The way I approach theism has changed over the last few years. I was quick to ask 'where is the evidence?', however this plays into opposition hands. If theists pride themselves in a God powerful enough to create us without the ability to comprehend- demanding evidence that we are apparently to 'human' to fathom- isn't really going to cut it.
Instead I much prefer to have an anti-theist approach, criticising why anyone would want to worship a God that makes such a choice. This, in my opinion, questions the theists self respect and morality more and is harder to shake.
What are everyone's angles of approach in debate, is anti-theism more effective?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Depends on my mood.
Depends on the theist.
It's a funny thing but to repulse theism is to repulse atheism as well, in a manner of speaking. The whole notion of atheism is to ignore theism, not give it a chance to breathe and a spotlight to do it under by virtue of argument. I'd just as soon walk off and leave them to surround themselves with themselves where the argument they seek comes to a quick desperate end - "But, but...."
I still say atheists put way too much stock in theism. To pitch the argument against it is to recognize it and that just won't do. Ignore it and eat a peach.
Letting religion get away with it's crazy arguments is why it has and probably will last so long. If it isn't criticised, how much longer will religion influence our population? Religion, despite the lack of evidence pointing to one in particular, has huge influence in the world.
Pitar,
Avoiding debates with anti-evolutionists and other crackpots that are generally regarded as fringe elements might be a good strategy. But that doesn't work if the crackpots make the laws and wear robes of respectability. The fact that we can even criticize the harm done by religion is only possible today because older generations of atheists fought in the trenches. Thus, freethought literature is no longer classified as pornographic material, meaning that our newsletters can be mailed to members around the country without risking arrest. We can now vote and serve on juries. The harm and influence of all-pervasive religion, which has brainwashed the public into thinking that any criticism of it is wrong, is not going to go away by itself. Retreat into pockets of isolated individuals (who just ignore religion and stay out of the public spotlight) sows no seeds for future generations of atheists.
Blacks would still be riding in the backs of buses if the system wasn't challenged. When Blacks challenged the system they were not validating it in any way.
Greensnake & Sam,
I think what Pitar is trying to say is that it is up to them to prove their case, not ours to argue it. It's a bit like The Flat Earth Society. If I don't know that we live on a spherical world by now am I going to believe you when you try to convince me? Not if I've convinced myself that every piece of data is just a conspiracy to convince me that our earth is a sphere (like every other planet) and it obviously isn't because the horizon is flat.
So even though it frustrates me that this society can exist and spread misinformation to my children I know that I cannot step on their rights to congregate and it is futile to tell them they live on a round planet. Though, that doesn't stop me from pointing out the critical fallacies in their theory every chance I get.
But Sam, if you find a method that is actually effective at all, please let me know. My auntie thinks I'm an evil person and refuses to speak to me because her attempt at converting me went horribly wrong.
Kataclismic,
Love your cute, furry, little critter peeking at us with those dark eyes!
I agree that there is little prospect in convincing die-hard fanatics. But the challenge can push back the curtains a bit for other atheists who are less able to defend themselves, who may live in hostile environments and need encouragement. It can also establish an intellectual framework around which atheists and others can publicly rally. If nothing else, attempts to do it well will definitely improve one's writing skills!
I got so frustrated with the flat-earthers that I forgot the point of my (Pitar's) story in that by challenging their ideologies we have to stoop to their level effectively. If we ignore people that start talking about the world being flat as opposed to challenging them then we offer them no advantage to holding such views.
But I see your point, religion and religious thought is a bit more oppressive than groups of people that don't understand geometry.
Kataclismic,
You are right about the flat earthers who may safely be ignored. It may interest you, however, to know that you only need one argument against the flat-earthers. It comes down to who has the most accurate map (and no excuses). It is mathematically impossible to convert a spherical map into a flat map without major distortions, and vice versa. (Remember how Greenland got real huge in those flat school world maps?) Therefore, if one side can produce a world map whose distances between cities is accurate to 1% or 2% then that side wins! There is no need to even ask the other side for their maps. An accurate spherical map means that no accurate flat map can exist--with mathematical certainty. You need only cite the standard distances between four cities, three of which are chosen to fall on a big triangle while the fourth city is near the center of that triangle. Showing accuracy in that special case destroys any flat-earth alternative for those cities. If you are in the mood for sport, email me privately for a full explanation.
This is the point though Greensnake. For the flat-earther to understand he is wrong requires him to do work. Anybody can walk outside, look at the flat horizon and say "Yep, the earth is flat", but when it requires mathematics and reason to understand something beyond the obvious, you start to lose people by the droves.
No matter what evidence you have, you must first establish that it is more reliable than a person's own eyesight. Certain people will regard this as deception so it becomes pointless.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Giving attention to flat-earthers does, I assume, give them confidence as they are getting attention. I don't know the best way to live with atheism, I blog for the simple fact that even if it doesn't change the view of the person I am debating with, others that are viewing the conversation may be a little more sceptical and open to a new perspective. To ignore the debate is to waste putting your point across, which could be heard by so many others.
That is my opinion anyway!
atheism the belief without god or gods refutes the god message completely anti theism is the study against god.a whole list why that study refutes the notion of god or gods.like good and evil, why does God allow these to coexist at the same time.epicurus argument against an all powerful all knowing all loving God.
WTF? Are you gibbering about now? Ta ha !
Would you guys say that since perfection is an absolute term, that for a perfect god to relate to humans in any way disproves that a perfect, infinate god exists at all?
No, I would say that there is no god until proven.
I'm right in the crack between atheist and anti-theist.
As my bio shows, my Christian faith caused IRREPARABLE damage to my life. Dogmas like Substitutionary Atonement, Total Depravity, and Predestination are psychopathic.
American Christians, in particular, detest the poor, are obsessed with corporal punishment of children, and believe what happens in other peoples' bedrooms is more important than world starvation or nuclear war.
Christianity is not even a moral code, especially Protestantism. God judges people not on their conduct, but on whether or not they believe an unbelievable story. And a divine whipping boy takes punishment on our behalf.
Islamic theology is 10 times worse.
So I am very critical of religion, and I can write a book about what's wrong with Christianity.
But I don't like it when some atheists and anti-theists ridicule Christians and say they are stupid, or refer to the "Sky Daddy," or say everyone who believes in God is delusional and mentally ill.
If all Christians are stupid and emotional children, we have to include Martin Luther King Jr., JRR Tolkien, and Lord Kelvin in that. Most of the world's Christians DO accept evolution.
Some of the most harmful Christian beliefs did not even exist for the first 1,000 years, and some of those weren't even invented until the last century or two.
Further, not all Christians are hypocrites ... they are just the loudest. In fact, when I lost everything, it was a Pentecostal friend who took me in and supported me financially until my Disability came in. I have been living with the family for almost two years without a problem. They call me their token athiest.
We have to be sure we are attacking dogma, not the individuals who happen to hold it. And we can't paint everyone with the same brush. Peoples' minds work differently. In debates, we should point out illogical points and provide factual information. But when we show contempt for human beings, we are no better than the Christian Right.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Tee Celeste:
"But I don't like it when some atheists and anti-theists ridicule Christians and say they are stupid, or refer to the "Sky Daddy," or say everyone who believes in God is delusional and mentally ill."
Can you really separate the people from their beliefs when they start preaching at you, mocking you, or discriminating against you? Christianity is still the establishment religion in the West, and atheists are a minority. There's plenty of discrimination, and in many countries religions still have the power of law.
Of course Christians aren't all morons. In "Mother Night," Kurt Vonnegut explains how othewise highly intelligent people were able to believe in Nazism by using the analogy of a clock with teeth removed at random from its gear wheels. The clock would generally tell the right time, but a few times a day it would skip backwards or forwards a couple of minutes, allowing a death camp commandant to play sublime classical music and calls for corpse carriers over the same PA system. In the same way, some people have moral clocks that can skip a few beats every so often. I think Christians/Muslims have a similar defect that lets them the believe the most arrant nonsense about creationism, virgin births, flying donkeys, 72 virgins, resurrections, etc., while still understanding finance, economics, aerodynamics....
If these religions were just private eccentricities, it wouldn't matter. But both Christianity and Islam have done immeasurable harm in the world while claiming a monopoly over morality. So when they come preaching at me here or in the real world, I reserve the right to attack and belittle them and their faith with humor, because you can't crack the dogma shell with logic.
Tee Celeste,
Sometimes we forget that Christians are not really a monolithic block but come in all stripes and flavors. Some of them are my friends. However, when gross ignorance is on public display as part of an arrogant attack on science or atheism, I feel free to hammer that ignorance unmercifully. Ignorance and arrogance are a bad mix and invite the use of a flame thrower, especially when such people impugn the honesty or intelligence of others! But if a Christian or Muslim is humble in expressing his or her opinions, showing their concern and an effort to be rational, I can be very gentle.