Atheists almost invariably argue against only the most immature notions of god
This topic is inspired by a friend of mine who always says "I don't worship the kind of god you are referring to"
true
Side Score: 25
|
 |
false
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
It's called new(/vulgar/discount-store/an idiot's caricature of) atheism, and it's motivated more by politics and pent-up resentment against religious parents than theology. People who care enough about religion to become intimately acquainted with it generally aren't Atheists--or, at least, not the kind of Atheists who waste their time arguing bush-league philosophy with believers. Side: true
2
points
Actually, what I think you'll find is that people often become atheists after having studied religion without a confirmation bias. I my self was only a Christian because my school had drilled it into me, but when I became interested in religion and spirituality, when I started reading up on the history of religion, when I first opened up the bible and read it, that, was why I became an atheist. Who was it that said, "the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible". Side: false
"Actually, what I think you'll find is that people often become atheists after having studied religion without a confirmation bias. I my self was only a Christian because my school had drilled it into me, but when I became interested in religion and spirituality, when I started reading up on the history of religion, when I first opened up the bible and read it, that, was why I became an atheist." Whenever you have a debate about religion, personal experiences don't count. It's what's been said to the many Christians who have posted their testimonies as evidence, so the same ought to apply for you atheists. Side: true
people often become atheists after having studied religion without a confirmation bias. Unless either one of us can provide non-anecdotal evidence for this being the case or not, this point probably isn't going to go anywhere. All I can say is that, after having belonged to several atheist communities over the years, this has not been my experience. that, was why I became an atheist. We're describing the same experience; I'm just using more derisive terms. Forgive my presumptuousness, but I'm guessing you learned more about history or anthropology than theology--the former of which has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of any of religion's propositions. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. "the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible" Penn Jillette was, as well as he did a slew of other asinine comments. Side: true
2
points
2
points
Atheists almost invariably argue against only the most immature notions of god about as often as theists invariably propose the most immature notions of god. When more mature, though- out notions of god are presented, some atheists disregard and ignore it, of course (as surely as immature theists reject mature arguments of atheism), and others rise to the occasion and argue against it as they do. Side: true
1
point
christians usually post first and atheists rebut whats given to them. The irrational arguments are the ones most christians use. No offence but many christians are ignorant and clueless. The critical thinking christians can provide some good arguments but they are mostly drowned out by the endless sea of "the bible said so" arguments. Therefore due to the sheer numbers of irrational arguments made by christians atheists end up clashing with mostly irrational, immature arguments. Side: true
You clearly haven't met many atheists on this site, a lot who've I've debated with are only atheist because they think it's an accolade to wear which makes them more intelligent than religious people. While I know there are many intelligent atheists, the lesser educated one's ruin debates by repeating arguments which are all paraphrases of "Christians are stupid, ergo their arguments are stupid". Side: false
1
point
While I know there are many intelligent atheists, the lesser educated one's ruin debates by repeating arguments which are all paraphrases of "Christians are stupid, ergo their arguments are stupid". While I don't disagree, would you not agree there are an equal number of theists to which this alteration of your post would apply? "the lesser educated one's ruin debates by repeating arguments which are all paraphrases of "God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible must be true because it's the word of God who we know exists because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God so it must be true and we know God always speaks truth because it says so in the Bible and the Bible must be true because it's the word of God..." I think you get the point. Side: false
|
Only if 'immature' = 'most popular'. Most atheists I find argue against 'Yahweh' because that's the most commonly held idea of "God", not because he's a soft target. There are much softer targets available. Now, some theists pull this ad-hoc loopty-loop bullshit where "God" is equal to whatever God has to be in order to dodge your criticisms of it. In this case, they're banking on the idea that if you make something sound complicated and ethereal enough, you can use the confusion your ideas cause as evidence that they are 'deep' and 'mature'. Debating these kinds of people, while tempting, is ultimately pointless. Their whole method is to hide the contradictions in their ideology. You will never be able to peg them on anything substantial in their philosophy because they would never consciously risk being proven wrong and will instead remain permanently aloof. In short, no. Atheists are not arguing against an immature notion of God. They argue against what's presented to them. Not presenting anything concrete =/= presenting something 'mature'. Side: false
Only if 'immature' = 'most popular'. Don't you suppose that the most poorly informed notions of god are the most popular? Most atheists I find argue against 'Yahweh' because that's the most commonly held idea of "God", not because he's a soft target. Assuming Yahweh as nonexistent makes him not targetable at all. You can't logically argue against the nonexistent. There are much softer targets available. example? Now, some theists pull this ad-hoc loopty-loop bullshit where "God" is equal to whatever God has to be in order to dodge your criticisms of it. In this case, they're banking on the idea that if you make something sound complicated and ethereal enough, you can use the confusion your ideas cause as evidence that they are 'deep' and 'mature'. Debating these kinds of people, while tempting, is ultimately pointless. Any logical discussion about god must start with the parties agreeing on an adequate definition of the term "god". If this consensus is never reached (and it almost never is between theists and atheists), than discussions truly are pointless. Practically all theists assume the agnostic position that god is of an undefinable nature, (god is by nature beyond our understanding) therefore atheists should realize the futility, and not take part in fundamentally illogical discussions. Their whole method is to hide the contradictions in their ideology. You will never be able to peg them on anything substantial in their philosophy because they would never consciously risk being proven wrong and will instead remain permanently aloof. Ideology...Now there's something atheists and theists can logically discuss. But in my experience, those who profess atheism are far more likely than theists to make the claim that they "have no ideology". Are you one of those? If so than you, just like the theists you describe are making it pretty hard for anyone to scrutinize your ideology (god?). If not I challenge you to be forthright about your ideology and let us know what your philosophical first principle is. What is your ideology based on? In short, no. Atheists are not arguing against an immature notion of God. Do you doubt that most atheists regard their "notion of god" as better informed than that of theists? They argue against what's presented to them. And what is presented to them is a concept that theists almost universally admit defies explanation. So the logical approach would be a refusal to proceed until terms are defined. Not presenting anything concrete =/= presenting something 'mature'. I don't particularly disagree. But admitting that a satisfactory understanding of ultimate truth eludes us, is common to both theists and atheists. If you are willing to present anything you regards as "concrete", it could be argued that you are treading the same ground as gnostic theists. Side: true
As an Atheist I usually argue against the idea that being Atheist is "close-minded" or "arrogant." Whenever someone tries to convince me that God exists, that's when I'll argue against their God. I don't find myself to be a New Atheist, though, because I really don't care that much that religion and belief exists. I'm more on the defensive. Maybe the non-aggression principle applied to ideology. Side: false
2
points
Well since the most common argument that theists like to use tends to be the cosmological one, I would say no, as the deistic god implied by the cosmological argument is not "immature" in the "bearded man sitting on a cloud" sort of way. The problem is, theists are so slippery when pressed into defining their own god, that often we have to guess or make assumptions about it. I'm not sure if there are two theists in the world who agree what god his and what his nature is. Side: false
As much as I'd like to think this is true, I don't believe it is. Many of the atheists I've encountered here have argued strongly against the Judeo-Christian God, even supporting their arguments with Bible verses at times in their claims. Of course you may say that the Judeo-Christian God is an immature notion, but then you'd be proving the point. Side: false
1
point
I'm not an atheist. I'm simply a non-Believer. Years ago I came to discredit Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for myself. I always felt like the most honest answer that I could give is simply "I don't pretend to know where we come from or what happens when we die". I also don't believe it is that important. I do have a number of atheist friends. As a group, they tend to be cynical, jaded, and a bit angry. A good number of them were actually raised in Conservative Christian backgrounds and have been hurt emotionally by the Church and the heavy-handedness of their families. So, sometimes they kind of come from this very angry place when discussing religion. Other of my atheist friends are the proverbial smart guys. They were the kids in school that always had the right answer and had to make sure that everyone knew that they were smarter than everybody else. In the instances where they were wrong, it was devastating for them, because their sense of self-worth was built upon being right. I have also noticed that atheists, in general, will argue with me far more than the most evangelical Christian. The evangelical usually just says something condescending like "I'll be praying for you" and they'll leave it at that. The atheist has to keep trying and trying to prove to me that there is no God. And I usually just have to tell them: "the thing about me that you have to understand and I mean this in all sincerity is that I simply just don't give a shit." I don't think that religion matters. There may or may not be an afterlife, but we're here now and I think that's so much more important. It's better that we live with compassion for one another and savor these few moments that we do have. There may not be any that come after. Side: false
1
point
I don't know, do you think you have the definition of atheism confused with something else? If you are a non believer, meaning you don't believe in christianity or a god/supreme being, etc, then by definition you are an atheist. Either that, or completely agnostic. Atheism is the lack of belief in god, or the belief that god does not exist. You seem to fit better with the former definition. Side: false
1
point
1
point
I think both sides have plenty of people with less than ideal intelligence that attempt to debate the validity of their position. Both sides have plenty of people which display vast amounts of arrogance, intolerance, etc, toward the other side. I personally wouldn't mind having a debate with a theist with the "most mature" notion of god. It would be an excellent learning experience in my opinion. Side: false
|
