trust that I'm telling you what I believe, in the same way I trust that you are truthful in expressing your beliefs.

Let me take the claims separately:
In fact, the way I approach this is to first examine the method. How do Christians receive the message that defines their way of life? I have learned from another thread that this comes unequivocally from the Bible, from absolute faith in God, and through study and prayer. All three of these components are required; without one, the system would fail. (This is no condemnation, only an observation.) I have deep concerns about this method because of my view that important decisions should be based on reason, on logical analysis of verifiable, empirical evidence. And I find (as I believe most atheists do) that absolute faith in God, and acceptance of the Bible as His word, are not compatible with the system for defining truth that I value.

You are quite correct in saying that Christianity is not compatible with an absolute faith in a modernist viewpoint.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that any value system is - some pretend to be, but all seem to import assumptions from outside any evidence and reasoning model. Certainly the enlightenment has completely failed to produce a value system that works any better than those produced by religions - the last couple of hundred years hasn't seen the massive reduction in human-caused attrocities promised.

So you can reject Christianity on this basis, but you should recognise that you are doing so on the basis of an assumption, dreamt up during the enlightenment, that is itself intrinsically unverifiable.

 

[spblat]

You are quite correct in saying that Christianity is not compatible with an absolute faith in a modernist viewpoint.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that any value system is - some pretend to be, but all seem to import assumptions from outside any evidence and reasoning model. Certainly the enlightenment has completely failed to produce a value system that works any better than those produced by religions - the last couple of hundred years hasn't seen the massive reduction in human-caused attrocities promised.

So you can reject Christianity on this basis, but you should recognise that you are doing so on the basis of an assumption, dreamt up during the enlightenment, that is itself intrinsically unverifiable.

This is interesting. I am unfamiliar with the history you cite. Which enlightenment do you mean? What reduction in atrocities was promised? Who made this promise? What assumption am I making when I rely on the scientific method to reach conclusions about the natural world?

 

[ebia]

This is interesting. I am unfamiliar with the history you cite. Which enlightenment do you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
I suggest you do at least a little reading up on the history of the world view you've adopted (Modernism).

What reduction in atrocities was promised? Who made this promise?

You're taking my words a little too literally.

What assumption am I making when I rely on the scientific method to reach conclusions about the natural world?

Well, naturalism and the assumption that the world is a consistent place for instance. But I wasn't disputing those - their value in working out the answers to scientific questions has demonstrated their practical value even if their theoretical basis remains an assumption.

Rather, the assumption that we can find the answer to everything we need to know through observation and reason alone.

 

[Sketcher]

The question being how Christians view atheists:

This Christian views different atheists differently. There are a few that I can actually respect, mainly because they respect my religion. However, there are blessed few of them. Most of the atheists that I have encountered do not. They like to think they're smarter than everyone else, which isn't true. And quite frankly, the hatred some of them have for God just erodes any intelligence and civility you thought they had. Whether they are young or old, they act like angry 14 year old kids whenever the topic of God is at hand. And the fundamental atheists like Newdow and Dawkins - their atheism has all the negative aspects of religion, but they don't even admit that their outlook is religious.

 

[spblat]

Ebia, this is the sort of back and forth I was hoping to avoid--we're at odds, and I'm not here looking for quarrel. Indeed, it was not even my intention to debate truth in this thread, nor our methods for arriving at it. I just wanted to know whether Christians are agreed in believing that atheists are afraid of the truth, and whether Christians believe that atheists are more interested in refuting the message of Christianity as opposed to the methods through which the message is delivered.

And I still don't have an answer to my question. Instead, I was asked to clarify my views, then my clarification was attacked. Where shall we go from here?

Twistedsketch: I can well understand the "smarter-than-thou" attitude you feel from some atheists. This is something well worth addressing so that we can come together. But how do you come to the conclusion that many or most atheists hate God? (I find this illogical, since I am unable to feel any emotion towards that which I believe is nonexistent.)

 

[Sketcher]

Twistedsketch: I can well understand the "smarter-than-thou" attitude you feel from some atheists. This is something well worth addressing so that we can come together. But how do you come to the conclusion that many or most atheists hate God? (I find this illogical, since I am unable to feel any emotion towards that which I believe is nonexistent.)

Well a lot of people who call themselves atheists (but aren't fully atheists) would fall into the category of hating God. Most I would guess are people who didn't like one thing God did or didn't do and decided to start pretending He didn't exist. More of them hate Christianity for some reason or another, and for that reason, they blaspheme God, thinking it will make them more respectable. "Look at my Youtube video where I slam Christians!" Yeah, big man. Were you born that immature, or did you have to work at it?

 

[spblat]

Ah. Count me out of that nonsense.

 

[spblat]

Ah. Count me out of that nonsense.

But I can't say I agree with your characterization of Dawkins (Newdow is unfamiliar to me). Dawkins comes across as abrasive, as superior, as intellectual; I'll grant you that. Carl Sagan's book, published last year, is much more tactful (as I note in my Sagan Book Report). But in my heart of hearts, I agree with them both to the last semicolon, and I will continue to deny that atheism constitutes a religion of its own, and I will also therefore deny that it is possible to be a "fundamentalist atheist".

Dawkins' and Sagan's principal concerns are (were, in the case of Sagan) the same as mine, and the message is this: our differences have grown to the point where we're not communicating any more; we've written each other off. In the USA, this means red states and blue states and divisions, and name calling, and misery, and ineffective government, and (God forbid, please forgive my use of this term) civil war or the collapse of our current system of government. Internationally, it means--naturally--war, particularly in the Middle East. You may disagree with their reasoning, but I feel strongly that they're doing what they're doing to save the earth.

And that's why I'm here, asking these questions. I want us to really get to know each other. So we don't end up literally killing each other.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

 

[ebia]

Ebia, this is the sort of back and forth I was hoping to avoid--we're at odds, and I'm not here looking for quarrel.

Me neither - I didn't mean to pick a quarrel, I was just following the flow of the discussion, and in my last post attempting to respond to the questions you raised in response to my previous ones. The tone is not intended to be agressive, but (of course) tone is easly misinterpreted in a textual format.

Indeed, it was not even my intention to debate truth in this thread, nor our methods for arriving at it. I just wanted to know whether Christians are agreed in believing that atheists are afraid of the truth,

I dare say some Christians believe that, and I dare say it's true about some atheists, but no, Christians aren't agreed that it's a true generalisation.

It might be more accurate to suggest that "some athesists are reluctant to consider Christianity because it challenges some of the assumptions underlying their world view", but turning that into "athesist are afraid of the truth" would definitely be a gross simplification at best.

That said, all of us (however open-minded we think we are) have a certain reluctance to accept ideas that require changes to concepts we think we have worked out (that a teacher needs to overcome that is virtually a fundamental axiom of education), so in that sense we are all 'afraid of the truth'.

and whether Christians believe that atheists are more interested in refuting the message of Christianity as opposed to the methods through which the message is delivered.

I'm not sure that most athesists are interesting in refuting Christianity at all. When they do they generally seem to address the method of delivery rather than the message itself, but I would suggest that that is because the tools of "objective evidence and reason" are easier to apply to aspects of the method and difficult or impossible to apply to the message itself.

And I still don't have an answer to my question. Instead, I was asked to clarify my views, then my clarification was attacked. Where shall we go from here?

Hopefully I've returned to what you wish to discuss. If not please feel free to correct me further.

I hope you don't mind me touching on a couple of your other points:

...and I will continue to deny that atheism constitutes a religion of its own, and I will also therefore deny that it is possible to be a "fundamentalist atheist".

That would depend upon one's definition of religion. Some forms of atheism share some of the characteristics associated with religions.

And that's why I'm here, asking these questions. I want us to really get to know each other. So we don't end up literally killing each other.

A worthy aim.

 

[spblat]

ebia, what a pleasure it might be for us to discuss these issues over coffee.

That said, all of us (however open-minded we think we are) have a certain reluctance to accept ideas that require changes to concepts we think we have worked out (that a teacher needs to overcome that is virtually a fundamental axiom of education), so in that sense we are all 'afraid of the truth'.

And here we arrive at the central issue. As an atheist, I am incredulous at the fact that billions of people have arrived at a potentially destructive world view on the basis of a system of thought which I find to be completely undependable. (Let us not agree on my views; let us only agree that I have them.)

And I expect that Christians are unanimous in their incredulity over the fact that I have not accepted Christ, nor attempted to know God. For some, this incredulity includes concern for my soul. For others, I daresay my non belief is dangerous to them, lest my wandering ways attract God's wrath (if you can reassure me that almost all Christians are perfectly happy to live and work side by side with a nonbeliever who loves his family as they do, I'll sleep better at night).

I'm not sure that most athesists are interesting in refuting Christianity at all. When they do they generally seem to address the method of delivery rather than the message itself, but I would suggest that that is because the tools of "objective evidence and reason" are easier to apply to aspects of the method and difficult or impossible to apply to the message itself.

I think you are correct. From (my) atheist perspective, the method of arriving at biblical truth is invalid, so the message itself is seen as that of men, for better or for worse.

That would depend upon one's definition of religion. Some forms of atheism share some of the characteristics associated with religions.

Sure: you could think of a religion as people gathering in fellowship who share common values, though atheists don't seem in my experience to get together much except to whine about theists. This could be because they get fellowship and spiritual satisfaction in other contexts (as is true in my case). The key to resisting the term for me is that atheism doesn't give me answers to life. If life's answers are available to me, they come from observation, science, reflection, and what I think of as objective evidence and reason.

A worthy aim.

Thank you! And thank you again for this fascinating discussion.

 

[ebia]

ebia, what a pleasure it might be for us to discuss these issues over coffee.

And here we arrive at the central issue. As an atheist, I am incredulous at the fact that billions of people have arrived at a potentially destructive world view on the basis of a system of thought which I find to be completely undependable. (Let us not agree on my views; let us only agree that I have them.)

Clearly I'm not going to agree that our system of thought is 'completely undependable' or that Christianity (properly understood) is a 'destructive world view' or I wouldn't hold to it. But it sounds like you aren't wanting to explore that further at the moment.

And I expect that Christians are unanimous in their incredulity over the fact that I have not accepted Christ, nor attempted to know God.

I wouldn't say I'm incredulous; more disappointed.

For some, this incredulity includes concern for my soul. For others, I daresay my non belief is dangerous to them, lest my wandering ways attract God's wrath (if you can reassure me that almost all Christians are perfectly happy to live and work side by side with a nonbeliever who loves his family as they do, I'll sleep better at night).

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I don't have a problem living and working with non-Christians of whatever creed or none. On the other hand, I would obviously like to bring them to Christ for their own satisfaction and for the benefit of the kingdom of God.

I think you are correct. From (my) atheist perspective, the method of arriving at biblical truth is invalid, so the message itself is seen as that of men, for better or for worse.

And that's where I would challenge your 'faith' (for lack of a better word) in the rationalist method as being univerally appropriate.

Sure: you could think of a religion as people gathering in fellowship who share common values, though atheists don't seem in my experience to get together much except to whine about theists. This could be because they get fellowship and spiritual satisfaction in other contexts (as is true in my case).

I was thinking more along the lines of 'faith in an unverifiable assumption about truth and progress'. or 'an unverifiable belief that there is no God nor anything else beyond what we can explore through the naturalistic mechansims of science'.

The key to resisting the term for me is that atheism doesn't give me answers to life. If life's answers are available to me, they come from observation, science, reflection, and what I think of as objective evidence and reason.

I think you draw a sharper distinction between your athesism and your trust in rationalistic method than is normally assumed. Perhaps you could define what specifically you include in the term atheism?

 

[spblat]

Clearly I'm not going to agree that our system of thought is 'completely undependable' or that Christianity (properly understood) is a 'destructive world view' or I wouldn't hold to it. But it sounds like you aren't wanting to explore that further at the moment.

Only because of my concern that our conversation could stray. Dawkins' The God Delusion has resonated with me, as did his BBC program, aired last year on Channel 4. I would be delighted to debate this, but I'm not sure I can do the debate justice until some of the side issues have been discussed in more detail. Such as:

And that's where I would challenge your 'faith' (for lack of a better word) in the rationalist method as being univerally appropriate.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'faith in an unverifiable assumption about truth and progress'. or 'an unverifiable belief that there is no God nor anything else beyond what we can explore through the naturalistic mechansims of science'.

I think you draw a sharper distinction between your athesism and your trust in rationalistic method than is normally assumed. Perhaps you could define what specifically you include in the term atheism?

I believe these statements are worthy of further discussion and thought. May I suggest we debate this topic in a one-on-one setting under these rules? If you are willing, I'll invite you to debate here, then we can agree on the specifics as required by the rules, and then off we'd go. The premise might be something like "an atheist's rejection of faith is invalid, because the act of adopting a rationalist viewpoint is itself one of faith." Would you agree to such a debate?

 

[Lehr]

Spblat, ok i have to ask you this because i just don't understand you.

Why would you want to debate this topic? Neither one of you is going to change, both of you is going to hold there own beliefs. So basically you are just trying to prove each other wrong....So why debate when there is no winner?

I think you are trying to understand a religon in which you don't care anything about. So really why are you here debating religion?

 

[ebia]

Only because of my concern that our conversation could stray. Dawkins' The God Delusion has resonated with me, as did his BBC program, aired last year on Channel 4. I would be delighted to debate this, but I'm not sure I can do the debate justice until some of the side issues have been discussed in more detail. Such as:





I believe these statements are worthy of further discussion and thought. May I suggest we debate this topic in a one-on-one setting under these rules? If you are willing, I'll invite you to debate here, then we can agree on the specifics as required by the rules, and then off we'd go. The premise might be something like "an atheist's rejection of faith is invalid, because the act of adopting a rationalist viewpoint is itself one of faith." Would you agree to such a debate?

Sounds very formal - I tend to prefer a more informal dicussion, but if you want to go that way we can.

 

[GottaBeMare]

I don't know many atheists, but I do feel truly sorry for them. Last fall and winter were very rough on our family and I don't know how I could've gotten through it without Jesus and God. So a question to atheists, when life gets at it's worst, what gives you hope it will get better?

And as someone who dabbled in Paganism and was a Seeker for several years, I would like to say there is truth to the concept of fear of truth. Because I know one of the hardest parts of coming to Jesus was dealing with the fear. And the fear was basically rooted in selfishness. Selfishness that I would miss out on doing things and that changing my attitude would cease to make me who I am.

Thankfully I was wrong and I've learned my years outside of faith was when I was missing out and the person who I am today is who I *really* am. Thank you Jesus!

 

[spblat]

Spblat, ok i have to ask you this because i just don't understand you.

Why would you want to debate this topic? Neither one of you is going to change, both of you is going to hold there own beliefs. So basically you are just trying to prove each other wrong....So why debate when there is no winner?

I think you are trying to understand a religon in which you don't care anything about. So really why are you here debating religion?

It's a perfectly fair question, though you are incorrect in saying that I do not care about your religion. I will answer three questions: two you asked, and one you didn't.

1) Why bother?

2) Why debate when you won't convince your debating partner?

3) Why debate ebia in particular? (You didn't ask this, but I want to answer anyway.)

Onward:

1) Why bother?

Let me try this analogy on you, and in doing so, I am going to tip the entirety of my hand.

As a Christian, I believe you are motivated to spread the gospel. This may be for several reasons, not least of which is (as ebia eloquently put it), "for the benefit of the kingdom of God." Don't let me put words in your mouth, but you may believe that the more Christians there are in the world, the "better" that will be. When you have children (I assume from your age that you are not yet a parent), it will probably be very important to you that your faith and the values you derive from it are passed on to them.

I too am motivated to pass along my values to my children, and I too am motivated to give others the opportunity to examine these values and try them out for themselves. Chief among my values is that the ability to think critically and independently is of paramount importance in an age when one is surrounded by people who wish to convince you of all kinds of STUFF.

Let me explain: whether you're being asked to support a war, to elect a leader, to enlist in the armed forces, to accept the truths offered by one religion or another, or to select one candy bar from the one next to it, you are faced with a never-ending stream of contradictory claims. I feel strongly that critical thought is what is required to make informed decisions, be they of earthshaking importance or trivial. We have to think about this stuff. We have to evaluate the competing claims, and we have to have a process for taking the claims and making a decision about which one (if any) we will accept. Sometimes this decision is important, and sometimes it's not, but in every case we rely on a thought process to get us from confusion to decision.

I worry that fewer and fewer people are thinking for themselves, thinking critically. And I worry that as a consequence, we are imperiled as individuals and as societies. You can disagree, but you can't deny that I worry about this, so this is why I bother. I want to spread the good news that we can think critically in order to make sound decisions for ourselves, for our families, our governments, our world.

Perhaps that's a long way of saying that religion should not encroach upon politics. But as the slogan goes, "the personal is the political". So as you would like to see more Christians in the world, I would like to see more critical thinkers. Not everyone believes you have to abandon religion to think critically; this in itself is a topic worthy of debate.

2) Why debate when you won't convince your debating partner?

This is not the purpose of debate. The purpose of debate is to convince the audience members watching the debate. So my motivations described above also motivate me to debate those who hold differing views than my own.

It's also good because it makes me think about stuff, and thinking about stuff is good for me.

3) Why seek to debate ebia in particular?

I do not know him, but in this and another thread, I have found him to be eloquent, confident in his views, intelligent, and comfortable interacting with someone with opinions different from his own. These are good attributes to have in a debating partner.

Spblat, ok i have to ask you this because i just don't understand you.

Have I helped you to understand me better?

 

[spblat]

Sounds very formal - I tend to prefer a more informal dicussion, but if you want to go that way we can.

Nope, informal is perfectly ok by me too. I'm new here, and I don't want to abuse this forum if it's intended for something other than debate. Should we stick with this thread, or start new ones when we come to new issues (keeping in mind that the overall theme will be differences between atheist and Christian thought)?

ETA: I think we should keep it here. After all, the subject is quite satisfactorily descriptive.

 

[spblat]

So a question to atheists, when life gets at it's worst, what gives you hope it will get better?

Nothing but the fact that everything is always changing; nothing remains the same for long. So the baby who won't stop crying grows out of her colic, the pain we feel at a family loss passes with time and the grieving process, the cities are rebuilt when they are destroyed. I get hope from the beauty of the universe and the magnificent people who are in my life.

 

[ebia]

Nope, informal is perfectly ok by me too. I'm new here, and I don't want to abuse this forum if it's intended for something other than debate. Should we stick with this thread, or start new ones when we come to new issues (keeping in mind that the overall theme will be differences between atheist and Christian thought)?

ETA: I think we should keep it here. After all, the subject is quite satisfactorily descriptive.

Let's keep it here unless/until we find it isn't working (for whatever reason), in which case we can take it somewhere else.

Just wanted to add that I agree with the vast majority of what you said here:

It's a perfectly fair question, though you are incorrect in saying that I do not care about your religion. I will answer three questions: two you asked, and one you didn't.

1) Why bother?

2) Why debate when you won't convince your debating partner?

3) Why debate ebia in particular? (You didn't ask this, but I want to answer anyway.)

Onward:

1) Why bother?

Let me try this analogy on you, and in doing so, I am going to tip the entirety of my hand.

As a Christian, I believe you are motivated to spread the gospel. This may be for several reasons, not least of which is (as ebia eloquently put it), "for the benefit of the kingdom of God." Don't let me put words in your mouth, but you may believe that the more Christians there are in the world, the "better" that will be. When you have children (I assume from your age that you are not yet a parent), it will probably be very important to you that your faith and the values you derive from it are passed on to them.

I too am motivated to pass along my values to my children, and I too am motivated to give others the opportunity to examine these values and try them out for themselves. Chief among my values is that the ability to think critically and independently is of paramount importance in an age when one is surrounded by people who wish to convince you of all kinds of STUFF.

Let me explain: whether you're being asked to support a war, to elect a leader, to enlist in the armed forces, to accept the truths offered by one religion or another, or to select one candy bar from the one next to it, you are faced with a never-ending stream of contradictory claims. I feel strongly that critical thought is what is required to make informed decisions, be they of earthshaking importance or trivial. We have to think about this stuff. We have to evaluate the competing claims, and we have to have a process for taking the claims and making a decision about which one (if any) we will accept. Sometimes this decision is important, and sometimes it's not, but in every case we rely on a thought process to get us from confusion to decision.

I worry that fewer and fewer people are thinking for themselves, thinking critically. And I worry that as a consequence, we are imperiled as individuals and as societies. You can disagree, but you can't deny that I worry about this, so this is why I bother. I want to spread the good news that we can think critically in order to make sound decisions for ourselves, for our families, our governments, our world.

Perhaps that's a long way of saying that religion should not encroach upon politics. But as the slogan goes, "the personal is the political". So as you would like to see more Christians in the world, I would like to see more critical thinkers. Not everyone believes you have to abandon religion to think critically; this in itself is a topic worthy of debate.

2) Why debate when you won't convince your debating partner?

This is not the purpose of debate. The purpose of debate is to convince the audience members watching the debate. So my motivations described above also motivate me to debate those who hold differing views than my own.

It's also good because it makes me think about stuff, and thinking about stuff is good for me.

and to add that I too would like to see more critical thinkers in the world - which is one of my motivations in being a teacher. Obviously I don't see critical thinking as being opposed to religion, but I do have to acknowledge that it isn't always encouraged as much as it ought to be.