(August 4, 2017 at 1:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: An atheist's tendency in this situation; I have observed, is to deny, and claim the observer as mistaken, crazy or something similar (or if unable to deny, then well there must be a naturalistic cause (science will figure it out someday).  Here too, I think that often, it may be better to just say I don't know.  Not that there can't be reasons for these answers, but they are a claim that needs to be supported.

I agree with much of your post, but disagree with this. Firstly, atheists aren't robots who all share the same programming, and I know plenty who are dead-certain that UFOs are piloted by beings from other worlds, or that humans have mental powers such as ESP or PK or whatever.

Secondly, the fact is that mistakes of observation and forms of insanity which impart hallucinations are facts. They happen regularly, daily. The idea that those explanations are less likely than that of an all-powerful invisible guy in heaven is hogwash, and the rational mind knows this.

(August 4, 2017 at 2:09 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Now you're just bickering for the sake of bickering.  So....again, what was the point of original statement?  That some people who happen to be some brand of christian sometimes have better ideas than other people who happen to be christians (or any other religion, or even irreligious)?  OFC they do.  People have ideas all the time, some of them are bound to be better than the others.  -and?

Sorry, I was just trying to make pleasant conversation in the hopes turning attention back to the OP. I can understand why your took it as bickering since I've been kind of cranky lately. I was just trying to say that there is a difference between general inquires where humble ignorance is perfectly acceptable and existential questions on which it is better to take a stance, however tentatively.

(August 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Whateverist Wrote: When societies spiral into war and atrocities are committed I don't imagine it is on account of which philosophical world view the main players hold.  I mean that in the sense that such considerations rarely factor in for the worst of the worse.  What they do then doesn't follow from their failed philosophical views but from their particular psychological twistedness and character failings.  You can say, "well if they'd just embrace xtianity this would never happen" but you know, it wouldn't happen either if I was simply appointed absolute ruler of the earth.

Sure. 90% of all wars are about natural resources and imperial aspirations. I guess I just have a pre-modern sense that philosophy is not simply an academic disciple; but rather,a means to improve one's character by the pursuit of knowledge and virtue.

But then, as a person interested in increasing his understanding and improving his character you are already not someone who is likely to be in a position to start a war.  People drawn to power tend not to be those with your bent.  So while a little self improvement can be a good thing, it probably is not the cure for what ails us as a society.

(August 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I always have.  I also believe, like John Adams, that a free society that preserves individual liberty can only be maintained by a moral populace. IMO, the Anglo-American slave trade wasn't upheld by any firm principle. Instead it was thoughtlessly tolerated as a seemly practical necessity for an oligarchical economic system. The supposedly 'natural order' rationalizations and 'biblical' cover for the practice were there just so people didn't have think too much about what was really happening. It wasn't until people with strong religious and moral objections to it did things actually change.

And I don't mean to derail the thread, but in my mind, abortion is very similar in the sense a truly horrific practice is permitted based almost entirely on the material convenience of adults or disingenuous concerns about a child growing up in poverty. The whole notion that a woman's bodily integrity and volition are the only things at stake depends on denying the humanity of a very young human being. Similarly, even if a someone's health is so severely compromised that they seem completely unresponsive to life on what basis does someone else decide for them if their life is "worth living." What is it exactly about human life that makes it valuable? If we don't have any convictions about that then making a decision on-the-spot and persevering through the long-haul IMHO would most likely be based on one's personal convenience and practical needs. The case of Martin Pistorius comes to mind.

I have to wonder, when confronting fears and apprehensions about how their life will be affected by bring the child to term or caring for the severely disabled, and if people truly considered what it means to be human, they would make much different choices in such dire circumstances. These are not the only issues. We could just as easily be talking about any number of issues; I just went for the low-hanging fruit.

Still there are some downsides to pursuing a life of moral excellence.  I'm thinking here of the whole pompous ass stigma.  More and more, I think the best life would be one of sufficient -not maximal- moral excellence.  An obsession with extreme moral goodness makes no sense in the absence of a day of reckoning when a perfect moral judge will hold up a card with a number.  Meh, I'd be happy with a 6 or 7 along with a lot of merit badges for aesthetic achievements.

Edited to add that justification for an exclusive emphasis on morality also assumes that a 'god' would place the same emphasis on moral goodness that religious institutions do.  Maybe a god would be more interested in beauty or intellect or just might?  Who knows?  (Yeah, yeah .. I know.  He can be whatever way you make him up to be.)

(August 4, 2017 at 1:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: But the reason, I posted, is that I agree.  We should be able to say I don't know, and that should be the default.  I don't think that arguing a god of the gaps is a good method.  Although that accusation can also be abused, ignoring the reasons why God or something like god is a better explanation.  However I don't think the theist is alone in this.  An atheist's tendency in this situation; I have observed, is to deny, and claim the observer as mistaken, crazy or something similar (or if unable to deny, then well there must be a naturalistic cause (science will figure it out someday).  Here too, I think that often, it may be better to just say I don't know.  Not that there can't be reasons for these answers, but they are a claim that needs to be supported.

Atheists get tired of hearing the same old debunked claims and arguments.  We ask for evidence, we get unsubstantiated claims.  We ask for outside corroboration, we get writers who may have used the word christian. We point out discrepancies in the bible, we're told we are reading it wrong. This has gone on for centuries.  I feel safe in calling people who make these claims mistaken and, when they seem to be trying more to convince themselves of their "knowledge" of god, I feel safe in calling them crazy or something similar.  All it would take to shut us up is objective, falsifiable evidence that points to no other explanation than your god.  And so it goes...

What you're going to get, instead, is a list of all the ways you're an asshole for asking.  

(August 4, 2017 at 3:13 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: Atheists get tired of hearing the same old debunked claims and arguments.  We ask for evidence, we get unsubstantiated claims.  We ask for outside corroboration, we get writers who may have used the word christian. We point out discrepancies in the bible, we're told we are reading it wrong. This has gone on for centuries.  I feel safe in calling people who make these claims mistaken and, when they seem to be trying more to convince themselves of their "knowledge" of god, I feel safe in calling them crazy or something similar.  All it would take to shut us up is objective, falsifiable evidence that points to no other explanation than your god.  And so it goes...

After over a decade of being inundated with excuse after excuse for unsupported religious assertions, my tolerance for such assertions is now at zero.  My patience is fading fast, too.

It should be painfully obvious by now that the believers preaching at us do not have the evidence that we are looking for.  Whatever convinced them is simply not robust enough to convince us, and I for one am not going to lower my standards to give them even the slightest whiff of a benefit of a doubt.

(August 4, 2017 at 3:23 pm)Astreja Wrote: It should be painfully obvious by now that the believers preaching at us do not have the evidence that we are looking for.  Whatever convinced them is simply not robust enough to convince us, and I for one am not going to lower my standards to give them even the slightest whiff of a benefit of a doubt.

YMMV. We aren't preaching (at the moment). Preaching is "believe this or you'll go to hell." I feel that we are simply trying to explain and defend what we believe, i.e. the hope in our hearts.

BTW believe or you're going to Hell :-)

Well, if that was the goal, there are easier and far less batshit ways to do so. In my experience with christians, -those- ways shut down objections whole cloth and engender respect, understanding, and friendship. While I've no end of objections to -your- arguments for -your- faith...I have absolutely none, for theirs.

Frankly, I don't consider many of our forum apologists particularly christian. I'd give them their own schismatic designations. We've got GC-ists, RR-ists, Steve-ists, and Neo-ists, Drich-ists etc....round hur. Ultimately it;s a fine, fine blade, since christians don;t really believe the same shit anyway, and never have - but, I like to be specific, lol.

(August 4, 2017 at 3:36 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We've got GC-ists, RR-ists, Steve-ists, and Neo-ists, etc....round hur.  Ultimately it;s a fine, fine blade, since christians don;t really believe the same shit anyway, and never have - but, I like to be specific, lol.  

They each have their own favorite soda pop, too.

(August 4, 2017 at 3:13 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: Atheists get tired of hearing the same old debunked claims and arguments. 

I don't know about the others but I'm still waiting to see all those defeaters I keep hearing about. I don't think I've ever seen a serious objection to most Necessary Being demonstrations (here and supplemented here) or the Argument from Logic (here.)