So, it has been a pretty while since posting here but think it may be more regular coming up. Basically last time I was content to be globally agnostic about almost everything I thought I knew so wasn’t too sure that atheism was the right label for me. Since then a christian friend has been pushing me repeatedly to defend atheism, despite knowing it wasn’t a position I held. Long story short, having to repeatedly defend misrepresentations of atheism finally pushed me to accept it as my current position. Comical own goal by my christian friend there, but I have finally found a passion for reading on these issues again and willing to adopt positions again. 

Currently I seem to be stuck in the weeds of moral error theory. I have a hundred or so journal articles downloaded to work through, a load of books, a bunch of phd theses and am just getting going. Reading and listening to a bunch of Graham Oppy right now as well, and very interested in getting more into philosophical works on naturalism after reading his book on it.

One thing I would appreciate is the ability to grill folk here on various potential formulations of arguments and for sources. My other christian friends have been amazingly patient with my constant questions, but I don’t want to grind them down and lose them as friends. I pretty much don’t have anyone around who shares my current interests… finally remembered this board.

So. Just an initial post, not sure whether I should just load all my questions onto this post as they come up, or do one per theme e.g. moral error theory. Thoughts would be appreciated. These aren’t going to be questions about how to deal with my friend, more just about how to think about things through the new atheist worldview

Welcome back. What kinds of thoughts about moral error theory are you looking to elicit? What do you see as the relationship between atheism and moral error theory?

Have you simply asked your Christian friend to provide some testable, unfalsifiable evidence of his god? It's his claim so he needs to defend it.

(June 1, 2024 at 4:02 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Welcome back.  What kinds of thoughts about moral error theory are you looking to elicit?  What do you see as the relationship between atheism and moral error theory?

Hey Grand Nudger, thanks for the nudge. I don’t see any direct link between atheism and moral error theory, merely that is is a view that is consistent with it and makes a lot of sense to me. I recognise there are a bunch of moral realist positions by atheist - something I have had to constantly point out to my friend.

Not sure of exact questions just yet, just an opening post to see what the deal is here

(June 1, 2024 at 4:02 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Welcome back.  What kinds of thoughts about moral error theory are you looking to elicit?  What do you see as the relationship between atheism and moral error theory?

That doesn’t seem to be the best approach with them - the dialogue is largely via text which makes these things painful. For me the approach I am taking is to knock down his misrepresentations of atheism as he makes them. Longer arguments are fine, but we only meet once in a while.
This thread isn’t so much about how I approach them, more about how I can formulate and develop my own views now I actually want to. They were just the catalyst

Ask them to defend why they don't accept
Quetzalcoatl, Odin, Ra, Zeus, Enki, Itzamná, or any of the other thousands of godibois that have been forgotten over time.

(June 1, 2024 at 4:11 pm)no one Wrote: Ask them to defend why they don't accept
Quetzalcoatl, Odin, Ra, Zeus, Enki, Itzamná, or any of the other thousands of godibois that have been forgotten over time.

Thanks. My OP clearly wasn’t very well written - I am more intrested in developing my own views, not knocking down their’s. They are just the reason I am where I am right now.

(June 1, 2024 at 4:02 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Have you simply asked your Christian friend to provide some testable, unfalsifiable evidence of his god?    It's his claim so he needs to defend it.

That doesn’t seem to be the best approach with them - the dialogue is largely via text which makes these things painful. For me the approach I am taking is to knock down his misrepresentations of atheism as he makes them. Longer arguments are fine, but we only meet once in a while.

This thread isn’t so much about how I approach them, more about how I can formulate and develop my own views now I actually want to. They were just the catalyst

Welcome Woof Lucian.

Have an interesting trip with that rabbit hole. A quick look in Stanford indicates it's a rather large can of worms.

(June 1, 2024 at 4:23 pm)brewer Wrote: Welcome Woof Lucian.

Have an interesting trip with that rabbit hole. A quick look in  Stanford indicates it's a rather large can of worms.

Ha! Yeah, it most certainly is that. I have a tendency to get mildly obsessive in things, so this could be a long and deep hole!