Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But he already has answered, quite fully.

Not the point I was making he hasn't. I know this because I only just made it.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not the point I was making he hasn't. I know this because I only just made it.   

He's covered fully what he means by it. You are merely putting an alternative opionion. I don't see hiw that's relevant to what he thinks amounts to someone being C/christian

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

He's covered fully what he means by it. You are merely putting an alternative opionion. I don't see hiw that's relevant to what he thinks amounts to someone being C/christian

I merely suggested that the use of "Christian" instead of "christian" in an earlier post had likely led to questions and challenges that would not otherwise have arisen. It's a simple point, and not a particularly profound one either. You seem to be in full "pick a fight in an empty room" mode this morning – why not instead let Gonners himself tell us whether he thinks he covered it already?     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I merely suggested that the use of "Christian" instead of "christian" in an earlier post had likely led to questions and challenges that would not otherwise have arisen. It's a simple point, and not a particularly profound one either. You seem to be in full "pick a fight in an empty room" mode this morning – why not instead let Gonners himself tell us whether he thinks he covered it already?     

The simoke pount woukd only maje sebse if yiu suggest that Gonzo's opunion is somehiw wring. From the first point he made on this, it's clear that he doesn't make the distinction that others like Maeght are making. He's tgerfore not being inaccurate. .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I doubt many of us on the atheist side of the fence are relaxed on the subject of how bleak 'bad things' can be: after all, there is no shortage of current or historical examples.

Many atheist don't view this as their concern but that of religion. If we were only all atheist I think the thinking goes.

Anyway, do you subscribe to the Christian doctrine that implies that babies are born in a 'sinful' state?

I don't see how you can be guilty of someone else's sin.
That prime sin though has undoubtedly left a legacy even atheists subscribe to. Whatever the taint it gets to us all like the common cold. You can of course be guilty of the same sin as someone else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The simoke pount woukd only maje sebse if yiu suggest that Gonzo's opunion is somehiw wring. From the first point he made on this, it's clear that he doesn't make the distinction that others like Maeght are making. He's tgerfore not being inaccurate. .

Are you using a Chinese keyboard or something?

Anyway, as we still seem to be at cross-purposes here let's do as I suggested and let Gonners answer for himself shall we? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't see how you can be guilty of someone else's sin.

Do you not subscribe to a central tenet of Christianity that we're all born sinners because an ancient (supposed) ancestor listened to a talking snake (or something) then?   

[Stranger]

You can't really be this dumb? Wanting to learn critical thinking is a belief.

More of a desire, really. The belief is that it will help you to think more rationally. You have just acknowledged that beliefs can change.

You didn't chose that and yet here you are desperately patting yourself on the back for just being you.

I wasn't patting myself on the back at all, and I did choose to study it in response to the aforementioned belief. A deterministic choice is still a choice, or are you going to deny that too, like Alan so often does?

The purpose of my post was the hope that what I said might at least nudge people towards a change by pointing out that it was an option, and I as explained before, things people read change the people who read them. As you have said, acting as if free will was real is what people do. That actually makes sense because people are changed by what is said to them.

As already covered, that free will makes no sense isn't at all imporatant, abd when you make it so as you are doung it means your self congratulation is contradictory in that light.

Have you really not been following at all? I agree that the impossibility of free will is not important for ordinary day-to-day life and for how we conduct discussions. It is important to Alan's position, which is why there has been so much discussion about it.

Anyway, this is getting tedious. You don't seem to be following what's being said or are determined to 'misunderstand' it.

[Gordon]

Many atheist don't view this as their concern but that of religion. If we were only all atheist I think the thinking goes.

That reads like a straw man: who here has said along the lines of 'if we were all atheist things would be better'? I certainly don't think that.

I don't see how you can be guilty of someone else's sin.

I'd agree - so I take it you don't subscribe to the 'original sin' doctrine? I asked you that earlier and you haven't made your position clear on that particular point.

That prime sin though has undoubtedly left a legacy even atheists subscribe to. Whatever the taint it gets to us all like the common cold.

That the 'bad acts' of a few can have widespread negative consequences for the many isn't exactly news though.

You can of course be guilty of the same sin as someone else.

You can, but then you may not.

I can't envisage circumstances where I'd ever share the 'sin' of a child abuser, and I'd imagine that none of the regulars here would either. However, if being thoughtless or inconsiderate was classed as a 'sin' then I'd plead guilty, M'Lud. All depends on what you class as being 'sinful'.

[Nearly Sane]

More of a desire, really. The belief is that it will help you to think more rationally. You have just acknowledged that beliefs can change.

I wasn't patting myself on the back at all, and I did choose to study it in response to the aforementioned belief. A deterministic choice is still a choice, or are you going to deny that too, like Alan so often does?

The purpose of my post was the hope that what I said might at least nudge people towards a change by pointing out that it was an option, and I as explained before, things people read change the people who read them. As you have said, acting as if free will was real is what people do. That actually makes sense because people are changed by what is said to them.

Have you really not been following at all? I agree that the impossibility of free will is not important for ordinary day-to-day life and for how we conduct discussions. It is important to Alan's position, which is why there has been so much discussion about it.

Anyway, this is getting tedious. You don't seem to be following what's being said or are determined to 'misunderstand' it.

Sunce you don't choose youd desires, thar's an irrelevant distintion. And sincw I have always accepted tgsr beliefs can change you are reusing your straw man. Given that's 2 mistakes in your first 2 sentences, it really is tedious. Compatibilusm os just an attept to make you feel good.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Are you using a Chinese keyboard or something?

Anyway, as we still seem to be at cross-purposes here let's do as I suggested and let Gonners answer for himself shall we?

I've explained why I don't think he has anything to answer, because it's already covered

[Maeght]

You are using your definition of what amounts to a Christian, he is using his. They are both just opinions.

Christians believe in God/Jesus don't they? Atheists don't do they?

[Nearly Sane]

Christians believe in God/Jesus don't they? Atheists don't do they?

By your definition, not Gonzo's

[Maeght]

By your definition, not Gonzo's

It's not my definition.

https://www.equality.admin.cam.ac.uk/projects/faith-and-belief-practice/overview-christianity#:~:text=A%20brief%20overview%20of%20Christianity&text=Christians%20believe%20that%20Jesus%20was,the%20consequences%20of%20its%20sins.

[Stranger]

Sunce you don't choose youd desires, thar's an irrelevant distintion. And sincw I have always accepted tgsr beliefs can change you are reusing your straw man. Given that's 2 mistakes in your first 2 sentences, it really is tedious. Compatibilusm os just an attept to make you feel good.

You seem to be rushing your replies without thought. The multiple uncorrected typos also suggest a lack of attention.

A desire is different from a belief, regardless of whether we choose them. It may be a little pedantic to point it out, but not a mistake. I didn't suggest that you don't think beliefs can change (although that was the implication in your earlier post), so I've no idea where you think the straw man is. And I didn't even mention compatibilism.

You're becoming less and less coherent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

By your definition, not Gonzo's

Really?

Even if Gonners had said that (and I don't think he did) someone saying "a triangle has three sides" and someone else saying "a triangle has four sides" isn't just a difference of opinion. One is anchored in a generally accepted and codified definition of the term "triangle"; the other isn't. 

[Gonnagle]

Gonners,

Possibly the confusion here is your use of "Christian" (upper case, proper noun) rather than "christian" (lower case, adjective). The former implies a subscriber to the faith; the latter implies behaviours that some people – eg, (upper case) Christians – think to be desirable.   

Dear Blue,

Yes, exactly.

Dear Thread,

Wot old Blue said with knobs on, but its my fault, I now realise, I have this tendency to religiousise stuff, to much religiousising on my part, they don't like religiousising Mr Mannering, write out one hundred times Gonnagle, must not religiousise, must not religiousise, now is that the end of it, like fuck it is, then he said, then she said and you know what er indoors said, never! well i'll go to foot of our stairs

My posts from now on will only consist of, God did it, right!! now fuck off

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

Is not 'people can do bad things' a totally different thing though from the Christian notion that at the point of our birth we are already 'sinful'?

My youngest grandchild is only 3 months old, and seems bizarre to consider that wee Kirsty is, in any sense, already a 'sinner'.

....... and it seems to conflict with the Jesus quote in Luke 18:17
"Whoever should not be receiving the kingdom of God as a little child, may under no circumstances be entering into it."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ekim,

....... and it seems to conflict with the Jesus quote in Luke 18:17
"Whoever should not be receiving the kingdom of God as a little child, may under no circumstances be entering into it."

Well, that's the "born again" folks screwed I guess...

[Gordon]

Hi ekim,

Well, that's the "born again" folks screwed I guess...

I guess my goose is cooked too - no religion at all for me as a child: I'm not even baptised/christened (unusual for a child born in 1952) - not that I'm bothered.

[Gonnagle]

I guess my goose is cooked too - no religion at all for me as a child: I'm not even baptised/christened (unusual for a child born in 1952) - not that I'm bothered.

Dear Gordon,

Oh no!! The fires of damnation await you well unless you buy the first round then fires of damnation can be negotiated

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Oh no!! The fires of damnation await you well unless you buy the first round then fires of damnation can be negotiated

Gonnagle.

Happy to get the first round - and soon! You can negotiate on my behalf.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy.   

It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'evidence' that would make you a theist.

I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.

If you have a reaction that includes exploring these abstract concepts further both philosophically and emotionally - you might find yourself attracted to or landing on a particular position for a while.

For example, I started reading bits of the Quran as an atheist to find holes and absurdities in it - I found value in being an atheist because the religious ideas I had been exposed to sounded so absurd to me. I was sure of my ability to find stuff to ridicule in the Quran. I went straight to the verses about women, as that seemed an obvious place to find ideas I would disagree with, but I surprised myself by not disagreeing with what I read. I ended up becoming a Muslim - which is a faith position. Of course, I could still find stuff to ridicule in the Quran if I read it literally, but if I don't take it literally I find a lot that triggers introspection that I value, and apparently I also value faith.

I must have found something that must be giving me some kind of add-value or must be meeting some kind of human need, otherwise I would not seek out or repeat the experience. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-control/201808/why-do-we-do-things-we-dont-want-to-do?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a

Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith? How do you think that works? Surely that would only work if a person perceives the results of critical thinking to be of more personal value to them than the personal value they derive from the results of their faith position? What a person derives more value from isn't an objective position - it's aesthetics / personal taste.

So what would turn me back to being an atheist would be if there was a result I valued from being an atheist that appealed to me more than the value I get from being a theist. 

[torridon]

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'evidence' that would make you a theist.

I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.

If you have a reaction that includes exploring these abstract concepts further both philosophically and emotionally - you might find yourself attracted to or landing on a particular position for a while.

For example, I started reading bits of the Quran as an atheist to find holes and absurdities in it - I found value in being an atheist because the religious ideas I had been exposed to sounded so absurd to me. I was sure of my ability to find stuff to ridicule in the Quran. I went straight to the verses about women, as that seemed an obvious place to find ideas I would disagree with, but I surprised myself by not disagreeing with what I read. I ended up becoming a Muslim - which is a faith position. Of course, I could still find stuff to ridicule in the Quran if I read it literally, but if I don't take it literally I find a lot that triggers introspection that I value, and apparently I also value faith.

I must have found something that must be giving me some kind of add-value or must be meeting some kind of human need, otherwise I would not seek out or repeat the experience. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-control/201808/why-do-we-do-things-we-dont-want-to-do?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a

Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith? How do you think that works? Surely that would only work if a person perceives the results of critical thinking to be of more personal value to them than the personal value they derive from the results of their faith position? What a person derives more value from isn't an objective position - it's aesthetics / personal taste.

So what would turn me back to being an atheist would be if there was a result I valued from being an atheist that appealed to me more than the value I get from being a theist.

This strikes me as being mostly about finding cultural values that you align with.  That doesn't speak to a justification that those cultural values must have a supernatural origin.

[Stranger]

I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.

There seems to be quite a lot of theists for which this is true, and that's all fine if it makes you happy. I can't imagine why they would want to do that, but each to their own. The only problem is if people think they have uncovered an objective truth by subjective means such as faith. Even that can be benign in most cases, just somewhat irrational (and nobody can be rational about everything). In other cases it can be dangerous because it can lead to prejudice or even violence.

Of course there are a lot of theists (like Alan and Vlad) who think there is either objective evidence, sound reasoning, or both. I'm not sure about Gonnagle but he seemed to be implying that all the believers in the world were evidence, which was what I was talking about, but some of what he's said since makes me unsure what he really believes and whether he really thinks there's objective evidence.

Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith?

Only if you think you've uncovered an objective truth and you care that your beliefs are as accurate as possible. In other words, if you aspire to be what Pinker calls a "universal realist", see the passage I quoted for you before >here<.