If time travel were somehow possible, I wonder how upset believers in Zeus would be if I told them what they believed in was a load of crap.
Probably depends on who you met. If it was a bunch of Epicurians they's probably say "Yes, but at least it's our crap, so what?". Others might toss you out on your ear.
Of course, if you sought to persuade them of an alternative rather than denounce them you might get somewhere - it worked for St Paul.
Your atheism example is not something that I would characterize atheists as actually believing in; you would have to provide greater detail about why you think that is true. Likewise, your theist example isn't actually an example of that group misunderstanding the other side. That they think belief in god is obvious and fundamental is a conclusion that they've reached. They may be wrong in that conclusion, but that doesn't mean they're naive or ignorant about what atheists argue. They just reject the atheist's reasoning.For example, there is a recurrent theme of characterising any sort of Theism as sort of just ordinary secular life with a personal irrational belief tacked onto it, which is to say the least an extreme caricature of something that is at heart (now and historically) a communal rather then individual thing.
I would need to see evidence, or at least a counter-argument, that the Dawkins argument you cited is wrong and that it makes his general ideas ignorant.for ignorance, then for example there's Dawkins' citing of Sam Harris' 'Letter to a Christian Nation' in chapter 6 of the God Delusion
I'm not convinced that the "middle ground" is any more sensible. In fact, it may be true that one side is right that it shouldn't compromise on its position, and that it is staking out the sensible ground and the middle is really the insensible ground. Any Christian who believes in a judgmental god would certainly claim that one cannot compromise with godlessness. The way to argue against this position is not to claim that they really, really need to compromise for the good of civil conversation; their beliefs would necessitate the rejection of that view based upon the fundamental premise of a god who doesn't want them to compromise.If we were to rely only on polemic though - as we so often do in politics for example - there's a tendency to sharply polarise the debate, miss out all the thoroughly sensible people who fall in the middle and miss the real opportunities (if in this case there are any) for the sort of sensible tolerant compromise that you'd expect in a sensible tolerant society.
So I watched this last night.
Hitchens v. Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
Terribly frustrating to watch.
This is the first time I've heard of it, but one can definitely sympathize with that view. Even making a simple claim that god is perfectly good requires a definition of good that varies between individuals or groups. I don't think that it is impossible to agree upon a definition of god, but people won't ever agree because they smuggle in their own personal biases in constructing a conception of god (even if that conception is based on already agreed upon doctrine, such as Catholicism or Islam). However, doesn't this argument merely lead to agnosticism or atheism? Why do we need a new word for it?
the last of the many legendary contests won by the British philosopher A. J. Ayer was his encounter with Mike Tyson in 1987. As related by Ben Rogers in ''A. J. Ayer: A Life,'' Ayer -- small, frail, slight as a sparrow and then 77 years old -- was entertaining a group of models at a New York party when a girl ran in screaming that her friend was being assaulted in a bedroom. The parties involved turned out to be Tyson and Naomi Campbell. ''Do you know who . . . I am?'' Tyson asked in disbelief when Ayer urged him to desist: ''I'm the heavyweight champion of the world.'' ''And I am the former Wykeham professor of logic,'' Ayer answered politely. ''We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men.''
So I watched this last night.
Hitchens v. Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
Terribly frustrating to watch.
It probably depends upon how you would define such things as atheism and belief. If atheism for you is the explicit belief that there is no god, then they are probably incompatible positions. But if atheism for you is merely the rejection of theism, then it possible, in my opinion, to reconcile them, especially if one arrives at that conclusion through occam's razor. For example, if the entire question of god is meaningless, then one can reject it as an unnecessary belief, which would qualify one as an atheist under the definition that atheism is merely the rejection of theism. One doesn't necessarily have to find the question meaningful to disbelief in it.While in sense it does lead to atheism but we igtheist don't call ourselves atheist since any religious discourse is meaningless. Religious language is unverifiable. Claim "There is no God" is for us as meaningless and metaphysical an utterance as claim "God exists". Agnostics and atheists take stance that the statement God exists as a meaningful hypothesis while igtheist don't.
And for AAequal AJ Ayer is good place to start with igtheism (he doesn't call it igtheism tho) and since I know you are from Finland you should read Kari Enqvist. He goes great lenghts into igtheism. There are couple of Swedish authors too but not sure if you can read swedish.
edit. Ayer was the man!
Why frustrating?
Hahaha!Because Craig took a shit on Hitchens...
Yup.Haven't seen it yet, but let me guess:
Hitchens was eloquent, witty, and filled with vitriol at the eviller parts of religion, while Craig was evasive, attempted to dictate the terms of the debate, and claimed victory when Hitchens largely ignored his terms.
Because Craig took a shit on Hitchens...
Hitchens appeared a bit nervous and clumsy at times, but i haven't seen much (if at all) vitriol.Haven't seen it yet, but let me guess:
Hitchens was eloquent, witty, and filled with vitriol at the eviller parts of religion, while Craig was evasive, attempted to dictate the terms of the debate, and claimed victory when Hitchens largely ignored his terms.
Haven't seen it yet, but let me guess:
Hitchens was eloquent, witty, and filled with vitriol at the eviller parts of religion, while Craig was evasive, attempted to dictate the terms of the debate, and claimed victory when Hitchens largely ignored his terms.
in fact, Asia has almost always held most of the world's population,
NO! Philosophy relies on rational arguments, Craig does no such thing! He is not using 'philosophical logic', as you put it, he's (intentionally) using a lot of logical fallacies in order to be percieved as winning the debate by people who aren't able to follow the discussion or are biased. He does the exact thing he claims not to: discuss like a politician.The problem is that it is clear that Craig has a Ph.D in philosophy and he uses that philosophical logic in his arguments however unsound they may be...and Hitchens can't follow and seems to just turn up to give some rhetorical jabs here and there...and that's to be expected philosophy is not his field. This is also the reason why Dawkins will not debate Craig...because the realm is philosophy and neither Hitchens nor Dawkins can compete.
NO! Philosophy relies on rational arguments, Craig does no such thing! He is not using 'philosophical logic', as you put it, he's (intentionally) using a lot of logical fallacies in order to be percieved as winning the debate by people who aren't able to follow the discussion or are biased. He does the exact thing he claims not to: discuss like a politician.
Okay, so you agree?One person was conducting an academic debate, the other thought he was hosting a polemical talk show...
You were referring to Craig as conducting an academic debate? I JUST now attacked that argument of yours, in the post you quoted, and instead of positing a counter-argument, you merely say the same and keep on talking as if I said nothing. Then why are you replying to my post? What Hitchens said has nothing to do with my argument on Craig's style of (non)debating.Case in point Hitchen brought up the Palestinian baby and religious atrocities...what do these things have to do with answering the topic of the debate "the existence of god"?
Absolutely nothing and he just wanted to throw some jabs in typical Hitchen style which is fine but it won't win you any debates...but is quite excellent for quotes and youtube videos of Hitchen best jabs at theism.
Case in point Hitchen brought up the Palestinian baby and religious atrocities...what do these things have to do with answering the topic of the debate "the existence of god"?
Are there any former believers in this thread, that actually steered away from their religion because of the sort of arguments by prominent atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins?
The more I watch these sorts of debates and bickering, the more I'm inclined to believe that deconversion is more of a personal process. I feel like very few people are ever swayed by any of these sorts of arguments, no matter how logically sound they are.
What started the deconstruction was definitely personal outlook and unrelated to these arguments.
Yeah, this is sort of the direction where my informal hypothesis is heading. You can make all the arguments you want in favor of secularism or atheism or whatever. But if the audience is unwilling to give your arguments any merit in the first place, it will mean nothing.
No matter how strong the argument is, you still need some sort of "catalyst" that gets the ball rolling. Some sort of event or change in values that makes the doubt or skepticism possible in the first place. And I feel that this catalyst rarely comes from someone that youmight consider to be an enemy or opponent.
It's a bit chicken/egg, imo.
The presence of such debates and lectures probably feeds into the "catalyst" and vice versa.
Yeah, this is sort of the direction where my informal hypothesis is heading. You can make all the arguments you want in favor of secularism or atheism or whatever. But if the audience is unwilling to give your arguments any merit in the first place, it will mean nothing.
No matter how strong the argument is, you still need some sort of "catalyst" that gets the ball rolling. Some sort of event or change in values that makes the doubt or skepticism possible. And I feel that this catalyst rarely comes from someone that you might consider to be an enemy or opponent. I feel like very few people have actually started doubting their religion because of anything that people like Dawkins or Hitchens have said.
Perhaps. But when somebody like Dawkins starts spitting fire about how terrible God is and how religion is corrupting humanity, I always feel like he's doing more harm than good.
The fact that he is willing to take such a seemingly "aggressive" stance and risk being struck down by god has probably impressed a few theists.
....really?
"This guy is going to burn in hell for all eternity for his blasphemy, but I like the cut of his jib!"
A friend of mine is an atheist now and he credits "The God Delusion" for starting him on the path.
Death in the family --> Anger at God --> Questioning Faith --> God Delusion --> Atheist. But I doubt he would have really continued on the path if literature like The God Delusion wasn't readily available. He would have stopped at Questioning and then just went along with it until he convinced himself.He may credit the book, but I feel like something had to have happened that would have made him curious enough to read it. Why did your friend pick up the book in the first place?
Are there any former believers in this thread, that actually steered away from their religion because of the sort of arguments by prominent atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins?
The more I watch these sorts of debates and bickering, the more I'm inclined to believe that deconversion is more of a personal process. I feel like very few people are ever swayed by any of these sorts of arguments, no matter how logically sound they are.
Meh. Not all of us think atheists or members of other religions are going to hell. A friend of mine is an atheist now and he credits "The God Delusion" for starting him on the path.
I don't think you should delete people from your Facebook friends list if they are still people you associate with/like/are cool with.Someone I knew from church texted me asking me "why I left" and said they were considering it, too.
Awkward.
I also feel kind of weird blogging about my atheism and all that when 70% of the people on my Facebook are from church.
Should I delete them?
Yeah.I don't think you should delete people from your Facebook friends list if they are still people you associate with/like/are cool with.
When you grow up in/around the church and become indoctrinated with Christianity at a young age, despite maybe some secretly held beliefs, you're pretty much brainless.It's not like a 16 years old is brainless.
That's true.If they don't want to hear your atheist opinions, they'll block you; besides, if you lose your faith by reading a few comments on facebook, it wasn't that strong to start with.
One reason more NOT to remove them.When you grow up in/around the church and become indoctrinated with Christianity at a young age, despite maybe some secretly held beliefs, you're pretty much brainless.
Yep, that's it ultimately.But if they're going to be condescending or make stupid judgments I should realize they're just fake friends.