Atheism Isn't About Philosophy, Either.

[Uccisore]

Mastriani

Currently, I (atheist) am engaging you (theist) in discourse. It serves me no purpose to make you look bad. There is no intent or agenda, expressed, implied or overtly shown, to win anything. I am anything but clever, it simply isn’t a skill that I possess. My philosophy skill is woefully limited, so you have the advantage. The short of it, I am no threat to you in any form, in this medium.

Well, this is true, but you also aren’t saying anything beyond “Hi”, as far as I can tell. If we actually got into some discussion about whether or not God exists, then we’d have to see. The fact that you don’t participate in those sorts of discussions, as a rule, tells me you might be the sort of atheist that manages to escape the trap I’m talking about!
I’m not sure what subject you want to get into with me, other than a presentation of yourself.

Tabula Rasa

One might observe that a theist has to work harder than a non-theist to build a coherent world-view,

That 'has to' is a very tricky word.  You're right in the sense that being a theist [i]implies[/i] that one has a world view, and so the obligation is there by nature. 'Non-theist' doesn't imply a thing- it includes the atheist rhetorician, it also includes penguins and toadstools, and none of them is any more required to present a worldview than the other. 
So, a theist has to work harder to build a coherent world view, because by claiming 'theist' for themselves, they have already admitted to having one, which is a point of 'weakness' in so far as philosophy is a 'conflict'.  This is directly related to why atheists never tire of pointing out that atheism isn't a belief, position, world-view, or anything else. They know that defending things requires effort and exposes one to criticism. 
On the other hand, if the non-theist is something more than a scripted entity in a unique conversation, then presumably they DO believe things that require just as much justifaction as theism-  that murder is really immoral, for instance.  Or that it isn't. These things don't matter as long as the subject is always theism.  Or, if they do matter, they aren't touched as long as the 'non-theist' won't admit to a position. 
 Simply put, I think you're defining the 'theist' by what we know about him as a full person, and 'non-theist' by the sliver of a role they play in a certain kind of conversation. 

Non-theists sleep reasonably soundly, comforted by things like entropy, evolution, adaptive psychology, game-theory, all of which do not change from one Sunday to the next.

I won’t question the unchanging bedrock of things like psychology, but I do think it’s odd that you’re somehow defining a group of people by what they don’t believe, and then defending that ‘group’ on the grounds of how stable the things they do believe are. If non-theists (toadstools included) really do feel comforted and non-conflicted by the things they believe even when they blatantly contradict the ideas held by their fellow non-theists, it just goes to show they play the same sad game with each other as they do with us.

[Maytacera]

@Uccisore

Yes, and that kind of statement just makes my point. Anything, anything to gain a rhetorical one up- regardless of the cost.

If atheism isn't a position, then what does that say about 'philosophers' who refuse to discuss anything other than atheism?  Seems to me, they are rendered pointless.

Now this is rather frustrating, and do hope the statement wasn’t based on the statement that started the whole thread.

The fact that I don’t find it intelligent to believe in god doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to discuss religion.

[Tab]

Hey Ucc.

Bless me, I do believe I have been used. I said all those things …? Whoo, I’m a whole lot better at this than I thought.

You had claimed that atheists were a lazy bunch of stone-throwers, who slob about sniping while the theists do all the reconciling of conflicting influences into some grand philosophic scheme… And I was simply telling you why theists still sweat while non-theists chill. We chill because our metaphysics is simply physics. Our homework has been done sir, and you are blocking the TV.

One might observe that a theist has to work harder than a non-theist to build a coherent world-view,

That ‘has to’ is a very tricky word. You’re right in the sense that being a theist implies that one has a world view, and so the obligation is there by nature.

God I hate multi-quotes. Anyway - You really took a random bone and ran all the way down the hill with it. That tricky ol’ ‘has to’ is not linked in anyway to implying a theist’s, or a non-theist’s, obligation to philosophise or to not. A theist may happily go through life without a single solitary original thought passing between his or her ears - and when they die, just as happily claim “I was just following orders sir.” So too may a non-theist ramble through life shagging and drinking and scratching his or her hind-quaters, and on his/her death-bed equally claim to have been simply following the innate path of Pan unfalteringly.

No, that ‘has to’ was linked to effort, to work. If, if a theist and a non-theist sit down in a room together with some A4 and some pencils, and start an essay with the title “My theory of everything” with the addendum “for extra points - please produce something internally coherent”… Then the non-theist will whistle through it and be home in time for tea, whilst the theist will gnaw his pencil down to a stub, then start on his fingernails.

Why…? because the theist has to do twice the work. The NT says: the sun emits light generated by burning hydrogen whilst forming an heavy-element core which will collapse under its own weight in x-million years (see attached formula) killing all life in a sphere of blah-blah… Whereas the T has to say exactly the same thing and then add another half page as to why an all singing, all dancing, all loving, all omnipotent God, unhindered by such fripparies as physics, would permit such a thing to happen to a bunch of innocent beings he made in the first place.

That’s all that ‘has to’ was saying.

Rhetoric warning Simply put, I think you’re defining the ‘theist’ by what we know about him as a full person, and ‘non-theist’ by the sliver of a role they play in a certain kind of conversation. Rhetoric warning

=D> You’ve been dying to say that, haven’t you. And why not, its a lovely line. But then is black simply a ‘sliver of a role it plays in a certain kind’ of contrast with white…? I don’t know.

I do think it’s odd that you’re somehow defining a group of people by what they don’t believe

What I think is your mistake is to assume it matters at all to a non-theist. A theist marks himself as ‘created’ and revolves his life around it. A Non-theist just shrugs, marks himself as a fluctuation of probability, thanks his lucky stars for being here at all and gets on with life oblivious. There is no non-bible to read, no non-churchs to go to, no non-preists to listen to and no non-nuns to fantasize about.

Let me twiddle with your line: (For the devil doth twist the words of the believer )

Simply put, I think you’re defining the ‘theist’ by what we know about him as a full person, and ‘non-theist’ by the sliver of a role they play in a certain kind of conversation.

size=85[/size]

Simply put, theists define themselves utterly by the single sliver of a role they play in a certain kind of conversation, while non-theists define themselves by everything else.

Like it…?

[Ned_Flanders]

@Tabula Rasa

What I think is your mistake is to assume it matters at all to a non-theist. A theist marks himself as ‘created’ and revolves his life around it. A Non-theist just shrugs, marks himself as a fluctuation of probability, thanks his lucky stars for being here at all and gets on with life oblivious.

Isn’t this just repeating Ucc’s point?

You portray a “non-theist” as someone who would have no real interest in philosophy.

I’m sure there are non-theists who would disagree with such ambivalence to the deeper questions in life. But, if that’s how you see “non-theism”, I really don’t see your argument with Ucc’s previous statements. The only real philosophy that a “non-theist” might be interested in, is simply a game to win or lose, without any deeper ramifications.

[Mastriani]

Well, this is true, but you also aren’t saying anything beyond “Hi”, as far as I can tell. If we actually got into some discussion about whether or not God exists, then we’d have to see. The fact that you don’t participate in those sorts of discussions, as a rule, tells me you might be the sort of atheist that manages to escape the trap I’m talking about!
I’m not sure what subject you want to get into with me, other than a presentation of yourself.

Your thread, and I am waiting for you to engage.

I’ve given you a few opportunities, but you haven’t really said anything for/against/with anything I’ve said.

[Uccisore]

You had claimed that atheists were a lazy bunch of stone-throwers, who slob about sniping while the theists do all the reconciling of conflicting influences into some grand philosophic scheme… And I was simply telling you why theists still sweat while non-theists chill. We chill
because our metaphysics is simply physics.

Except for those non-theists who engage in metaphysics, including those who deny the existence of matter altogether, you mean? What about the non-theists who deny the existence of everything but themselves, or the ones who believe the world is governed by the actions of spirits, none of whom rise to the definition of 'god'? 
See, you're using one definition when it suits you- sometimes the definition of 'non-theist' is just somebody without the burden of defending theism.  But then, you're using another definition when it suits you too- sometimes a 'non-theist' is a very specific sort of materialist, apparently. 
 Now see, I don't have any problem with a very specific sort of materialist, other than their being incorrect.  You can have lots of discussions and debates of theism vs. a very specific sort of materialism. If the typical atheist stone-thrower would [i]even go that far[/i], then that would be a huge improvement.  Perhaps when they leveled some argument against theism, it would be fair play to show why that argument applies to something entailed by their materialism.  Tit-for-tat, instead of just tit. That's my point. 

No, that ‘has to’ was linked to effort, to work. If, if a theist and a non-theist sit down in a room together with some A4 and some pencils, and start an essay with the title “My theory of everything” with the addendum “for extra points - please produce something internally coherent”… Then the non-theist will whistle through it and be home in time for tea, whilst the theist will gnaw his pencil down to a stub, then start on his fingernails.

What I will say is that if the theist and the non-theist are talking to EACH OTHER, about their titular positions, then it will always boil down to the theist doing all the work, and the non-theist shrugging and saying, “Sorry, but I’m arbitrarily not convinced, yet.” If they really want to go the extra mile, they may quote the reason some famous non-theist gave for his personal arbitrary failure to be convinced, but that’s where it ends. If the non-theists job were to defend materialism, and not merely to be a pain in the ass to the theist, then we’d call them a materialist, and then things would be on an even keel- they’d have their own problems, their own claim to stake, and their own opportunities for criticism.

What I think is your mistake is to assume it matters at all to a non-theist.

I don’t think it matters to toadstools. Could you be more specific?

Ned Flanders

That’s basically it. What we’re left with is asking ourselves how it happens that non-theists choose to talk to theists about theism, and we aren’t left with an answers that ought to inspire the theists to put any effort into the conversation, for example:

Maytacera

The fact that I don’t find it intelligent to believe in god doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to discuss religion.

which seems to say that some people just enjoy talking down to their percieved intellectual inferiors.

[Tab]

Hey Ned,

You portray a “non-theist” as someone who would have no real interest in philosophy.

Hey, I’m just here throwing horseshoes. I objected to Ucc’s calling of non-theist’s lazy, that’s all. A dyed-in-the-wool atheist is just a silly, if not more so, than a theist, for he has all of the hinderences of belief, without any of the fringe benefits of the church.

Certainly I portray a non-theist as someone who would have no real interest in spiritual philosophy. There are other kinds you know.

[Tab]

I begin to believe that the reason you find such discussions pointless is that you talk at, or near someone, rather than with them, then wonder why their shoulders begin to droop.

Anyway, tomorrow for you Ucc. It’s late.

[LukeRazor]

@Uccisore

You can have lots of discussions and debates of theism vs. a very specific sort of materialism. If the typical atheist stone-thrower would even go that far, then that would be a huge improvement. Perhaps when they leveled some argument against theism, it would be fair play to show why that argument applies to something entailed by their materialism. Tit-for-tat, instead of just tit. That’s my point.

Most of the discussions I’ve had on this board have actaully been of that nature so I’m not sure what your gripe is?

That’s basically it. What we’re left with is asking ourselves how it happens that non-theists choose to talk to theists about theism, and we aren’t left with an answers that ought to inspire the theists to put any effort into the conversation, for example:

Maytacera

The fact that I don’t find it intelligent to believe in god doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to discuss religion.

which seems to say that some people just enjoy talking down to their percieved intellectual inferiors.

What’s the group version of ad hominem?

You are lumping all non-theists together based on an assumed motive which is different to when non-theists group theists together based on some assumed beliefs inherent (it seems) in theism eg “god the creator of the universe”

As I was saying in the earlier post atheism generally seems to go hand in hand with some sort of rationalism / materialism / emperisism / scientific naturalism.

There is certainly a tendency to an attitude of “convince me” because of the tendency of the theists to argue outside of the realms of shared evidence (eg faith), or with ,it seems, over-reaching conclusions from shared evidence (young earth creationism). This is not to say that all theists would take these positions but it is not uncommon.

[Carleas]

Uccisore, philosophy is not an inherently positive pursuit. Socrates is arguably the father of philosophy, and his form was entirely negative. There is value in analyzing a theory and locating its internal inconsistencies. What it comes does to in this case is that theism is a positive claim, and it’s perfectly philosophically valid to pick at that statement’s internal inconsistencies. Yes, there are atheists who behave badly, but there are theists on the same coin. Most anti-theist arguing is attacking a system, not simply “saying, ‘Sorry, but I’m arbitrarily not convinced, yet.’”
It would be a different argument to compare theism, or even a specific brand of theism, to a more or less specific brand of materialism. The discussion would probably be fruitful, especially if an objective standard could be defined for determining which specific system is ‘better’. However, the fruitfulness of such a conversation does not diminish the validity of a conversation that deals only with one system, or with one tenet of a broad set of systems. I can tell you right here, without positing any system of my own, that a system that contains the statement “x and not-x” among its proposed truths is illogical. It might be a live claim that the system is still more logical than anything I can produce, but it is still illogical on its own.
Is the claim being made, that these legendary non-theists are attacking, one that says that religion is a true and logically consistent system, or is it merely saying it’s the best we’ve got?

[Disciple_of_light]

@Uccisore

From another thread:

I don’t believe in God because I was never under the impression that an intelligent person ought to. It was never presented to me as being ‘on the table’ of things that a sane person in today’s world could possibly believe.

And that’s fine, but it makes you unfit to do Philosophy of Religion, because either your exposure to the source material has been horribly disadvantaged (no fault to yourself) and you have some catching up to do before you can hold your own in a conversation, or else this thing we’re doing here just isn’t your bag, and you ought to find another hobby

@Soldout

Given the universe and its magnitute, the stars planets and all the other galaxies & universes not even known to man, what research have you made to qualify to make a statement that there is no god? Out of all the knowlege there is to know, man does not even posess the smallest fraction of a percentage of all the knowlege there is to know. Even if we exaggerate and say we have 1% of All knowlege what make you think, with such limited knowlege, you can say there is no god? Dont you think that in the other 99% of knowlege we dont posess could possibly have evidence of the existance of a god? How do you know for a fact there is no god? god could be an invisible dwarf sitting on pluto for all you know. So my point is Athiesm is a “Faith” or a “Belief” system because it is not base on scientific factTo conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion

If atheism isn’t a position, then what does that say about ‘philosophers’ who refuse to discuss anything other than atheism? Seems to me, they are rendered pointless

Uccisore says that that the problem he has with atheists is an online one,an internet phenomena.Good question,what exactly is the reason for spending all your time online arguing about God not existing with theists,why are you not just living by the worldview you have conviction in and discussing it with other atheists at most,assuming your educated,have been through it all already with theists and rejected the idea of God,why visit religious forums at all?

[Disciple_of_light]

@Uccisore

From another thread:

I don’t believe in God because I was never under the impression that an intelligent person ought to. It was never presented to me as being ‘on the table’ of things that a sane person in today’s world could possibly believe.

And that’s fine, but it makes you unfit to do Philosophy of Religion, because either your exposure to the source material has been horribly disadvantaged (no fault to yourself) and you have some catching up to do before you can hold your own in a conversation, or else this thing we’re doing here just isn’t your bag, and you ought to find another hobby

@Soldout

Given the universe and its magnitute, the stars planets and all the other galaxies & universes not even known to man, what research have you made to qualify to make a statement that there is no god? Out of all the knowlege there is to know, man does not even posess the smallest fraction of a percentage of all the knowlege there is to know. Even if we exaggerate and say we have 1% of All knowlege what make you think, with such limited knowlege, you can say there is no god? Dont you think that in the other 99% of knowlege we dont posess could possibly have evidence of the existance of a god? How do you know for a fact there is no god? god could be an invisible dwarf sitting on pluto for all you know. So my point is Athiesm is a “Faith” or a “Belief” system because it is not base on scientific factTo conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion

If atheism isn’t a position, then what does that say about ‘philosophers’ who refuse to discuss anything other than atheism? Seems to me, they are rendered pointless

Uccisore says that that the problem he has with atheists is an online one,an internet phenomena.Good question,what exactly is the reason for spending all your time online arguing about God not existing with theists,why are you not just living by the worldview you have conviction in and discussing it with other atheists at most,assuming your educated,and have been through it all before with theists and rejected the idea of God,why visit religious forums at all or even comment on religious issues?

[LukeRazor]

@Disciple of light

Uccisore says that that the problem he has with atheists is an online one,an internet phenomena.Good question,what exactly is the reason for spending all your time online arguing about God not existing with theists,why are you not just living by the worldview you have conviction in and discussing it with other atheists at most,assuming your educated,and have been through it all before with theists and rejected the idea of God,why visit religious forums at all or even comment on religious issues?

That argument kinda cuts both ways don’t you think ? It takes 2 to tango.

Are we not allowed to enjoy the cut and thrust of a lively debate. I am kinda offended with the characterisation of atheists as mere “stone throwers”. Surely flexing our rhetorical muscles is the main reason most of us are here on this board is it not?

Uccisore must have had a bad x-mas coz he sure seems grumpier this year

[Disciple_of_light]

@LukeRazor

That argument kinda cuts both ways don’t you think ?

No I dont for obvious reasons,people that believe in God have a shared interest in finding out the nature of God,atheists by definition dont have this same interest,so its like uccisore says,you should find another hobby other than arguing with theists all day that God doesnt exist,its pointless

Are we not allowed to enjoy the cut and thrust of a lively debate

Your asking me to explain myself twice,as above in my previous post,you do have other forums to go to. Either that or just describe yourself as agnostic

I am kinda offended with the characterisation of atheists as mere “stone throwers”

Not all of them are,but uccisore is saying lots of them here can be,thats the gripe he has

Surely flexing our rhetorical muscles is the main reason most of us are here on this board is it not?

If your an atheist,go and discuss how best to live your life with another atheist,not someone who believes in God

Uccisore must have had a bad x-mas coz he sure seems grumpier this year

No,hes just tired of some atheists by the sounds of it

[LukeRazor]

Disciple of light

The point about cutting both ways and taking 2 to tango is that if the theist does not want to discuss these issues then don’t participate in the thread.

[Uccisore]

Carleas

Uccisore, philosophy is not an inherently positive pursuit. Socrates is arguably the father of philosophy, and his form was entirely negative. There is value in analyzing a theory and locating its internal inconsistencies.

Agreed so far.

What it comes does to in this case is that theism is a positive claim, and it’s perfectly philosophically valid to pick at that statement’s internal inconsistencies.

Also agreed, but philosophical validity is not what’s at stake here.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Suppose I decide that I think you’re a jerk, and I just want to make your life miserable. So, any time you post anything anywhere, I do my level best to criticize it, tear it apart, and make you look stupid. I read books, listen to lectures, and etc, all to make me better at humiliating you. Every time I do this, I do it with fair arguments, good points, standardly-acceptable philosophical approaches, and etc.- because I realize this is the most effective tactic in achieving my ends making you suffer. Whenever I read your words it is only to find out how best to twist them to make you seem foolish, and my other hobby is table tennis- I have no real interest in this kind of ‘intellectual’ stuff, outside my preoccupation with you.
Now, would my actions constitute philosophy, or would they not? I’m not saying that atheists are doing something analogous to the above (how could I know?), but what I am saying, is that there’s a level beyond what is philosophically considered a ‘legal move’ that I’m trying to examine, which I think is crucial to the whole enterprise.

LukeRazor

Are we not allowed to enjoy the cut and thrust of a lively debate. I am kinda offended with the characterisation of atheists as mere “stone throwers”. Surely flexing our rhetorical muscles is the main reason most of us are here on this board is it not?

I don't get it.  You say you resent the 'implication', and then flat out admit that what's implied is true?  That an atheist is training himself to flex rhetorical muscles and not actually do philosophy is precisely the problem I'm pointing to.  Combine it with this:

The point about cutting both ways and taking 2 to tango is that if the theist does not want to discuss these issues then don’t participate in the thread.

And the sum total of your statements that I’m getting is, “I’m here to play word games and defeat people who I consider my rivals in a sort of competition. If that’s not your aim, you shouldn’t talk to me”.

Re-read the thread title with that in mind, and you’ll see that’s really all I’m trying to say here.

[Uccisore]

Here’s a simple test to check for the kind of problem I’m talking about.

To any theist:

When an atheist asks you “Why do you believe in God?”

Instead of going into your arguments and evidence, hit them with this:

“I believe in God because materialism is absurd.”

(atheists, take a moment to think about how you would respond to that).

Now. If they (you) respond, “What, really? I’m a materialist, and I think it’s pretty sound, what’s your beef with it?” then that person is an atheist doing philosophy.

If they (you) respond with “Even if materialism was absurd, that wouldn’t entail that God exists!” then they (you) just tried to make a rhetorical power play and re-establish dominance in the conversation (i.e., I’m here to rag on YOUR beliefs buddy, not mine!), and they (you) aren’t actually interested in philosophy, just gamesmanship. Respond accordingly.

[Reality_Check]

Uccisore: I don’t get your obsession with physicalism (or “materialism” as you call it). If everything is physical, gods nevertheless might exist. If some things are non-physical, gods nevertheless might not exist.

Non-physicalism does not equal gods.

And, to you, what activity or activities constitutes “doing philosophy”? Can you define how you are using that phrase?

[Tab]

Hey Ucc, are we bored yet…? I suspect all you’re doing with this thread is a sophisticated bit of ranting. Trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: ie “maybe if I piss about long enough, all the atheists will get in a strop and bugger off, leaving me free to say 'Oh look, atheists not willing to put any effort into a discussion… again.”

Anyway, one more stab, only cos it’s you, and I’m on holiday.

Except for those non-theists who engage in metaphysics, including those who deny the existence of matter altogether, you mean? What about the non-theists who deny the existence of everything but themselves, or the ones who believe the world is governed by the actions of spirits, none of whom rise to the definition of ‘god’?

Ho-hum. Your point…? Are we trading madnesses now…? Christian Scientists…? Seventh-day adventists, Waco, or the population of Jonestown…? There are mad people wherever you look, and most of them are steeped in one belief or another, religious or not. From one perspective, matter is simply information, from another, I only have grounds to accept my own existance, not yours. At least these perspectives, though a little bizzare, have some logical grounds.

But you know all this, right…? So why are you bringing it up…? A theist has God solidly at the core of any philosophy he conjures, a non-theist doesn’t. Seems a simple enough definition to me.

See, you’re using one definition when it suits you- sometimes the definition of ‘non-theist’ is just somebody without the burden of defending theism.

I’m glad you share my perception of theism as a burden. An encumberence. Something that weighs you down. Sorry, just trying to be clear.

Now see, I don’t have any problem with a very specific sort of materialist, other than their being incorrect.

That’s a bit arbitrary isn’t it…? I thought that being arbitrary was an atheist gig…? I mean you say:

it will always boil down to the theist doing all the work, and the non-theist shrugging and saying, “Sorry, but I’m arbitrarily not convinced, yet.”

Look, I make a chocolate cake. It’s got flour, sugar, butter, chocolate - all it needs. It tastes yummy. Everybody agrees, as chocolate-cake recipes go, this one is the bees knees.
Then along comes someone who says, “Hmm, nice cake, but you know what it needs…? It needs a bit of lamp-post in it.”

[size=200]+[/size][size=200]=[/size] [size=200]?[/size]

Obviously, most cooks would laugh that guy outta the kitchen. Some exceptionally patient chef may ask “why”, then sit back, arms folded, waiting. Of course a theist has a lot of work to do - he’s the one with the lamp-post on his shoulder.

A non-theist is always going to say - “I’m not convinced”. Arbitrarily. Because all a theist has got to offer is a varient of:

*It’s true because this book says so. (Arbitrary book)
*It’s true because a whole bunch of other people believe it too. (fallicious)
*It’s true because I’ve seen/talked to God myself. (unprovable)
*It’s true because - well - something had to kick off all of existance didn’t it.

Remember Noely G - what absolutely convinced him, was in no way convincingly communicatable to me. Why…? How am I to be sure that God spoke to a man in a dream, or if a man dreamed he spoke to God…? I can see this, Noel couldn’t.

And you have told me a hundred times that the latter, which implies a ‘god of the gaps’ argument, is no longer where theism is at. The Cool theists have moved on. But to where, I have no idea, and neither, I suspect, has anyone else.

And this is the problem, not that atheists/non-theists are lazy, or stupid or unphilosophical, but that they know, right from the start, where the conversation is going to end up, which is exactly nowhere. You cannot convince me God exists, and I cannot convince you God doesn’t.

The difference between the two is that the theist is stuck in the loop, and the non-theist isn’t. The non-thiest can walk away from God, and keep on thinking usefully. A theist can’t, he is forever on his soap-box, trying to reconcile his huge great God with all the petty fuck-ups that exist at the social, historical and phenotypic levels of existance, because before he does this, he can’t move on to anything more productive.

This is your doom, and I suspect, the real source of your obvious anger in this thread.

[Uccisore]

Tabula Rasa

Hey Ucc, are we bored yet…? I suspect all you’re doing with this thread is a sophisticated bit of ranting. Trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: ie “maybe if I piss about long enough, all the atheists will get in a strop and bugger off, leaving me free to say 'Oh look, atheists not willing to put any effort into a discussion… again.”

Sophisticated? Thanks!

Ho-hum. Your point…? Are we trading madnesses now…? Christian Scientists…? Seventh-day adventists, Waco, or the population of Jonestown…? There are mad people wherever you look, and most of them are steeped in one belief or another, religious or not.

 Nono, that's not my point. Of course your right that any camp has it's silly people.  What I'm saying is that "Non-theist" doesn't mean "Materialists who don't buy into that supernatural crap", and you seem to be using it that way. A non-theist will often believe things just has 'hard' to defend as theism is. I'm not saying that to try and show that non-theists are silly, what I'm trying to show is that the atheist defines themselves as a 'non-theist' oftentimes [i]specifically[/i] to avoid letting anyone know what they actually believe about anything, because they want the emphasis to stay on criticizing, belittling, or whatever, the beliefs of someone else. But that damages honest philosophical discussion. I think it's a rhetorical move, directed by aims other than mutual investigation and development. 

And this is the problem, not that atheists/non-theists are lazy, or stupid or unphilosophical, but that they know, right from the start, where the conversation is going to end up, which is exactly nowhere. You cannot convince me God exists, and I cannot convince you God doesn’t.

I don’t have any disagreement with the above, at least, not insofar as it works to my purposes in this thread. Sure, I think that theism is defendable and in fact true, but the way you characterize atheistic thought on the matter is precisely what I think, too. Yes, atheists do know how all their conversations are going to end up, and they do know there’s no convincing to be done. They know that theism is the lamppost in the chocolate cake, and they know that when it comes to beliefs, they have it on easy street by comparison. It doesn’t matter if I agree with that or not, what matters is that’s a fair assessment of how atheists tend to see the debate.
Now, granting that, and then moving on to ask Why they start those conversations anyway, and you’ll have to concede my thread’s title, I suspect, and see in good measure why I wrote the thread in the first place. Maybe it is noble to attempt to argue people into submission who you ‘know’ are wrong for the cause of stamping out their belief system by any peaceful means necessary, that could be. Maybe it’s permissible to sharpen one’s claws on someone else’s back…the rightness of it aside, you can’t call it sincere philosophical inquiry. Also, the atheist still needs the theist to hold up their end of the conversation, and there’s sure not a lot of motivation for them to do so once we see that the atheist isn’t actually trying to investigate anything, come to consensus, or even convince, so much as they are badgering for their own amusement or social/political ends.