How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian:

[Hope]

That's an argument, is it? 

Well, if L|en uses it, it must be an argument   

Anybody who can be convinced to look for "God" needs it. The majority of atheists don't feel that need. Those few of us who have been in both places are probably in a stronger position than those who haven't.

I notice that you didn't challenge his view as expressed in this post.

[Shaker]

Well, if L|en uses it, it must be an argument   

I've never known Len to use "That there's a felt need [as opposed to an unfelt need?] is an argument in support of the existence of the thing needed" as Vlad did in #22. That's the sort of witless flummery that C. S. Lewis used to pass off as pop theology, and Len is far too acute for that.

[Hope]

By good I mean someone who does their best to help others as well as themselves as they go through life. That is far more important than whether they have a faith or not, imo.

OK, that's 'good'; many of us would fit into that category, but are still not perfect in our own lives.  We get angry, we lie, we tread on people's toes (metaphorically and otherwise) to get our own way, we're selfish, we cheat, we regard victimless crime as less serious than those with victims, ... .  Those are all fairly common traits of humanity; we may not all exhibit every one, but doesn't that nullify just about every effort we make to help others? 

I think, more important than whether or not 'we do our best to help others as well as ourselves' is whether - if everyone really knew what we were like when we're not putting on a face - they'd want to trust us.

[Hope]

I've never known Len to use "That there's a felt need [as opposed to an unfelt need?] is an argument in support of the existence of the thing needed" as Vlad did in #22. That's the sort of witless flummery that C. S. Lewis used to pass off as pop theology, and Len is far too acute for that.

Perhaps you ought to re-read the post that he wrote and which I quoted, then, Shaker.  It was he who introduced the phrase in #10 (the post I quoted), not Vlad.

[Shaker]

we regard victimless crime as less serious than those with victims

Quite rightly so. I would hope that anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together and even the most rudimentary moral sense would do the same.

[Hope]

Quite rightly so. I would hope that anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together and even the most rudimentary moral sense would do the same.

OK,perhaps you can give some exampes of 'victimless crimes'.

[Shaker]

Perhaps you ought to re-read the post that he wrote and which I quoted, then, Shaker.  It was he who introduced the phrase in #10 (the post I quoted), not Vlad.

I have just re-read it now and it's not an example of Len deploying the Argument from Desire (unlike Vlad) as you seem to think it is, for some weird reason.

[Hope]

I have just re-read it now and it's not an example of Len deploying the Argument from Desire (unlike Vlad) as you seem to think it is, for some weird reason.

So, the post of yours I responded to used the phrase "... a felt need ...", something that Len was clearly referring to back in #10.  Having challenged you, you now refer to 'the Argument from Desire' which is something that I don't think either Len or Vlad in their respective posts were on about.

[Shaker]

OK,perhaps you can give some exampes of 'victimless crimes'.

Blasphemy laws are the obvious example that spring immediately to mind.

[Shaker]

If not, what was it?

It was a commentary on the AfD, not a serious usage of it as in Vlad's case. Thus Len said:

Anybody who can be convinced to look for "God" needs it.

By this I take it that he means that anybody in search of a God is predisposed to believe in such a thing - the pump is already primed for such a belief, as it were. Len's statement is a comment about the AfD, and not as in Vlad's case in #22 a serious use of it on a par with the ontological argument, the teleological argument and lots of other big words he doesn't understand.

As for the rest of his comments:

The majority of atheists don't feel that need.

which is unarguably true, and:

Those few of us who have been in both places are probably in a stronger position than those who haven't.

is debatable. That would depend upon what's meant by a stronger position.

[Shaker]

So, the post of yours I responded to used the phrase "... a felt need ...", something that Len was clearly referring to back in #10.

I never even saw #10 at the time - the phrase "a felt need" first appeared in #22 by Vlad, viz.: "Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the psychological avoidance of God argument, argument from felt need ..."

Having challenged you, you now refer to 'the Argument from Desire' which is something that I don't think either Len or Vlad in their respective posts were on about.

I suggest you read #22 again and try to maintain that Vlad's litany of arguments for God, a list which includes "a felt need" as quoted above, is not synonymous with the foolish flim-flam of the Argument from Desire as espoused by Lewis and others similarly benighted.

[Hope]

I never even saw #10 at the time - ...

Having jumped into the middle of discussions without reading everything prior to a particular point myself, I'll accept this as a legit. excuse. 

I suggest you read #22 again and try to maintain that Vlad's litany of arguments for God, a list which includes "a felt need" as quoted above, is not synonymous with the foolish flim-flam of the Argument from Desire as espoused by Lewis and others similarly benighted.

I'm not even sure that Vlad was trying to synonymise anything - that would have been rather more complex than he usually runs to.  I assumed that he was simply indicating that there are some who dismiss arguments on the grounds that they disagree with their own opinions, without providing any means that invalidates said arguments.

[Shaker]

I'm not even sure that Vlad was trying to synonymise anything - that would have been rather more complex than he usually runs to.

I won't disagree with you here

I assumed that he was simply indicating that there are some who dismiss arguments on the grounds that they disagree with their own opinions, without providing any means that invalidates said arguments.

Impressions are one thing; but the fact that he listed the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and so forth and then added "argument from felt need" indicated to me that he intended "a felt need" [for God] to be an argument for God's existence on a par with the others.

I agree with him up to a point in that the Argument from Desire is indeed on a par with the others - all the other arguments were disposed of long ago

[ProfessorDavey]

However, I would also point out that the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!

What like those charming folk from the Westboro Baptist church, who I'm sure are 100% convinced they are using the Biblical deity as a role model.

There are plenty of people about (and have been for centuries) who use the bible as a guide to support them in doing all sorts of appalling things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just looked at the link, but there seems to be a bit missing from the version I uploaded. All the smug complacency twaddle is there but the final section: "What To Do If The Atheist's Arguments Turn Out To Be Better Than Yours And You Have No Choice But To Conclude That He's Right" is missing.

Funny that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

FD,

......Then there is the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the psychological avoidance of God argument, argument from felt need......and all the other arguments that antitheists claim have failed logically but that actually means they have only been established as not without counter argument.

Um, I wonder if perhaps you shouldn't consider taking a class in theology or some such. These "arguments" are so desperately poor that as I understand it even more nuanced theists have long since given up on them as lost causes. I've no idea what they've come up with instead, but I presume they must have something beyond your foot stamping, Violet Elizabeth Bott, "It'th twoo, it'th twoo becoth I thay it'th twoo" effort so far. (Or as you call it, "intuition".)

Maybe if they have you might want to consider deploying it here so as to avoid further embarrassment in future?

[jeremyp]

Just looked at the link, but there seems to be a bit missing from the version I uploaded. All the smug complacency twaddle is there but the final section: "What To Do If The Atheist's Arguments Turn Out To Be Better Than Yours And You Have No Choice But To Conclude That He's Right" is missing.

Funny that.

It's not missing, they took their own advice: denial.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

It's not missing, they took their own advice: denial.

Oh right, that must be it then. Thanks.

[Hope]

What like those charming folk from the Westboro Baptist church, who I'm sure are 100% convinced they are using the Biblical deity as a role model.

I read an interview with someone who had studied at Bob Jones University at the same time as Phelps.  He made it clear that Phelps' position on homophobia was not in line with the official university line.  Yes, they felt/feel that homosexuality was/is wrong but didn't come to the same conclusions concerning the way we ought to deal with such folk as Phelps.  That is why, PD, I said that "... the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!"  I'd also add that this particular group didn't/don't even use the Bible as a role model.

There are plenty of people about (and have been for centuries) who use the bible as a guide to support them in doing all sorts of appalling things.

Including some non-believers!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I read an interview with someone who had studied at Bob Jones University at the same time as Phelps.  He made it clear that Phelps' position on homophobia was not in line with the official university line.

Why on earth would a university of all places have an "official line" on homosexuality, other that is than indifference?

Yes, they felt/feel that homosexuality was/is wrong...

Then they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

...but didn't come to the same conclusions concerning the way we ought to deal with such folk as Phelps.

"The way to deal with such folks"!!!!!???

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?
 

That is why, PD, I said that "... the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!"  I'd also add that this particular group didn't/don't even use the Bible as a role model.

But the scumbags you seem to approve of provide cover for the Phelp's of this world - "we all agree that what gay people get up to in private is a "sin" right, only maybe ol' Fred has taken it a bit too far."

Absolutely contemptible.

[Gonnagle]

Dear blue,

"What To Do If The Atheist's Arguments Turn Out To Be Better Than Yours And You Have No Choice But To Conclude That He's Right" is missing.

Where!! never seen or heard of a convincing argument for atheism.

1.  Teleological argument, design argument, not my favourite argument, all I know is it works, nature works, it is extremely efficient, it makes sure life goes on, well unless we step in, we think we can improve on nature, better than God.

2. Avoiding God, well that is where my posts lately have been going, we are made to believe.

3. Cosmological argument, my favourite it comes from science, science bleats on about fine tuning, then it argues against it, sciences say everything had to be absolutely perfect at the big bang, a fleas hair either way and I would not be typing this, it comes from science, two scientists on TED only two days ago were referring to fine tuning ( multi verses ) if it is dead in the water, leave it, step away, nothing to see here, move on folks, but the scientists don't, they ask the question, why!!

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

I read an interview with someone who had studied at Bob Jones University at the same time as Phelps.  He made it clear that Phelps' position on homophobia was not in line with the official university line.  Yes, they felt/feel that homosexuality was/is wrong but didn't come to the same conclusions concerning the way we ought to deal with such folk as Phelps.  That is why, PD, I said that "... the reason we tend to regard them as nasty is precisely because they haven't used the Biblical deity as a role model!"  I'd also add that this particular group didn't/don't even use the Bible as a role model.
Including some non-believers!!

The Biblical deity teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination to be punished by death.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Where!! never seen or heard of a convincing argument for atheism.

Why not? My argument for atheism is the same as your argument for a-leprechaunism after all.

1.  Teleological argument, design argument, not my favourite argument, all I know is it works, nature works, it is extremely efficient, it makes sure life goes on, well unless we step in, we think we can improve on nature, better than God.

It’s ass-backwards and solipsistic – we fit the universe, not the other way around.

2. Avoiding God, well that is where my posts lately have been going, we are made to believe.

You can’t “avoid” something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place.

3. Cosmological argument, my favourite   it comes from science, science bleats on about fine tuning, then it argues against it, sciences say everything had to be absolutely perfect at the big bang, a fleas hair either way and I would not be typing this, it comes from science, two scientists on TED only two days ago were referring to fine tuning ( multi verses ) if it is dead in the water, leave it, step away, nothing to see here, move on folks, but the scientists don't, they ask the question, why!!

No, “science” just says that the universe must have been just so back when for it to look as it does now. Had there been slightly different starting conditions, it would look different now and a three-toed gringle monster on Alpha Centauri would be posting, “How special am I – the universe is designed just for me”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear blue,

Where!! never seen or heard of a convincing argument for atheism.

1.  Teleological argument, design argument, not my favourite argument, all I know is it works, nature works, it is extremely efficient, it makes sure life goes on, well unless we step in, we think we can improve on nature, better than God.

2. Avoiding God, well that is where my posts lately have been going, we are made to believe.

3. Cosmological argument, my favourite it comes from science, science bleats on about fine tuning, then it argues against it, sciences say everything had to be absolutely perfect at the big bang, a fleas hair either way and I would not be typing this, it comes from science, two scientists on TED only two days ago were referring to fine tuning ( multi verses ) if it is dead in the water, leave it, step away, nothing to see here, move on folks, but the scientists don't, they ask the question, why!!

Gonnagle.

I agree with you Mr G on point  3 in particular, you are right to remind us that fine tuning and multiverse are both out of the stable of science.

Despite any thing we hear to the contrary even Bluehillside's latest science pin up boy Sean Carroll has been taken to task for announcing he is trying to solve the fine tuning 'problem'. Other atheist science writers have questioned in what sense it is a problem since it is only really a problem for antitheism.

Fine tuning seems good for the one universe we have. To favour multiverse just to avoid it doesn't seem like science.

I personally think that multiverse actually poses a problem for antitheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree with him up to a point in that the Argument from Desire is indeed on a par with the others - all the other arguments were disposed of long ago

I really think you actually believe that you and others have actually disposed of them.

It is yet another example of a Hillsidian reply. Teachers will repeat an explanation. Philosophical dilletanteism obviously doesn't.

Let me be a good teacher and repeat again. What you call disposed of is nothing more than coming up with an alternative argument. The last one to really try was Outrider trying to disprove uncaused cause
He only came up with uncaused matter and an alternative in which causation AND uncaused was somehow dismissed.

When exactly was argument from desire disposed of on this board?.......or is that just the antitheists equivalent of ''It is written''

The term disposal is dirty, stinking, purulent,shuffling antitheist hype.

I see Hillside has resurrected the old Leprechaun schtick.