Richard Asks: How Can We Constructively Respond to More Religious Visitors?

The RSS feed has indeed automatically moved over. Success!

First post at the new place?

Lookin’ good.  Clean typeface and graphic.  

Congratulations on the successful move.

No better place to start on the new location than a Richard post 😉 Continuing on the idea from the original site to set up an FAQ I think we should brainstorm which Qs we’re likely to get. A few to start with:

1. How can you be so sure God doesn’t exist? If you don’t have proof, doesn’t that make your faith the same as mine?

2. If you don’t have a god, on what do you base your morality? Don’t you need an absolute standard?

3.  So you believe that something came from nothing? Where did the Big Bang come from?

4. Can you prove there is no God? (maybe this should go together with 1)

5. How could all life just come about by chance? Isn’t that like expecting a hurricane to reconstruct a 747? (here I would vote for gently pointing them in the direction of a site that very simply describes the basics of evolution)

6. What’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? (once the definitions become decent, just linking to them should suffice)

7. If you don’t believe in God, then why do you care so much? Why do you talk about it so much?

8. **Some iteration of Pascal’s wager**

I’m sure there are plenty of others, but these cover some of the most common questions/misunderstandings we encounter.

No better place to start on the new location than a Richard post 😉 Continuing on the idea from the original site to set up an FAQ I think we should brainstorm which Qs we’re likely to get. A few to start with:

1. How can you be so sure God doesn’t exist? If you don’t have proof, doesn’t that make your faith the same as mine?

2. If you don’t have a god, on what do you base your morality? Don’t you need an absolute standard?

3.  So you believe that something came from nothing? Where did the Big Bang come from?

4. Can you prove there is no God? (maybe this should go together with 1)

5. How could all life just come about by chance? Isn’t that like expecting a hurricane to reconstruct a 747? (here I would vote for gently pointing them in the direction of a site that very simply describes the basics of evolution)

6. What’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? (once the definitions become decent, just linking to them should suffice)

7. If you don’t believe in God, then why do you care so much? Why do you talk about it so much?

8. **Some iteration of Pascal’s wager**

I’m sure there are plenty of others, but these cover some of the most common questions/misunderstandings we encounter.

Ok, I was one of the optimistic people over at the other location.  I’m still thinking this move will be a good thing, but…. can we change the ‘Sharing is caring’  logo?  Those little hearts are awful.

I don’t see the old comments (wonder if they’re being moved…) but it looks pretty good.  Think I’ll try my hand at making a profile.

(and sorry, just testing and trying out stuff…nothing of interest here)

If people are worried about being inundated by ‘fundies’ I suspect they’re simply making baseless assumptions (or perhaps a ‘tiresome misconception’) and didn’t bother to first look at the kind of blogs that are on patheos… I mean – Ben Witherington III blogs there for goodness sake! I suspect much of what is blogged about by the ‘religious’ bloggers is far more sophisticated than the level of theological thinking that usually goes on at FA.

If people are worried about being inundated by ‘fundies’ I suspect they’re simply making baseless assumptions (or perhaps a ‘tiresome misconception’) and didn’t bother to first look at the kind of blogs that are on patheos… I mean – Ben Witherington III blogs there for goodness sake! I suspect much of what is blogged about by the ‘religious’ bloggers is far more sophisticated than the level of theological thinking that usually goes on at FA.

And so it begins… 😉

Congratulations on a seamless transition.

Perhaps you can train yourself to not look at those cute little hearts like you have trained yourself to not look at trolling comments.  😉

P.S.  I will be experimenting with how I post comments so I can determine what option works best for me. 

Bringing up Pascal’s wager should be the equivalent of Godwin’s law

Bringing up Pascal’s wager should be the equivalent of Godwin’s law

It’s interesting to see the same kind of fundamentalism among atheists that I can’t stand among religious people: anathemetising, proselytisation, lack of tolerance for diversity of beliefs, etc.Perhaps a move to Patheos will be a cleansing experience indeed, for those atheists who are more interested in a dialogue, and in a path of tolerance, diversity, and exchange.

It’s interesting to see the same kind of fundamentalism among atheists that I can’t stand among religious people: anathemetising, proselytisation, lack of tolerance for diversity of beliefs, etc.Perhaps a move to Patheos will be a cleansing experience indeed, for those atheists who are more interested in a dialogue, and in a path of tolerance, diversity, and exchange.

It’s interesting to see the same kind of fundamentalism among atheists that I can’t stand among religious people: anathemetising, proselytisation, lack of tolerance for diversity of beliefs, etc.Perhaps a move to Patheos will be a cleansing experience indeed, for those atheists who are more interested in a dialogue, and in a path of tolerance, diversity, and exchange.

oops! didn’t see it up the first time.

oops! didn’t see it up the first time.

oops! didn’t see it up the first time.

oops! didn’t see it up the first time.

oops! didn’t see it up the first time.

Jeeez! See, this is what I was talking about. I certainly hope that nothing of the sort happens to you guys as you transition to Patheos: this kind of behaviour disgusts me regardless of who displays it. Honestly, I think that people who insist on challenging others concerning matters of belief aren’t themselves certain of their own beliefs. I think that this is why I acted as silly as I did when I first converted to Islam.

Jeeez! See, this is what I was talking about. I certainly hope that nothing of the sort happens to you guys as you transition to Patheos: this kind of behaviour disgusts me regardless of who displays it. Honestly, I think that people who insist on challenging others concerning matters of belief aren’t themselves certain of their own beliefs. I think that this is why I acted as silly as I did when I first converted to Islam.

Jeeez! See, this is what I was talking about. I certainly hope that nothing of the sort happens to you guys as you transition to Patheos: this kind of behaviour disgusts me regardless of who displays it. Honestly, I think that people who insist on challenging others concerning matters of belief aren’t themselves certain of their own beliefs. I think that this is why I acted as silly as I did when I first converted to Islam.

I would disagree about challenging showing a lack of certainty about beliefs. If often challenged people on their belief that same-sex marriage is a “threat” to opposite sex marriage. I do so not because I’m uncertain but because I’m passionate about the issue and want to contribute to eliminating myths and prejudices.
It’s true that some people will challenge because the idea of a conflicting view is threatening to them. Some of this is evident in the defacing/removing of billboards that merely note that atheists exist and are decent people. Still, I think the kind of people lashing out because of fear are readily identifiable in that they’ll put forward almost no argument. Those seeking to converse (like the Christian commenter Blacksheep from the original site) are probably just there out of interest or sometimes a wish to convert.

I would disagree about challenging showing a lack of certainty about beliefs. If often challenged people on their belief that same-sex marriage is a “threat” to opposite sex marriage. I do so not because I’m uncertain but because I’m passionate about the issue and want to contribute to eliminating myths and prejudices.
It’s true that some people will challenge because the idea of a conflicting view is threatening to them. Some of this is evident in the defacing/removing of billboards that merely note that atheists exist and are decent people. Still, I think the kind of people lashing out because of fear are readily identifiable in that they’ll put forward almost no argument. Those seeking to converse (like the Christian commenter Blacksheep from the original site) are probably just there out of interest or sometimes a wish to convert.

Always sage advice, Richard.  I will aim to be kind and calm and set a good example.  

Always sage advice, Richard.  I will aim to be kind and calm and set a good example.  

Always sage advice, Richard.  I will aim to be kind and calm and set a good example.  

Not bad, but why is the comment box at the top?

Not bad, but why is the comment box at the top?

Perhaps another common question would be:

9. But my religion is different.  I don’t believe in (x) like those fundamentalists.  Why are you attacking me?

Although that may be better on a case by case basis, perhaps we could direct them to Greta Christina’s Atheist Seal of Approval essay? 

Perhaps another common question would be:

9. But my religion is different.  I don’t believe in (x) like those fundamentalists.  Why are you attacking me?

Although that may be better on a case by case basis, perhaps we could direct them to Greta Christina’s Atheist Seal of Approval essay? 

I’m not sure I’m going to like this.  It’s hard for the eye not to be drawn to the nice, big, colorful ads for Christian colleges over there on the right.  Unless there’s a huge amount of atheist traffic, I’m thinking I’m not going to see the ads I liked before, for books about atheism, some of which I found very interesting.  

I like Hemant, as a person, as a blogger, and as a local.  (It’s nice to know that when he posts about an event, I have a reasonably decent chance of being able to attend.)  But how much would someone learn in math class if EVERY idea was challenged.  (“But how do you know that sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1?”  Dude, we learned that on the first day of trig.  Go read your notes or a book and stop bothering me!)

There’s something you and he (and maybe us, the faithful readers) might consider, and that is creating a set of introductory statements, a 101 course outline if you will.  I ran into this concept when I started reading Shakesville.  There’s a link to Feminism 101, Rape Culture 101, Privilege 101, and if you make a statement that says you don’t get some really basic concept, you’re directed to those articles and no one listens to you until you’ve done some basic research.  

If 500 people come here and every one of them starts out with some version of Pascal’s Wager, restating the counter arguments isn’t going to be productive.  It’s more helpful to be able to say, “What you’re saying is called ‘Pascal’s Wager,’ and it’s been around since the late 1600’s.  Please read Atheism 101.42 on the topic.”  (This should appeal to the mathematician in Hemant, since it’s basically reducing a new problem to a previously solved problem.)
Remember the surveys that showed that atheists often knew more about religion than the practitioners of those religions.  If we tend to know more about the history of Christian practice than the Christians, how can we expect them to know about atheism?  Especially since most of them don’t have original ideas about atheism, but are simply regurgitating what their pastors have taught them.

I’m not sure I’m going to like this.  It’s hard for the eye not to be drawn to the nice, big, colorful ads for Christian colleges over there on the right.  Unless there’s a huge amount of atheist traffic, I’m thinking I’m not going to see the ads I liked before, for books about atheism, some of which I found very interesting.  

I like Hemant, as a person, as a blogger, and as a local.  (It’s nice to know that when he posts about an event, I have a reasonably decent chance of being able to attend.)  But how much would someone learn in math class if EVERY idea was challenged.  (“But how do you know that sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1?”  Dude, we learned that on the first day of trig.  Go read your notes or a book and stop bothering me!)

There’s something you and he (and maybe us, the faithful readers) might consider, and that is creating a set of introductory statements, a 101 course outline if you will.  I ran into this concept when I started reading Shakesville.  There’s a link to Feminism 101, Rape Culture 101, Privilege 101, and if you make a statement that says you don’t get some really basic concept, you’re directed to those articles and no one listens to you until you’ve done some basic research.  

If 500 people come here and every one of them starts out with some version of Pascal’s Wager, restating the counter arguments isn’t going to be productive.  It’s more helpful to be able to say, “What you’re saying is called ‘Pascal’s Wager,’ and it’s been around since the late 1600’s.  Please read Atheism 101.42 on the topic.”  (This should appeal to the mathematician in Hemant, since it’s basically reducing a new problem to a previously solved problem.)
Remember the surveys that showed that atheists often knew more about religion than the practitioners of those religions.  If we tend to know more about the history of Christian practice than the Christians, how can we expect them to know about atheism?  Especially since most of them don’t have original ideas about atheism, but are simply regurgitating what their pastors have taught them.

I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t try to force your ideas or beliefs on me anyone else or try to control my life based on your beliefs.

That’s usually the point where the issues start.

I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t try to force your ideas or beliefs on me anyone else or try to control my life based on your beliefs.

That’s usually the point where the issues start.

Nice little dig at the end there.  Why do we make these baseless assumptions?

Do we usually have a lot of theological thinking at Friendly Atheist?  Isn’t that like military intelligence?

I stole (cited and used) this post on the University of Phoenix Skeptic/atheist forum.

Well, if it’s good enough for Fred…
I don’t really mind – I’m just really glad that everything’s still here as normal. Love your website, Hemant – daily reading, along with Pharyngula.
And as to the topic of this post – Richard’s hit the nail on the head. Again. As usual.

Well, if it’s good enough for Fred…
I don’t really mind – I’m just really glad that everything’s still here as normal. Love your website, Hemant – daily reading, along with Pharyngula.
And as to the topic of this post – Richard’s hit the nail on the head. Again. As usual.

Well, if it’s good enough for Fred…
I don’t really mind – I’m just really glad that everything’s still here as normal. Love your website, Hemant – daily reading, along with Pharyngula.
And as to the topic of this post – Richard’s hit the nail on the head. Again. As usual.

As a Christian reader who read at the old site and also reads Patheos, I just want to point out that Patheos has generally tended to attract a more academic crowd. Some of the essays they’ve posted here have been top notch. 

So if by “what about fundies?” you mean “what about people who read Tim Lahaye and James Dobson books and love them?” I would say, “don’t worry about it, those sorts of people don’t hang out at Patheos.” As best I can tell, Patheos is an excellent place to host robust and intelligent discussion about religion, philosophy, theology, skepticism, and the like. I’m hoping the non-theists will be pleasantly surprised at the quality of the theistic readership here. 🙂

Welcome, Hemant. Glad to see you blogging here!

~Jake

Not to trivialize your complaint about the ads, because it is valid,  but I didn’t even realize there were ads here. Have you considered using an ad blocker, such as Adblock Plus?

I do like the ideas of introductory articles. I do not know how often they’ll actually be read, but it would be so nice to just point them out.

So if by “what about fundies?” you mean “what about people who read Tim Lahaye and James Dobson books and love them?” I would say, “don’t worry about it, those sorts of people don’t hang out at Patheos.”

You mean like this guy?

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Erasing-Hell-Erasing-Bell-Thomas-Kidd-07-12-2011.html

So if by “what about fundies?” you mean “what about people who read Tim Lahaye and James Dobson books and love them?” I would say, “don’t worry about it, those sorts of people don’t hang out at Patheos.”

You mean like this guy?

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Erasing-Hell-Erasing-Bell-Thomas-Kidd-07-12-2011.html

So if by “what about fundies?” you mean “what about people who read Tim Lahaye and James Dobson books and love them?” I would say, “don’t worry about it, those sorts of people don’t hang out at Patheos.”

You mean like this guy?

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Erasing-Hell-Erasing-Bell-Thomas-Kidd-07-12-2011.html

If 500 people come here and every one of them starts out with some version of Pascal’s Wager

I’ll be very surprised if it doesn’t happen.

If 500 people come here and every one of them starts out with some version of Pascal’s Wager

I’ll be very surprised if it doesn’t happen.

Is it fundamentalism to be constantly critiqued by friends, neighbors, co workers, and to want a break from that? To not want the website you read to have more of that? To be exausted with defending yourself because others continue to make an issue of one of your many opinions? Some of us are in that situation, so maybe you can understand why we’re a a little trigger shy.

I like open, calm, friendly discussions about these things in their place, but unfortunately my limited sample size has been contaminated. :/

Is it fundamentalism to be constantly critiqued by friends, neighbors, co workers, and to want a break from that? To not want the website you read to have more of that? To be exausted with defending yourself because others continue to make an issue of one of your many opinions? Some of us are in that situation, so maybe you can understand why we’re a a little trigger shy.

I like open, calm, friendly discussions about these things in their place, but unfortunately my limited sample size has been contaminated. :/

Is it fundamentalism to be constantly critiqued by friends, neighbors, co workers, and to want a break from that? To not want the website you read to have more of that? To be exausted with defending yourself because others continue to make an issue of one of your many opinions? Some of us are in that situation, so maybe you can understand why we’re a a little trigger shy.

I like open, calm, friendly discussions about these things in their place, but unfortunately my limited sample size has been contaminated. :/

Is it fundamentalism to be constantly critiqued by friends, neighbors, co workers, and to want a break from that? To not want the website you read to have more of that? To be exausted with defending yourself because others continue to make an issue of one of your many opinions? Some of us are in that situation, so maybe you can understand why we’re a a little trigger shy.

I like open, calm, friendly discussions about these things in their place, but unfortunately my limited sample size has been contaminated. :/

Sadly, the “tips/news/personal stories/marriage proposals” link still doesn’t work for me. Nothing happens when I click it. Sadness.

Does HTML work here?

Does HTML work here?

Does HTML work here?

Does HTML work here?

It links to an email address (which can open in an email program if you have your computer set up like that).  If it doesn’t work, it’s friendlyatheist at friendlyatheist dot com 

It links to an email address (which can open in an email program if you have your computer set up like that).  If it doesn’t work, it’s friendlyatheist at friendlyatheist dot com 

It links to an email address (which can open in an email program if you have your computer set up like that).  If it doesn’t work, it’s friendlyatheist at friendlyatheist dot com 

Success! I’ll try to make it more clear which tags people can use.

Most people, Atheist and Christian alike have completely misunderstood the point Pascal was actually trying to make.

But really… what’s with the assumption you’re going to be inundated with philosophically naive Christians?

Most people, Atheist and Christian alike have completely misunderstood the point Pascal was actually trying to make.

But really… what’s with the assumption you’re going to be inundated with philosophically naive Christians?

Most people, Atheist and Christian alike have completely misunderstood the point Pascal was actually trying to make.

But really… what’s with the assumption you’re going to be inundated with philosophically naive Christians?

I don’t think people who read Tim Lahaye have ever heard of Francis Chan.

Apparently so.

Glad you spotted it 😉 Good to see you agree.

PLEASE get rid of threading!

PLEASE get rid of threading!

PLEASE get rid of threading!

PLEASE get rid of threading!

♠ €

Nā Maka &#256:

♠ €

Nā Maka &#256:

♠ €

Nā Maka &#256:

♠ €

Nā Maka &#256:

♠ €

Nā Maka &#256:

It supports numerical and entity name codes! I can correctly spell in Hawai’ian!

Hemant, why are my three comments inverted?

It supports numerical and entity name codes! I can correctly spell in Hawai’ian!

Hemant, why are my three comments inverted?

It supports numerical and entity name codes! I can correctly spell in Hawai’ian!

Hemant, why are my three comments inverted?

People who miss the point annoy me nearly as much as do fundies.

People who miss the point annoy me nearly as much as do fundies.

Some atheists study the bible as do some Christians.  Many atheists don’t. Many Christians don’t.  The atheists that study the bible typically do so to understand better what ancient people believed.  The Christians study for the same reason but they also hold the belief that the ancient people were in a special situation where they personally witnessed and directly interacted with  God.  Therefore, if you understand what the ancient people believed, you understand God and understand something about ontology.  The atheists just don’t believe that the ancient people interacted with God so therefore what the ancient people happened to believe doesn’t provide us insight to how the world works.

 Check just above the comment thread’s start. There is an option for how you want to view comments.  Hope that helps!

 Check just above the comment thread’s start. There is an option for how you want to view comments.  Hope that helps!

 Check just above the comment thread’s start. There is an option for how you want to view comments.  Hope that helps!

 Check just above the comment thread’s start. There is an option for how you want to view comments.  Hope that helps!

I can be *very* explosive if I’m not careful and one trick I’ve learned is this:

Type out what you want to say to the offending party.  Get it all out there.  Vent and blow and have a fit.  Don’t submit the comment and walk away for a few minutes.  Grab a drink, let yourself get distracted by something, heed the call of nature if you’d like, but the important thing is to walk away.  When you come back reread your comment.  9 times out of 10 you’ll tilt your head and say, “Wow, I sound like a total douche-canoe,” and delete the comment and move on.

I can be *very* explosive if I’m not careful and one trick I’ve learned is this:

Type out what you want to say to the offending party.  Get it all out there.  Vent and blow and have a fit.  Don’t submit the comment and walk away for a few minutes.  Grab a drink, let yourself get distracted by something, heed the call of nature if you’d like, but the important thing is to walk away.  When you come back reread your comment.  9 times out of 10 you’ll tilt your head and say, “Wow, I sound like a total douche-canoe,” and delete the comment and move on.

Really? Care to tell us what Pascal was “really” trying to say?

Really? Care to tell us what Pascal was “really” trying to say?

This does work — often I find I can rework the reply to be less douche-y while still making my point or voicing my opinion.

This does work — often I find I can rework the reply to be less douche-y while still making my point or voicing my opinion.

In my experience, pretty much all HTML code can be used with Disqus.

In my experience, pretty much all HTML code can be used with Disqus.

In my experience, pretty much all HTML code can be used with Disqus.

Threading makes it so much easier to follow a conversation, though!

Threading makes it so much easier to follow a conversation, though!

We’ll of course!  Im just concerned for those who lack my keep censor vision….

We’ll of course!  Im just concerned for those who lack my keep censor vision….

We’ll of course!  Im just concerned for those who lack my keep censor vision….

Keen, not keep.   Ok, now I need to learn how to edit.

I need a little censor vision myself.  My wife (who is “Christian lite”) frequently tries to slip religious symbols into the household by distracting me with secular imaging.  She is at a week-long art camp and just emailed me the follow image of a mixed media project she is working on.  I like it but I do recognize that it takes the form of a certain Christian symbol.  I am a little distracted by certain parts of the image, though.  Sneaky on her part.

I need a little censor vision myself.  My wife (who is “Christian lite”) frequently tries to slip religious symbols into the household by distracting me with secular imaging.  She is at a week-long art camp and just emailed me the follow image of a mixed media project she is working on.  I like it but I do recognize that it takes the form of a certain Christian symbol.  I am a little distracted by certain parts of the image, though.  Sneaky on her part.

How can you be so sure God doesn’t exist? If you don’t have proof, doesn’t that make your faith the same as mine?

I have a proof that god doesn’t exist.

Convene a meeting of a catholic priest, an islamic imam, a rabbi, a lutheran pastor, a mormon elder, some baptists and a few fundamentalist preachers and ask them to come to a consensus on the definition of their god.

Their inevitable failure to do so proves the god story is a bunch of made-up stuff.

How can you be so sure God doesn’t exist? If you don’t have proof, doesn’t that make your faith the same as mine?

I have a proof that god doesn’t exist.

Convene a meeting of a catholic priest, an islamic imam, a rabbi, a lutheran pastor, a mormon elder, some baptists and a few fundamentalist preachers and ask them to come to a consensus on the definition of their god.

Their inevitable failure to do so proves the god story is a bunch of made-up stuff.

How can you be so sure God doesn’t exist? If you don’t have proof, doesn’t that make your faith the same as mine?

I have a proof that god doesn’t exist.

Convene a meeting of a catholic priest, an islamic imam, a rabbi, a lutheran pastor, a mormon elder, some baptists and a few fundamentalist preachers and ask them to come to a consensus on the definition of their god.

Their inevitable failure to do so proves the god story is a bunch of made-up stuff.

How can you be so sure God doesn’t exist? If you don’t have proof, doesn’t that make your faith the same as mine?

I have a proof that god doesn’t exist.

Convene a meeting of a catholic priest, an islamic imam, a rabbi, a lutheran pastor, a mormon elder, some baptists and a few fundamentalist preachers and ask them to come to a consensus on the definition of their god.

Their inevitable failure to do so proves the god story is a bunch of made-up stuff.

So bashing people on the head with Origin of Species is probably off the table, then.  Sadness. 🙁

So bashing people on the head with Origin of Species is probably off the table, then.  Sadness. 🙁

So bashing people on the head with Origin of Species is probably off the table, then.  Sadness. 🙁

Where is this blog on the Patheos main page?  There does not seem to be an atheism portal.  How are the religious readers even aware of its existence?

Where is this blog on the Patheos main page?  There does not seem to be an atheism portal.  How are the religious readers even aware of its existence?

Where is this blog on the Patheos main page?  There does not seem to be an atheism portal.  How are the religious readers even aware of its existence?

After about a half hour of studying the photo, I noticed that there is also a dog, a little 3 legged bowl and shiny gold paint on the image also.

Some atheists study the bible as do some Christians.  Many atheists don’t. Many Christians don’t.

Yes… and?

 The atheists just don’t believe that the ancient people interacted with God so therefore what the ancient people happened to believe doesn’t provide us insight to how the world works.

Ok.. I’m not following your train of thought (or recognising the platform we’ve pulled into). I realise that Atheists will (usually) bring naturalist assumptions to the table, which will in turn effect whatever conclusions they make, but what does ‘insight into how the world works’ (I assume you’re talking about the natural sciences – physics, biology etc. ?) have to do with the sophistication of theological thought?

I presume by “sophistication of theological thought”, you mean the ability of some people to claim knowledge by revelation from a divine source as opposed to gaining understanding by some other means.

No – I mean the ability to think about issues relating to ‘theos’ on a sophisticated level. It’s not about claiming knowledge, but rather thinking about issues and ideas with nuance etc. Sadly, some (if not many) vocal atheists tend to suffice themselves with strawmen and catchy rhetoric.

  I leave you with the following questions to consider for when the margins are not shrinking down too much.  How can you tell the difference between revelations from a divine source and “getting ideas by some other means”?  Is the distinction important?

Thanks for the question (even if it is a tangent ;p)

I’m not quite sure what dichotomy you’re trying to set up.. What do you mean by ‘some other means’? We all rely on revelation to learn some kinds of things – e.g. the only way to find out the purpose for the cake I made is if I reveal it to you. So I suppose any distinction we draw would be on the kind of information we’re dealing with.

 If you think the biblical authors had divine revelations, how can you be sure?  How can you be sure about anything said by someone who claims a divine revelation?

Good question.. If you mean ‘sure’ in an empirical sense, obviously, you can’t be.. How can you be sure that what I reveal about the purpose of my cake?

I think that your doggy example is an attempt to draw a false dichotomy of either glibly accepting any claim of revelation or otherwise rejecting it. Of course I’d be skeptical, but being skeptical doesn’t preclude the possibility of being convinced of the authenticity of a given claim.

Although, if you revealed to me some statement about the destiny of the universe or made un-producible supernatural claims, I would be skeptical.

That’s fine.. my point was not about epistemology – I wasn’t suggesting you had to accept any particular theological claims or ideas as true, but rather critiquing the general lack of willingness to consider that some of the theological problems that vocal atheists raise can and are actually thought through by intelligent people.

Hello Friendly Atheist, and all atheists here at this site,

I find the title of this post interesting. It is actually the “militant atheists” that are the real hostile ones officially promoting hatred:

See my article for proof: “New Atheism: New Excuses and New Abuses

Also, if you, Richard or anyone here can back up your atheism with solid reasoning, I challenge you to refute my article:

How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God’s Existence

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

Good luck,

Rick

Pascal’s point is that usually non-belief is not purely rational – it is more rational to hedge your bets, than to take a risk. He wasn’t suggesting that God would be ok with a kind of fake bet-hedged lip-service. He wasn’t so much suggesting that people should be hedging their bets, but pointing out that they don’t. It’s not then, an evangelistic apologetic, but intended to make a point about non-belief. Most Christians don’t get that though.

But belief in a magic man in the sky, an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful man in the sky, is really irrational. More disturbing is the thought that there are some people who literally need to have a cosmic parent figure “watching and guiding” them, all the time — those are the ones who, when they finally “break”, end up on the news in a very, very bad way, usually with a dead body or four (or more!) to their name. There’s nothing healthy about that level of control.

Strawman anyone?

An intriguing anecdotal near death experience doesn’t prove the existence of the supernatural.  It is probably just hallucinations due to oxygen deprivation of the brain.    Likewise, paradoxes in contemporary science don’t prove the existence of the supernatural.  They just demonstrate that our understanding of reality is incomplete (or reality is more strange than we previously thought).   Even though it is popular to jump on whatever religious bandwagon prevails in society, the reasonable stance is to withhold belief until there is better evidence.  I will assume ghosts (or holy ghosts) don’t habitate the shadows until proven otherwise.

Missing the point, much?

Let me spell it out: Belief requires emotional attachment to the idea of a god. Non-belief, by necessity, incorporates a far more rational mindset.

Adapt.

Besides, you can have the comments sent to your e-mail, complete with a convenient “click here to go to this reply” link. It’s really easy.

Why, thank you! ^_^

Begging the question doesn’t excuse strawmen. Sorry.

Well said (I quoted you)  😉

Hello Andrew, thank you for those thoughts.

You said “But then you say:”  between the two statements of mine that you quoted. The “but” sounds like you think that one contradicts the other.  If that’s what you think,  don’t see the contradiction. First I said that I’m unconvinced, and then I described what I, just me, personally, need to be convinced.

I’m not saying that my description exclusively defines everything that anyone might call “evidence.” What is evidence to one person might be, as you say, just presuppositions to another person. I’m describing the kind of evidence that I, just me, personally, need in order to be convinced of any claim, not just those about gods. 

I think that you and I in a way agree that questions about deities should not be satisfied by responses that are built on low standards, even though you and I are probably using completely different criteria, and completely different concepts, and completely different methods. 

My preference for a yes, narrow, naturalist-scientific kind of evidence for any>/em> claim comes from my having seen too often the tragic consequences of people having very broad, loose, sloppy, arbitrary, and convenient  standards and perameters for what they call “evidence.”

Richard Warden, To provide some more details, specifically, the following are the problems with your “Proof”. Logic is Based on Universal Truth and ValidityIn this section you seem to imply that because logic is even possible, then therefore there must be a giver of logic (or a God).  This doesn’t necessarily follow.  Your conclusion presupposes that there is a God.  The other possibility is that logic could be a truism without there needing to be anything that provides logic. This section is a  non sequitur argument (also a bit of begging the question). Quantum Physics Undermines Materialist PresuppositionsYou present a straw man argument coupled with a false dichotomy here.  The straw man is that atheism is totally dependent on the current theories of materialism being correct and without paradox.  That is just not true.  One can be an atheist while accepting that our current theories of science are incomplete and sometimes even wrong.  One can even be an atheist and hold the position that the homo-sapien brain isn’t even up to the job of completely understanding nature.  You present a false dichotomy when you imply that a scientific paradox suggests or proves the existence of God.  IMO, as an atheist, such paradoxes just indicate interesting places within science where there is opportunity to do more research.  Science is a work in progress. NDE Studies Verify Harmony of Laws of Logic and Quantum MechanicsNear Death Experiences (NDE) are merely anecdotal stories and cannot be trustworthy for a variety of reasons.  People say a great variety of things (or nothing) when they are close to death.  You are just cherry-picking some reported NDEs that happen to “confirm” your previously held beliefs.  This is called confirmation bias.  You selectively ignore all of the NDEs that don’t confirm your beliefs.  Many people just utter random thoughts from earlier life experiences…  It may all be just due to the brain struggling with oxygen deprivation and reorganizing around earlier strong memories or beliefs.  If the person already believes in heaven and has a hallucination about heaven while near death, then that doesn’t prove that heaven exists.      In conclusion, you don’t offer a proof.  Your words may be reassuring to people who already believe, but they won’t convince anyone who isn’t willing to beg the question, form false dichotomies, provide  non sequiturs, have confirmation biases, and generally abuse logic to reach desired conclusions. And as Richard has said, atheists are in no obligation to “prove the non-existence of God”.  You are free to not-believe in garden fairies without having to prove that garden fairies don’t exist.  Atheists are free to not believe in God merely because they haven’t been convinced that there is a God.  We all don’t need to walk around with a “non-God proof”.

There are a number of problems with your discussion about quantum mechanics. 

It’s clear to me that you don’t really understand anything about quantum mechanics, and moreover, you don’t seem to know where to go for good information about QM. I have no idea why we’re supposed to care about what some 2  bit randroid philosopher thinks about quantum mechanics. 

There are no logical contradictions in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is deeply based on operator algebra and couldn’t be worked out mathematically if it weren’t deeply logical. The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics says, very roughly, that the classical ideas of what a particle is (something localized in space with well defined position, momentum etc) are correct roughly in proportion with the particle’s mass. The fact that QM doesn’t fit intuitively with our macroscopic picture of how things work, does not necessitate that there are logical problems with QM. 

Well, obviously I’m being forced to adapt. I was just hoping that there was some trick I might have missed.

I don’t use e-mail, so that’s not an option for me.

Hello Richard

The last time I checked I didn’t see my previous post for some reason. I apologize for jumping to an erroneous conclusion.

 I have been fairly busy  challenging  various high-profile Internet atheists to refute my article offering proof of God’s existence:

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

I’m compiling a list of the basic responses, as most, like you,  have declined my challenge to come and review my proposition.

Is there any particular photo you would like for me to use along with your response, or should I just use your thumbnail here?

Regards,

Rick

” I have been fairly busy  challenging  various high-profile Internet
atheists to refute my article offering proof of God’s existence:”

Spam-troll.

It wasn’t “fallacious” — I suggest you find out what words mean before  using them.

Strawmen, question begging(and we can ad ad hominem)are all fallacies. I suggestyoulook them up.

OK. If you say so.

Hello Richard,

You seem a little bit confused.  In your previous comment you wrote:

“I looked over your article that you say proves God’s existence, and I’m
afraid that you are right, I am not up to the task –of making any sense
of it.”

Now you write:

“I didn’t decline your challenge to come and review your
article.”

But I don’t see your comments at my blog. Strange:

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

“Read my response. I looked it over, but it was clearly beyond
my meager abilities to decipher. You’ll need to file my response in the
“couldn’t make heads or tails of it” category.”

Oh, you mean you reinterpreted my challenge. Richard, if you’d like to have better communication with theists, try and pay attention to the meaning of words. So far, you haven’t taken up my challenge.

By the way, why doesn’t Hemant moderate his own blog?  I would prefer if he would come to challenge my article, because he seems to be the star here.

You see, Richard, here’s the thing. There’s an awful lot of posturing at atheist blogs about reason. But, when it comes down to it, atheism doesn’t have a logical foundation. My article shows this. Unfortunately, most high-profile atheists are afraid to come and back up their ideas and beliefs. As a matter of  fact, the American Atheist blog, No God Blog, recently deleted my friendly challenges. PZ Meyer censored my comment citing him as a debate dodger:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Debate

Richard, you can change your mind and you can reinterpret words and concepts in any manner you wish to. But the truth remains, whether or not you are in-sync with it.

All it looks like you’re trying to do is build your own blog traffic by blogwhoring in an already popular environment. Stop. You did the exact same thing at pharyngula. It is getting exceedingly tedious.

If you decide that you want to have a real conversation, and not just annoy people, you might start by checking out the forums or by finding an on-topic post of Hemant’s to comment on. Blogwhoring is not a good strategy if conversations are your goal.

Side note: The fact that you cited Conservapedia on ANYTHING is exceedingly amusing.