ATTENTION ATHEISTS: Your argument is weak! [edited title]

[Starwynd]

Because people who are religious are constantly demonizing them and forcing them to and will not leave them alone to live their own lives as they see fit. They’re evil evil people who must worship God because God demands it even though He gave us free will.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

ok, fair enough,

i am ashamed that you have had those experiences at the hands of those who would serve Christ. I want you to know that i love you, no matter what you believe, no matter who you are, no matter what you have done, i love you. please accept whatever apology i can offer on behalf of my brothers who sometimes forget that “Love covers a multitude of sins”
You have every right to be angry, you are just as valuable and have a right to the same dignity as any other person in this world, to abuse you is to abuse Christ.
Please do not let that righteous anger fester inside you, do not let other peoples hateful actions lead you to a bitter state. I dont know who said this but i once heard that harboring hate in your heart is like drinking poison and expecting the other guy to die. in my own life i have found that to be true. truly letting go of that hurt is like taking a bath after a long hard day of work.

anyway I am still interested in answers, other than anger, to my last post.

if the complete description of atheism is a lack of belief in gods, why bother to defend ones disbelief in other peoples delusions?

 

[ateista]

ateista,
Not to worry i don’t offend easily. indeed you are correct those are the terms i used. I have no problem with you using them either. please don’t be offended with this line of questioning. I want to stress that this is not personal in any way.

that said i would like to discuss your response to my inquiry.

First, it may well be fun to argue with delusional(my word) theists but i cant imagine that one would stand about arguing with an alien abductee about the subject of his delusions. it seems strange to me, that this delusion is worthy of your time and effort yet his is not.
unless you equally combat every other delusion of which you are aware, you are giving us special attention, why? what is the motive to combat us yet not him? one should be as fun as another.

i admire the nobility of your second reason, indeed the possibility of being wrong is an appropriate motivator for vigorous debate. Yet these arguments have stretched for millennium with no truly new or significant philosophical breakthroughs, of which i am aware. (allow me to qualify that by saying there are many things in this arena of which i am not aware)

so the possibility of one finding new arguments convincing to one in support of theism would seem to be so vanishingly small as to be insignificant. as they say there is nothing new under the sun.

so unless one claims to be an inexperienced or newly minted atheist, we should also call this motivation to be questionable at best.

the next contention presented seems to be that people are not content to have private delusions, indeed they wish for you to hear about them also. since their desire is passive in that regard you dismiss it as something that can be overlooked

i agree with this contention, indeed simply being made aware of someone else’s delusion may be annoying but it is as harmless as the drunk guy at the bar insisting that you listen to his latest alien abduction dream.

You further write about the codification of these delusions into law. I agree, to me living under sharia would be quite annoying and unbearable. but that is because i have an opposing system of morality

to my understanding atheism is a simple lack of belief in gods. lacking an opposing moral system, at least one based on atheism, why would one care? in that case one moral system should be just as good as another.

if one has a personal system of morality that is commendable but not universally applicable.

Under the assumption that you too reside in a secular culture, you have had and will have recourse to the courts for any law which you find truly egregious. Frankly there are few places in the developed world where you could ever be held to account for violations of religious law any more. in effect you have already won that battle

so i believe we can safely dispose of that argument as a serious motivation to tilt with the windmills of another’s delusion.

having examined those four arguments and having found them to be insufficient motivation to defend a disbelief in another’s delusion.

i am left to ask the same question.

if atheism is completely described as a lack of belief in gods then why would one bother to defend ones disbelief in another’s delusion?

I agree almost completely with your analysis. And, since you seem to be a new poster around here, I would like to extend my warmest welcome to you.

For the fun factor: many of the posters are highly educated people, with whom it is good to exchange ideas. The others, who are dismissive and downright insulting I simply ignore.

True, there is an infinitesimal chance that I am wrong in my views, and that there are some compelling arguments out there, of which I am unaware. That may be my version of Pascal’s wager. After all, all I am losing is a little time on these boards.

And that the battle that has already been “won”, that is not exactly true. That battle will go on for a long time. Roe v. Wade is under constant attack. The “morning-after-pill” is blocked from being generally available. Teaching “creationism” is being attempted in various states (though not by Catholics, as far as I know).

So the battle is far from over. As a matter of fact, I am trying to fight the reverse battle, too. When the secular government infringes on the rights of Native Americans, who wish to use peyote as part of their religious rituals, I find that unacceptable as well, and try to do something about it.

You may say that I am an “all-purpose” armchair crusader, who tries to make the world a little better for all concerned. Of course I don’t think that I can make a large impact, but maybe a little. (And, yes, this is probably also a delusion. )

Now, there are two more reasons, which I should have mentioned.

One is, that these discussions (I would not call them debates in the formal sense) are intellectually stimulating. They force me to re-evaluate my thoughts, sometimes they enlighten me about a misconception I had. There were quite a few of those. There are many highly educated people who hold some kinds of religious views, whose knowledge in their separate fields are superior to mine, and I can learn from them.

And finally, I have this secret little desire to convince those whose delusion is not firmly established yet, and they might be willing to listen to the reason I am trying to present. Of course in this hope I am probably also delusional.

 

[NTOT]

if atheism is solely a lack of pretension to knowledge then why bother to belabor the point, why bother to argue with the crazies, when one wouldnt do that in any other situation?

it seems then that there is something more to it, something is being left unsaid, there is a some motivation to act differently in this situation.

though surely many atheists dont engage in the debate, if one takes a quick tour of this forum, or the wider internet, one can see that thousands upon thousands do engage in the debate. quite enthusiastically in fact.

so, i am left to wonder why? why defend a disbelief in anothers delusion?

Because, as Catholics we have a duty to help bring others, including atheists, to Christ as well.

 

[ateista]

Because, as Catholics we have a duty to help bring others, including atheists, to Christ as well.

That is a very admirable endeavor, as long as it stays on the level of discussions.

If I may offer an advice: when you try to convince atheists, please get down to their level of “sordid” emipirical materialism - and use arguments on that platform. Preaching to them, bringing up arguments from the Bible, from the CCC, the Pope, etc. is futile. Those authorities may be acceptable to you, but they are certainly not acceptable to the heathens. This is just a friendly advice, of course.

Best wishes.

 

[NTOT]

If I may offer an advice: when you try to convince atheists, please get down to their level of “sordid” emipirical materialism - and use arguments on that platform.

You see, atheists are no different than anyone else. If I am trying to convince you that the sun rises in the east if you were to believe it rises in the west, what would be the purpose of getting down to the level of arguing with the presumption that it does not rise in the east?

Preaching to them, bringing up arguments from the Bible, from the CCC, the Pope, etc. is futile.

Preaching is a turn off to any with opposing views and not very effective. Discussion and rational argument is much better. In no way does it contradict my statement that we are called to work for the salvation of all people, including aetheists. In no way does it detract from being a legitimate reason for not just being idly content with what one believes, but having concern for what others believe as well.

 

[ateista]

You see, atheists are no different than anyone else. If I am trying to convince you that the sun rises in the east if you were to believe it rises in the west, what would be the purpose of getting down to the level of arguing with the presumption that it does not rise in the east?

I think it is a bit more complicated than that. If you could just present the equivalent of a compass, there would be no opposition.

Preaching is a turn off to any with opposing views and not very effective. Discussion and rational argument is much better.

Agreed! The difficult part is to find a common starting ground. I have run into this problem numerous times. As it turned out, even upon the definition of such simple concept as “love” was impossible to agree. I think it would be fruitful to start a thread (or many of them) devoted to the mutually acceptable definitions of concepts.

In no way does it contradict my statement that we are called to work for the salvation of all people, including aetheists. In no way does it detract from being a legitimate reason for not just being idly content with what one believes, but having concern for what others believe as well.

I have no quarrel with that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ateista,

thank you for the warm welcome, indeed these discussions are quite stimulating.

I submit that you have caught me in error, I spoke too hastily. the battle against codification of objectionable laws has not yet been won. indeed you are right it, may never be a completely settled matter.

having agreed on the point, we might further consider that the proper forum to fight that battle is in the courts and legislature, where one may have some effect on the matter.

the implication being that defending ones disbelief to an individual theist, or any group of theists does not efficiently effect the outcome of those over arching debates.

or, alternatively, one could attend a convention of alien abductees and take the stage to combat their group delusion, but that wont stop the saucer from landing. That, you have too take up with their alien overlords

i feel it is safe to assume that no one has done such a thing. so that contention can safely (i think) be rejected as motivation to argue with us crazies.

You go on to write that you are an armchair crusader trying to make things a little better for everyone no matter who we are. i love that, because that is the highest motivation to do anything, it is selfless. i may not agree with the tact taken, but indeed doing good for others is its own reward.

but the question at hand is “if atheism is completely defined as a simple lack of belief in gods, why would one bother to defend ones disbelief of another’s delusion?” after all one does not argue with any other crazies in the public square.

you go on and state that you have a secret desire to convert others too what you believe is right and good even in the face of long odds.

Awesome!, that is unbelievably great! that is what is called missionary zeal. it is a commendable practice to lead others to the truth. indeed it is the call of all Christians to do so also.

but with that i am left to wonder what the difference between us truly is, if we have that same general motivation, to do good for others, and we have the same general methods, persuasion by reason and knowledge, then are we not brothers?

You obviously have a love for others, even those with whom you disagree. You seek to lead them to the truth as you see it apparently for their benefit, as it has no direct benefit of consequence to you.

Are those not the qualities that we Christians claim that our G-d desires from us?

You may profess a disbelief in a G-d on a rational basis as i admit there is little to no empirical proof of His existence, but your life belies your words your works show your true heart.

You are already sitting at the table, you are only one tiny step removed from your fellow diners, in fact the last barrier is to break bread with us, to drink from that Saving Cup.

I submit to you that Reason alone is never a sufficient basis for belief, i can give you no bridge from there to here. indeed it is an act of courage to step over that abyss

but should you ever choose to make that act of your will, to take that leap of faith. i promise there will be hands reaching out to you from the other side.

as an aside I would like to point out that it is quite possible to argue against abortion, and the teaching of evolution as settled fact without ever making a reference to religion or gods.

but still i wonder

“if atheism is completely defined as a simple lack of belief in gods, why would one bother to defend ones disbelief of another’s delusion?”

 

[Sarpedon]

Very smart observation.

However, the group that tries to impose their version of morality is not a majority at all.

Besides I have never asserted that I (or any other person) should accept the prevailing moral system.

Suppose that some militant atheists would become a majority, and they would attempt to impose their version of “morality” unto the religious people, for example by forcing religious people to practice against their deep beliefs. I would be just as vocal in defending their rights to be left alone, as long as their practices do not actively hurt other people.

You see, in my eyes personal freedom is very higly regarded, with the only limitation described in the old adage: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. And a minority of the religious people (I think a small minority, though very loud indeed) wishes to go beyond that.

This is your personal inclination, but I am asking about the justification for your statement itself. On what ground do you maintain that to force one’s opinion on another is unpardonable? Is it due to some all-encompassing law? Is it your personal opinion, carrying no more weight then theirs? It would seem to be that according to your statement, if a majority decides something is moral, then that thing is moral for them. If so, how can you criticize them by characterizing their actions as “unpardonable?” To what standard do you appeal?

No, they are not, as per what I said above. Besides, I don’t hold morality as “sacrosanct”. It is just the prevaling opinion in a society (however it is defined) and I (personally) do not care about the opinion of any majority.

If you do not care about the opinion of a majority, why (per your theory) should the majority care about any minority?

 

[ateista]

This is your personal inclination, but I am asking about the justification for your statement itself. On what ground do you maintain that to force one’s opinion on another is unpardonable? Is it due to some all-encompassing law? Is it your personal opinion, carrying no more weight then theirs? It would seem to be that according to your statement, if a majority decides something is moral, then that thing is moral for them. If so, how can you criticize them by characterizing their actions as “unpardonable?” To what standard do you appeal?

If you do not care about the opinion of a majority, why (per your theory) should the majority care about any minority?

Good question, as usual.

I can offer two reasons. One is the “inverted” golden rule: "do NOT do unto others, that you would NOT want then to do unto you". And the other is sheer self-preservation: the current majority is tomorrow’s minority, and then they will appeal to the inverted golden rule. Wiser and smarter respect others and their views. All of us will be better off on the long run.

As I mentioned in another thread, I am going to be absent from the board for a long time. Best wishes to you!

 

[ateista]

but with that i am left to wonder what the difference between us truly is, if we have that same general motivation, to do good for others, and we have the same general methods, persuasion by reason and knowledge, then are we not brothers?

Yes we are. And we should all try to respect each other’s views. Engaging in a friendly debate is stimulating, even if at the end we shall have to respectully agree to disagree.

Best wishes to you. I will be on a long sabbatical from the board (visiting our grandson). Let me point out that meeting with you is one of the greatest rewards I ever received on the forum.

/cheers mate!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

why thank you sir, enjoy your family and travel safely

 

[Sarpedon]

I can offer two reasons. One is the “inverted” golden rule: "do NOT do unto others, that you would NOT want then to do unto you".

Why ought I to follow this? Is it binding on me? What exactly is the “(inverted) Goldern Rule?” Is it something real that tells us what we ought to do, or a simply a common societal invention?

(I know you are leaving the thread, so disregard if you want.)

And the other is sheer self-preservation: the current majority is tomorrow’s minority, and then they will appeal to the inverted golden rule. Wiser and smarter respect others and their views. All of us will be better off on the long run.

In this case, the majority would be well served to eliminate the minority so that the situation does not flip. If I am in the majority and only interested in self-preservation, then it would make sense to try to keep the minority from getting any support. If the minority gets enough support, they can turn the tables and oppress me so that they themselves are safe.

As I mentioned in another thread, I am going to be absent from the board for a long time. Best wishes to you!

You too! I have greatly enjoyed conversing with you and grappling with your ideas. Have fun visiting your grandson!

 

[ateista]

Why ought I to follow this? Is it binding on me? What exactly is the “(inverted) Goldern Rule?” Is it something real that tells us what we ought to do, or a simply a common societal invention?

Nothing is binding on you. You may accept or deny any of these ideas or “rules”. The original Golden Rule says:

“Do unto others that you would like them to do unto you”.

The inverted Golden Rule says:

“Do not do unto others that you would not like then do unto you”.

The difference looks subtle, but it is very important.

The original one is proactive: “you would want others to help you in times of need, so you will go and help them in the times of perceived need”. But you don’t really know if they want your help or not. Yet the Rule says: “help them!”. It can even be perverted: “I want that beautiful lady to make passionate love to me, therefore I will go and make passionate love to her”. The original Rule allows that.

The inverted one is better, in the sense that it allows you not to interfere unless you are requested to do so. Of course reason should always prevail: an unconscious person cannot explicitly “ask”.

As from where does all this come from? Reason. It is the optimal strategy for all involved: I respect your rights and you respect mine. Nothing could be simpler. No commandment necessary, only mutual respect.

In this case, the majority would be well served to eliminate the minority so that the situation does not flip. If I am in the majority and only interested in self-preservation, then it would make sense to try to keep the minority from getting any support. If the minority gets enough support, they can turn the tables and oppress me so that they themselves are safe.

Yes, on the surface it seems the “reasonable” thing to do. Obliterate the dissident view and live happily ever after.

In practical terms, it does not work, however. After all, at the first sign of such policy, the dissentents will go underground, and fight from there. The harm from such guerilla fights is much greater (both on the short and the long run) than tolerating and accepting the views of the minority. Allow the dissent, and learn from it.

Thank you for your kind wishes. Only a few days until we hit the road. I can hardly wait.

 

[Sarpedon]

Nothing is binding on you. You may accept or deny any of these ideas or “rules”.

As from where does all this come from? Reason. It is the optimal strategy for all involved: I respect your rights and you respect mine. Nothing could be simpler. No commandment necessary, only mutual respect.

In practical terms, it does not work, however. After all, at the first sign of such policy, the dissentents will go underground, and fight from there. The harm from such guerilla fights is much greater (both on the short and the long run) than tolerating and accepting the views of the minority. Allow the dissent, and learn from it.

What I am getting at is that morality presupposes transcendant ideals or obligations. If all that exists is STEM, then we cannot speak of morality in any real sense. In your examples above, you are still appealing to transcendant values of an ordered society and freedom from harm. If harm is nothing more than rearranging atoms, then there is no reason we should avoid it beyond personal subjective preference. Atoms don’t care.

 

[buffalo]

Atheists are arrogant. That is one reason they cannot experience God.

 

[eddydenton]

Any system of though that professes to reveal the absolute, undying, irrefutable objective truth is inherently flawed. This applies to Catholics as much as Atheists. You can’t know the truth. You can’t really know anything for sure, for that is assuming you already know what true knowledge is. All you have is subjective experience and rational thought. Though this too is not unquestionable because reason too is a system of thought that professes to be a method of determining truth. Hence we are limited to creating systems of thought that most appeal to our sensibilities, whilst being aware that they are not irrefutable truths. They are an appearance of the truth.

 

[ateista]

What I am getting at is that morality presupposes transcendant ideals or obligations.

My friend, we are still talking past each other. What is the meaning of “transcendant” you use here?

If all that exists is STEM, then we cannot speak of morality in any real sense.

It depends on the meaning of “morality”.

In your examples above, you are still appealing to transcendant values of an ordered society and freedom from harm.

Still, what is “transcendant”? And why are these “transcendant”?

If harm is nothing more than rearranging atoms, then there is no reason we should avoid it beyond personal subjective preference.

Sure, but my personal preference is to avoid harm and pain. And so is yours. And so is everyone else’s, including the animals.

Atoms don’t care.

Of course atoms don’t care. But we are more than just the collection of atoms. We are collections of atoms in a certain order. It is not “transcendant” in any meaning that I am aware of. Three line segments, which form a triangle are more than just “three” line segments.

In the meaning that you seem to use, the triangle is “transcendant”, because it is more than just 3 line segments. When you speak of “in front of”, “to the right”, “temporarily before”, you speak of “transcendant” arrangements. But the word “transcendant” is usually reserved for something “supernatural”, and there is nothing supernatural here. Just patterns, arrangements, places.

 

[ateista]

Atheists are arrogant. That is one reason they cannot experience God.

What a “deep” analysis.

No, we cannot experience God, because God does not “reveal” himself to us. We are the “black sheep” in God’s eyes. If someone wishes to go beyond “blind” faith, he or she is SOL… God values “blind and unquestioning faith” and abhors thinking, especially clear, critical thinking - according to believers.

 

[buffalo]

What a “deep” analysis.

No, we cannot experience God, because God does not “reveal” himself to us. We are the “black sheep” in God’s eyes. If someone wishes to go beyond “blind” faith, he or she is SOL… God values “blind and unquestioning faith” and abhors thinking, especially clear, critical thinking - according to believers.

One could look God in the face and not see Him if they refuse to do so.

There are no black sheep in God’s eyes. He loves all of them.

One can have reasoned faith. God wants you to search, but with an open mind and heart. The search and journey is what is important.

Do you desire to experience God?