The current state of religious debates

[Phill]

And that’s ok! Trust me I understand how that can be completely, I’m the same way when it comes to expressing my ideas and reasons. Im not criticizing atheists /agnostics over the beliefs. Mostly just the hypocrisy that the new atheism ideology has brought into today’s society.

 

[Mary888]

The atheists are savvier here because they understand that a discussion with a believer is mainly about them being converted. So by fear of not being converted they attack. The problems stays at home for us, like Mother Theresa said, the biggest problem is at home in the living room. More and more Christians mostly and other religious people, we refuse to accept that the underlying reason for the debates is conversion. Which is fine for us, we are obbeying what Jesus said and all that. But it can be annoying that we simply won’t admit that our own belief forces us to convert. We just sort of have to. The other party knows and is annoyed because we claim to seek only reasons when it is written within our faith that we must convince others on the truth of Jesus Christ. We come out as hypocrites and they walk away angry.

 

[BartholomewB]

Many years ago I read Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not a Christian. When I read it, it was already an old book, first published in the 1920s. It is well written, cogently argued, and it’s a good read. Russell had the gift of expressing his meaning clearly in a few words and, in addition, he had a sly sense of humor and wrote entertainingly. Many years later I picked up Dawkins’ book and read a page or two, standing up in a bookstore. I found it dull and silly, and I put it back on the shelf. The old atheism, if that’s the right term for Russell and his generation, was much smarter and much more convincing.

 

[JohnSadblack]

Seeing your previous post, one would have been hard-pressed to think that.

Can’t critizise the others if you can’t critizise yourself I guess ‘^’

So I take it what you criticize is a percieved “hijacking” of atheism by computer nerds?

Exactly. I remember that, a few years ago, I didn’t have any problems to talk about the existence of God, the truthfulness of the Holy Books/Church and other related subjects, with both believers or atheists.
But then, it became who can use the best meme or say how stupid believers are for reasons. It even came to a point that, because you’re not as extreme than them, you’re “excluded” from the group.
And that’s the reason why I stopped to talk with other atheists online and I came here. Because people are actually respectful to others. (Something that surprised me the first time, I admit).

Sure, i know that some Catholics are being weirdos too .

I guess things would be too easy without weirdos on both sides.
And thank you for your friendliness and support, it means a lot ^^

 

[Pattylt]

When atheism first “came out of the closet” maybe there was a need for brashness but I see a softening in the atheist community more recently…note, it hasn’t gone away, I just notice fewer outright bashing from earlier days. I hope the trend continues. I’ve read many a comment denigrating Dawkins and Hitchens approach which never happened ten years ago. One can hardly claim reason and skepticism while ranting!

Since atheism is basically a statement on only one topic…The Supernatural…one has to be careful to not attribute a single world view onto every atheist just as you can’t make blanket statements on Catholics or Republicans or comic book fans. You need to discover each’s view one on one.

 

[Mary888]

Dawkins’s greatest fallacy is that Darwin was an atheist. He was not.
Maybe the dryness of dialogue you complain about in engaging with atheists is because the free-minded movement of people in doubt is now fully regimented under Dawkins or.Onfray or anyone else. In a way it makes sense, all things get structured even free thinking. But my problem with Dawkins and others “stealing” Darwin to their agenda is that they present things in their own skewed view, in a …according to them… religious way. As in Darwin=no God, even if Darwin never stated there is no God. And other examples such as raising a kid with Down syndrome instead of aborting them is cruel. All these “dixit!” Agenda of Dawkins is very appealing to the large atheist public because it brings structure to where there was none, but in details Dawkins and Onfray are manipulative in their own ways. Which is annoying to say the least.

 

[Gigas97]

Hi, you can check his YouTube channel, he has some really good, thought provoking videos, maybe they can help you. Greetings!

Here is his website - easier to find videos: https://inspiringphilosophy.org/

 

[BoomerangToo]

“Toxic know-it-all” That is a perfect description of Richard Dawkins.

 

[Salibi]

Honestly, I don’t think “toxic” cuts it.

 

[BoomerangToo]

I can’t imagine how horrible it must be to be married to him. The stuff of nightmares.

 

[Salibi]

I cant even stand looking at him. The man looks insufferable.

 

[Phill]

Yeah it seemed like they just latched on to.him and just sucked the life out of his work, especially since evolution doesn’t necessarily disprove God’s existence. As for the free thinkers movement, I believe its turned more into a lack.of thinking movement. A lot of atheist don’t know why they are, they just are

 

[Pattylt]

A lot of atheist don’t know why they are, they just are

…which can be said of many Christians, too. Just sayin…

 

[Phill]

No, you’re right it does go on both sides. However most Christians at least try, even if their reasons suck

which can be said of many Christians, too. Just sayin…

 

[Calliope]

I’m an atheist, though I often go by nontheist. I don’t believe in any gods or have a god, but neither do I absolutely know one doesn’t exist.

The burden of proof thing is silly. It’s not on me, simply because I don’t believe or have proof in something invisible that doesn’t register to human senses, to prove it doesn’t exist. If someone is invested in me believing their story, it’s on them to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

I’m not prostylatizing against belief.

I have been an atheist since before Hitchens became famous. I don’t pay much attention to him, or need him to speak for me or defend my position.

The philosophical arguments don’t move me. Maybe it’s logical that most people will believe in something to explain existence, but I truly don’t understand the logic of why that something MUST be God, with a particular set of characteristics.

And even if by following all the rules of logical theory and discourse that thing would have to have that set of characteristics, human beings aren’t very logical and most of what we do isn’t based on logic. No matter how logical some idea is, we won’t embrace it unless we like how it makes us feel or directly addresses a need, and improves our daily lives.

That’s what we’re driven by for the most part.

I know some atheists hate that aspect of humanity and argue vehemently against it, but human nature is what it is.

There is a primitive level of logic in my belief system. I’ve neither seen not experienced any evidence of a deity. I practiced a theistic faith and didn’t experience improvement in my life, though I did appreciate the community. I now practice a nontheistic religion and experience much improvement in my life, so it’s logical for me to continue to do so.

I think most people are born with a brain function that we could label spiritual. It seems logical to me to make use of that to improve my functionality and experience of life. Many athesists miss that point. Evolution seems to have equipped most of us for spirituality, and even if the way that manifests doesn’t reflect physical reality, we have that function for some reason. Why waste it?

Our physical senses only provide us with a tiny fraction of reality, but it’s enough for us to survive. We don’t survive via total truth and logic. I appreciate all that scientific inquiry has done for us, but I have my day to day life to live as well.

I was a science educator for 16 years, but I’m also a writer and artist and appreciate creativity and artistic interpretation and transformation. It enriches my life. It doesn’t need to be logical or exactly represent reality for it to be an asset.

Atheism doesn’t need to be a bleak position if you accept the fact ( ironic huh?) That most humans don’t operate on hard logic most of the time.

 

[Anrakyr]

Mostly what many of you missed in your conversations with them while chitter here about how stupid they are is there is no reason to believe in a God.

To them if you are right they are trapped in a system they want out from. If you are wrong religion is a evolutionary mental side effect of thinking because this world seems made for you it must be. You’ll then grow out of it eventually.

You arnt presenting them with a beneficial point to cross over from “a free universe” to what amounts to slavery in the matrix.

 

[Phill]

Mostly what many of you missed in your conversations with them while chitter here about how stupid they are is there is no reason to believe in a God.

I never said they were stupid, just that most atheists now a days have become lazy and illogical, while instead of providing any type of sound reason they hide behind slogans and argumentative. I understand why atheists could be atheists, because i consider myself an agnostic.

To them if you are right they are trapped in a system they want out from.

I mean I don’t understand why they would want to be “out” from it. If religion is true they would have to be rational about it and accept it as a fact of life.

You’ll then grow out of it eventually.

Eh…much to atheists displeasure I don’t think religion is going anywhere, any time soon.

You arnt presenting them with a beneficial point to cross over from “a free universe” to what amounts to slavery in the matrix.

I guess it would depend on you’re definition of free, because if we truly are only a product of evolution then and a cosmic accident then what are we free to do? And if religion is correct then I don’t really think its “slavery”…but that’s another discussion entirely.

 

[Phill]

The burden of proof thing is silly. It’s not on me, simply because I don’t believe or have proof in something invisible that doesn’t register to human senses, to prove it doesn’t exist. If someone is invested in me believing their story, it’s on them to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

I mean but scientifically if there is different hypothesis wouldn’t you as a scientist want to contribute to your hypothesis or help dispel false hypotheses?

I have been an atheist since before Hitchens became famous. I don’t pay much attention to him, or need him to speak for me or defend my position.

Unfortunately that sentiment is in the minority in today’s society. Which was the purpose of the thread. I’m not attacking atheists beliefs, just the atheists that latch on to psuedo-intellectuals.

Maybe it’s logical that most people will believe in something to explain existence, but I truly don’t understand the logic of why that something MUST be God, with a particular set of characteristics.

I mean I think that some people search for the “whys” in life. That what prompted me to go to school for physics, I was tired of learning the “how” something is and wanted to know “why”

But thank you for sharing! Trust me, I’m not attacking atheists or nontheistic beliefs. I appreciate you taking to the time to respond!

 

[Calliope]

I mean but scientifically if there is different hypothesis wouldn’t you as a scientist want to contribute to your hypothesis or help dispel false hypotheses?

I’m not sure I know what you’re getting at. The existence of God isn’t a scientific matter. There are no scientific hypothesis concerning it. God isn’t measurable (or so say his supporters) so?

I’m not attacking atheists beliefs, just the atheists that latch on to psuedo-intellectuals.

Calliope:

I hear you there. I recently quit an atheist community. It was basically a place for atheists to hang out and talk about anything, so not specifically built to discuss atheism…but it got too darn irritating and negative. And it was rife with “I’m smarter than you” types. There were some great people there, but I really disliked the atmosphere.

I’m not really sensitive to people attacking…my lack of belief? Or whatever I believe where they plug in their faith or religion. Like I said, I do what makes logical sense in my life. I practice what brings me peace and allows me to be most effective. It’s pretty hard for someone to convincingly argue that I’m an idiot for doing so. If having a deeply satisfying and productive life is wrong (as in based on untruths) I don’t want to be right.

If being an atheist means I need to be angry…I’m happy sticking to nontheist. They can keep their smug rage if it’s working for them.

I guess it would depend on you’re definition of free, because if we truly are only a product of evolution then and a cosmic accident then what are we free to do? And if religion is correct then I don’t really think its “slavery”

As far as this goes. I don’t understand the “accident” part. I get that stuff thrown at me all the time…people insisting that if I don’t believe in God I MUST therefore believe that it’s all chaos and all a big accident. That doesn’t make sense to me at all. Clearly there is order in the Universe, the fact that I don’t think means God doesn’t mean I fail to recognize the order. I don’t assign the order as being the interference of some all powerful being with a consciousness reminiscent of our own.

I see no evidence at all of that. The Universe appears to operate on its own order and its own manner of intelligence that is pretty clearly nothing like my own or that of any mortal and finite being I’ve ever encountered. I see even less evidence that some being out there is bizarrely focused on the human race to the extent that all manner of weird incarnations and machinations have taken place.

I guess my biggest issue with believers is them insisting that I must be logically consistent, and I MUST believe y if I believe x.

Why must I be logical in my beliefs when they aren’t in theirs? I mean I have heard, seen and been taught their so called logic and that is really stretching the meaning of that term. I can recognize order and not believe that a god is responsible for it, even though they insist I cannot.

 

[Beryllos]

@Phill, I would caution you against lumping together all atheists, or even just the well-known ones.

A few years ago, I followed Sam Harris’s blog, and I was pleased to see his openness to religious ideas. I don’t know if he is still doing it, but at the time he was investigating prayer and trying to understand and demonstrate, in a secular way, its personal benefits (which even secular research shows). Also he wrote an awesome book called Lying, in which he proposes and convincingly argues that it is never good to lie – this, by the way, totally in line with Church teaching.

So it seems to me that Sam Harris is searching, as we are, for the truth. If he is on the wrong path, at least he is looking in the right direction.