TromboneChat

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 15, 2017, 06:36AMI actually have read criticism of theism as well as criticism of biblical history, etc.  I believe Martin has as well.  Some of us just don't have our heads in the sand as you seem to imply.Many of us simply do have our heads in the sand--it's a human brain owner thing. If we think we don't handle information very differently based upon whether or not it resonates with us (among other arbitrary things), we're fooling ourselves and not taking adequate measures to manage it. Or rather we're simply taking even lesser measures than we should be able to take--I'm not sure we can take adequate measures, even if we operate in a system like professional science, but that's fundamentally what science and critical thinking are all about--the best existing paradigms for managing bias. Typically it's more or less the opposite of what religious indoctrination and practice are about--faith and all that.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 15, 2017, 06:36AMYou may not make recommendations, but your posts always assume that the skeptical position is a slam dunk.In terms of methodology it's clearly the best we've got, but frankly it sounds likely that you're not accounting for your own biases in that perception. On top of the usual vagaries of communication the Interweb also imposes something of a flat affect on communication, (Does anyone really buy/trust smileys?) and that can make drastically different impressions sometimes, none of which may actually reflect the source.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 15, 2017, 06:36AMThere are a fair number of us in the world who beg to differ and some of us have actually read opposing viewpoints and dismissed them as inadequate explantaions.Exactly. I'm pretty sure there's no one actually taking honesty seriously who can't say this. That's my point--the disparity's not an information issue.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 15, 2017, 06:36AMMy recommendations on the subject of the psychology of belief were because I thought you said that you were genuinely interested in the topic and I thought you would find an orthodox Christian perspective informative.  Certainly Sproul is apologetic, but do you really think some of the skeptical treatments of the subject are really "neutral" and not apologetic in their own way?Nope, and I'm genuinely interested in the Sproul material--I've likely already read it, or at least parts of it (cover looks familiar--I may well have a copy in my library at home), but if so it was obviously quite a while ago, and we handle information very differently over time, so it's worthwhile to revisit such things within our areas of interest.

Jesus & Mo and Alternative Facts.

If BvB won't get upset about me recommending another book, here's one that some here might find interesting.  It's a book about the topic of chance in relationship to the sovereignty of God. The price at one vendor is very good as well.

The author, Vern Poythress has double doctorates in Biblical studies and mathematics-- the latter from Harvard, so he is well qualified to discuss the topic.

I've read some of his material, but a book like this is beyond my brain's pea-sized ability in math, but I thought some of you might find it interesting.

Here's the link to the cheap copy and one to a more expensive option on Amazon because the latter gives a bit more detail about the book and author.

https://www.christianbook.com/sovereignty-centered-approach-probability-random-events/vern-poythress/9781433536953/pd/536953?event=EBRN#CBD-PD-Description

https://www.amazon.com/Chance-Sovereignty-God-God-Centered-Probability/product-reviews/1433536951/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 17, 2017, 12:55PMIf BvB won't get upset about me recommending another book ...
Heh.

I missed the CNN Finding Jesus: Fact or Forgery Sunday, but caught it on On Demand tonight.

Spoiler alert:  they have yet to find ANYTHING a forgery.

They have an archaeology site that was mentioned as a church in a writing by 7th century pilgrim as a church of the nutrition, a reference to raising (nursing) Jesus, so that proves it.

They brought out numbers of scholars who all said the same thing: this could be the birthplace of Jesus, and if so this is what we can learn.  There were no contrary voices.  There were lots of "might be," "appears to be," "could be," etc. 

While they use clarifying words about archaeological finds, they also quote the gospels as, well, gospel: incontrovertible scientific proof. 

Thought some of you might find this interesting, especially those with a scientific background.

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/german_paleonto_1/

Here's a link where the paleontologist speaks for himself:

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2017/04/17/when-a-secular-palaeoentomologist-and-the-spokesman-for-the-darwin-museum-exhibit-began-reading-intelligent-design-literature/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29

I remember as a believer I found my fellow believers' derivation of affirmation from conversion stories and personal testimonies strained and vaporous. There may be something quite significant in the key differences between believers who find such stories uplifting and affirming, and those who are unimpressed.
 
I found this pretty ironic, btw:QuoteThe experience completed the process of overturning his past misconceptions about ID, which, as noted, wear away quickly once exposed to the actual arguments and personalities behind the design movement. That is, they do for those scientists and science consumers not committed a priori to a rigid defense of 19th-century materialist science.
Then there are some pretty wild presumptions ... :QuoteAlthough the 2009 Darwin exhibition was a catalyst for his move toward intelligent design, the groundwork had been laid much earlier. Bechly describes two gut feelings he had long before he ever voiced his skepticism of Darwin openly. First, he felt that it just didn’t make sense to say that if you just wait long enough, bare rock will turn into Beethoven. That is to say, he felt what Douglas Axe, in his book Undeniable, called the universal design intuition.
 ... and some standard misguided complaints about poor application rather than weak theory:QuoteSecond, throughout his scientific study, he came to resent the evolutionary “just-so” stories that covered poor science in a narrative sheen. And as a paleontologist, he knew that the fossil record did not contain the slow, gradual transitions Darwinism requires. Over time, his scientific studies pushed him further and further from traditional evolutionary biology.
I haven't gotten into his own words yet though--hopefully he does better than the write-up.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Apr 17, 2017, 06:14PMI remember as a believer I found my fellow believers' derivation of affirmation from conversion stories and personal testimonies strained and vaporous. There may be something quite significant in the key differences between believers who find such stories uplifting and affirming, and those who are unimpressed.
 

Some of the conversion stories seem hard to accept uncritically.  Typically they claim an atheist who for some ungodly reason decided to use evidence to disprove God (but only the conservative Christian version) and ended up convinced by the evidence, proving that an unbiased observer would come to the right conclusion.  Except that some of these people were raised in a church, went to a Bible college, and in some cases even attended seminary before having this conversion experience.  I guess it's not impossible, but it does seem unlikely.

If you listen to the man's own version of his movement away from Darwinian explanations-- and that's all that is reported in these links-- he clearly claims that he was raised a total secularist and had no religious background whatsoever. There is no mention of his current religious beliefs other than he now believes that the universe is intelligently designed, which can fit with a variety of other belief systems.

He was obviously also highly committed to the classical Darwinian model, as per his position as a curator of a museum exhibit extolling classical Darwinism. 

Certainly people can have questions about his motives, etc, but I do find it somewhat strange when conversions away from theistic orientations are always extolled as "following the evidence" while those who claim to move towards something like Intelligent Design, such as this man, are suspected as being closet religious people from the beginning.  The man clearly says that he had no religious background and it was growing skepticism about the Darwinian model as a scientific model that lead him to embrace intelligent design.

I have run into unbelievers who have admitted to me that their embrace of unbelief was because they found the ethical values of historic theistic systems collided with the lifestyles that they wanted to live and that their belief system was essentially a rationale for how they wanted to live.  I'm not saying that every unbeliever is consciously doing this, but why is it deemed impossible to so many that this happens and those sort of "converts" do not have their motives scrutinized while the motives of someone who moves away from a fully secular system is always suspect?  Seems very much like a double standard to me.

There is a common thread in the conversion stories I've looked at more closely, when I've been interested enough to do so.

From theist to atheist or agnostic has generally been associated with exposure to science, usually by about Thanksgiving in college, spring break at the latest, especially if they had a geology or biology course.  Some retain a liberalized faith (I saw a lot of that when I was a student at Notre Dame) but the literalist beliefs disappeared.  Occasionally you see someone very bitter about being abused within a church, especially if they were gay or the victim of something.  They are usually the most outspoken atheists - the vast majority simply don't care.

From atheist to theist usually requires an emotional event, often the death of a loved one, some other life changing event, etc.  Francis Collins described an emotional outpouring that led to his conversion, and seems to agree that this is how it works.  The ones who claim conversion on the basis of data rarely stand up to any examination - none that I've looked into so far.  Some are very clearly deliberately lying, and they poison the well for me. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Apr 18, 2017, 08:47AMThere is a common thread in the conversion stories I've looked at more closely, when I've been interested enough to do so.

From theist to atheist or agnostic has generally been associated with exposure to science, usually by about Thanksgiving in college, spring break at the latest, especially if they had a geology or biology course.  Some retain a liberalized faith (I saw a lot of that when I was a student at Notre Dame) but the literalist beliefs disappeared.  Occasionally you see someone very bitter about being abused within a church, especially if they were gay or the victim of something.  They are usually the most outspoken atheists - the vast majority simply don't care.

From atheist to theist usually requires an emotional event, often the death of a loved one, some other life changing event, etc.  Francis Collins described an emotional outpouring that led to his conversion, and seems to agree that this is how it works.  The ones who claim conversion on the basis of data rarely stand up to any examination - none that I've looked into so far.  Some are very clearly deliberately lying, and they poison the well for me. 

In other words it sounds as if you've already decided that the man must be lying when he says that it was the problematic data he found in the Darwinian explanation was the key to his change of mind.  However, the one who becomes more skeptical is always telling the truth about his/her "conversion."  Still sounds like a double standard to me.

For those who are interested here is Francis Collins's account of his conversion process.  It certainly did include some "emotional" aspects, but there clearly was a large intellectual component as well. Every human being, if honest, would have to admit that both motives play a role in all that we are, including our most basic commitments.

What is interesting about his account of the "emotional" component is that he describes it as a sort of fear and trepidation knowing that he now believed in a God who would hold him accountable-- he calls it a "sense of deep discomfort." 

Here's the link from an interview he had with PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

Quote from: John the Theologian on Apr 18, 2017, 09:26AMFor those who are interested here is Francis Collins's account of his conversion process.  It certainly did include some "emotional" aspects, but there clearly was a large intellectual component as well.
He does describe both, but it is not as clear as you suggest that both contributed to his conversion.  I've read a good bit more from him than the article you cited.

His intellectual arguments are two fold, as far as I can see:  God of the gaps (there are things we don't understand/know, like the beginning of the universe, so there's probably something out there) and the need for a basis for morality, which clearly couldn't exist without God. To me that argues that his intellect buttresses his emotional decision but did not cause it.   

Understand though that he is an OEC, an Old Earth Creationist.  He accepts a 4.55 billion year old Earth, and evolution with common descent as the explanation for the diversity of life; he just thinks God had a hand guiding it somehow, however invisibly it might be. 

And then there's another viewpoint, held by some Christian denominations:


 QuoteTrue conversion is an act of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of a sinner. A false conversion is one in which the Holy Spirit had no part. Scripture tells us how to detect the true Christians from the false converts. To understand the nature of false converts, we need to understand the process by which a true conversion takes place. First, conversion is not a product of our will; it is the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit of God (John 1:12–13). He redeems us by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for our sins (Luke 22:20), He indwells us to guide our spiritual growth (1 Corinthians 3:16), and He assures us that we are His (Romans 8:16). After that, He seals us and keeps us secure so that true conversions last forever (Ephesians 4:30; Jude 1:24). True Christians who have been born again (John 3:3) are controlled by the Holy Spirit; they are no longer controlled by their sinful nature (Romans 8:9).

Tim, I have no problem with your quote above-- it's just orthodox Augustinian/Reformation theology-- when properly understood.  That proper understanding includes the fact that the mind is not bypassed in the conversion process.  The scriptures speak of conversion as both a work of the Holy Spirit, internally worked in the believer, and belief in the truth-- i.e an intellectual content.  In other words it's a both/and not an either/or approach to conversion.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Apr 18, 2017, 01:27PMTim, I have no problem with your quote above-- it's just orthodox Augustinian/Reformation theology-- when properly understood.  That proper understanding includes the fact that the mind is not bypassed in the conversion process.  The scriptures speak of conversion as both a work of the Holy Spirit, internally worked in the believer, and belief in the truth-- i.e an intellectual content.  In other words it's a both/and not an either/or approach to conversion.
I'm pretty sure what you're calling the "proper understanding" here isn't a terribly high priority of the doctrine--certainly not required. It may be important to apologists and to some believers, but I don't think that makes it a "Thing" in any institutional sense. Frankly that kinda begs the question as to by what standard and for what purpose you're using the modifier. IOW, are your priorities in this case really in line with the church's ... i.e. God's?

Quote from: timothy42b on Apr 18, 2017, 08:47AMThere is a common thread in the conversion stories I've looked at more closely, when I've been interested enough to do so.

From theist to atheist or agnostic has generally been associated with exposure to science, usually by about Thanksgiving in college, spring break at the latest, especially if they had a geology or biology course.  Some retain a liberalized faith (I saw a lot of that when I was a student at Notre Dame) but the literalist beliefs disappeared.  Occasionally you see someone very bitter about being abused within a church, especially if they were gay or the victim of something.  They are usually the most outspoken atheists - the vast majority simply don't care.

From atheist to theist usually requires an emotional event, often the death of a loved one, some other life changing event, etc.  Francis Collins described an emotional outpouring that led to his conversion, and seems to agree that this is how it works.  The ones who claim conversion on the basis of data rarely stand up to any examination - none that I've looked into so far.  Some are very clearly deliberately lying, and they poison the well for me. 

You claim to be a Christian, so would you explain your conversion? I would like to understand what a 'true' conversion process looks like since these mentioned poison the well for you.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Apr 19, 2017, 05:16AM
I'm pretty sure what you're calling the "proper understanding" here isn't a terribly high priority of the doctrine--certainly not required. It may be important to apologists and to some believers, but I don't think that makes it a "Thing" in any institutional sense. Frankly that kinda begs the question as to by what standard and for what purpose you're using the modifier. IOW, are your priorities in this case really in line with the church's ... i.e. God's?

I'm actually pretty mystified what your real point is.  Mine is that from a traditional Christian perspective there is no contradiction between a conversion that is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit and at the same time an experience of intellectual engagement and transformation by the convert.  Whether or not an unbeliever agrees with that-- I would suspect not at all- is actually beside the point.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Apr 18, 2017, 01:27PMTim, I have no problem with your quote above-- it's just orthodox Augustinian/Reformation theology-- when properly understood. 

Except that how would it work logically, unless you buy into the Calvinist elect? 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Apr 19, 2017, 06:36AMI'm actually pretty mystified what your real point is.  Mine is that from a traditional Christian perspective there is no contradiction between a conversion that is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit and at the same time an experience of intellectual engagement and transformation by the convert. 
ANDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD we're back to presuppositionalism. 

Does it make sense that a person would rationally reject the same logic and data, except and only except if he is nudged by the Holy Spirit?  Not to me.

It does make sense to me that HS would influence an emotional response, particularly to a life event. 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Apr 19, 2017, 06:36AMI'm actually pretty mystified what your real point is.  Mine is that from a traditional Christian perspective there is no contradiction between a conversion that is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit and at the same time an experience of intellectual engagement and transformation by the convert.  Whether or not an unbeliever agrees with that-- I would suspect not at all- is actually beside the point.
My point is that I don't think "head wisdom/head knowledge", as the cool theist kids say, is a terribly important thing either to most believers or to The Church. That's a thing that's important to apologists when they're apologizing, and really that's about it. Works the other way around as well--it's important to critics when they're criticizing (though it may be less true/less specifically situational for many critics).
 
I don't have a problem with it, personally--no need to feel "mystified" and all that. There's no attack here ... as is quite often the case on the OTF--well, just with very conservative religious types.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Apr 19, 2017, 08:36AM
My point is that I don't think "head wisdom/head knowledge", as the cool theist kids say, is a terribly important thing either to most believers or to The Church.
Agreed.

But my objection is that I don't think "head wisdom" is ever the basis for a conversion. 

I don't doubt the honesty of some conversions, but I do doubt that head knowledge had much to do with it.  Head knowledge seems to get applied later, maybe to ameliorate buyer's remorse. 

I think apologists have been a larger influence in driving people away from belief than any amount of arguments from skeptics. 

Jesus & Mo get the better of unhinged liberalism (championed by Moses).

Quote from: timothy42b on Apr 19, 2017, 08:54AMAgreed.
 
But my objection is that I don't think "head wisdom" is ever the basis for a conversion. 
 
I don't doubt the honesty of some conversions, but I do doubt that head knowledge had much to do with it.  Head knowledge seems to get applied later, maybe to ameliorate buyer's remorse. 
 
I think apologists have been a larger influence in driving people away from belief than any amount of arguments from skeptics.
I can think of a scenario in which a conversion can be at least derivative of critical thinking ...
 
A critical thinker recognizes and decides to take advantage of the benefits of a healthy religious community, and that ends up leading to a conversion. That's a bit of a stretch to call it a result because it would be indirect, but still. But yeah, frankly regarding conversions to religion and critical thinking, it's a can't get there from here situation. That doesn't mean critical thinking will prevent such a conversion either though. It's just that the reasoning that might produce a positive sense of religious belief doesn't also reach to the doctrine in the same way--i.e. you can't slip the doctrines in on the coattails of the positive psychological/health/social effects and still be thinking critically in regard to the doctrines.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Apr 19, 2017, 08:36AM
My point is that I don't think "head wisdom/head knowledge", as the cool theist kids say, is a terribly important thing either to most believers or to The Church. That's a thing that's important to apologists when they're apologizing, and really that's about it. Works the other way around as well--it's important to critics when they're criticizing (though it may be less true/less specifically situational for many critics).
 
I don't have a problem with it, personally--no need to feel "mystified" and all that. There's no attack here ... as is quite often the case on the OTF--well, just with very conservative religious types.

I think its more complicated than just knowledge v emotion. A couple of examples

I've known people that think that God exists and know the bible pretty well but don't think that they are sinners and need saving.  They don't buy into the "God sent Jesus to die for me" so because of that so there's no emotion.

On the other hand there are those that feel guilty about sin without knowing too much about the theory and are immediately relieved and grateful when they hear that Jesus died to save them from that guilt.  They can be very emotional about their faith, and can be wrong in a lot of the theory of what's happening too.

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2017, 02:23PM

I've known people that think that God exists and know the bible pretty well but don't think that they are sinners and need saving.  They don't buy into the "God sent Jesus to die for me" so because of that so there's no emotion.

That's not uncommon, and there's some theological support.  I guess one could be grateful for blessings without a crushing load of guilt driving some deeper emotion.

QuoteOn the other hand there are those that feel guilty about sin without knowing too much about the theory and are immediately relieved and grateful when they hear that Jesus died to save them from that guilt.  They can be very emotional about their faith, and can be wrong in a lot of the theory of what's happening too.
I would have said they were ignorant of the theory rather than being wrong.  I don't see how we can say definitively what is wrong, or right, within theology; there is no way to test any of it.  And there are of course four competing theories about why Jesus died, with only one of them being substitutional atonement. 

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2017, 02:23PMI think its more complicated than just knowledge v emotion.
The Big Picture is, sure. I wasn't talking about the Big Picture though. I specifically commented on what's important to believers at large and The Church. If a believer isn't very intellectually engaged that's not a primary issue. It's not an issue at all for many, probably most believers/churches. It's an individual matter that few church leaders or peers are going to impose themselves into. Those who are all about intellectual engagement--for whom it's a very important aspect of religious belief and behavior--will probably encourage it (I certainly did), but it's not a qualifying measure for membership or acceptance or anything at all like that (I definitely did not judge peers as unworthy or some such nonsense if they weren't intellectually engaged enough for my personal tastes).
 
No?

Although I have some serious confessional differences with David Bentley Hart the premier Eastern Orthodox theologian, he is a well-respected thinker and has just recently released a new book on the New Atheist movement of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. He has summarized his assessment of the movement in this short article.  Thought some of you might find it interesting.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/believe-it-or-not

Heh ... you thought some might find it interesting, eh?

It is a tickling schadenfreude-type feeling to happen across someone disparaging those with whom one disagrees profoundly. However, sharing their rant with those being disagreed with doesn't tend to win hearts and minds (something many of us could learn, btw). And the polemic may not stand up so well to a hostile viewpoint as to a supportive one. I daresay that the author of this would make the same comment to those reading e.g. Dawkins with friendly eyes - though to my mind less justifiably.

The most interesting thing about it to my mind is to see what a solid concept "New Atheism" is treated as by this writer. To him, it's a big and easily-defined boogey-man. In my perception it's always been largely an external construct - out of the gradually burgeoning social step away from Christianity in the West, a small number of people powerfully articulated their takes on the basic overreachings of this particular religion's faith-based world-view. Those feeling attacked by their words have largely defined the concept of it as a movement - but in doing so I have always felt rather missed the point - this isn't some organised new phenomenon, rather an outlier of something much broader, something very ad hoc. There have since the Enlightenment always been those that spoke out boldly against holding Christianity exempt from criticism - but given that more people than ever do not subscribe to it in the West - a third of Americans (and one half of people in the UK) now identify as some kind of "religious none" - of course we are going to see increasing numbers of people fail to see why they ought to mute their criticism in respect for the ancien regime as its tenacious grip on power over all of us is, piece by piece, loosened.

Skim-reading this article (I have limited tolerance for reading long screeds that misrepresent the people being attacked, juxtaposing snide jabs at them), I take away that the author's big criticism is that the objections  of the 'New Atheists' are insufficiently complicated to do respectful justice to the mountain of theology that's been built over the centuries. This is a point I have heard made here before. But it is not a valid criticism. If you build a house on sand, it doesn't matter how beautiful its turrets are, it'll fall down just the same. Once you step back to see that presupposing god(s) is an unnecessary complication to a worldview (i.e. it's a complication for which there's no evidence), there's no need to even walk in through the door of that house. One might in the name of intellectual satisfaction want to see exactly how the foundations are sinking, but the artistically-shaped towers - these are not of structural interest. The basic point of people like Dawkins is that the Emperor has no clothes; complaining that he's missing out on the latest fashions isn't an answer to him.

Quote from: MoominDave on May 18, 2017, 01:24AM

The most interesting thing about it to my mind is to see what a solid concept "New Atheism" is treated as by this writer. To him, it's a big and easily-defined boogey-man. In my perception it's always been largely an external construct - out of the gradually burgeoning social step away from Christianity in the West, a small number of people powerfully articulated their takes on the basic overreachings of this particular religion's faith-based world-view.
I have yet to read the article but will as soon as I have time.  If I am understanding your characterization, I think I agree with you.

There are a few articulate anti-theist atheists.  But the vast majority don't give theism another thought and get on with their lives.  They don't believe in a Deity, but their unbelief is not central to their identity.

This makes them very little different from many religious people, who DO believe, but know no theology and their belief is not central to their identity.  I suspect the percentages may be similar for both groups.

The strong believers really have a meme that atheism is driven by a deep desire to attack the Deity, but I don't see that operating in atheists I know. 

Yes Tim, I agree.

Perhaps seeing the other as opposing you is a comfort compared to seeing it as being largely indifferent to you.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 17, 2017, 06:35PMHeh ... you thought some might find it interesting, eh?

well, after all, it IS:

QuoteAmerica's most
 influential
 journal of
 religion and
 public life

Quote from: timothy42b on May 18, 2017, 05:12AMThere are a few articulate anti-theist atheists.  But the vast majority don't give theism another thought and get on with their lives.  They don't believe in a Deity, but their unbelief is not central to their identity.A lot of apostates do get devangelical for a time at least. It's just the way humans often do in the wake of a conversion (or de-conversion), and for those who came from nasty religious backgrounds it's pretty understandable if it sticks and/or goes farther than most--that's just the way wounded humans often do. But even when apostates go there they don't tend to be anti-theist, only anti-theism, or just anti-religion (i.e. organized/institutionalized).
 
Quote from: timothy42b on May 18, 2017, 05:12AMThis makes them very little different from many religious people, who DO believe, but know no theology and their belief is not central to their identity.  I suspect the percentages may be similar for both groups.The factor that may throw a wrench in the similar percentage theory is awareness. Civic religiosity is the cultural default (though less so these days it seems), so it seems the odds suggest a larger percentage of conscientious apathist atheists than conscientious apathist theists.
 
Quote from: timothy42b on May 18, 2017, 05:12AMThe strong believers really have a meme that atheism is driven by a deep desire to attack the Deity, but I don't see that operating in atheists I know.It's an underlying denial of atheism--the idea that "atheism" is really the denial of belief rather than its actual absence. A fair number of believers just can't or won't conceive of anything that's too contrary to their religious views.

Well this is good news about the alleged standard issue waxing and waning of religious sentiment and the latest passing fad of doubt and disbelief ... er, I mean denial of course.
 
I think this one's good too. I used to make a point of dressing down when I went to the bigger, more fashion show type churches for this very reason--seems I recall something in the Bible about welcoming the poor and treating them well ... nothing of any substance about fashion though.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 18, 2017, 10:37AM It's an underlying denial of atheism--the idea that "atheism" is really the denial of belief rather than its actual absence. A fair number of believers just can't or won't conceive of anything that's too contrary to their religious views.

That is a profound way of putting it. It's an attempt to deny atheists their identity - "No, you cannot be this thing you tell me you are, it doesn't fit into my worldview". There is commonality with the way that reactionary politics treat other groups that don't kowtow to the seriously problematic 'traditional' line - assertive women, POC, gay people, people of non-standard gender expressions, etc etc etc

Telling someone from a position of power (and many people are most certainly not shy about attaching Christianity to their political power in the USA) that they cannot exist as they conceive themselves is an oppressive statement. It is declaring them a non-person.

Who tells you that you can't exist, with whatever belief you have? Other than the Muslim belief?

So, it's a slightly subtle point, but it's profound.

An atheist (not all, but there are plenty that would identify): "I am an atheist. I do not run my life with reference to religions. In fact, I rather dislike the term 'atheist', implying as it does that I am defined in opposition to an unjustified belief."
A Christian of particular types (not necessarily yours; I don't know if you'd subscribe or not): "You are deluding yourself. Everyone is born innately knowing the truth of Jesus and salvation. You have denied this to yourself so strongly that you have denied that you ever denied it."

The response is an attempt to invalidate the atheist, to declare their thinking predicated on an impermissible point, to say that it isn't possible to opt out of religion. It's a slippery argumental tactic, one designed to retreat so far into axioms that the arguer cannot be teased out logically. But when Christianity (or another religion elsewhere or elsewhen in the world) is tied to the reins of power, as it is in the US by cultural conventions, then it is more than that. It is a figure backed up by authority decreeing that atheism is culturally unacceptable. I don't know if you'll have ever experienced the very disorientating effect of having your cultural milieu disapprove of you? At a guess, I would doubt it - maintaining your own cultural conformance seems over-ridingly important to you, from what I have read of your words. The sensation of being forced to swim against the stream in this way is not a pleasant one, which is why so many just go along with the flow.
In the US, such cultural disapproval goes a long way indeed. In many places, a declared atheist simply will not be elected to public office - they are effectively disenfranchised, and if that isn't a definition of 'non-person', I don't know what is.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 19, 2017, 08:19PM--seems I recall something in the Bible about welcoming the poor and treating them well ... nothing of any substance about fashion though.

Just as long as you had tassels on the corners of your garments... And didn't wear mixed fibres...

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 05:54 AMSo, it's a slightly subtle point, but it's profound.Precisely why some experience more of the dimensionality life has to offer, and some live much more narrow and limited lives. Frankly it's why two dimensional is quite often a good descriptor for fundamentalist types' perceptions and thinking. Of course they tend to see most of that as "evil", given the fixation on only the dimensions of good, evil and neutral.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 05:54 AMAn atheist (not all, but there are plenty that would identify): "I am an atheist. I do not run my life with reference to religions. In fact, I rather dislike the term 'atheist', implying as it does that I am defined in opposition to an unjustified belief."
A Christian of particular types (not necessarily yours; I don't know if you'd subscribe or not): "You are deluding yourself. Everyone is born innately knowing the truth of Jesus and salvation. You have denied this to yourself so strongly that you have denied that you ever denied it."Boils down to epistemology doesn't it, and whether or not the epistemologies applied account for enough of reality, such as the vagaries of human brain ownership.
 
Aphilatelist isn't in the dictionary as far I know. It's at least technically a term simply because of the mechanics of English, but it's not something we think about--certainly not something we attach any import or judgments to. Atheist, on the other hand, describes what is, at least historically speaking, a stark anomaly. But it's still inherently alien to define yourself by what you're not, or anyone else in terms of what they're not. It does make sense however, in at least some cases, in terms of the larger social context.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 05:54 AMThe response is an attempt to invalidate the atheist, to declare their thinking predicated on an impermissible point, to say that it isn't possible to opt out of religion. It's a slippery argumental tactic, one designed to retreat so far into axioms that the arguer cannot be teased out logically. But when Christianity (or another religion elsewhere or elsewhen in the world) is tied to the reins of power, as it is in the US by cultural conventions, then it is more than that. It is a figure backed up by authority decreeing that atheism is culturally unacceptable. I don't know if you'll have ever experienced the very disorientating effect of having your cultural milieu disapprove of you? At a guess, I would doubt it - maintaining your own cultural conformance seems over-ridingly important to you, from what I have read of your words. The sensation of being forced to swim against the stream in this way is not a pleasant one, which is why so many just go along with the flow.That's very like the root of the ugly reaction to things like atheism and being too at odds with the status quo, or just too different. It's ultimately about insecurity, but it's at such a deep level (or dimension) that it flies under the radar of those so effected by it to judge others and even order their lives around it. Allowing for more dimensionality of life than the dogma software of their operating system can manage simply doesn't compute, and it can be a threat. The data is there, but there's no means of dealing with it, so it's just useless space, but from within the OS that doesn't read it it's just nothing unless it manages to get in an accident hook of code in there somehow.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 05:54 AMIn the US, such cultural disapproval goes a long way indeed. In many places, a declared atheist simply will not be elected to public office - they are effectively disenfranchised, and if that isn't a definition of 'non-person', I don't know what is.In many cases, if the fact of one's atheism comes out, you can also definitely lose any confidence that you'd be able to get a fair trial by jury should such a situation arise. We've seen a number of cases of this in the context of much less pronounced differences than atheism--the West Memphis Three come immediately to mind. This also reminds me of the McMartin preschool Trial, but that was a presumed difference that's actually deeper and darker than atheism in the fundamentalist and public mind.

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 05:54 AM

The response is an attempt to invalidate the atheist,
Yet here we are, where everyday, liberals attempt to invalidate anyone who proclaims to be a Christian. Believe me, I know what it feels like. But, Christianity does not attempt to say that you have no right to exist. That's a little too strong allegation.

Another good demonstration of the fact it’s all about affirmation.
 
For many believers the lack of affirmation is a threat, and there’s good reason for that.
 
We’re all invested in our worldviews—some more wisely, most less so. Some are invested in epistemic systems and processes, most in given conclusions and dogmas.
 
In any case, many are invested in a worldview they have to defend from all quarters—that they have to defend against the information provided by reality. So they have to be very defensive, even often to the point of inventing offenses to defend against.
 
But it’s all about affirmation.

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 08:43 AMYet here we are, where everyday, liberals attempt to invalidate anyone who proclaims to be a Christian. Believe me, I know what it feels like. But, Christianity does not attempt to say that you have no right to exist. That's a little too strong allegation.

Point of clarity - is "here" the TTF Practice Break section, or is it your everyday world?

I'll happily concede that the parts of non-rational thinking that come from Christianity tend not to get the free pass in this small bit of a small website that they do in the great open expanses of America, and so those that insist on pushing non-rational ideas consistently get a hard time over it.

But there is a qualitative difference. You know that when you log off, you go back to your safe space, where people just don't challenge Christianity (I'm using you to stand for the general cultural condition here; the particular real Dusty may not be in the big American Christian filter bubble - though your posts do consistently tend to suggest that you are). The corrections of contributors here don't carry the weight of authority to you, and so they don't need to worry you in any culturally meaningful sense.

If the boot were on the other foot, certainly it would be easily possible to overdo condemnation of the non-rational bits of Christianity. In a US where being Christian was an effective bar from public office, and where being so could severely limit your networks and life choices, then an atheist saying "You can't be a Christian; you're just imagining it; there's no such thing" would be acting in a similarly bullying fashion. The Tyranny of the Majority is a most undesirable effect, whoever's doing it. It happens that Christianity has proven itself remarkably poor at refraining from abusing its majority status in almost all places where it's occurred.

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 09:35 AMBut there is a qualitative difference. You know that when you log off, you go back to your safe space, where people just don't challenge Christianity (I'm using you to stand for the general cultural condition here; the particular real Dusty may not be in the big American Christian filter bubble - though your posts do consistently tend to suggest that you are). The corrections of contributors here don't carry the weight of authority to you, and so they don't need to worry you in any culturally meaningful sense.You're extraordinarily kind, Dave ... heh.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 09:35 AMIf the boot were on the other foot, certainly it would be easily possible to overdo condemnation of the non-rational bits of Christianity. In a US where being Christian was an effective bar from public office, and where being so could severely limit your networks and life choices, then an atheist saying "You can't be a Christian; you're just imagining it; there's no such thing" would be acting in a similarly bullying fashion. The Tyranny of the Majority is a most undesirable effect, whoever's doing it. It happens that Christianity has proven itself remarkably poor at refraining from abusing its majority status in almost all places where it's occurred.To be fair that's a characteristic common to most religions, though maybe more so those of the Abrahamic variety ... ?

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 09:35 AM
I'll happily concede that the parts of non-rational thinking that come from Christianity
See, you're doing it. You state it like it's a fact. Are there any part of atheism that is based on non-rational thinking?

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 12:23 PMSee, you're doing it. You state it like it's a fact. Are there any part of atheism that is based on non-rational thinking?
Actually you're demonstrating your own selective perception, yet again, by ignoring context and 90% of what Dave wrote--i.e. everything that doesn't fit into your presumptions about things.
 
If you don't read with such an active and invasive distortion filter like that, or even if you don't use such an extensive one, you can actually read English pretty well, and actually understand what's actually written rather than mutating everything so it affirms your fragile personal views. That's why most see the world so differently than the world of the radical religious right wing types--the world that's mostly inside their own heads. We see a different world simply because we're seeing more of what's really there.
 
But I'm sure my comments came across as if they were just random characters--as if I were just flailing my fingers around on my keyboard, not because they actually don't make sense, but rather entirely because they don't affirm your views, which is the definition of intellectual cowardice ... many believers use the term faith for this--it has great spin value (affirmation again).

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 12:44 PM
Actually you're demonstrating your own selective perception, yet again, by ignoring context and 90% of what Dave wrote--i.e. everything that doesn't fit into your presumptions about things.
 
If you don't read with such an active and invasive distortion filter like that, or even if you don't use such an extensive one, you can actually read English pretty well, and actually understand what's actually written rather than mutating everything so it affirms your fragile personal views. That's why most see the world so differently than the world of the radical religious right wing types--the world that's mostly inside their own heads. We see a different world simply because we're seeing more of what's really there.
 
But I'm sure my comments came across as if they were just random characters--as if I were just flailing my fingers around on my keyboard, not because they actually don't make sense, but rather entirely because they don't affirm your views, which is the definition of intellectual cowardice ... many believers use the term faith for this--it has great spin value (affirmation again).

Why not answer my question?

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 01:36 PMWhy not answer my question?Why did you ignore Dave's post except for one quote, which you misused? Have you looked back over Dave's post to see if you can figure out why your question doesn't apply--why your question is more about what's going on in your own head than what Dave actually wrote?
 
The answer is no, but the question you actually wrote isn't very likely the question you meant to ask, so if you ignore all that and just drive on like there's a coherent chain of ideas from Dave's post to that answer it's just all going to be apples and orangutans, then knapsacks and oranges ... etc, and the closest we can hope to get to actually talking about the same thing and having a coherent discussion will be talking about apples and oranges.
 
You don't seem to appreciate that talking about the same issue can be important in a discussion. You just seem to feel as if you should always simply get an answer no matter if your question completely misses and changes the subject--as if pointing out that's not what we're talking about is unfair simply because it's an actual question and it doesn't matter if it changes the subject without any indication that you realize it, so therefore there's no indication that you recognize the actual issue at hand. This is not a format of communication in which an actual discussion can take place.

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 12:23 PMSee, you're doing it. You state it like it's a fact. Are there any part of atheism that is based on non-rational thinking?

As Byron has pointed out, you're changing the subject in order to try to score a team point.

In the name of clear communication, I'll change my sentence to one of equivalent meaning that hopefully won't set off that kind of response:

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 09:35 AM[s]I'll happily concede that the parts of non-rational thinking that come from Christianity tend not to get the free pass in this small bit of a small website that they do in the great open expanses of America, and so those that insist on pushing non-rational ideas consistently get a hard time over it.[/s]

I'll happily concede that the parts of thinking that are faith-based and come from Christianity tend not to get the free pass in this small bit of a small website that they do in the great open expanses of America, and so those that insist on pushing faith-based ideas consistently get a hard time over it.

Uncontroversial now? With that squared away, how about the rest of my post?

Hey, we were sniffy about John's shared article, but it's done what he hoped for - sparked a bit of debate.

I'm just making a point, not trying to direct anything directly to you Dave.

"I'll happily concede that the parts of thinking that are faith-based and come from Christianity tend not to get the free pass in this small bit of a small website that they do in the great open expanses of America, and so those that insist on pushing faith-based ideas consistently get a hard time over it."

The fact of your statement confirms the bias against Christianity from a small segment of the TTF. Nothing more than that. The unintended statement is that atheism, Islamism, and other religions get a pass from this same group.

The ideal response from people that claim to be tolerant and liberal is to give all views of faith/no faith a pass.