Debriefing my meeting with the Society of Edmonton Atheists
Beetle commented: “Hope to see a follow-up post about your talk!” The talk in question was my address to the Society of Edmonton Atheists.
And so, as requested:
There were about 25 people in attendance, a broad cross section of society from people in their early twenties to senior citizens in their golden years. Daniel and Richard from the SEA were excellent hosts and I had a great time talking for about twenty minutes about how Christians sometimes marginalize atheists through a poor reading of Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:20, slotting all atheists into the category of “foolish” or “wicked”. Such processes of social marginalization are most often tacit — rarely do people articulate them explicitly. However this dismissal of others is a common phenomenon and I noted how ubiquitous it is today in society to see individual groups marginalized by other groups. Yes Christians sometimes do it to atheists, but as I have also complained, atheists sometimes do it to Chistians. And conservatives do it to liberals and vice versa. (All of this, as I noted, is discussed in my book You’re not as Crazy as I Think. By the way, I sold all four copies I brought to the meeting. Very cool!)
Anyway, after twenty minutes or so we went into a free for all discussion and debate. It was a lively, honest and intelligent group. People didn’t hold back questions and comments, some of them crackling like a live wire with emotion and deeply considered opinion. In other words, it was anything but boring.
After an hour and a half of conversation we adjourned the meeting and most people retreated to the Elephant and Castle Pub for more discussion. I stayed there for another 2 1/2 hours of discussion and continued to find the group diverse, interesting and engaging.
So I’d like to thank Daniel, Richard and the entire group for a memorable and challenging evening. I hope to do it again soon! Next time I’ll try raising my voice and sounding angry occasionally, just to liven things up a bit.
Tags: atheism, Christianity, dialogue, Society of Edmonton Atheists, theism
61 Comments
2 Trackbacks
-
[...] I have been invited back to speak at the Society of Edmonton Atheists next week. This is a really good group of people and I had a very enjoyable time when I spoke previously in June. (You can read about my previous experiences here.) [...]
-
[...] recently spoke with us in June 2011 and he and the attendees all had a great [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Michael says:
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 7:39pm
Hi Randal, The Vice-President Mike here. Again just wanted to say thank you for speaking last night. I’m the first person to admit that I am prejudiced when it comes to religion. Mostly due to what I perceive to be negative experiences with the churches I have attended. You did much to dispel some of my notions when it comes to Christians and Christianity. I was really refreshing to meet such a liberal and forward-thinking Christian as yourself. Again, thank you.
randal says:
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 9:38pm
Thanks Mike. I prefer “progressive” to “liberal” but anyway those terms don’t mean too much. Forward-thinking is a definite plus, though as one who teaches church history I also try to have one eye on the past lest I become a mere chronological snob.
Richard Robinson says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 1:52pm
Randal, I want to reiterate Michael’s thanks for talking to us. I got a great deal out of your thoughtfulness and insight. I regret I didn’t get a chance to speak more directly with you. I hope we’ll have an opportunity top talk again soon.
toryninja says:
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 8:39pm
Do you think that some people had a new found respect for the Christian worldview after your time with them?
randal says:
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 9:39pm
Thankfully Mike answered that one for me.
toryninja says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 1:07am
Looking good! Keep up the great work!
Daniel says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 2:31pm
Daniel here from SEA. Thanks again Randal for coming out. I’m sorry we couldn’t offer much more than a drink.
@toryninja
Randal is a great guy, very intelligent, and kept his cool quite nicely. But no, I do not have a newfound respect for Christianity. In fact, I was all the more flabbergasted at the incredible contortions and absurd rationalizations that believers make to justify their memetic equilibrium.
I will say this though; if every C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N was more like Randal we probably wouldn’t have much need for the SEA.
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 2:40pm
Daniel, thanks for the well deserved accolades
. However, you also suggested that I made “incredible contortions” (I take it that is a reference to my reasoning rather than my ‘Cirque du Soleil’ performance) as well as “absurd rationalizations”. I am not sure to what you are referring and thus would be most indebted if you could provide some specific examples.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 3:32pm
“Randal is a great guy, very intelligent, and kept his cool quite nicely. But no, I do not have a newfound respect for Christianity.”
I actually have the same thoughts when it comes to atheists and other non-Christians:
“Hey, this is an interesting person, very intelligent, and calm. But no, I do not have a newfound respect for his/her atheism.”
——
Anyways, here’s a recent post titled “Neo-Marcionites.”
Excerpt: “Writers like Rauser and Olson don’t believe what Jesus believed. They don’t believe what other NT authors believed.”
Preceded by:
“At this point, writers like Rauser and Olson forfeit any claim to be Christian. They don’t believe in the OT God. They find the OT God morally repugnant. And this is despite the fact that Jesus and the NT writers treat the OT God as the one true God. The God of the OT is the God of the NT.”
Read it all.
And if atheists want to have their arguments engaged differently than what and how Professor Rauser handles them, try that blog.
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 7:32pm
“Hey, this is an interesting person, very intelligent, and calm. But no, I do not have a newfound respect for his/her atheism.”
I think that if you find an atheist to be interesting , intelligent, and calm then you almost by derfault have a respect for his/her atheism. You have to realize that an atheist has their own reason for being an atheist. These resons are shaped by their thoughts, feelings, knowledge and experiences. And, they are just as real as your reasons for being a Christian. To say that a persons reasons for having the worldview that they do are not valid just because you don’t share that worldview is just ignorant. Just because you find that you respect someone else’s point of view does not mean you have to adopt it for yourself.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 7:47pm
Daniel: “Randal is a great guy, very intelligent, and kept his cool quite nicely. But no, I do not have a newfound respect for Christianity.”
Me: “Daniel is a great guy, very intelligent, and kept his cool quite nicely. But no, I do not have a newfound respect for atheism.”
Same, same.
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 8:00pm
What’s your point?
Daniel says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 8:03pm
Wierd thing to say since you don’t know me and are hiding behind a handle.
I don’t respect Randal’s POV because it is not evidence-based.
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:21pm
Ahh, now we have a claim. You “don’t respect Randal’s POV because it is not evidence-based.”
First, obviously not all beliefs need to be “evidence-based” because if they did you’d immediately face an infinite regress that terminated in skepticism. So clearly only some beliefs need to be “evidence-based” including, presumably, the beliefs you label as “points of view”. Could you provide more specificity about what type of beliefs these point of view beliefs are? Once you’ve done that I can examine more ably whether (1) the beliefs you’ve identified in fact need evidence, (2) whether I provided evidence for beliefs I hold that require evidence, and (3) whether you can provide evidence for POV beliefs you hold that require evidence. After all, we wouldn’t want to be the pot calling the kettle black now, would we?
Richard Robinson says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 1:58pm
I think you can take from Michael’s comment that he doesn’t agree with Daniel, either. For the record, neither do I. If my conception of Christians wasn’t change by Randal, it’s because I already knew there were such interesting people out there. It’s why I invited him.
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 2:29pm
Richard, I’m confused as to what you’re disagreeing with me on. I said that Randal did not change my perception of Christianity and it sounds like you’re saying the same thing. So it seems that you actually disagree with Michael.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 8:23pm
If you don’t get the point, keep trying.
—-
I don’t respect atheism because it’s stupid.
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 8:25pm
I’m not going to get your point. You’re going to have to come right out and tell me.
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:24pm
Beliefs aren’t “stupid” (or even “stoopid”). That is a descriptor which only applies to persons. I take your claim to be a rather inflammatory way of saying “irrational” but maybe you mean something else. Anyway, calling people or their beliefs “stupid” (rather than a more cautious and informative “lacking evidence” or something similar) typically just irritates people and ensures they won’t listen to you. I am not sure whether you want people to listen to you or not, but if you do, I suggest you drop that inflammatory language.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 8:44pm
“I’m not going to get your point.”
That’s fine.
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:00pm
I’m going to say this. If you don’t make what you’re trying to say clear enough for others to understand then they need to make assumptions. With that in mind, I’m going to form opinions about you based on those assumptions. If my assumptions are wrong then my opinions will be misinformed. If you’re okay with that then that’s great. If not, then you can only blame yourself.
With that being said, here is my assumption. To me it seems that all you are doing is pointing out that Atheists and Christians treat each other the same way. It also seems that you don’t have a lot of respect for Atheists and assume that Atheists don’t have a lot of respect for Christians. This is an unfair generalization and it is exactly what Randal talked about at the SEA meeting and in his book.
As a humanist, I have a deep respect for all human beings and place immeasurable intrinsic value on human life. I understand that not all people are ever going to think alike and I’m fine with that. I respect that people form their own beliefs for a wide variety of reasons and I recognize them all as being valid. I don’t try to push my (lack of) beliefs on anyone and I don’t need others to think like I do for my beliefs to be true for me. If you do require others to believe what you believe then maybe you need to re-examine your life. And, if you view my lack of faith as an attack on your faith, I have to question the strength of your in the first place. To me, and this is an assumption, if you say X belief is stupid when it is in contrast to your own then you must be really insecure in your beliefs.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:15pm
“To me, and this is an assumption, if you say X belief is stupid when it is in contrast to your own then you must be really insecure in your beliefs.”
Amusing.
——–
o “I don’t respect Randal’s POV because it is not evidence-based.”
vis-a-vis
o “I don’t respect atheism because it’s stupid.”
Are atheists really insecure in their beliefs about atheism?
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:19pm
For starters, Daniel and I don’t speak for each other. Don’t quote his comments in response to mine.
Atheists are not insecure in their (lack of) beliefs. Well, maybe some are but not me. Most Atheists just require evidence and/or proof in order to accept something as true.
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:26pm
“Most Atheists just require evidence and/or proof in order to accept something as true.”
Surely not in all beliefs since, as I noted, that would lead to an infinite regress. So how do you decide (a) which beliefs require evidence and (b) what kind of evidence is suitable to meet the demand for the beliefs that require it?
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:43pm
I can only speak for myself so this applies to only me unless others agree.
a)First off, it’s kind of unfair to say that I believe in things. It’s more that I “accept things as being true”. Of all the claims and ideas about the world that are made. I only accept a small fraction as being true. The things that people say that I don’t accept i don’t need evidence for. I’m going to say that all the things I accept as being true I require evidence for. I’m sorry but I don’t recall your “Infinite regress” statement.
b) The evidence I am willing to accept is any evidence that is not a logical fallacy. I will not accept arguments from personal experience, arguments from ignorance, an the like. It needs to be independently verfiable. If the claim is scientific then I would like to see a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal. I would like to examine repeatable test results. In order for a claim or theory to be accepted by the scientific community it needs to go through a rigourous process of review and examination. If it manages to complete that process without being disproven then it is safe to say that it is true.
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:53pm
On infinite regress you can read here.
You write: “The things that people say that I don’t accept i don’t need evidence for.”
I take it you’re appealing to a general principle here. Are you claiming that only believings are subject to rational appraisal such that withholdings are not? If that’s your position, it is clearly false. If it is something else let me know.
You said the only kind of evidence you accept is that which is “independently verfiable.” This sounds like you are a verificationist. If so, are you aware that the position was abandoned by philosophers in the 1940s because it is self-refuting? I appreciate your nostalgia in promoting defunct philosophical views but really, something that predates Elvis? Talk about out of style.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:46pm
Randal: “Beliefs aren’t “stupid” (or even “stoopid”).”
I disagree. There are some beliefs that are stupid, or if you prefer, irrational, i.e., not rational.
Atheism being one of them.
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:55pm
Well my point was a technical one but I’ll accept you’re point as a common way of speaking. I hope you agree that it is less inflammatory, and thus more productive, to refer to the beliefs of others as irrational rather than stupid. Why do you think atheism is irrational? I’ll let you state why and then I’ll step back to let any atheists in the room take over since my first order of business isn’t to defend the rationality of atheism.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 9:55pm
Michael: “I’m going to say that all the things I accept as being true I require evidence for.”
You accept atheism as being true. You say you require evidence for it being true.
Present your evidence for your belief that atheism is true.
Michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 10:34pm
Randal, I’ll respond to your points when I have a bit more time. I’m about to go home from work.
Truth Unites, That is a dishonest request. Atheism is a lack of a belief. It is not a positive affirmation. The best way to put it is “Absence of belief is not belief in absence”. It would be impossible for me to prove a negative such as that one. Your statement is dishonest.
As an Atheist I don’t accept the claim that a god of any kind exists. I will continue to accept this until evidence and/or proof is provided to support the existence of a deity.
I am more than willing to reject and abandon ideas that I hold to be true when I am provided with evidence to the contrary.
chris says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 11:14pm
Michael I am sorry to pounce on you but there are just too many things you said I would like to comment on.
1. “ To say that a persons reasons for having the worldview that they do are not valid just because you don’t share that worldview is just ignorant. Just because you find that you respect someone else’s point of view does not mean you have to adopt it for yourself.”
I think that in the name of tolerance, we have thrown reason out the window. People are free to believe whatever they want, and the respect they deserve has nothing to do with their worldview. Just because someone holds to a particular worldview does not 1. make it true
2. mean that we should respect that worldview
“As a humanist, I have a deep respect for all human beings and place immeasurable intrinsic value on human life.”
1. You do understand that humanism is a self-refuting claim?
2. Why do you value human life? I believe that each person is created by God in His image and has a soul that is cherished by God. But if we are nothing more than re-arranged pond scum, where does the value come from?
“ I understand that not all people are ever going to think alike and I’m fine with that. I respect that people form their own beliefs for a wide variety of reasons and I recognize them all as being valid.”
Please clarify what you mean by valid. If I understand you correctly you are saying that you believe that every persons belief to be true?
Here are some definitions of valid, please do explain:
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
“I don’t try to push my (lack of) beliefs on anyone and I don’t need others to think like I do for my beliefs to be true for me. If you do require others to believe what you believe then maybe you need to re-examine your life.”
You are essentially saying “That’s true for you, but not for me.”
It doesn’t make sense to say that no belief is true for everyone, because by making that statement you’re claiming that your own viewpoint (relativism) is universally true – and thereby contradicting yourself. And simply living life depends on belief in truth of some kind; everyone must implicitly trust that certain things exist in order to survive.
You surely don’t live buy this I assure you. I can promise that if I feel there that for the survival of me and my family you should give me any of your valuable material possessions and I will come visit you to collect them, will you then push your beliefs on me?
randal says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 11:17pm
“Atheism is a lack of a belief. It is not a positive affirmation.”
Not according to conventional definition. See my article “Three reasons agnostics shouldn’t call themselves atheists.”
Concerning the existence of God you write: “It would be impossible for me to prove a negative such as that one.”
Not true. Read what I wrote here.
Oh, and here’s one of my treatments of burden of proof.
beetle says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 3:36pm
Very sporting of you to cite those, and I am delighted to see the comments loading now. Should we ever find a mutually acceptable neutral judge, I am confident that person would point out that you clearly lost those debates…
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 10:38pm
Michael: “I’m going to say that all the things I accept as being true I require evidence for.”
You should get rid of the word “all” then. For you really don’t require evidence that atheism is true.
Atheism is faith-based.
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 3:58am
@Randal, Unfortunately, I’m not a professional atheologian… yet — so my day job and atheist quiverfull keep me pretty busy… (WARNING: Was not intended to be a factual statement)
So in the interest of brevity I’ll try to answer your questions in terms of a best of:
1. The award for most absurd rationalization:
Randal’s attempt to justify faith in a bronze-age middle-eastern text as the word of God given the horrible barbarisms therein.
2. And the award for most incredible contortion goes to:
The utter mess of circular reasoning Randal makes on how to interpret the bible — through Jesus — but how do we know about Jesus — through the bible. Hey, wait a second; did I see you at U2′s 360 tour?
3. And finally ladies and gentleman, in the category of most stark naked assertion the winner is (drumroll please):
Randal’s belief in the historicity or divinity of Jesus. Granted, your talk at SEA was not about either of these topics but they presumably form the basis of your worldview. To which I say; EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. (And you ain’t got any).
Now in the famous closing award words of Ricky Gervais: “Thank you to God for making me an atheist,”
Oz Rob says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 5:33am
I find it baffling how people (atheist or other, in this case primarily atheist) who seem to not be even remotely conversant with philosophy or epistemology are nevertheless so dogmatic despite their ignorance. I’ll invoke the axiom that the more one knows, the more one realises how little one knows and the more humble one is prepared to be about their beliefs (and yes, atheism is a belief set, though as varied in content in any formal religous set).
Maybe ignorance and dogmatism are just self-reinforcing. There’s a post idea for you, Randal.
Richard Robinson says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 4:10pm
You’re probably not a mechanic, but you likely still have ideas about which makes of cars you would or wouldn’t drive. And with a little effort on your part, you can probably still troubleshoot and correct a number of problems your car might encounter.
I can come to and consider an idea without having to know which dead white guy first put it in a book. I don’t need to know the name of an idea to decide whether to accept it or reject it. Granted, being conversant speeds the conversation along greatly, but that will come as I engage in the conversation.
And this is a conversation in which everyone has a stake. And to bar someone from it because they haven’t made their academic bona fides is another form or marginalization.
If a person is engaging sincerely with the ideas and seeking to understand them, the wise thing to do is to help that person get up to speed, which I suspect is Randal’s purpose in his conversation here with Michael.
Oz Rob says:
Saturday, June 11, 2011 at 7:05am
Richard,
No-one is trying to bar anyone. My point remains. When one is not obviously not conversant with a field, one ought to refrain from dogmatic statements because it highlights one’s ignorance rather than one’s desire to learn or become informed. Humility is a more appropriate and commendable attitude.
Oz Rob says:
Saturday, June 11, 2011 at 7:12am
oops… there’s an extra and redundant “not” in my first sentence.
Oz Rob says:
Saturday, June 11, 2011 at 7:13am
Dagnabbit. 3rd sentence. Lamenting the lack of editing capacity.
randal says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 8:03pm
“Maybe ignorance and dogmatism are just self-reinforcing.”
You don’t need my post to know that’s true!
Nathan says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 7:16am
Hi Randal
I was the long haired bearded guy sitting next to you on Tuesday night. Thank you for entering the “lion’s den” as it was, it was as you say a lively discussion.
After reading some of the comments here I just wanted to say that while there may have been conclusions that we may not see eye to eye on (I don’t see the need to argue about them with you on your blog as we already did have a good back and forth in person) I did find the original topic thought provoking and there certainly was some common ground upon which we can agree. Marginalizing those who we theologically disagree with is something to which theists and atheists alike can be prone to and that is a subject we can all work on without getting into whose belief is right or wrong.
Thank you again
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 2:48pm
How did you get your picture on here?
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 3:06pm
@Oz Rob, @Truth Unites… and Divides
You guys have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is.
Presumably, you’ve spent lots of time in church, reading the bible, etc. If you actually want to have a conversation
do yourselves a favor of actually putting some effort into getting some information about what atheism actually is from the horse’s mouth.
Here are some good places to start:
http://www.atheist-community.org/faq
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism
http://www.atheist-experience.com
and of course, “The God Delusion”
In particular, I’m going to quote from http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#atheism_is_faith
“Q: You guys believe there is no God, but you can’t prove that there isn’t. So being an atheist obviously requires at least as much faith as being a Christian.
A: This assumption is rooted in the elementary logical fallacy that two opposite things–belief and disbelief–are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. For example, in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.
To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense. Here is an analogous situation: supposedly, as a Christian, you do not believe in the Roman or Aztec gods. Is it just as much an “act of faith” on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and Aztecs to believe in them? If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an “act of faith” on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf? Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.
Finally, one can turn to the Bible’s definition of faith–the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”–to see that this is a definition that excludes disbelief. So if you still don’t agree with us that atheism is not a faith, then check your Bibles. ”
One more quote from http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#atheist_agnostic:
“Q: What’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who knows about the existence of god and an “agnostic” is one who thinks that god is unknowable.
Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.
So there are four possible ways one could be.
1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
2. Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can’t be proved
4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
Case 3 is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism” and case 4 is sometimes referred to as “strong atheism”. Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.
Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can’t positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist.
”
If Randal really did get the degrees he says he did then I’m pretty sure Randal understands all of the above. Randal wants to redefine atheism to equal Gnostic-Atheism. He can try to of course; but it is disingenuous dialogue when you do not take what a person says at face-value. An Agnostic-Atheist (which is what I am) is an incredibly humble position — and it is quite revealing of Christian arrogance when they point the arrogance charge at an Agnostic-Atheist who does not claim to know things that primates such as ourselves cannot possibly know.
Oz Rob says:
Saturday, June 11, 2011 at 7:11am
Daniel,
“Presumably, you’ve spent lots of time in church, reading the bible, etc. If you actually want to have a conversation
do yourselves a favor of actually putting some effort into getting some information about what atheism actually is from the horse’s mouth. ”
Oh dear, well, having read respectable atheists such as Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, William Rowe, Quentin Smith, et al, I’ll pass on your offer to be educated via weblink from a writer who again, does not appear to be conversant with epistemology.
Oz Rob says:
Saturday, June 11, 2011 at 7:16am
Daniel, if you dig a little deeper you’ll discover at base, any system of thought is constructed on a set of beliefs and contains beliefs. It is an unavoidable fact.
randal says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 8:03pm
Thanks Nathan. Agreed.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 12:39pm
Comment Title: “Debriefing my virtual meeting with some Edmonton Atheists”
Atheist 1: “I don’t respect Randal’s POV [Christianity] because it is not evidence-based.”
Atheist 2: “I’m going to say that all the things I accept as being true I require evidence for.”
Christian: “Present your evidence for your belief that atheism is true.”
Atheist 2: “That is a dishonest request. Atheism is a lack of a belief. It would be impossible for me to prove a negative such as that one.”
Christian: “You should get rid of the word “all” then. For you really don’t require evidence that atheism is true.
Atheism is faith-based.”
Going back to Atheist 1′s statement and applying his own criteria and reasoning to his own POV results in:
“I don’t respect the atheist’s POV because it is not evidence-based.”
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 3:08pm
oops, i meant my previous post that starst with
@Oz Rob, @Truth Unites… and Divides
to go here…
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 5:50pm
The following still holds:
“I don’t respect the atheist’s POV because it is not evidence-based.”
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 6:02pm
It holds in your mind because you do not understand what atheism is.
It would be like saying I don’t respect the non-stamp collector’s stamp collection.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 6:15pm
I understand what atheism is.
You’re admitting that atheism is not evidence-based.
beetle says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 7:19pm
Can we both agree that atheism is based on the non-existence of evidence? You should be able to express the position of your opposition in a way they can agree with. Otherwise you are misunderstanding the opposition!
Daniel says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 7:45pm
beetle, I would agree with that.
chris says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 7:48pm
No, Atheism is not based on non-existence of evidence.
The existence of the universe is evidence.
The existence of life is evidence.
The fact that the “big bang” cannot be explained is evidence in it self.
The evidence that leads to the Oort Cloud theory is evidence itself.
The evidence is there for all to interpret.
The bottom line is that Atheism is an intellectually dishonest position. Just grow up and be an agnostic.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 7:57pm
“The bottom line is that Atheism is an intellectually dishonest position.”
I would agree with that.
Beetle says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 11:00pm
Are you here to communicate or just cast insults? Trolling is easy.
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 11:07pm
Chris: “The bottom line is that Atheism is an intellectually dishonest position.”
This is a very good and accurate communication. I would agree with it!
Richard Robinson says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 10:24pm
Any intellectually honest atheist will tell you freely that his position, strictly speaking, is agnosticism. I call myself an atheist because, having no persuasive evidence for the existence of any gods, I live my life as though there aren’t any.
As for your argument from first causes, you’ll first need to prove that the universe needed creating.
Physicists will talk about the big bang as a beginning, but it’s really only the beginning of the universe as we know it. It is a mathematical singularity, which means we can’t know what came before it. String theory is taking a crack at it, and has some important implications for this very discussion. If there’s one thing it teaches us it’s that we’ve only barely begun to grasp the nature of the universe. It’s a little soon to be throwing out hypotheses about how it began, particularly since haven’t even established the meaning of that question.
randal says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 11:27pm
“Any intellectually honest atheist will tell you freely that his position, strictly speaking, is agnosticism.”
This is false. I have had several very good conversations with Evan Fales, a philosopher from the University of Iowa, and believe me, he is an atheist who can explain why he is an atheist.
As Madalyn Murray O’Hair is reputed to have said, an “agnostic” is merely an atheist without guts. While this isn’t necessarily the case (Paul Draper for example) there are indeed many atheists who retreat to agnosticism only when they’re asked to defend their position.
Beetle says:
Friday, June 10, 2011 at 11:07pm
Okay, so maybe we can have a conversation about what constitutes evidence and how that informs world views?
> Just grow up and be an agnostic
As explained above contemporary vernacular holds that a tri-state condition (theist/agnostic/atheist) is not correct. It is much more constructive to use two binaries: theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic.