RE: Overstating the case for Athiesm.
March 7, 2014 at 8:44 pm
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2014 at 8:48 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 7, 2014 at 8:09 pm)rsb Wrote: "I thought we were discussing the case for atheism. Now you are talking about the case for anti-theism. "
Hair successfully split, good shot sir.
Seriously why even discuss atheism then, when the problem of highly harmful religions is so serious, especially in the US and mideast?
I don't believe it is hair splitting.
They are 2 different subjects. One specifically concerns the existence of gods, and the evidence for or against the claim. The other specifically concerns the real world, negative consequences concerning dogmatic theistic beliefs.
True that they are related subjects, but not necessarily contingent on each other.
There are plenty of people that believe in a god, that are anti-theist (most deists, for example). There's at least one on this board, DeistPaliden.
And there are plenty of atheists that could care less about religion and just go on with their lives.
Your contention that I am hair splitting is a perfect reason why, before discussions on important subjects are entered into, terms need to be defined.
Why discuss atheism? Because it is an interesting conversation. I am interested in knowing what people believe, and why they believe it. That itself is more than enough reason to have these discussions. Discussing anti-theism, and the harmful effects of dogmatic theistic beliefs, is arguably a more important conversation, but they are different conversations.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
