Debating the unprovable...

[GrimRedBones]

Hi, I'm a new member to this forum and I was scanning the threads the other day and couldn't help noticing what was going on in the atheist heavy cross debate. At first the debate seemed pretty reasonable until a certain member who happened to have very different personal views from the a majority entered at which things seemed to rapidly spiral out of control.

Personally I lean towards the atheist side of things and agree wholeheartedly with the point that many members were attracted to. That being, the obvious lack of evidence for a creator. I mean if I was going to wholeheartedly embrace a God and recognize him as my creator, sure I'd want to see some real tangible evidence for his existence. This poster was obviously well versed in the arguments that a lot of Christians try to use when making claims about the necessity of belief. But whats interesting is that he/she seemed really to be talking about morality as the basis for why atheism doesn't work. Also isn't it interesting that when a person who has strong convictions comes up against those who don't it immediately brings out the worst in people. I mean do we really have to denigrate this person to justify our own point of view? Ok the thread was closed quite appropriately at the end, and just a casual glance showed that it was definitely all over by that point. The original point was that atheists have a burden in having to justify their beliefs but in this case it seemed quite the opposite. It was our good pilgrim who was under constant attack. I guess if you're going to argue with someone of radically different culture and ideas, why waste time trying to bite into the details that cause the most disagreement. I would think that trying to look into the argument and see how the reasoning works is the more productive way.

Anyway Atheist vs Christian threads generally lead to heated arguments.

[GeoffC]

Welcome to mobileread .....

hopefully this, as your first post, isn't a deliberate attempt to troll (especially given your last sentence).

[my last post in here, though]

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Welcome to mobileread .....

hopefully this, as your first post, isn't a deliberate attempt to troll (especially given your last sentence).

[my last post in here, though]

Thanks! lol no don't worry

[desertgrandma]

Welcome to MobileRead, grimredbones.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by GrimRedBones

The original point was that atheists have a burden in having to justify their beliefs but in this case it seemed quite the opposite.

Hi GrimRedBones, welcome. I think the original point was that over-zealous atheists were a burden on the rest of the atheist community, which I think the thread went on to illustrate quite nicely, along with the burden of zealotry of any stripe.

To be fair, that thread lasted longer than most of its ilk, and did haul itself back on topic a few times.

The Lounge is clearly the place here to debate the unprovable, if you're not too concerned about wasting time. And such debates can throw up interesting points. Hopefully nobody concerned feels too attacked to engage further elsewhere in Mobileread. I certainly didn't come away from it with hard feelings towards anyone.

Graham

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Graham

Hi GrimRedBones, welcome. I think the original point was that over-zealous atheists were a burden on the rest of the atheist community

Sounds like you are describing "the gay community" (not that there is a "gay community" any more than there is an "athiest community") before the gay rights movement-- many atheists cowering in the closet in fear of being revealed, sneaking around careful not to reveal their true beliefs to a greater world that will shun them or even hold them in contempt for not being like the majority. And then there are those who are tired of hiding away in the closet, tired of being told to not rock the boat, and who are willing to say "I'm here! I'm nonbelieveeer! Get used to it!" Because did not some famous dead guy say 'because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth"? Because can you not not spell "accommodation" without almost spelling "a commode"? Verily, I say unto you, brethren... uh, maybe something about a camel and a needle, I guess?

http://machineslikeus.com/news/accom...-case-part-1-3

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....arwin-go-down/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...r_atheists.php

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...still-matters/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._cause_whe.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...mmodationi.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._and_those.php

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by Graham

Hi GrimRedBones, welcome. I think the original point was that over-zealous atheists were a burden on the rest of the atheist community, which I think the thread went on to illustrate quite nicely, along with the burden of zealotry of any stripe.

To be fair, that thread lasted longer than most of its ilk, and did haul itself back on topic a few times.

The Lounge is clearly the place here to debate the unprovable, if you're not too concerned about wasting time. And such debates can throw up interesting points. Hopefully nobody concerned feels too attacked to engage further elsewhere in Mobileread. I certainly didn't come away from it with hard feelings towards anyone.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Such debates can throw up interesting things. I mean in all fairness (and I didn't get through the whole thread) terrazoids wasn't actually that bad. I didn't see any blatant insults. And I'm not so sure this was someone who was uneducated. We can dislike his opinions, for sure.... but whats the use in just dismissing him out of hand? I think its pretty representative of a whole section of society. And their voices should be heard not stifled.

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Sounds like you are describing "the gay community" (not that there is a "gay community" any more than there is an "athiest community") before the gay rights movement-- many atheists cowering in the closet in fear of being revealed, sneaking around careful not to reveal their true beliefs to a greater world that will shun them or even hold them in contempt for not being like the majority. And then there are those who are tired of hiding away in the closet, tired of being told to not rock the boat, and who are willing to say "I'm here! I'm nonbelieveeer! Get used to it!" Because did not some famous dead guy say 'because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth"? Because can you not not spell "accommodation" without almost spelling "a commode"? Verily, I say unto you, brethren... uh, maybe something about a camel and a needle, I guess?

http://machineslikeus.com/news/accom...-case-part-1-3

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....arwin-go-down/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...r_atheists.php

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...still-matters/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._cause_whe.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...mmodationi.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._and_those.php

The point of atheism is surely to take a public stand against the rest, otherwise why the need to classify yourself?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Sounds like you are describing "the gay community" (not that there is a "gay community" any more than there is an "athiest community") before the gay rights movement-- many atheists cowering in the closet in fear of being revealed, sneaking around careful not to reveal their true beliefs to a greater world that will shun them or even hold them in contempt for not being like the majority.

Not at all. I'm not advocating in the slightest that the atheist community should hide their views; just that aggressive zealotry causes conflict which serves more to entrench beliefs rather than shift them.

You're right, it does take people with courage to stand up and speak out, but it doesn't have to be done with aggression and arrogance, which is what I took to be inferred by the "atheist zealot" label in the thread title.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally Posted by GrimRedBones

Such debates can throw up interesting things. I mean in all fairness (and I didn't get through the whole thread) terrazoids wasn't actually that bad. I didn't see any blatant insults. And I'm not so sure this was someone who was uneducated. We can dislike his opinions, for sure.... but whats the use in just dismissing him out of hand? I think its pretty representative of a whole section of society. And their voices should be heard not stifled.

Absolutely.

I don't think Terrazoids was dismissed out of hand, though, throughout the thread. A number of people engaged with his arguments, and he responded on various points, including posing some counter-arguments that made me stop and think.

Graham

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Graham

Not at all. I'm not advocating in the slightest that the atheist community should hide their views; just that aggressive zealotry causes conflict which serves more to entrench beliefs rather than shift them.

Nothing is going to change the views of most people that are "deeply entrenched" in their views. The target of books like The God Delusion isn't to convert strong believers-- they are pretty much written off as a lost cause-- the target is people who have yet to make up their minds. Let those entrenched stay in their trenches-- but the more you can point out how silly they look, the harder their job at proselytizing.

[Sparrow]

I was surprised the other thread was closed - I haven't identified the offending post (apologies if it was one of mine ).

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Nothing is going to change the views of most people that are "deeply entrenched" in their views. The target of books like The God Delusion isn't to convert strong believers-- they are pretty much written off as a lost cause-- the target is people who have yet to make up their minds. Let those entrenched stay in their trenches-- but the more you can point out how silly they look, the harder their job at proselytizing.

I enjoyed the "The God Delusion"; I'm in general, possibly total, agreement with Dawkins; but even as someone solidly on his side of the argument, the book came across as unnecessarily contentious. I'm not convinced that the tone used would help convince those on the fence.

What it does do is stir up the entrenched crowd and raise awareness of the book, so, yes, perhaps a greater proportion of fence-sitters would read it, and yes, perhaps that would lead to a greater conversion of views towards atheism overall. But surely the same publicity could be achieved in a different way?

If an argument is put in a contentious way it provides a target that can be used by those who disagree in lieu of engaging with the underlying reasoning.

Graham

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I was surprised the other thread was closed - I haven't identified the offending post (apologies if it was one of mine ).

Yeah I was looking at the end of the thread... it seems the moderators just got sick of it.

[neilmarr]

There used to be a rule in British pubs, Grim (good to have your new company, by the way): 'Strictly No Politics or Religion on the Premises'. Folks argued football instead or just got along.

I have strong, I think informed, views on both (politics and religion, I mean -- not football). But MobileReads is a site and forums where coming-up 60,000 members specifically discuss electronic reading devices, reading material and closely related subjects, to share their mutual passion, insight and advice. There are other dedicated forums to air personal views on non-related issues.

Best wishes. Neil

PS: With the best will in the world, Grim, I don't think it wise to try to re-open a topic that has been closed by our experienced and anything but heavy-handed moderating team. They know their forums and their membership and just how much of an off-topic thread is too much. N