I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

They do not know you very well. At least, on this topic.
I'm curious what action they've taken to understand your position in turn.

I suppose that's partly my fault. I was an atheist for years before I 'came out' to them. Someone finally asked me about my religious position straight up, I suppose they were all assuming I was still some kind of Pentecostal. And since then I've avoided arguing about it: disabusing them of their beliefs, even if that were possible, would break a large part of their identity, and I don't see much of an up side to doing that so late in their lives. I want them to be happy. And they want me to be saved, and I don't think they believe it's possible for me to be really happy if I'm not. But I'm afraid the paradigm of me sitting quietly during my visits while they share inspirational stories with me is wearing thin.

[Aoi Magi]

We're not allowed to not have some burden of proof, because then how can they win? They know there's no concrete evidence, and "You just have to have faith" isn't going to work.

We prove them wrong whenever they come up with a stupid proof.

[Bibliofagus]

They do not know you very well. At least, on this topic.
I'm curious what action they've taken to understand your position in turn.

I suppose that's partly my fault. I was an atheist for years before I 'came out' to them. Someone finally asked me about my religious position straight up, I suppose they were all assuming I was still some kind of Pentecostal. And since then I've avoided arguing about it: disabusing them of their beliefs, even if that were possible, would break a large part of their identity, and I don't see much of an up side to doing that so late in their lives. I want them to be happy. And they want me to be saved, and I don't think they believe it's possible for me to be really happy if I'm not. But I'm afraid the paradigm of me sitting quietly during my visits while they share inspirational stories with me is wearing thin.

I was thinking a bit beyond the point why you avoiding arguing about it with them, and I feel a bit of an asshole for sorta making you defend the reasons for the way you interact with your family. That was not my intention.

The thing I meant to say and ask is:
Somehow they feel the need to get you to buy a book. A book that - for anyone familiar with you by reading both AF's - is likely to bolster your unbelief instead of causing you to move back to the flock.
I think they made a mistake choosing this book.

I also think your family should accept a similar challenge from you to read a book or watch a video highlighting your side of what you think. And I'm curious what you would choose.

[Mister Agenda]

At this moment, that Youtube of an atheist responding to this book comes to mind; but something that explains common misconceptions about atheists and atheism would be good. Just to help them be aware that they may have some assumptions about me that need checking.

[Mister Agenda]

I'll give these authors this: I've seen more clueless apologists than them. They go in for one-line refutations (There are no absolutes? Is that ABSOLUTELY true?) instead of really engaging (and who says something like that in the first place these days?); but one of them is a real theologian, and is aware of the rudiments of logic. I think they dismiss Hume and Kant too easily (The statement that we can only know what can be logically reasoned or empirically verified is not itself arrived at by logic or empricism...I'd say it's inductively valid), and I think that will be their fatal flaw: they're addicted to 'gotcha' arguments. What would they say to someone who says 'the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths other than this one'? I don't think they have any more ammo after that first cheap shot.

[Crossless2.0]

I've never read the book in question, but it sounds like the authors are apologists cast in the Francis Schaeffer mold. My first wife's parents, devout Pentecostals, gave me Schaeffer's Escape From Reason because they wanted me to convert and knew I was interested in philosophy. Schaeffer, they said, was a true intellectual, and they were sure I'd appreciate his work. What I found was an argument so vapid that I could only shake my head in disbelief. It's been many years, but as I recall, Schaeffer disposed of Hume in something like three or four paragraphs. His treatment of Kant was just as shameful. And so it went, one philosopher after another, each dismissed in the most ham-fisted (and erroneous) fashion. It was disgusting.

I find it odd and funny that people who believe the strangest bullshit because an old book says they should will then turn to partisan, hack scholars and pseudo-intellectuals to give their faith a patina of respectability. It's almost like they know deep down that their beliefs are ridiculous, and they will grasp at any straw to avoid admitting it.

[Chad32]

I wouldn't expect much from a book titled Escape from Reason. As if reason is a bad thing. Of course some people will claim it is, because it leads people away from superstition, but it's a red flag nonetheless.

[Crossless2.0]

I wouldn't expect much from a book titled Escape from Reason. As if reason is a bad thing. Of course some people will claim it is, because it leads people away from superstition, but it's a red flag nonetheless.

Right -- but here's the kicker. In Schaeffer's version of things, modern philosophers (and intellectuals generally) are the ones who have escaped from reason. Schaeffer pushed the presuppositionalist line. In his view, he was restoring reason.

As I said, it was awful.

[Chad32]

This reminds me of a video where Aron Ra talks about religion reversing everything. It's a little long at 50:42, at least in my opinion. You have bible verses that say a fool says in his heart there is no god, and seeking god is the start of wisdom, and blind faith is more important than anything. Science is of the devil, like everything else that leads you away from god, despite science being the best method of finding out how the universe and everything in it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not out to keep bumping this thread, just continue to need to vent, from page 68:

"The Saudis may be teaching that Jews are pigs, but in our country, by means of a one-sided biology curriculum, we teach kids that there's really no difference between any human being and a pig. After all, if we're merely the product of blind naturalistic forces--if no deity created us with special significance--then we are nothing more than pigs with big brains. Does this religious (atheistic) "truth" matter? It does when kids carry out its implications. Instead of good citizens who see people made in the image of God, we are producing criminals who see no meaning or value in human life. Ideas have consequences."

The next 20 pages focus on trying to convince the reader that the Big Bang occurred, apparently under the impression that atheists have a problem accepting this theory. I'm pretty sure my step-mother doesn't believe in the Big Bang, so I probably won't be able to resist pointing out the book she recommended to me rests on accepting that it's true.