Do you wish there's a god?

[Alan V]

As an adult, the knowledge that I don't know what's true, that I'm still thinking about it, that -- in the strict sense of having no belief -- I don't believe. 

That's interesting, all this time I thought your were some sort of theist. Not so much because you defended theistic views, but because of your knowledge of them.

You're perhaps the first atheist I've ever met, whose understanding of theism isn't limited to Fundie Evangelism, or whatever low hanging fruits are available.

I used to be of the opinion that a person could only sustain their atheism, by having a limited understanding of theism, much like a creationist can only sustain their views, by having a limited understanding of Evolution, but you seem to be an exception to the rule.

Much respect.

For the record, I studied Sufi mysticism for almost 25 years of my adult life because I was trying to make sense of the God concept. I only became an atheist at the age of 50.

Different atheists have different stories.

[Belacqua]

As an adult, the knowledge that I don't know what's true, that I'm still thinking about it, that -- in the strict sense of having no belief -- I don't believe. 

That's interesting, all this time I thought your were some sort of theist. Not so much because you defended theistic views, but because of your knowledge of them.

You're perhaps the first atheist I've ever met, whose understanding of theism isn't limited to Fundie Evangelism, or whatever low hanging fruits are available.

I used to be of the opinion that a person could only sustain their atheism, by having a limited understanding of theism, much like a creationist can only sustain their views, by having a limited understanding of Evolution, but you seem to be an exception to the rule.

Much respect.

Thank you! I genuinely appreciate that. 

It's frustrating when someone says "Christians believe X," and I know for a fact that Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Nicholas of Cusa, Jacob Boehme, and William Blake all didn't believe that. I have been told straight out that when someone says "Christian," they only want to talk about the dumb ones. 

To me the whole subject -- theology, the arts that are related to it, and the insight it gives into people -- is a source of great beauty. It didn't occur to me that I had to choose a side and fight until I started looking at sites like this one. But one thing I have learned -- choosing a side tends to close the mind. It would make me sad to shut out the source of so much greatness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Laying aside passive cultural christians, fundie evangelists are the predominant type of contemporary christian in most of the boards life, so it's pretty much a given that the majority of comments are going to swirl around them. I guess it might take a decoder ring, but for the most part..the folks here aren't bothered by christians™..so when they launch into some complaint they're thinking specifically of the sorts of dirtbag christians that everyone recognizes for a dirtbag, including other christians.

Here's an interesting question, though.  What is it that makes people see them as low hanging fruit relative to the likes of..say, Aquinas?  Aquinas was no more or less a nut than the common contemporary.  Thomist christianity is no more or less compelling than fundie evangelism. OFC theology gives insight into people..it's a story about people, not gods. Those insights aren't always flattering, at best they describe something better described elsewhere and elsewise..at worst, they serve to buttress absurd doctrinal commitments and present no insight beyond this whatsoever.

What makes people imagine that some faiths luminaries are any more credible than the common joe on the street? Is this anything more than an attempt to transfer the assumed reputation of an individual human being to the contents of their faith? How well deserved are those reputations, if that's the case?

[LadyForCamus]

Then I suppose I’m not sure what it is you’re saying.

It doesn't matter.

Are you claiming that people can’t simply lack belief in something?

[Acrobat]

Laying aside passive cultural christians, fundie evangelists are the predominant type of contemporary christian in most of the boards life, so it's pretty much a given that the majority of comments are going to swirl around them. I guess it might take a decoder ring, but for the most part..the folks here aren't bothered by christians™..so when they launch into some complaint they're thinking specifically of the sorts of dirtbag christians that everyone recognizes for a dirtbag, including other christians.

Here's an interesting question, though.  What is it that makes people see them as low hanging fruit relative to the likes of..say, Aquinas?  Aquinas was no more or less a nut than the common contemporary.  Thomist christianity is no more or less compelling than fundie evangelism. OFC theology gives insight into people..it's a story about people, not gods. Those insights aren't always flattering, at best they describe something better described elsewhere and else wise..at worst, they serve to buttress absurd doctrinal commitments and present no insight beyond this whatsoever.

What makes people imagine that some faiths luminaries are any more credible than the common joe on the street? Is this anything more than an attempt to transfer the assumed reputation of an individual human being to the contents of their faith? How well deserved are those reputations, if that's the case?

You ever argue with a fundie about the things that they don’t believe in? That’s sort of like what arguing with your typical atheist on the internet is like. Such atheists are not merely arguing against fundie arguments, but their atheism itself is formed in relationship to such arguments. Even worse, they don’t even seem to understand evangelicals all that much either. I doubt a single fundie evangelical would ever suggest, as I have for someone like Belaqua, that he seems to understand a great deal about things I believe. But rather that atheists primary rely on caricatures of theistic views.

The difference between faith “luminaries” and the common joe on the street, is that the former has spent more time thinking through their beliefs, than the common joe. Sort of like one might say of a newly minted teenage atheist, fresh out rebelling against their religious parents, and the sort that attempt to think through various atheistic worldviews. What do such atheists luminaries, offer that the teenage angst atheists types don’t? More considered thoughts, ideas to think over, a conversation more reflective, than just flinging feces at each other.

An ideal conversation, for me isn’t so much as an argument, or as combative as the sort of conversations that take place here, which appear more like games, and dick measuring contest, than anything else (which can be amusing on occasions). But one where people engage their beliefs, think through various criticism, reflect honesty, in order for people to form better understandings of themselves and others. This in short supply in theist vs atheist conversations. Two people spend most of their time talking past each other, or looking for a cheap quip to get kudos from their respective choirs.

[Alan V]

It's frustrating when someone says "Christians believe X," and I know for a fact that Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Nicholas of Cusa, Jacob Boehme, and William Blake all didn't believe that. I have been told straight out that when someone says "Christian," they only want to talk about the dumb ones. 

To me the whole subject -- theology, the arts that are related to it, and the insight it gives into people -- is a source of great beauty. It didn't occur to me that I had to choose a side and fight until I started looking at sites like this one. But one thing I have learned -- choosing a side tends to close the mind. It would make me sad to shut out the source of so much greatness.

The problem is that beauty does not equal truth. I have read a lot of art history and appreciate the talents of great painters, even though I simultaneously acknowledge they also acted as religious propagandists.

The fact that Christians, let alone theists in general, believe in such a wide range of different and contradictory ideas speaks poorly of any rational basis for their beliefs. Therefore, pointing out how different groups of Christians believe in different doctrines is a strategy that works better for atheists. One paragon for every million intellectual failures is not exactly a recommendation.

If you don't think atheists have good critiques for a wide range of God-concepts and religious beliefs, please be so kind as to point out those you don't think we have addressed adequately.

Also please remember that historical figures who were brilliant for their times would be considered very poorly informed by modern standards. It follows that those who still refer to them as illuminaries very possibly couldn't stand up to modern critiques.

[The Grand Nudger]

You ever argue with a fundie about the things that they don’t believe in?

Sure, all the time.  Fundie christianity has become an explicitly political movement based on the rejection of any sound governance whatsoever just as much as it's an extension of superstitious idiocy.

Most of the real handwringing about christianity on this site has more to do with that than anything else.   If the fundies kept their dicks in their pants and out of government alot of people would have no beef - but they can't.  

That’s sort of like what arguing with your typical atheist on the internet is like. Such atheists are not merely arguing against fundie arguments, but their atheism itself is formed in relationship to such arguments.  Even worse, they don’t even seem to understand evangelicals all that much either. I doubt a single fundie evangelical would ever suggest, as I have for someone like Belaqua, that he seems to understand a great deal about things I believe. But rather that atheists primary rely on caricatures of theistic views.

Sure, there are atheists who's specific rejection of a specific religion is based on the claims of that specific religion.  What else would it be based on?  Your doubts are naive.  Stick around, you'll find that fundies routinely praise "the good ones" as they shitpost about the rest.  

Just like you did.  

The difference between faith “luminaries” and the common joe on the street, is that the former has spent more time thinking through their beliefs, than the common joe. Sort of like one might say of a newly minted teenage atheist, fresh out rebelling against their religious parents, and the sort that attempt to think through various atheistic worldviews. What do such atheists luminaries, offer that the teenage angst atheists types don’t? More considered thoughts, ideas to think over, a conversation more reflective, than just flinging feces at each other.

Thinking alot about bullshit won't change the fact that it's bullshit.  Those common joes come here and attempt to swing the same arguments, in any case.  The luminary I asked the question about was every bit the creationist as the next idiot who's going to come here and bullshit us about gods design..and his inability to comprehend the mechanism of thought lay at the heart of his metaphysics and ideas on "souls". Ultimately, he was just the usual sort of nut we get here, with a bigger vocab - and, frankly, knew less than the nuts we have today about the subject matter he spectacularly failed to explain.

An ideal conversation, for me isn’t so much as an argument, or as combative as the sort of conversations that take place here, which appear more like games, and dick measuring contest, than anything else (which can be amusing on occasions). But one where people engage their beliefs, think through various criticism, reflect honesty, in order for people to form better understandings of themselves and others. This in short supply in theist vs atheist conversations. Two people spend most of their time talking past each other, or looking for a cheap quip to get kudos from their respective choirs.

The trouble is that you can't really accept or engage with the beliefs of the people you're questioning.  Nor can you accept any instance in which a person has accepted your own beliefs and reached an entirely different conclusion based on them. Complete and utter disconnect. That..and the simple fact of your being routinely incorrect about the things you'd like to "discuss" in a non-argumentative, non-combative way™.

I mean, welcome to af dude...one of the few places where you really aren't going to be able to float things that you might think are uncontroversial due to social norms and the stratification of faith based claims. One of the few places where you might hear things forcefully said that call not only the credibility or validity of these things you believe into question, but even their moral nature.

You didn't join up expecting to hear a chorus of "god is great..." I assume...?

[Acrobat]

To me the whole subject -- theology, the arts that are related to it, and the insight it gives into people -- is a source of great beauty. It didn't occur to me that I had to choose a side and fight until I started looking at sites like this one. But one thing I have learned -- choosing a side tends to close the mind. It would make me sad to shut out the source of so much greatness.

I tend to agree with you. It was novelists and writers who I credit my theism too, more so than some bland theologian, or some weird or over wrought theology. And I think it was Dosteovky who said "beauty will save the world", and I agree, if anything will save the world, it's beauty.

In my view a great novel, a great work of art, is capable of revealing the nature of reality and life, far better than any work of science. I used to think that people who shared such sentiments were primarily on my side of the fence, so it's surprising and nice to encounter an unbeliever with similar affinities. I'm curious as to see why the lack of belief, what keeps you from believing. Why someone like myself believes, and you don't, when we're not all that different it seems.

[Succubus]

You ever argue with a fundie about the things that they don’t believe in? That’s sort of like what arguing with your typical atheist on the internet is like. Such atheists are not merely arguing against fundie arguments, but their atheism itself is formed in relationship to such arguments.  Even worse, they don’t even seem to understand evangelicals all that much either. I doubt a single fundie evangelical would ever suggest, as I have for someone like Belaqua, that he seems to understand a great deal about things I believe. But rather that atheists primary rely on caricatures of theistic views.

My highlite. Acrobat, this look very much like Alvin Plantinga's argument that   atheist lack an understanding of sophisticated theology.

Am I getting warm?

[The Grand Nudger]

I always wonder what about -any- theology is supposed to be sophisticated in the first place, lol. It's funny how every group seems to imagine that theirs is in that set, and the others guys stuff is shit.

If I rigged up a turd with tinsel and christmas lights, would it be "more sophisticated" than the next turd?