Theists, is MDB a hostile environment?

[_Yoda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSQczYEeB2w

I've only seen about 10 episodes (face in hat translation, tom cruise coming out of the closet, Bono being #2 among them). I did not remember the swearing as much as there is in this clip.

But this is funny.

It is one of my favorites! LOL

[_Some Schmo]

No, I’m about making Theists more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding of their faith from discussion. Reducing every Theist’s philosophical beliefs about God as mere “nonsense” is arrogant as all hell.

But it's not arrogant to desire to make people "more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding?" LOL... You're a funny guy, Stak.

Yes, I do value Theist input, because I’m not some omniscient calculator, I suffer from the same cognitive limitations they do. Just because I’ve come to different conclusions than someone else, doesn’t mean I get to dismiss them as mere nonsense.

Then don't. Nobody's suggesting you have to.

It seems to me, however, you're just as guilty of not knowing where atheists are coming from. Being an atheist yourself hasn't given you much insight.

The caricatures of God you guys (the majority of the agnostic/atheist posters here) bring up and knock down are a far cry away from what serious believers actually think.

It's hard to keep straight who's arrogant and who's being accused of being arrogant here.

You seem to spend all your time trying to understand theists that you barely understand atheists. This Santa Claus crap you're spewing in this thread is a perfect example. It's not about comparing what's attributed to god with what's attributed to Santa. It's about the relative merits of belief in either (which are roughly the same). Clearly, you don't get that, or your studies in philosophy have muddled your ability to think clearly, and you want to go off on a tirade about how god and Santa aren't the same. Well no crap, Sherlock. Way to miss the point.

You're such an anti-atheist you actually think "dawkfags" is somehow funny (or at least, appropriate). So how should I regard your bias against atheists whose style you don't agree with and whose arguments you don't seem to actually understand? Maybe I should start calling you a "theofag," slap my knee and laugh my ass off. Hilarious, isn't it?

[_Blixa]

But it's not arrogant to desire to make people "more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding?"

Then all of my teaching and scholarship is the height of arrogance.

[_Some Schmo]

But it's not arrogant to desire to make people "more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding?"

Then all of my teaching and scholarship is the height of arrogance.

Not if you're getting paid to do so, as opposed to attempting it on a message board, Blixa.

[_Rambo]

My question is who are the hostile ones?

Do atheists tell theists that if they don't believe what they believe then they will go to hell (or won't make it to the CK)?
Do atheists try to tell theists how to live?
Do atheists go door to door and try to convert people to what they think?
Do atheists exclude people from weddings or restrict who people should marry?
Do atheists start wars because they think that is their land because it is holy?
Do atheists fly into buildings thinking they will get virgins when they die?
Do atheists shun people because they have sinned?

I know that not every theists believes the things I have just listed but they are still a belief of some religions.

[_Morley]

But it's not arrogant to desire to make people "more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding?"

Then all of my teaching and scholarship is the height of arrogance.

Not if you're getting paid to do so, as opposed to attempting it on a message board, Blixa.

Please explain your reasoning, Schmo.

[_Some Schmo]

Please explain your reasoning, Schmo.

A person goes to school for the explicit purpose of learning. They pay for and are therefore open to being taught.

On the other hand, it's quite presumptuous and arrogant to go to a message board with the intent to "help people out" by trying to "deepen their own understanding of their faith" (with the obvious implicit notion that they don't already understand their own faith - the thing he's also accusing other atheists of, no less). It sounds like Stak thinks he can seduce theists into being open to his understanding-deepening conversations.

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty arrogant to me.

[_MrStakhanovite]

But it's not arrogant to desire to make people "more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding?"

No, it’s a desire to help others.

It seems to me, however, you're just as guilty of not knowing where atheists are coming from. Being an atheist yourself hasn't given you much insight

I know it like the back of my hand; I was saying the same tropes you drag out when I was 16.

It's hard to keep straight who's arrogant and who's being accused of being arrogant here.

You only find it arrogant because I’m calling you on this tired old routine; for example…

This Santa Claus crap you're spewing in this thread is a perfect example. It's not about comparing what's attributed to god with what's attributed to Santa. It's about the relative merits of belief in either (which are roughly the same).

What you said here can be boiled down to this:

It’s not about comparing the attributes of X and Y, it’s about examining the merits for believing X or Y and the merits for both are the same.

The problem here is that the attributes of X and Y are what is going to determine the merits of belief. People build entire worldviews by starting with God; no one does that with Santa. Christians affirm God is the greatest possible being, no child thinks Santa is the greatest possible being. Since the attributes are so wildly different, the methods for assessing the beliefs in God and Santa are completely different. You are glossing over all of this, as if this is some kind of obvious fact, but it isn’t.

Clearly, you don't get that, or your studies in philosophy have muddled your ability to think clearly, and you want to go off on a tirade about how god and Santa aren't the same. Well no s***, Sherlock. Way to miss the point.

Well Watson, I hope I’ve cleared it up for you.

The analogy between God and Santa is just plain stupid, and was invented by some smart ass to make a rhetorical point.

You're such an anti-atheist you actually think "dawkfags" is somehow funny (or at least, appropriate).

It’s hilarious, you should see those mouth breathers fawning over little Mason Crumpacker, giving her little 9 year old “Free Thinking” testimony. They’ve created the religion they’ve always wanted.

So how should I regard your bias against atheists whose style you don't agree with and whose arguments you don't seem to actually understand?

I’ve read all the Gnu-Atheist books, I understand the arguments inside and out, and can dismantle them or make them better. They suck, no secret in the Philosophy world, but they get gobbled up by all the fan boys and girls.

My bias is against bad arguments, not only because they fail, but they are not even interesting. Ex-Mormon “Skeptics” “Free Thinkers” “Apatheists” or whatever label they give themselves, make a cottage industry out of promulgating this crap.

The end result is a description of God no right minded Christian would agree to, and then knock it down with crude evidentialism and naïve empiricism. Refuting what no one believes doesn’t do anything, except reaffirm to yourself that everyone who disagrees with you deeply and passionately believes in nonsense.

[_Buffalo]

The analogy between God and Santa is just plain stupid, and was invented by some smart ass to make a rhetorical point.

Really? Is it that stupid? I remember as a believing teen noticing the similarity between the two concepts (and then hastily trying to dismiss it). While I don't the comparison is worthy of anyone's dissertation (and it's become a trite comparison by now), your dogmatic dismissal isn't any more logical.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Really? Is it that stupid? I remember as a believing teen noticing the similarity between the two concepts (and then hastily trying to dismiss it).

Yes, it is that stupid. I’m sure the analogy scared you as a teen, because teenagers rarely have a good understanding of things. I was totally into Ayn Rand when I was a teen, and thought she was a revolutionary genius.

Then I grew up.

While I don't the comparison is worthy of anyone's dissertation (and it's become a trite comparison by now), your dogmatic dismissal isn't any more logical.

Dogmatic isn’t a good description if I can show why it fails, which I do. You can’t make any meaningful comparison between God and Santa, without turning Santa into something no child believes in, or turning God into something no one really believes.

The two are different on a fundamental and ontological level. The tools you use to evaluate Santa cannot be used to evaluate God and vice versa. It’s not apples and oranges, it’s apples and sparkplugs.