I am trying really hard to cut down on generalising and bagging out “atheists” rather than specific people and streams of atheism.
They’re not all the same – and they aren’t all out to eat your babies. But atheists (general) keep giving me reason to think bad thoughts about them. Like the two who hijack this thread on Communicate Jesus.
Here are five tips for my atheist friends to help them seem nicer and more reasonable.
- Stop being so smug.
- Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.
- Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book.
- Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.
- Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen (or spaghetti monsters) to dismiss the concepts of God – and deal with the Bible paying attention to context and the broader Christological narrative rather than quoting obscure Old Testament laws. By all means quote the laws when they are applied incorrectly by “Christians” – but understand how they’re meant to work before dealing with the Christians described in point 3.
Comments
1. Hypocrite much? The creator of the universe, an omnipotent and omniscient being speaks to you, personally and telepathically, and atheists are smug?
2. Y’know – for the outspoken atheist; they’re after the same people. Preaching lies to the undecided is pretty much the same as calling atheists liars; and you want us to sit idly by?
3. Intelligent people can believe in God; but they are not doing it intelligently, pretty much by definition you’re not believing in the rational.
4. This is laughable. Really? You think Scientists sit in a lab, think something up, then go out and find supporting evidence? A hypothesis is created to explain observed facts, that’s *how it works*. It is as objective a system as we can come up with (peer review, repeatable results, etc.), and it is not infallible, but it has corrective powers built in.
5. Ok, so Jesus says you can drink poison and not be hurt (Mark 16:18) — that’s not obscure and that’s not in the Old Testament. And wait, are you saying you should ignore the Old Testament? On what grounds exactly? Didn’t Jesus tell you not to do that in Matthew 5:17?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis — ” hypothesis used as a tentative explanation of an observation”. Can you briefly explain how it can be used to fly a plane into a building?
1) It’s easy to be smug when you start talking about prayer, hell-fire and The Great Zombie Jesus.
2) I don’t really, there is lots of stuff that isn’t for me I leave well enough alone. Though, bring it into the public space don’t complain when debate ensues.
3) It only becomes complex because that’s the only way you can justify something kinda retarded. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, just not very likely.
4) Some of it is subjective, but as lot of it isn’t. Normally the stuff that can be tested and proven. Mmmm.. science. I like my iPhone and long life expectancy.
5) Aw, but the closet-case evangelicals are allowed to so they can justify hating the gays…
:D
Hi Bob,
Thanks so much for commentating.
1. I hope this is not an example of the aformentioned Poe’s Law and that you aren’t trying to be a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. This kind of smug response that suggests that your particular world view is correct at the expense of every other one is the same arrogance you accuse me of. I also want to point out that you’re throwing out a little bit of strawman – I don’t believe God speaks to me now, except through the pages of the Bible. This is the orthodox belief of most Christians – and has been for many years. Your failure to grasp even this basic element of Christian doctrine leads nicely into my fifth point.
2. An outspoken atheist has become more than a nontheist – they’re an antitheist. Did you read the post I linked to in my post? Atheists claim to have “no belief” not a belief in nothing. If you’ve started trying to convert others to your belief (pursuing undecideds) then you’re shifting the burden of proof back onto yourselves. I don’t think theists can avoid calling atheists liars – or vice versa – our points are binary opposites. Yes, I think you’re telling lies to people. Yes, you think I am. But we are in disagreement. That’s unavoidable. I think you should just be nicer in the way you do it. Hence my five tips.
3. If you start off presupposing the existence of God (like most theists do) then science is understood through that lens. This is a perfectly rational thing to do when looking at the world and its complexity – despite the many atheist arguments to the contrary. It’s not as simple as you’d like to make it sound. If you define rational – then sure, we’re not being rational. But how irrational are you if we’re right and you’re thumbing your nose at the omniscient omnipotent God? Particularly the Abrahamic God the majority of religions around the world seek to understand. You’re in a pretty irrational place at that point.
4. Yes, science has gatekeepers – but if the prevailing orthodoxy (or peers conducting reviews) is of an atheistic bent then it’s likely results will be found that match that bent. It’s not objective – science has always kowtowed to society’s powerbrokers – be it the church (think Galileo), or the government, or the prevailing intellectual school of thought. It’s not objective, it’s bought by the highest bidder – think the pro-tobacco lobby.
5. I did not say ignore the Old Testament – I said understand the Old Testament and the role it plays as the governing rules for a specific group of people at a specific time, as an unattainable standard that demonstrated humanity’s inability to meet God’s rules and our need for intervention. That’s the timbre of the entire Bible and the entire modus operandi laid out in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The whole point of Matthew 5 is a rebuke for the religious leaders of the day who were claiming to honour the law but cherry picking the bits that they were interested in following and ignoring all the bits about love, justice and mercy. The church could absolutely do a better job of doing this today – but the contextual understanding of both this passage from Matthew and the Old Testament law is pretty clear if you take any time to read the Bible in completion, or keep track of any schools of theological thought from the Nicene Creed through to today (and every bit of mainstream theology seeking to get back to the Bible since then (eg the reformation)).
Again, thanks for your follow up comment – I’m not sure how your question about science and religious extremism from a group who I believe are almost as wrong about things as the atheists… but perhaps you could take some time to explain how Darwinism led to Hitler’s eugenics program? It’s analogous to answering your question…
But, to stick with my policy of respecting strawmen as genuine misunderstandings – I would think understanding gravity and all sorts of other elements of engineering and principles of flight helped out with crashing planes into towers pretty significantly.
I would think that starting with a hypothesis that western capitillistic imperialism was a bad thing, and a symbolic strike at the heart of that political and economic structure would prove effective in helping the cause of Islamic fundamentalism, would naturally lead to that sort of act. I just don’t think the fundamental hypothesis is sound, nor do I think it worked out the way they hoped or planned.
Thanks Mr Snuffle,
1. Again, as I said to Bob above, I am suggesting that you can disagree in a nicer, more civil, less smug way. Like not trivialising a mainstream and historically valid belief as zombie worship. I think atheists, given that you (generally) want the moral high ground, should do more to raise the tone of discussion.
I don’t mean you specifically (and others won’t know that we’ve had long discussions on the matter), I mean people who hijack threads on blogs to preach atheism like the guy in the post I linked to.
2. I like debate, as you know, I don’t like the views of so many people being trivialised in an insulting and hyperbolic manner…
3. Yes, says the guy who has made up his mind, almost, and fluctuates between being an atheist and an agnostic… it’s a complex question, just because you’ve personally reached decision B doesn’t make everybody who reaches decision A a delusional idiot. It’s a question that many people ask, with many answers.
And it’s a question that seems pretty natural to ask… so much so that on one side of the fence we think God causes us to ask, and on the other side people think that we have evolved to ask because it makes us treat each other nicer… mostly…
Christians get called arrogant, hypocritical (see Bob’s comment) and intolerant because we claim absolute truth – and a monopoly on it – by people making a counter claim in the same areas. This is where you come back and say “we’re claiming that there is no truth not that your claim is not true…” and a hair is split, and us Christians laugh at you.
Again, I make the point I made to Bob – if we’re right and you’re wrong then your position is the least rational position possible. It’s “noble” to make this sort of decision because you think God could have shown himself better – or been more scientifically testable. Which is often the justification I hear for not believing in God and not going with the idea that you’re in a nasty spot if you’re wrong…
4. All science is subjective, some science is just less subjective than other science… unless it’s completely measurable – repeatedly – which doesn’t really stand with questions of origins – I think we can all agree that we weren’t there when the world began.
5. I think you’ll find that the New Testament has a fair bit to say on the question of homosexuality too – just that God’s people shouldn’t be engaging in homosexual behaviour. Just like we shouldn’t be engaging in getting drunk, lying, sex outside of marriage, and many other things where we’re called to live lives like God has described in the Bible. Again, I’ve written about homosexuality (particularly gay marriage) and a better church response to it before…
Replied! Hooray!
I made you write stuff :) You and I both know we’ve said about all there is to say to each other on this topic :P
But it’s fun having the discussion in a slightly more public forum…
Maybe when I’m in the mood for it… one day Nathan… one day…
Heh, Goodwin in 5? My point is simply; the scientific method is not as open to abuse as religion — tell me, what was it about the scientific method that encouraged eugenics? Science tells us we can deliberately breed for certain traits in humanity – it also tells us how blood will lie if you shoot someone, and exactly how the bullet kills them; is the scientific method then responsible? You’ve got to admit that religion is full of moral dictates, and that some of them, read literally are pretty terrible; science doesn’t have that, and therefore, is not as open to abuse as religion. That’s my point. (Incidentally, did you blame *gravity* in your follow up?)
Ok. With that somewhat out of the way…
1. I’m not trying to invoke a strawman here, but yes my “particular world view is correct at the expense of every other one”. So is yours. Unless you practise some brand of Christianity that adds on ‘also the hindus, and muslims, and every other religion are right too’.
2. I have as much belief in the god of the bible as you have in the existence of Odin, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti monster. What I’m saying is that you can’t honestly expect atheists, in general, to leave you alone to preach when you are actively encouraging people to treat us as liars. And, by the same token, I wouldn’t expect different treatment if I did the same thing. I believe that religion is, at best, wasteful, and at worst, actively harmful – would you accept what is, effectively, “Go away, I wasn’t talking to you” if I started telling the man standing next to you that Drano is good for your eyes?
3. Even if god exists, I’m not being irrational. There is no direct evidence to support god, the god hypothesis doesn’t make any predictions and is neither scientific nor particularly logical.
4. I think you may want to check your examples. Galileo kowtowed to the church? The tobacco lobby hid the research they did, the research didn’t support them.
5. So it’s the ‘timbre’ of the bible we should pay attention to? Not the very specific, very obvious, rules spelt out? Like Deuteronomy 22:5 – women wearing pants is an abomination. That’s pretty clear. In context, it’s in a list of rules; by what standard do you choose to ignore that? I’m interested to hear. And it’s funny you bring up the Nicene Creed – that’s not actually in the bible. I would put money on it that I own more bibles then you do, in more languages, and I’ve read it, cover to cover – and I still don’t get people who claim they want to get back to the bible, then ignore the clearest, most direct instructions.
But forget refuting these 5 points of yours; there isn’t a way to paint an argument like this so that one side or the other seems ‘nicer’.
The fundamental complaint is “Atheists disagree with one of the cornerstones of your life because they think it’s ridiculous”. You can’t really spin that.
1. We seem smug in the same way you seem smug – you claim to have the answers, we claim to have the answers; both sides have answers that directly contradict each other.
2. Every piece of evangelism *is* directed at us. It’s like you’re telling our kids, our families and our friends that they should ardently believe in goldilocks or they’ll die in a fire.
3. Debate about God’s existence is simple. There is no evidence of God, his complexity lies in sophistry and repeated reinterpretations of a book.
4. The scientific method is as objective a system as we’ve ever created, and you don’t understand it, and you don’t understand the word ‘hypothesis’.
5. This is a non-starter; popular doesn’t equal true. I know that the idea of God exists, and that in the western world, it’s a majority view. I know this has also been true of other gods, and I know the majority of the world has been wrong on more than a few occasions.
Bob,
Again, I’m not saying “don’t disagree with us” – no Christian I know (or rather “like”) will ask people not to disagree.
I’m providing a list of tips that will make your disagreement more agreeable.
Feel free to disagree – just don’t be a smug jackass about it.
Also – a quick look at my tag cloud below will find that I write about Godwin’s Law and Hitler pretty frequently – and I will bring up Hitler in an argument with an atheist every time you argue with an extreme position that is demonstrably not consistent with Christianity.
Bob,
just because science can explain something doesn’t mean it is not evidence for God. For some mistake reason, people think “oh, now that we can explain how this works, there’s no reason for there to have been a creator”. Apparently, just because we understand how photosynthesis works, that negates the need for someone to have originally designed it.
If I figure out how an engine works, does that mean the engine had no designer? of course not.
Also, what Nathan said about science – “starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis” – is absolutely true. It’s drilled into every science student between Grades 4 and 12 and, from my conversations with friends doing tertiary science studies, university too. Scientific investigation starts with a hypothesis, tests it, then comes to a conclusion. This doesn’t make it wrong or bad, it’s just different to starting with the original pieces and fitting them together to come to the ‘hypothesis’.
Also, saying “Every piece of evangelism *is* directed at us” is enormously assuming and even arrogant. There are plenty of Christians out there who really could not be bothered putting the effort into trying to evangelise a decidedly atheist person and would much rather their efforts went into evangelising people who don’t really have much opinion. Some people have particular interests in evanglising people of a specific ethnicity or religion. If you’re saying “every piece” of evangelism is directed at you as an atheist, you’re including those people’s efforts too.
You have also taken the Old Testament laws grossly out of context, which is exactly what Nathan was warning atheists should not do. No, it is not the ‘timbre’ of the bible we should pay attention to, but its overall message. But the fact is, later in the bible Jesus makes it clear there are many Old Testament laws we are no longer required to observe.
What you’re doing is similar to me picking up a book, opening it to page 8 and reading about a character named Jane who is about to run a marathon, and then flipping forward to page 250 and finding out she is in a wheelchair. I might claim this is contradictory, but the fact is, I’ve missed pages 100-115 that describe the skiing accident that paralysed her. I’ve failed to take into consideration the context. The book never lies, and readers who claim Jane is a quadraplegic are not ignoring page 8, it’s just that I would not be getting the whole message by not taking in the overall context.
And now to answer your points…
1. Yes, Christians can seem smug. There is an inherent arrogance in claiming an absolute truth. But I think we’d all agree the bar can be raised beyond an Answers in Genesis “You can’t be good without God” type campaign and the Dawkinsesque “you worship a zombie every bit as likely as Odin” type campaign… neither really shows much understanding of the most intelligent stream of theistic or atheistic thought.
2. I think, if the boot were on the other foot, and you believed my family were going to burn in fire, I’d want you to be telling me…
3. No, that is simply your opinion on the matter – many other people see our ongoing existence as evidence for God – just because someone you put your faith in made a statement to the contrary and this was consistent with your observations does not make this fact. You’ll find most Christians will claim to have seen pretty compelling evidence for God. When you say “there is no evidence” what you’re really saying is that you have found the evidence put forward by believers unconvincing. There is plenty of circumstancial evidence and even logical evidence – and when it comes to the question of Jesus – who Christians believe to be God – there are plenty of first hand witnesses and documentation.
4. I think you give science too much credit and me not enough. I’d say journalism, and history are just as objective – and just as likely to be influenced by the dynamics of power (and penned by the victors).
The fact that science can be harnessed by people with agendas (the tobacco lobby, answers in genesis etc) means that it’s just as likely that a peer reviewed paper is dodgy as it is that it’s plausible.
5. I didn’t suggest that “popular equals true” – if you apply the same standard of critical reading to the Bible as you do to what others have to say then it’s no wonder you’re confused… I said the fact that it’s popular is a reason to raise the tone of debate and not treat adherents to a belief system like idiots…
Obviously I was addressing your second batch of points here. I’ll do your first batch next…
Righto Bob,
I suspect you’re being deliberately dense – or purposefully treating me as an idiot. If this is the case, then thanks for reinforcing the stereotypical view of atheism that I was addressing with the original post.
“tell me, what was it about the scientific method that encouraged eugenics?”
I’m sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough when I suggested this excercise was as fruitless as the one you put forward to me. I was using a little bit of the hyperbole you directed at me to demonstrate the absurdity of your point…
“You’ve got to admit that religion is full of moral dictates, and that some of them, read literally are pretty terrible;”
I agree – some religions have terrible moral imperatives – I don’t think Christianity does, nor do I think that it is our place as created beings to dictate morality to our creator. If God chooses a standard that we find unacceptable or hard to bear it’s not really our place to say so – nor is finding such a God’s position on matters a reason to disbelieve… That would be an odd form of logic in any hierarchical system.
You’ve also got to admit that some of “religions” moral imperatives are pretty helpful and represent the best standards for social structures and interactions…
1. “Unless you practise some brand of Christianity that adds on ‘also the hindus, and muslims, and every other religion are right too’.”
Sorry Bob, you’re obviously finding it difficult to follow what I thought was a pretty clearly spelled out statement – we are both making absolute claims, all religions are – there’s just a nicer way to do this. Like trying to improve the tone past the point of insulting the other person’s position or arguing by extremes (eg talking to a Christian about Islamic terrorists as if we’re the same)…
2. Again Bob – from the title through to the content my post is a bunch of tips for atheists to make conversations with theists more pleasant for all parties involved. You’d get a much better hearing from us if you weren’t so busy comparing us with people who suggest drano as a form of medical treatment.
3. If the God of the Bible exists, and he, as a deity, gets to dictate the terms by which the world operates, then you are being irrational – particularly if what the Bible says about hell is a fair warning – by rejecting every attempt he makes (through Christians you interact with, or the Bible) you’re essentially thumbing your nose at this creator and asking to be chucked into hell – I don’t want to sell Christianity this way – but that seems to me to fit into the category of “irrational” the same way that a child who runs out onto the road in direct disobedience to their parents seems irrational…
4. Again, I think you’re missing my point – Galileo made an unpopular finding that wasn’t really adhered to until much later because the “church” was in a position of power and essentially suppressed or denied his findings and excommunicated him… I use inverted commas for “church” because that wasn’t a particularly Christian course of action…
The Tobacco lobby uses the framework of science to come up with tested conclusions that everybody knows are commercially driven bunkum.
5. Again, you’re treating me like some sort of ignorant fly by nighter with all sorts of spurious assumptions about what I know and being a bit of an arrogant tool in doing so. I still can’t tell if you’re purposefully satirising atheism, but I’ll treat you as genuine…
“So it’s the ‘timbre’ of the bible we should pay attention to?”
Yes, like in any book you should look at the sum of the parts rather than individual passages – there’s a reason the Bible is presented as a package and there are libraries filled with the scholarship of people who have studied it and understood it – and nobody in the church (broadly – except perhaps the Westboro Baptists) understands the law in the way atheists strawman us as doing so… you don’t see anybody suggesting disobedient children be stoned do you? The New Testament is full of passages instructing Christians on how to understand the Old Testament (as a system of rules designed to increase a reliance on God’s grace – Romans 5 for instance – where Paul writes about why the law was given).
It’s a shame that you’ve got so many Bibles and yet not been able to figure out how the Bible works – and how it’s always been understood by Christians – right from the sermons that the apostles give in Acts where they reference the Old Testament constantly as a precursor to the new covenant with God’s people (a covenant replacing the covenant established with Abraham in Genesis 12)… Before that even, because Jesus is pretty clear (in Matthew particularly – as we’ve discussed) about the law and its purpose and intention – you’ll find a similar lecture he gives the Pharisees in Matthew 23.
Matthew, read in its entirety as a narrative, gives a pretty clear picture that the Old Testament was designed to point the Jews to the Messiah (Jesus) as the fulfilment of OT prophecy and promises – and pretty clear instructions to people who would follow Jesus about how the law should be understood.
It’s pretty obvious if you take even a moment to consider how the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other. It’s not rocket science or some sort of secret knowledge – plenty of people seeking out what the Bible has to say, rather than using it to pillory Christians, have been able to figure it all out without being “instructed” by any special interest church lobby group.
“And it’s funny you bring up the Nicene Creed – that’s not actually in the bible.”
Really? Man, I’m clearly so confused and I should recant everything I’ve said so far… no wait, I’m not, and in the context I mentioned the Nicene Creed it was entirely appropriate to do so…
I was pointing out that the common understanding of the Bible as a holistic document is not new, is not some sort of fallacious “no true scotsman” type workaround of your lazy and trite OT based criticism – it’s the way the Bible has always been understood. It’s the way every group that has sort to bring the church back to Biblical roots has gone.
“I would put money on it that I own more bibles then you do, in more languages, and I’ve read it, cover to cover.”
How much money? I’d be interested in taking you up on the offer – but I don’t think the number of Bibles a person owns is a measure of understanding – particularly because you don’t appear capable of reading the Bible in a critical (as in engaging the brain) manner, you seem to read simply with the intention of criticising… I’m shocked at your claim to have read it cover to cover because you have no grasp of the rudiments of biblical scholarship or any understanding of how the Bible actually works and functions – either literarily or theologically. It’s like you’re an illiterate homeless person arguing against the benefits of ducted aironditioning based on the pictures you spotted in a manual – you’ve never seen the system at work, experienced it’s benefits and nor do you understand what it is you’re tackling. So excuse me if I dismiss your opinion in such a cursory manner.
“I still don’t get people who claim they want to get back to the bible, then ignore the clearest, most direct instructions.”
I don’t get the people who say they’ve read the Bible cover to cover and miss all the bits that chronologically explain how the previous bits are to be treated…
“Feel free to disagree – just don’t be a smug jackass about it.”
Please, practice what you preach
Don’t be smug about your answers?
Every day, I drive past smug billboards, watch smug congresspeople on television, drive past smug signs outside of churches, listen to raving street preachers, and Atheists are the ones being a smug jackass?
Nathan-
1. I tend to be as polite to Christians as they are to me. Many others, believers or not, also tend to respond in kind to those who respond to them. If you have found that lots of people act smug when they are around you, ask yourself if you are the cause. Jesus recommended that.
2. I don’t care much about any religion’s proselytizing. I treat them all equally.
3. The argument is complex for those who are arguing for their god. This applies to all religions because all believers in any religion have the same problem — no evidence supports their faith. Those who choose not to believe because there is no evidence have made a very simple decision.
4. The scientific method is not the same as the science establishment or the government or technology or any of the other things that seem to confuse people. The scientific method, because of its self-correcting mechanism of testing and retesting is not inherently prone to abuse. I’m not sure where you got that idea.
5. There is no single notion of God. Everyone seems to have their own notion. That is part of the reason that Christianity itself has thousands of denominations or sects and it has spawned other religions that probably aren’t Christian. I’m not sure what notion I should take seriously.
4.
From Pharyngula,
1. Make me.
Look, you start an argument, you don’t get to whine at your opponent to be humble about his ideas before you’ve even taken a stab at criticizing them. Show me a reason not to be smug about atheism, and reason, and science, and the superiority of our beliefs over that pile of superstitious dogma you call faith. Don’t simply instruct me to stop regarding atheism as possibly not superior to your cultish apologetics.
Christians also don’t get to play the humility card, anyway. People who believe they have privileged access to mysterious information direct from the brain of a cosmos-spanning super-intelligence, and who believe everyone else is damned to eternal torment, aren’t exactly poster-children for modesty.
2. Oh, my, no. You think we see the inane dreck Christians propose as an argument, and you think we assume it’s directed at us? We’re “smug,” remember — we figure there’s no way you can really be so stupid as to think we’re going to be swayed by Pascal’s Wager or handwaving at vague quotes from the Bible or threats of an imaginary Hell or promises of an imaginary paradise. We’re after the undecideds, too. We love tearing up your stupidity in public for that reason.
For instance, I know that the Christian who wrote this list wasn’t directing it at me, and probably never even heard of me. That doesn’t stop me from pissing on it.
3. The debate is complex because a lot of intelligent, educated people buy into those ridiculous presuppositions and then toss a lot of noisy chaff in the air. There is a simplicity at the core that is not in Christian interests to expose: is there a god or gods, and is there any reasonable evidence for him, it, her, or them? And further, is there a reason to believe in your specific god over Thor or Xenu or Moroni or whatever other fiction some cunning con artist chose to peddle to the gullible?
And your ‘intervening deity’ (the existence of which is an assertion not supported by any evidence) ‘communicates’ (you are using that word in some strange fashion that is not reasonable) ‘through a book’ (that was cobbled together from scattered scraps of theological rants, old poetry, and self-serving pseudo-history over 1500 years ago)? That’s crazy talk right there.
4. No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We are not going to get anywhere if you expect your opponents to simply fall over and accept a bogus mischaracterization of science.
Science uses both inductive and deductive logic. Induction is the idea generator, the process that spins out tentative hypotheses that can be evaluated by observation, experiment, and deductive logic. Science is not infallible, and no one ever claims that it is, but it has something that religion lacks: a process of testing claims against real-world observations. To claim that science is as open to abuse as religion is ignorant nonsense. You can claim virtually anything about gods in religion, and all that matters is how many rubes you can persuade to believe it. Scientific claims are constrained by evidence.
Of course individuals can abuse both religion and science. The difference is that science provides objective criteria to assess the viability of truth-claims.
5. OK, explain Ganesh to me. Explain the prosperity gospel. Explain why Christians reject the prophecies of Mohammed, while millions of Muslims think they’re just peachy. Explain premillennial dispensationalism. Explain whether Episcopalians or Baptists are right. Explain how Spong is wrong. Or right. Who would win a cage match between Karen Armstrong and Pat Robertson?
What is “the” Christological narrative? There is none, or rather, there’s a thousand of them. We know the context, too — that the Bible is an evolving mess of over-interpreted poetry and tribal stories and crackpot history. Why you guys choose to selectively declare one interpretation of one subset of the conglomeration to be the absolute truth as dictated by anthropomorphic vapor, while another arbitrary subset is archaic and doesn’t apply anymore, is completely incomprehensible…not just to us, but to you, too.
We atheists actually do address the claims fervently held by millions of people. The sneaky trick the theological wankers pull, though, is that once we’ve smacked them down, they announce, “Oh, no — we didn’t mean those millions of believers. They’re stupid. We meant these other millions of believers.” It’s a big game of whack-a-mole. What you call “obscure Old Testament laws,” someone else will call the core of their faith. What you value as the “Christological narrative,” a member of yet another sect will call pretentious confabulations.
Atheists just cut through all the noise and call it all sewage.
And some of us see no reason to be nice to sewage, and get really cranky at demands to respect your steaming pile of ordure
[…] getting advice from Christians now! Look and laugh at this list: Five things that would make atheists seem nicer. It's gone awry even with the title. I especially appreciate the word "seem," because Lord knows […]
Terribly ignorant post, you made me cringe. Congratulations.
“Again, I’m not saying “don’t disagree with us” – no Christian I know (or rather “like”) will ask people not to disagree.”
Do you know any Christians? O_o
Yeah, it’s okay to disagree, as long as you’re comfortable being tortured in a lake of fire for eternity for your ignorance. How many times have us atheists had to endure this kind of smugness from hypocrites praising their own humility?
If you want to throw the “smug” card down, then let’s hear you, Nathan, admit that you HAVE NOT been chosen by god. Your superior views WILL NOT be rewarded in heaven. In fact, your religion is NO BETTER than the tens of thousands of religions you dismiss as false.
If you can’t, then admit what a smug worldview you’ve chosen to be a part of.
I suppose my question to the author is why should atheists want to seem nicer than they already are? Why is any atheist interested in that? I, for one, don’t care a lick what other people think about religion, as long as it doesn’t affect my own ability to think what I want.
In contrast, I commend the author on his overt admission that his stripe of Christian is actively seeking to convince “undecideds” of the truth of his particular religious propositions. This, of course, is a major objection that I have to the religious mode of operation. However, I am somewhat dismayed that he fails to understand that acting in such a mode forces all of us (even his bon-mot “decided-uns”) to have to put up with such proselytization.
Interestingly, the author wants me to admit that the debate about god’s existence is complex. I’m afraid that I don’t agree. It would seem to be a rather binary argument.
I would hope the author might revisit his understanding of science to the point that he understands that science relies on both induction and deduction in relatively equal parts. More importantly, science relies on a mode of thinking that is testable and falisfiable and, as such, constantly open to revision as more facts come to the fore. This, of course, makes every bit of technology that the author depends on for his survival and operation within the world, possible. There is a subtle irony in people who use the internet to decry the failings of science.
Finally, I would make the point that any way of thinking about the world that puts religious terrorists as “not quite as wrong” in their way of thinking as non-belivers, or that likens (as this author does in his follow-up comments) is all that I need to stop listening to anyone who believes such things.
To revisit: Be nicer atheists. Because some of you want to eat babies and all of you are more wrong-minded than the people who committed the greatest act of domestic terrorism of the 21st century. Also, Hitler was one of you.
Well, I am a needy little atheist, so I DO want people to like me, but before start work on making us SEEM nicer…(and I choose to think that you think we are already as nice-as-nice can be)…could you write some rules on how your group could BE nicer? Seriously. SOMEBODY please come up with these rules, cause the 10 commandments aren’t doing it for these people.
“Like the two who hijack this thread on Communicate Jesus.”
At least we only hijack threads and not airplanes
This is going to be me being smug:
How about you evaluate your ideas for yourself before spewing your emesis about. All of the arguments you have presented have already been eviscerated by several books. Thank you for the source of laughter, I have bookmarked this page and plan to give everything you’ve said here a thorough fisking upon completion of the two current book reviews and review of the status of the research into autism spectrum.
Nathan; use your brain, please? I don’t think you’re stupid, I just think you’re not considering the question of god(s) as a valid question. It certainly is, and is there any evidence to support the existence of said entity which is not easily explained by alternative models backed by scientific research?
It seems the core of your argument is “what if science is wrong?” and while this is certainly a valid question, the answer isn’t to ignore scientific research, but to look at it critically with the evidence itself. How well does the evidence support the claims? The answer isn’t just to ignore the observations.
Yeah, my biggest problems are with (4). Science is at its heart an attempt at objectivity, and while it does not always succeed in practice, it is nevertheless true that two different groups of people working independently of each other can come up with the same scientific conclusions (I’m told that to some extent this happened with physics during the cold war).
It’s also true that science at its best is always searching for rigorous tests (for instance, all it would have taken for our current theories of evolution to be proved wrong would have been a lack of one specific structure in the human chromosome 2). This is in direct contrast to religion, which seeks confirmation only.
So yes, science may have been abused at times, but it is not nearly so open to abuse as religion. After all, the Soviets tried to abuse it with Lysenkoism, and look where that got them…
Reading through the comments it looks like Bob tried to show you guys how we see things and Nathan and Leah couldn’t stand it, and proceeded to jump down the dudes throat. But you have the audacity to call us smug. Also, you never answered his question. Is it an abomination for women to wear pants?
“I agree – some religions have terrible moral imperatives – I don’t think Christianity does, nor do I think that it is our place as created beings to dictate morality to our creator. If God chooses a standard that we find unacceptable or hard to bear it’s not really our place to say so…”
“..just that God’s people shouldn’t be engaging in homosexual behaviour…”
Very scary. You seem to be abdicating personal moral responsibility.
What if God’s standard violates the dictates of one’s conscience? Would you, could you still be Christian if you happened to find the moral imperatives of your religion immoral when judged by your conscience?
Would you have followed the dictates of the Old Testament God? Would you have happily stoned adulterous women in the knowledge that it was showing you how to rely on God’s grace? I suppose being someone else’s “teaching moment” would be great consolation to the victim.
Judging by your replies, it would seem you wouldn’t recognize it when someone hands it to you, but here is your ass, handed to you:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/advice_for_atheists.php
K
Nathan;
You are the one being insulting and condescending in the above dialog. Perhaps you should take your own advice on how to seem “nicer”? Or even better, how to be nicer.
I am an avid “new atheist”. I agree that many christians are highly intelligent and rational people …. except in one particular area …. their religion. It’s called cognitive disonance.
And what if you’re wrong? What if Mohammed was god’s prophet? Then hellfire is where you will end up. At least atheists never say “believe like us or you’ll burn for eternity”. We atheists seem much nicer overall, IMO. We don’t try to sneak our beliefs into the public school curriculum. We don’t (none of us) shoot doctors or bomb clinics because we disagree with what they are doing. I am not saying you do that, or even that most christians do that, but nor are most muslims terrorists either. Yes, there may be a difference in the percentages of christians who are violent fundamentalists than muslims who are, but the fact remains that fundamentalist christians are giving christianity a bad name. It has been secularism that has led christianity away from its fundamentalist roots. Going back to the bible flies in the face of the secular wisdom that has kept most christians from stoning disobedient kids, adultresses and homosexuals to death. Did you know that in Jamaica, a christian theocracy, that homosexuality is punishable by 10 years in prison? And that it is really more like a death sentence because homosexuals are usually killed in prison? That is closer to the bible than you seem to be and you want to move us closer to the bible?
Sorry, I’ll take secular ethics and morality ov er biblical, or “quranical” any day, And honestly, I think Jesus would agree with me were he around today (if he ever even existed, which is a very moot point).
Thanks for listening. I think I have been very nice in this post. If you don’t, then I think you are too sensitive to your beliefs being challenged. Perhaps I should write an article titled “How christians can seem less sensitive and intolerant to differing views”.
First, you don’t care about coming across as nice, so why should we? Your post and your replies are pretty snarky and smug, so what do you care?
Atheists are more outspoken and maybe some have a newfound sense of freedom to speak out that comes across as smug. I agree with the posts that highlight christians’ never-ending smugness about having a “personal relationship with God.”
Consider the occasional smugness the price you have to pay for your predecessors’ murder and persecution of freethinkers throughout history. Also, for every “thoughtful” Christian, there seem to be plenty of fools who say stuff like “Jesus was the first astronaut!” or “The Bible is literally true” who deserve any amount of scoffery we can muster up. We oppose superstition in any form, and the more it is laughed at, the better. Quit whining.
Evangelism- we don’t assume it is directed at us (at least I don’t), and don’t care who you direct it at, other than to the extent that we disapprove of evangelism being used to dupe the credulous out of their money. That’s a straw man.
Complexity of God’s existence. That is definitely admitted, at least on my part. The something from nothing part is pretty tough to get one’s mind around. However, the infinite regression argument is valid, and the very assumption that whatever is out there is your “God” suggests that you don’t think it is complex at all. It is just as easy to believe that rational, intelligent people can be polytheists as well, which is also baloney.
Scientific method: Straw man, everyone knows people make mistakes or lie about things. Nothing is “infallible.” What bothers us (at least me) is that religious people tend to discount science without actually attempting to understand it. “That’s junk science! My pastor said so!” Potassium-Argon decay comes to mind.
Real notions of god: you believe that a human male (or image thereof) created the universe. There, dealt with it. Still ridiculous.
PZ Myers’ blog post about this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/advice_for_atheists.php
1. Nathan, the only difference between any God that has ever been worshipped and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, is that we all know that FSM is a joke, but it’s just as believable as the rest, given the right person. Given enough time, a human brain such as yours can be convinced to believe almost anything. Your brain is not is not a questioning type, it’s the accepting type.
You believe the Jesus story, because it’s been hammered into your unquestioning brain throughout your life. Whereas, upon a little research, it’s entirely believable that Christianity was cobbled together by the L. Ron Hubbard of his day, one Saul of Tarsis, until the Roman Empire got their mitts into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Funny that Christians know little about their own church history, but totally understandable… can’t have the masses and the money asking the really tough questions, eh?
God(s)= unknown answers to human questions. Religion(s)= People taking advantage of weaker minded people, for power, wealth, authority, or influence. Myths and Fairy tales have their place in humanity, but when people believe it to be fact, their judgment has to be questioned. Hearing voices in your head can get you a padded room, but if you believe that voice is God’s, you’ll be made a Saint.
The sky is colourless, it just appears to be blue, man.
Ok, I’m an atheist. Point by point;
1. Smugness – it works both ways. You have no idea how smug it appears when religious people tell me their beliefs are true regardless of whether the evidence is lacking, contradictory or lied about (the misrepresentation of evolutionary theory by creationist liars for example).
2. I understand you want the undecideds to turn to your religion. I do not want this and if you publicly proselytise your beliefs, I will publicly counter them.
3. I disagree the debate is complex – there is no proof for any religion. Give me some and I will believe. My standard of proof is scientific.
4. Scientific method is not as fallible as religious belief. Any theory derived from inductive methods in science must then face deductive tests and more importantly a peer review process. No religious belief has ever stood up to these methods.
5. It’s hard to deal with the notions of God seriously – they differ from religion to religion, sect to sect, person to person. Are you talking about the Baptist interpretation or the Catholic one? Your God is almost certainly different to that of most other believers.
Maybe instead of giving tips “for my atheist friends to help them seem nicer and more reasonable” you should start by giving similar tips to yourself and fellow believers.
Peace be with you
Dan
1. Why is explaining the evidence for evolution and the lack thereof for God considered smug? I’ve had a similar discussion about ghosts quite a number of times. Proposing an evidence-based explanation for something is not necessarily smug.
2. “We want the undecideds”. Good for you, but saying the other side should keep their mouth shut when you’re talking to these people is like saying the defense should not say anything during trial, it doesn’t work that way.
As for #2 in comment #15: In many cases, I can appreciate the sentiment, but once is quite enough. More often than not, however, the idea of Hell was used on me as a threat rather than a warning. If your arguments are too weak that you have to resort to the threat of eternal torment to get people to come to your side, you may want to rethink your argument.
3. This was the point that made me slap a Poe’s Law verdict on this article. Many things described in the Bible about the structure and functioning of the universe are demonstrably wrong. And we would not consider these things particularly complicated these days, I would think that the “creator” would get these things right, even if the people at the time did not.
The God invoked by so many Christians is a logical impossibility. Consider the traits of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving and the concepts of Heaven and Hell. I’m sure you can see the inconsistencies (even if you do not draw any conclusions from them). You may consider this a strawman, in which case I will point you to point 5, this is the christian God as I’ve always heard it.
4. The scientific method generally starts with an observation. Then comes the hypothesis which we then try to prove OR DISPROVE. That last bit is important. Scientific articles that disprove hypotheses are as highly valued as the ones that do, as long as the science is done right.
Due to all kinds of circumstances, you would be right in saying that science is not absolutely objective or infallible. However, the point of science is that it is open to being proven wrong (consider phlogiston theory for instance) and either adjusting or rejecting these previously held ideas to account for the new observations or evidence.
No such checks exist for religion, it seems.
In response to Bob’s first comment about planes going into buildings.
I think the author’s use of the word “abuse” was meant as “support one’s own views over reality” rather than “incite violence”. Of course, where it concerns science, I wouldn’t agree with either definition, but I figured it be worth mentioning.
Scientists that “abuse” science tend to not have particularly long academic careers (see Andrew Wakefield).
5. This is one I’ve heard before, too. First of all, dealing with the concepts of God “within it’s context” is virtually impossible. We can’t quote the entire Bible when considering a single argument. Any excerpt/quotation is by its very definition “out of context”. What matters is that all relevant information to that excerpt is discussed. So, when saying that homosexuality is an “abomination”, it is relevant to the context to say that the same thing is said about shellfish. It is not relevant to the context to say that Jesus was resurrected.
The problem is that there isn’t just one interpretation of what the Bible means to say. Quite often when an atheist argues against a position you don’t hold, Nathan (I’m presuming that you’re the author of this article), it may not necessarily be a strawman.
I’ve had several discussions with Jehova’s Witnesses (I was bored and had nothing else to do, sue me). And yet, even though they supposedly belong to the same version of faith, the people I had these discussions with had some radically different views on what their God had to say. And that’s just within their own denomination.
So, while I’ll admit to sometimes exaggerating points to make my own, it may not always be the strawman you imagine it to be.
Seeing this reminds me of when I was young and some kids still didn’t get the fact that there was no Santa Claus. It’s kind of cute that you believe in a man that lives in the clouds, simontaneously reads everyone’s thoughts, but can’t be bothered to take a trip to Earth to prove his existence. It’s also convenient that you can’t see him until you die.
It’s a real shame Nathan…
You seem to be a really smart, coherent guy.
Why is it that you waste your time on silly religion?
Think of Pascals Wager in another way: You die and go to heaven and meet “god”.
“god” says to you in no uncertain terms, “Hey, Nathan, why did you spend your life regurgetating adulterated crap?”
Nathan replies, “But, oh god, it is what you instructed me to do.”
“Wrong God!”
Hang on a second: you’re starting out by deciding in advance what the answers to certain questions are going to be, like “are there any gods?” and “why are there humans?” Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to start out with “let’s see if we can figure out the answers”?
What if I made my own edition of the bible, like so many before me have done? The last chapter explaining that all previous chapters should be ignored because no gods exist? Would that be enough to deconvert you? If not, why not?
This is just stupid
the debate about God’s existence is complex
Ontological Argument – fails basic logic.
Argument from Design – relies on eqivocation.
Argument from Morality – misses the point.
Yeah, complex.
the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction
You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. You’re completely wrong, and don’t even understand the basic terms of the debate.
the actual notions of God seriously believed in
And what are these “actual notions”? Theologins have been unable to come up with anything serious, and ordinary believers just believe in a magical man in the sky.
There’s a very good reason we don’t take you seriously. It’s because you’re not serious.
Mind if I jump in here?
“Again, I make the point I made to Bob – if we’re right and you’re wrong then your position is the least rational position possible.”
I don’t believe you understand what exactly it means to be irrational (This isn’t an attack; it’s the best way I can think to phrase it). Rationality isn’t a dependent on the result. Rationality is choosing the best possible option with the current information you’re given. Trying to judge the rationality of someone’s actions violates the basic definition of rationality. You have extra information after the fact, on what, at the time may have been the most rational decision.
But that’s not really the point. I’m sure I sound smug right now, right? I’ll acknowledge it. However, I’ll bet I sound no less smug to you, than you do to me.
“Sorry Bob, you’re obviously finding it difficult to follow what I thought was a pretty clearly spelled out statement – we are both making absolute claims, all religions are – there’s just a nicer way to do this.”
This, I’m not exactly sure what you mean. Personally, I have yet to find any person that can provide a logical argument for how all religions can be right, even though they all have drastically different viewpoints, conflicting with one another. The mere fact that they conflict means one of them has to be wrong.
Leah wrote:
>Also, what Nathan said about science – “starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis” – is absolutely true. It’s drilled into every science student between Grades 4 and 12 and, from my conversations with friends doing tertiary science studies, university too.
Leah, I have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford; my wife’s Ph.D. is in biology.
Yes, that is often what is taught to American public-school children – one of many reasons that responsible parents remove their kids from the American public schools.
No, that is not what is taught in good universities in science classes because it is simply and manifestly false.
In my own field, try reading about the discovery of the psi/J particle in 1974: I lived through this, knew several of the people who made the discovery, and remember it quite well. It was not a pre-formed hypothesis that was tested; it was rather the discovery of an unexpected fact, a bolt out of the blue. Happens all the time (penicillin, radioactivity, pulsars, etc.). The opposite (form a hypothesis and test it) also happens a lot.
Your friends in “tertiary” education are either going to very poor schools, are very poor students, or, perhaps, are just pulling your leg for fun.
This sort of bizarrely false claim about science is what causes so many scientifically educated people to smugly dismiss Christians as people who have simply not yet acquired an education. (Many years spent at very poor schools, such as American public schools, does not add up to an education.)
David H. Miller, Ph.D.
homeschoolingphysicist.blogspot.com
@#28
Well I can’t say one way or the other Brian; first you need to provide a definition of “abomination”.
Nathan wrote to anti-Christians:
>1. Stop being so smug.
Hmmmm…..
I wonder, do you really think it is always wrong to smugly dismiss some point of view?
Are you really open to the idea that the earth is flat or that the Easter Bunny is real, or are you, perhaps, a bit “smug” in your dismissal of such things?
I myself am preternaturally smug in dismissing people who believe in astrology, homeopathy, etc.
I know far too much science to think that people who believe in astrology, homeopathy, etc. are anything but gullible, uneducated fools.
Smug? Sure.
But, I really don’t have much choice about this – anyone who knows much science will inevitably reach a similar conclusion.
But, I hear someone call out from the distance, Christianity is different than astrology or homeopathy!
Yeah, astrology is more credible than Christianity.
Throughout my childhood, over eighteen years, I attended a Southern Baptist church (I refused to ever be baptized or join the church). Those Baptists do a lot of Bible reading, so that I know more about the Bible than most self-proclaimed Christians I have known.
I know about contradictions between the Gospels (e.g., John’s disagreement with the Synoptics about the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion), about what scholars have discovered about how the Bible was patched together, and, of course, about various parts of the Bible disproved by science.
Am I smug about dismissing the Bible and Christianity? I don’t see that I have any choice in the matter.
I just know way too much to take the Bible or Christianity as anything but a bad joke.
Can’t be helped.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
What everybody need is love! Atheist or not atheist we all need love, kind words soothe the pain,the ” I understand, lets’s pray together” or I feel for u” or” I’ll be praying for u” love, humility, prayers, solve all problems. we should remember that we r just human, u & I making mistakes just like everybody else and when we do, deep in our hearts we wish that someone understand. If u give love, u will receive love, love has many faces.God is love!
Hilarious.
I think that says it all, really.
Nathan, I have to come to your defense even if this will be a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”, because I don’t support orthodox Christianity any more than I support atheism. However I couldn’t just sit there and see you getting stomped. Atheists are just as full of b.s. as Christian fundamentalists. Take this for just one, fairly trivial example.
Bas wrote: “Why is explaining the evidence for evolution and the lack thereof for God considered smug? I’ve had a similar discussion about ghosts quite a number of times. Proposing an evidence-based explanation for something is not necessarily smug.”
Of course it’s not, and nobody in his right mind ever suggested it was. Bas isn’t very perceptive if he/she thinks that smugness has anything to do with what you believe or what you say. It’s HOW you believe and HOW you say it that makes for smugness. Many (I hope not all) atheists are smug in just the same way that many, if not all, born-again evangelicals are: both lots just KNOW that they are right and they are so darned self-satisfied about it–the Christians because they’re saved and you’re not, the atheists because they think they’ve proved they’re so much smarter than you are. This just makes mee want to puke. It has nothing to do with what’s believed, whatsoever.
Unfortunately Christians are just hopeless at taking down atheists, which gives the atheists a false sense of how smart they are. Christian anti-atheist stuff, like “The Dawkins delusion”, “The atheist delusion” and so forth, is just lame, pathetic, repeating the same stale old arguments the atheists have already debunked. In fact, atheists have gotten away scot-free, so far, they’ve never had to face any serious criticism, and for most part they’ve been greeted with unctuous, sycophantic praise by the media.
Well, let’s see them try and hit someone their own size. I welcome them one and all to the website named above, Beyond Science Versus Religion–a blog whose goal is the elimination of b.s. from all sides of the controversy. Let’s see if any of them can answer the criticisms of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins et al. they’ll find there.