How to talk to an atheist (and you must)

Townhall.com ^ | January 24, 2005 | Mike S. Adams

[7thson]

When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

This is THE problem: theists can only convince atheists by establishing a valid prior. This it seems is nigh impossible, and so the default position remains.

For those atheists whose entire worldview is based on Bayesian statistical estimation (and I doubt many would have any idea what you are talking about) - the prior distribution is the subject belief.

IMHO, the subjective nature of priors is the weakness with Bayes from the get-go. IOW, an atheist or agnostic who appeals to Bayesian distribution has already established bias either in looking at his own beliefs or those of others.

At any rate, an appeals to Bayes is not responsive to the nine specific challenges I posted back at post 189:

Until an atheist (metaphysical naturalist) can respond with a scientifically or mathematically plausible explanation to every one of the following challenges, I shall assert that atheism is a "religion" whose faith is a rejection of diety in favor of self.

IOW, the only way to defeat the assertion that atheism is a religion is to prove that it is not. The challenge does not deal with how one justifies to himself his own agnostic or atheistic beliefs. People can "justify" almost anything.

[ForOurFuture]

I find I am much more able to engage liberals with that background. They seem to think that all conservatives are bible-thumpers. It is quite satisfying to destroy any straw men right up front. It leaves them quite disarmed.

I agree. It irritates me when liberals and the media automatically associate conservative positions with a religious foundation. You don't have to be a 'christian evangelical' to believe abortion is wrong, marriage is fine the way it is, and society ought to maintain some basic traditions, values, and standards of decency.

On the other hand, it seems to irritate liberals when conservative positions are put forth and defended by non-religous people with non-religious arguments.

[trisham]

What's the point in this post? Are you really claiming not to understand the point and take offense here? If so, let me know and I'll explain what a default belief is - we all have them.

***********

Are you really claiming not to understand the point and take offense here? If so, let me know and I'll explain the statement.

[ol painless]

Mineralman,

You said: 'My atheism is the product of a great deal of study and thought....'

I am just curious. You stated you have given this much thought, so what convinced you that there is no God? Or why do you believe in no God?

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

"In other words, chort vozmi, you're eloquent. "

Bol'shoe vam spasibo!

[MineralMan]

"I am just curious. You stated you have given this much thought, so what convinced you that there is no God? Or why do you believe in no God?
"

That's too long a story to post here, and is beside the point, in any case. Let's just say that I disbelieve in all supernatural entities. My reasons are my own, and I have no interest in convincing others of my point of view.

I contribute to these threads because so many people want to convince me otherwise, against my wishes. I'm not proselytizing for atheism. So, my personal story is not pertinent to this thread.

[orionblamblam]

> One I haven't seen here in CA (or elsewhere) is anything close to what you describe.

So? I did. I lived in a very Red Stater part of CA, out in the sticks.

[DannyTN]

ROFL!!! Dude, you need to trade that crystal ball in on a new one. I'm not an ex anything. I'm a Deist.

LOL I'm sorry. I read your homepage. And you have this Ex-Muslim letter on there. But I realize now you just thought that was interesting and posted it for everyone to see.

[Renderofveils]

[i]A Christian, on the other hand, can say - "Christ taught me to sacrifice my life for others, so I go to war".[/i]

Which another Christian can take as God acting his will through man.

An atheist will most likely take that as "When (a Christian) does a good deed he does it because he knows from some source that is good."

[orionblamblam]

> But when the fate of your immortal soul is at stake, "I dunno" definitely equals "I don't care."

Untrue. It would only be true if I *knew* that I had to make a specific choice to believe something in order to assure some particular future for my hypothetical immortal soul. I don't *know* that to be the case.

I could, as so many people have, simply choose to believe XYZ . But what if XYZ is wrong? Then I've potentially damend myself. As a consequence, I approach this topic as I do all others: I make no choice until the evidence for a particular choice makes a clear case to me. For me to do otherwise would be hypocritical, and basically a lie.

> I wanted you to tell me what YOU think happens after we die

Again... not a clue. There appears to be no verifiable evidence. Lots of notions, but no ready facts to support them.

> Surely you must have given the matter some thought and come to some conclusion?

Just because you give something *years* of careful thought does not mean you come to a conclusion.

> Says who?

*I* do. *You* do. *Humanity* has.

[newgeezer]

You posted to me on a personal level because of some past exchange we have had and you were looking to insult me.

I has never been my intent to insult you. If that were not the case, I'd apologize right now. After going back through all seven of my posts to you here, I am left to wonder how you arrived at any such conclusion. But, if doing so will bring you joy, that's okay. And, like everything else, I mean that sincerely. Maybe you're just not used to dealing with sincere people.

And it was not just some past exchange we've had; it's those you've had with others over the years, too.

Your sour attitude,

Funny thing is, you have always struck me as one of the sourest of FReepers, which is what prompted my initial post to you in this thread. I expected your reply would be different, such that we'd have something new to celebrate. Thus, I remain somewhat surprised. Not doubtful, just surprised.

personal animosity towards me

I have none whatsoever.

If not before, I'm now convinced you could be a person who projects his emotions onto others. If you're sour and full of animus, you subconsciously assume everyone else is, too. Then, when you happen to get back even a little bit of your own medicine -- e.g. cynicism, sarcasm, insincerity -- it only serves to encourage, amplify and justify your projection.

I don't anticipate you being big enough to admit it on the forum however

Sorry (again, I do mean that) if this disappoints you but, any admission on my part would be a lie. I don't lie.

Perhaps you will go right on believing this entire exchange has been based on animosity, insults, insincerity, and the like. If you do and if that is true, all I can say is anything of the sort has been one-sided.

Now, having just gone back through our messages again, and this time more carefully, it occurs to me that when I thanked you "for the assurance that nothing has changed," you may have inferred that to mean that I was questioning the state of your soul. I was not and apologize if I gave you that impression.

Good day. Be seeing you on the FR.

And now, in the hope of underlining my sincerity of good will toward you, I give you the last word if you choose.

[orionblamblam]

> instead you'll hear an atheist say ...

Blah, blah, blah.

I wholeheartedly recommend that you take a *good* look at the posts on this thread, and compare the insult/civility ratios between the "atheist" and "anti-atheist" sides.

[ol painless]

Mineralman,

I was not trying to turn you from atheism. I was just curious to know what convinced you that there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ol Painless

[Protagoras]

Funny thing is, you have always struck me as one of the sourest of FReepers, which is what prompted my initial post to you in this thread.

At least you finally admitted the reason for your initial post. The point you were trying to make. A post to insult me with a backhanded compliment.

I know you didn't mean to give yourself away, but you just couldn't help yourself.

Your opinion that I am sour is just another leap. You see, if you ever really read my posts, and gave them some thought, you would see that I always give back what I get, nothing more. Just like this exchange, you started with a post to me, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. I gave you plenty of opportunities to explain what your point was, but you repeatedly declined. (as if it was a difficult question)

Next you claim I'm sour because I addressed you back in a personal manner, precisely what you did to me. You get what you give in life. It's usually a lesson learned. But not always it seems.

Now, having just gone back through our messages again, and this time more carefully, it occurs to me that when I thanked you "for the assurance that nothing has changed," you may have inferred that to mean that I was questioning the state of your soul. I was not and apologize if I gave you that impression.

Gee,,,ya think???? I guess you must admit it wasn't a leap, but an impression you readily admit might have been given. That's what happens when you go down the personal route. The route you chose.

Good day. Be seeing you on the FR.

Probably you will see my posts, you will not be seeing me. If you ever feel the need to comment on them, if you keep it on topic and impersonal, you will get that back in return. I give what I get.

And now, in the hope of underlining my sincerity of good will toward you, I give you the last word if you choose.

Thank you for your sincere goodwill, and I love having the last word. :^}

[DannyTN]

"I'd wager I know more about your religion than you. I'm not limited to the King James version of the Bible."

I'd take that wager. I'm not limited to the King James version either. But I do know there are untrustworthy sources out there. And all manner of revisionist histories about the Jews and Christians. You need to be able to discern truth from fiction.

"Only 17% of Americans were Christian in 1776."

That's a rediculously low number and not believable. It's simply not credible that most of the nation's leadership was Christian and yet only 17% of people were Christian. It's not credible that there were state religions and yet this was tolerated despite the 87% of the people not being that religion.

I agree with you that you shouldn't be a second class citizen if you aren't Christian.

[DannyTN]

Indulge me in couple of hypotheticals if you would.

If God convinced you that He does exist, how would you respond? You already agree with societal rules. Would you agree with God about sin and admit that you are a sinner in need of salvation? Would you accept the salvation offered?

Would you agree to allow God to do whatever it takes to convince you that He exists?

[Modernman]

But if a tough guy wants your girl, I hope you have more than just talk about "co-operation and empathy being *generally* stronger survival tools" to defend her with.

We live in a society where people who engage in sociopathic, violent behavior tend to have the full force of the law dropped on them. That's an example of co-operation: The thug down the road might be able to beat me over the head and steal my wife, but can he resist the SWAT team when it comes to arrest and/or kill him?

[Selkie]

> instead you'll hear an atheist say ...

Blah, blah, blah.

I wholeheartedly recommend that you take a *good* look at the posts on this thread, and compare the insult/civility ratios between the "atheist" and "anti-atheist" sides.
>>>>>

Sorry you don't believe in a sense of humor either. ;-)
I made cute little quip, not directed at any one member on this board.

Life is too short for ill feelings.
I'm not for anyone invoking God and making people feeling horrid for non believing.
The one good thing about my upbringing is that I was allowed to look at many religions and find my own way/faith.
And I will present it the same way to my future offspring.

God's subtle, he doesn't want to knock people over the head with His presence/existence.
As much as Im not in the atheist camp, I'm equally not a fan of any kind of fundie acting nasty and rude toward anyone whose beliefs differ.
That accomplishs nothing.

I'm all for repecting people's beliefs or lack there of, but I'm also for cracking jokes and being sarcastic whenever possible.

PAX

[Modernman]

I'm not the one saying he doesn't exists. You are. That's like saying the onus is on me to prove I exist or you exist.

It's a little different. If I say "I have two sons" and you don't believe me, I can prove their existence by showing them to you, showing their birth certificates etc. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for you to prove that they do not exist.

Same thing with God. You say he exists. You're the one who can prove his existence. I have no way to disprove His existence.

[orionblamblam]

> Sorry you don't believe in a sense of humor either. ;-)

Oh, I *do* have a sense of humor. But it's clear that a great many puffed-up SuperChristians on this baord are in effect doing their damnedest to make sure to break up the conservative movement. See posts by RobRoy for glitteringin examples of what can charitably called venom.