New theistic chew toys wanted!

[vulcanlogician]

Great, now I'm feeling a pang of guilt.  I often get triggered by idiot theists and fall into their web of nonsense.  It's a bad personality trait.  I hear what Neo is saying and Vulcan, too.  On another forum I had a years-long discourse with a few theists who were extremely intelligent and well versed in logic/philosophy & science.  No, they were no where near being fundies so it was a pleasure most of the time.  They represented maybe 5% of the theists who showed up there.  We had one very fundamental Christian who was a good sport for a while until he just had enough and left the forum.  He demanded that the administrator delete his account and all of his posts.  We didn't do that.

---

I dig what you're saying, actually. But I think a lot of it boils down to "people in general" not being interested in philosophy-- not necessarily atheists not being interested in philosophy. I mean, most people don't care. We tend to think of the Greeks as the intellectual giants of ancient times, but they killed Socrates. Why? Because most of his Greek contemporaries didn't see the relevance of what Socrates was saying. A disconcern with philosophy is endemic of all ages... all peoples... and all subgroups of all peoples.

As for your original comment about Nietzsche... I didn't read it as pompous personally. Just snarky. And an appropriate amount of snark for a thread with this title.

I think one problem is that it seems unattainable for lots of people.  You have to devote a lot of time reading and understanding to be able to communicate with others and even then it's easy to get bogged down.  I pick up what I can tangentially but I spend far more time studying history because that's more of a passion for me.  For instance, I read Republic from a historical perspective, not a philosophical one.

Excellent post. You touched on a number of things I have deep down feelings about.

First off: intelligent theists

A really good online friend of mine is a philosophy professor at a Christian university. He's completely sympathetic to atheism. He just isn't an atheist. I love our exchanges. Most of the time, we don't butt heads. We try our best to see the other's POV.

There is a "charitable Christianity" that most atheists (myself included) tend to ignore when they criticize the religion. But I think it's for good reason. Most Christians don't practice this "charitable form" of the religion. THEY make all these Facebook and Twitter posts and say the stupidest things imaginable, and according to them, THAT'S what Christianity is. 

I find it best to put myself into two different "modes" when criticizing Christianity. A colloquial mode and a charitable mode. Sometimes one is appropriate, sometimes the other is. As an atheist, I think both interpretations of the religion are false. But a good criticism of one doesn't always translate to a good criticism of the other. Of course there are many more than these two modes one could adopt, but these two get the job done. There's really no sense in coming up with an infinitude of modes from which to argue. Maybe fundamentalism could be its own mode. To me, fundamentalism is the height of ignorance. Even more disdainful than "colloquial Christianity"... but, then again, fundamentalism is kinda mixed in with colloquial Christianity.

***

Second: the average person's interest in philosophy.

Didn't mean to browbeat anyone. In the final analysis, I'm kind of okay with the average person not giving two fucks about philosophy. After all, not everyone is interested in art from the Hellenistic period or 19th century literature... but such things are worthwhile to study nonetheless. Only a fool goes around thinking people should be faulted for not having interest in 19th century literature. Same could apply with philosophy. Philosophers take interest in parsing out abstract things that (seemingly) have no impact on anything anyone cares about.

But, by the same token, the average person wants to make general statements that are founded on ethical or metaphysical principles. And by no means are these principles uncontroversial. Yet folks want to brashly advance arguments using these controversial precepts as silent premises. In short, they want to say the kinds of things philosophers say... they just don't want to be careful about it. When I see this kind of thing, it reminds me how valuable that rigorous study of philosophy is.

Or put another way:

What do you call someone who considers themselves an expert on ethics, metaphysics, and most of philosophy?

---

The average person.

---

And what do you call one of these people after they realize that they actually know very little about what is philosophically true?

---

A philosopher.

---

[Ahriman]

I am not sympathetic to atheism, at all, but I still try to see the value in the atheist perspective. And those people making inane posts on social media? That  is a valid form of Christianity, arguably the most authentic form. Even back when I practiced Catholicism, I never considered myself a Christian. Catholicism isn't pure Christianity in the first place, it's more like a hybrid of paganism and vaguely Christian ideals.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Apply here.

Back to the OP...just for fun, what are the qualities of a good chew toy anyway. I would suggest that high self regard, oversensitivity, and stubborness are all essential.



<shit, that's me!>

[HappySkeptic]

I am not sympathetic to atheism, at all, but I still try to see the value in the atheist perspective. And those people making inane posts on social media? That  is a valid form of Christianity, arguably the most authentic form. Even back when I practiced Catholicism, I never considered myself a Christian. Catholicism isn't pure Christianity in the first place, it's more like a hybrid of paganism and vaguely Christian ideals.

Inane posts are a valid and authentic form of ignorance.  I don't care what religion or non-religion the person identifies with.

I have to say that fundamentalism is brain-dead stupid, but it is authentic to the holy texts.  If a person truly believes that their holy texts are given word-for-word by a God, then that person MUST become a fundamentalist to be honest to those beliefs (though how they deal with contradictions, I don't know).

Modern "feel good" Christianity exists by explaining away or ignoring all the embarrassing bits of the holy texts.  I think that's a good idea (though they should ignore most of the rest as well), but it certainly isn't authentic to the bible.

[Ahriman]

I am not sympathetic to atheism, at all, but I still try to see the value in the atheist perspective. And those people making inane posts on social media? That  is a valid form of Christianity, arguably the most authentic form. Even back when I practiced Catholicism, I never considered myself a Christian. Catholicism isn't pure Christianity in the first place, it's more like a hybrid of paganism and vaguely Christian ideals.

Inane posts are a valid and authentic form of ignorance.  I don't care what religion or non-religion the person identifies with.

I have to say that fundamentalism is brain-dead stupid, but it is authentic to the holy texts.  If a person truly believes that their holy texts are given word-for-word by a God, then that person MUST become a fundamentalist to be honest to those beliefs (though how they deal with contradictions, I don't know).

Modern "feel good" Christianity exists by explaining away or ignoring all the embarrassing bits of the holy texts.  I think that's a good idea (though they should ignore most of the rest as well), but it certainly isn't authentic to the bible.

It's a good thing the Bible has little to do with Catholicism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am not sympathetic to atheism, at all, but I still try to see the value in the atheist perspective. And those people making inane posts on social media? That  is a valid form of Christianity, arguably the most authentic form. Even back when I practiced Catholicism, I never considered myself a Christian. Catholicism isn't pure Christianity in the first place, it's more like a hybrid of paganism and vaguely Christian ideals.

Christianity takes many outward forms as expressed in different cultures and even individuals. Personally, I find the mystical core both fascinating and compelling.

As for athiesm, it is only one possible conclusion of applied skepticism. And it is interesting to see the various outward forms of belief resulting from all the different kinds of patches atheisticly inclined skeptics put over the "god shaped hole" in Man's heart.

[Spongebob]

A really good online friend of mine is a philosophy professor at a Christian university. He's completely sympathetic to atheism. He just isn't an atheist. I love our exchanges. Most of the time, we don't butt heads. We try our best to see the other's POV.

There is a "charitable Christianity" that most atheists (myself included) tend to ignore when they criticize the religion. But I think it's for good reason. Most Christians don't practice this "charitable form" of the religion. THEY make all these Facebook and Twitter posts and say the stupidest things imaginable, and according to them, THAT'S what Christianity is. 

I find it best to put myself into two different "modes" when criticizing Christianity. A colloquial mode and a charitable mode. Sometimes one is appropriate, sometimes the other is. As an atheist, I think both interpretations of the religion are false. But a good criticism of one doesn't always translate to a good criticism of the other. Of course there are many more than these two modes one could adopt, but these two get the job done. There's really no sense in coming up with an infinitude of modes from which to argue. Maybe fundamentalism could be its own mode. To me, fundamentalism is the height of ignorance. Even more disdainful than "colloquial Christianity"... but, then again, fundamentalism is kinda mixed in with colloquial Christianity.

The intelligent Christians I mentioned before were quite embarrassed and disdainful of many other Christians, fundies for sure, and Catholics for that matter.  Although they sympathized with them for various reasons, I kept hearing them explain how wrong those people were about the religion they proclaimed to practice.  This was often a source of conflict between us because to me, he's describing at least 90% of all Christians, maybe more.

My favorite sport is to bring up religion while hanging out around a diverse group of Christians.  Get them going on a topic like predestination and then just sit back and enjoy.  Who needs atheists when you have other Christians around?

Second: the average person's interest in philosophy.

Didn't mean to browbeat anyone. In the final analysis, I'm kind of okay with the average person not giving two fucks about philosophy. After all, not everyone is interested in art from the Hellenistic period or 19th century literature... but such things are worthwhile to study nonetheless. Only a fool goes around thinking people should be faulted for not having interest in 19th century literature. Same could apply with philosophy. Philosophers take interest in parsing out abstract things that (seemingly) have no impact on anything anyone cares about.

But, by the same token, the average person wants to make general statements that are founded on ethical or metaphysical principles. And by no means are these principles uncontroversial. Yet folks want to brashly advance arguments using these controversial precepts as silent premises. In short, they want to say the kinds of things philosophers say... they just don't want to be careful about it. When I see this kind of thing, it reminds me how valuable that rigorous study of philosophy is.

I'm no philosopher but I'm keenly aware of my shortcomings.  I do know enough to be shocked by how little some people understand while they broadcast their homespun "logic" as if one could have mastered it by reading the editorial section of their local newspaper.

[Ahriman]

I am not sympathetic to atheism, at all, but I still try to see the value in the atheist perspective. And those people making inane posts on social media? That  is a valid form of Christianity, arguably the most authentic form. Even back when I practiced Catholicism, I never considered myself a Christian. Catholicism isn't pure Christianity in the first place, it's more like a hybrid of paganism and vaguely Christian ideals.

Christianity takes many outward forms as expressed in different cultures and even individuals. Personally, I find the mystical core both fascinating and compelling.

As for athiesm, it is only one possible conclusion of applied skepticism. And it is interesting to see the various outward forms of belief resulting from all the different kinds of patches atheisticly inclined skeptics put over the "god shaped hole" in Man's heart.

Would you consider Socialism one of those forms of belief?

[HappySkeptic]

As for athiesm, it is only one possible conclusion of applied skepticism. And it is interesting to see the various outward forms of belief resulting from all the different kinds of patches atheisticly inclined skeptics put over the "god shaped hole" in Man's heart.

Yeah, just no.

We all have human needs, and it is only your own bias and presumption that any of those needs are "god shaped".

Perhaps they are for you.  Perhaps your God exactly conforms to the shapes of your fears and needs.  If so, I suggest that YOU created your God to be that exact shape.

For me, your Christian God doesn't haven anything close to the correct "fit" for my human needs, if the the thing did exist.  Eternal life?  Boring and meaningless.  Comforting?  Not when the thing can't even prove its existence.  Provides meaning?  Not at all - I find meaning in life, people, and this moment.

[Neo-Scholastic]

LOL...I was thinking primarily of various strategies to tacitly infuse physical reduction with intangible concepts like functions and dispositions.