Comments by Armhouse

Comment #85082 by Armhouse on November 4, 2007 at 11:29 pm

I am starting to describe the world as divided between atheists and non-atheists.

I think it puts me on the leading foot and non-atheists on the back foot.

And I am taking back the word atheist as a positive. It is the default position until someone posits proof that the non-atheist position is, in actual fact, the correct one.

Then it will be a matter of proving that one god reigns supreme.

Until then they are all non-atheists and I welcome every recovering non-atheist to the world of rationality and reason with support, friendship and the exchange of knowledge within the real world.

Carry on
V

You are justified in your approach, but do you really see it as a convincing one, in the eyes of the believer? The believer feels the same way you do, in terms of being able to justify your position. While taking this stance might be effective in some circumstances, I think that overall it creates more division than understanding.

I am very much anti-religious, but according to you, I am a "recovering non-atheist." Thanks for making me feel welcome. I am sorry that I do not have the faith to be an atheist, since I am open to other spiritual realms, as Sam is. Just because I am open minded to other ideas outside the traditional atheistic dogma, does not mean that we do not share a more important one in terms of our understanding of the terrible impact of organized religion on the world, and our shared sense of urgency in making the world understand this.

I admire the aggressive position you are taking; you are trying to re-frame the debate as one between rational people and irrational people. It may be effective in some cases, and you are perfectly justified in your thinking. But I do not think it is the most effective way to change a believers mind. This is why Sam brought up this issue; the important thing isn't whether a atheist is justified in his beliefs. The believer is just as well justified in their beliefs, from their perspective. The important issue, in what appears to be the final showdown of humanity, is to get the world to change the way it views religion, and to do it in the most effective efficient way possible.

Someone who professes a belief in God, yet is also very skeptical of organized religion, would be much more effective in changing the perspective of the believer, in terms of how they view religion, than an atheist would be. A confrontation with an atheist typically will only reinforce the believers faith, since they have their own arguments, and more importantly, they have faith. This is what Sam is referring to when he talks about how atheists step into the chalk line. They lose the debate before it starts, by identifying themselves as atheists. Professing a belief in God points the discussion with the believer into different territory, where they will not feel so defensive. This is simple psychology; Why no one has ever realized this is beyond me, considering all the time atheists have spent coming up with various arguments debunking religion.

If you are capable of professing a belief in God, you are approaching the discussion with the believer with a common thread, instead of a divisive stance. There is no reason why religion should have a lock on the term God, considering the value the term has, regarding it's association with ethics and values. More non-atheists who are skeptical of religion should embrace the word, instead of running from it. What does it take to be able to profess a belief in God? Simply a belief that their could be something in the spiritual realm, possibly that we are currently not even able to understand, as Sam mentioned in his speech. I wonder if Sam will ever profess a belief in God? It would make sense from a philosophical and strategic standpoint.

2. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #80818 by Armhouse on October 23, 2007 at 5:28 am

When these phenomenon are explained, yes, I would believe the explanation. Spontaneous combustion was probably a bad example, since there are scientific explanations for it, though there isn't exactly a consensus. Oscar the cat is a good example, though, and there are plenty of others. Google: unexplained phenomenon for many other examples. Ok, admittedly some of them are ridiculous, but not all. Out of body experiences, near-death experiences, and deja vu are things many people have experienced and cannot fully explain. Does this prove that there is something out there besides us? Absolutely not. But it does make some people less certain that there is absolutely nothing out there.

3. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #80746 by Armhouse on October 23, 2007 at 12:24 am

Roach, thanks for being open to my "doubting deist" approach. I like the label. In no way am I encouraging atheists to be dishonest about their beliefs. I don't believe that Sam is an atheist, I think he is more aligned with my beliefs, when you read about how open he is to the possibility of other things "out there" that may be beyond the scope of our current knowledge.

I don't really have any advice for atheists, other than to encourage them to be open to new ideas when considering the best way to change a believers mind. I agree with Sam that the term should be dropped if you want to make progress, but that is up to each individual atheist. I would also encourage them to be open minded about the super-natural, since there are so many things that humans cannot explain. Oscar the death-predicting cat and Spontaneous Human Combustion are just a couple of examples. How does an atheist explain these phenomenon? Once you realize that we have no explanation for these types of events, you open the door for a belief in God.

4. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #80726 by Armhouse on October 22, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Sam is on a good start here, but in order to truly be effective, he needs to go even further with this idea and profess that he does believe in a God. If you are open to the idea of the supernatural, something omnipresent, or whatever you want to call it, it is acceptable to say that you believe in a God. Believing in a God does not mean that you approve of religion or creation, it only means that you are think there is a greater likelihood than not that there is something out there that is possibly outside of the realm of our current understanding. It also does not mean that you are certain in your belief, moreover, it means that you are not certain that nothing is behind all of this. It really isn't that big of a leap from his current position, he just needs to be a little more honest with himself and quit trying to conform to the atheist crowd he is associated with.

I believe in a God. But the minute I say that, I also have to admit that I may be wrong in my belief. What is so terrible about this position? I'm simply being honest with myself. I'm sure many atheists would have a problem with my position, and have all kinds of technical questions to ask me, but I really don't care to engage in that battle. Like Sam says, it just turns into a back and forth debate that often leaves believers even more convinced they are right. Atheists are already on my side, I don't need to convince them of anything other than to perhaps consider another perspective. It is the believer who I am interested in reaching out to, and this is where my position is superior to that of an atheist. An atheist tries to take the comfort blanket completely away from the Christian. I simply want to make the believer understand that the comfort blanket is not a guarantee, that it may be different from what they have been led to believe, and that is has had some pretty bad effects upon our society. While doing that, my position allows me to actually provide a little comfort to the Christian, by having something in common with him. My comfort blanket may not give them the same certainty that the religion of their culture did, but at least there is still a open door to other possibilities that give believers some solace in terms of answering the question: What happens when we die?

This is why atheist usually have no appeal to Christians, and why they step into the chalk line that Sam talks about when they engage with Christians. This is an area that I wish Sam had expanded upon, because it really is possibly the biggest downfall of atheism. Many times, when an atheist initially identifies him himself, he loses the battle right then and there, unknowingly. Most discussions between atheists and believers turn out to be back and forth contests, simply attacking the others belief system, or lack thereof. It might feel in the atheists heart that he is making progress, but the believer feels the same way, after all, he is defending the "good side". Most Christians would likely see themselves as having more in common with a Muslim than they would with an atheist.

Many people in this forum seem to act like we are making significant progress in changing the minds of believers. American atheists who think that their movement is having a significant effect in the big picture need to step outside of their respective atheist internet echo chambers and look around at the real world. Church attendance may be down in some areas, but the overall religious influence still owns America's agenda lock, stock, and barrel.

Now think about how someone with my belief system, one that professes a belief in God, would be perceived in a discussion with a believer. first of all, I am never on the defensive, because I like the believer, share a fundamental common thread; a belief in a God. Granted my belief is not the same as his, but it is much easier to convince a believer that the God they believe in may not be exactly how they perceive it to be than it is to convince a believer that there is no God at all. When Christians question my belief in a God, I simply ask: Would you rather have me be completely honest with myself and profess to be an atheist? Not one Christian has yet to suggest I take that Godforsaken route : ) After that they usually quit questioning my belief in a God. My doubting deist approach keeps the burden of proof on thief beliefs, not mine.

So if we both believe in a God, what do I want to convince the believer of? I want him to become a secularist, like me. It is a jump for them, but not the great leap that atheism requires. My approach revolves around making the believer understand what Bertrand Russell pointed out; that most people simply inherit the belief system of their family and or culture, and that their isn't much choice involved. Once you make the believer understand that if he or she had been born into certain parts of the middle east they would likely be bowing down to Allah 5 times a day, and not the Christian God, you have made a fundamental perspective change. I also like to point out to the believer that from the Christian perspective, all of the Muslims and people of non-Christian belief systems are predestined to burn in hell for eternity, according to the Bible. This points out the unfairness of the Christian doctrine. Sticking with these 2 arguments does not give the Christian much wiggle room, as long as they believe in hell. If they don't believe in hell, then you ask them if they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. If they say yes then they have put themselves in an obvious dilemma that Sam talks about in Letter to a Christian Nation. There are obvious other approaches, but I like those because of the simplicity it takes to explain and understand them.

I am not saying that atheists are not justified in their beliefs, and I am also not saying that an atheist cannot change the mind of a believer, obviously it can be done with some people. However, if we want to cause wide scale change in this country in an efficient manner,the atheist approach has some obvious faults that haven't been addressed until recently. After all, do we really want to change some minds in this country by reaching out to people, or do we just want to offend them and set ourselves apart?