• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the following atheist tactic good sportsmanship or not?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What strange definition of "absolutism" are you using that would make it applicable to things like questioning and inquiry?
For my purposes here, absolutism = dismissing either theology or reason as unworthy of serious attention. Fundigelicals have engaged in that for a loooong time. So have atheists. It's a stance that's rooted in both classical and modern thought. We've moved beyond it to the point where such a stance has become a stumbling block to social progress.

Questioning and inquiry are very good things, so long as all disciplines are given their due.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I know this is going to sound mean. But religion often moves beyond human understanding and postulates something that has no reason and is unnecessary to explain the the world around us any longer. It made sense in the early years of civilization when there was no real methodology to gain an accurate understanding of reality but now that there is... see where I am going here?
Yeah, I do, and I think you're wrong. I think some serious reimagining of the myth is in order, but I think theology is invaluable to an accurate understanding of reality as we now know it thanks to science.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
fantôme profane;2612622 said:
You can, I can. But no, obviously “we all” can’t.

I am an atheist who sees value in Christianity, and value in myth. But my position is that I don’t want to shut down those who think differently than I do. I don’t want to shut out the message of those Christian churches that see it as their mission (literally) to eradicate atheism. And I don’t want to shut out those atheists who believe that humanity would be better off without religion.


(Actually I don’t agree that there is merit to all facets of human understanding. I think there is merit to many widely divergent facets of human understanding, but not all. To say that all facets of human understanding have merit is an absurd and extremely dangerous idea. Some facets of human understanding must be disparaged. )


You think it would be better to promote a more reasonable, less absolute position. Great, let’s get that voice out there as well. That is in addition to, not instead of.


I guess I just like the adversarial process of debate. Let’s have the evangelical Christian make their case, give it their best shot. And give the “evangelical atheists” the same chance. How can you say the “absolutist” position isn’t the correct one unless you have allowed them to make their case? I am not afraid of their either of their arguments, not within a free marketplace of ideas.

Btw, you didn’t give me your opinion on the three pictures in my last post. I would really appreciate hearing what you think of them. Those three were chosen for specific reasons.
Thanks for that. I'm speaking of facets of understanding that employ the most reasonable use of our disciplines -- there are facets that, when not using a cross-disciplinary method, can get out on a dangerous limb.

Let me look at the pics again.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The first pic represents irresponsible overgeneralization of several unrelated topics.
The second I agree with.
The third I find inane but harmless.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Yeah, I do, and I think you're wrong. I think some serious reimagining of the myth is in order, but I think theology is invaluable to an accurate understanding of reality as we now know it thanks to science.

Science has turned up nothing on theology however, I can't help wondering why not...
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
For my purposes here, absolutism = dismissing either theology or reason as unworthy of serious attention.
The first two ads both suggest that serious attention should be given to religion. The third ad doesn't, but I'm not sure how you can assume that it's a dismissal of theology and not a conclusion after the serious attention you describe.

Questioning and inquiry are very good things, so long as all disciplines are given their due.
And what is theology "due"?

The first pic represents irresponsible overgeneralization of several unrelated topics.
They're unrelated in subject matter, but they share the characteristic that people tend to place them beyond the realm of rational examination and criticism.

Actually, that's the whole point of the ad: it's saying that all claims, regardless of their source, should be examined.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
fantôme profane;2612557 said:
Don’t assume that these people speak for all atheists. I am not talking about the message of “the atheist movement”, I don’t even acknowledge that there is such a thing as “the atheists movement”.

I don't even acknowledge there is a quote that I've included in this post.

In fact, I lack a belief that I've included a quote anywhere in this post.

"the atheist movement"
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Because it precludes it from explanation?

Do you also wonder why some (or any) scientists are theists?

Theists are the one that claim it is untestable. Usually to protect it from being refuted so they can solidify their belief in it. The problem I find is that if someone randomly decided to do that with something other than religion, they would be seen as crazy or a liar. So what exempts religion from such scrutiny since it claims that interaction occurs in the physical?

I'm honestly confused by this.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
The first pic represents irresponsible overgeneralization of several unrelated topics.
Thank you. I accept your point, the topics do seem rather random and unrelated and perhaps the inclusion of some of them is a bit inflammatory. But still I do believe that the idea “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” applies to all of the listed topics. And more to the point this is a call for a reasoned approach, which is unless I misunderstood exactly what you were calling for.

The second I agree with.
This of course is just me throwing the picture in the quote together. But this is the kind of direction I think these kind of atheist groups should go.

The third I find inane but harmless.
This interestingly enough comes from the United Church of Canada.







The point however is that it is so very easy to be offended, it usually requires very little effort or thought. I think you can choose to interpret these kind of ads in a negative way, or you can choose to interpret them in a positive way. The ad in the op for instance, “you know it’s a myth”. You could respond to that by saying of course it is a myth, now let’s employ reason and intellect to consider the significance of that myth, the symbolism, the power of that myth. You could have chosen to talk about what this myth means to Christians, and what it could mean to atheists. And that could have been a really interesting conversation. But if you choose just to complain about how offensive this ad is, that is such a tragic waste. If you really want to have an reasoned discussion you may have to meet ideas like this half way.
 
Last edited:

Photonic

Ad astra!
fantôme profane;2612774 said:
The point however is that it is so very easy to be offended, it usually requires very little effort or thought. I think you can choose to interpret these kind of ads in a negative way, or you can choose to interpret them in a positive way. The ad in the op for instance, “you know it’s a myth”. You could respond to that by saying of course it is a myth, now let’s employ reason and intellect to consider the significance of that myth, the symbolism, the power of that myth. You could have chosen to talk about what this myth means to Christians, and what it could mean to atheists. And that could have been a really interesting conversation. But if you choose just to complain about how offensive this ad is, that is such a tragic waste. If you really want to have an reasoned discussion you may have to meet ideas like this half way.

I'm fairly sure that the response you said they should have had is the one these people WANTED them to have, but I think they forget that it's so very easy to offend someone who holds so closely to something.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I know this is going to sound mean. But religion often moves beyond human understanding and postulates something that has no reason and is unnecessary to explain the the world around us any longer. It made sense in the early years of civilization when there was no real methodology to gain an accurate understanding of reality but now that there is... see where I am going here?
Yes it is true that modern scientific methodology has had a radical impact on how we understand the world. But it has not change the fact that we are a story telling species. Telling stories is still an important way for us to understand the world and ourselves. We even tell stories to help us understand scientific concepts.


I agree with sojourner here. Myth is not something we should casually dismiss. If anything we should be studying in more intensely, perhaps even employing some of that methodology you are talking about.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it's fair enough. Though I'd prefer to live without propaganda of any variety.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
fantôme profane;2612782 said:
Yes it is true that modern scientific methodology has had a radical impact on how we understand the world. But it has not change the fact that we are a story telling species. Telling stories is still an important way for us to understand the world and ourselves. We even tell stories to help us understand scientific concepts.


I agree with sojourner here. Myth is not something we should casually dismiss. If anything we should be studying in more intensely, perhaps even employing some of that methodology you are talking about.

Hmm, that did not occur to me. Myth is very useful to teach a young mind, but at some point it needs to be broken to them. Humans have the capacity to handle some surprising information.

Maybe I just have too much faith in humanity.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
Theists are the one that claim it is untestable.

Not the only one. (All) those that subscribe to methodological naturalism are saying this.

And I am type of theist that does not think all of what theology practices, studies, believes is not testable.

So what exempts religion from such scrutiny since it claims that interaction occurs in the physical?

I'm honestly confused by this.

Please provide example of the confusion you are honestly experiencing.
 

crocusj

Active Member
I can totally respect your point of view here.

Mainly I guess I was referring to those who are very aggressive in their arguments against religion. I've witnessed atheists who only seem to argue about it so they can put down the person who believes in something or display some sort of perceived superiority over the ones who believe in a religion. They also tend to do it in a demeaning way, and that I cannot respect no matter what view one is propagating.
Someone who argues in order to put someone else down is a bully and their beliefs have nothing to do with that. Seems to me that differences between different religions or even different sects of the same religion tend to be much more aggressive than most atheists. Also, I don't see why atheists should not be forceful in their arguments against religion (as opposed to against a god specifically) if religions take what atheists see as an invasive position in society that is greater than they might deserve, though atheists should not be alone in this outlook.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
"NORTH BERGEN, N.J. (1010 WINS) – An atheist group that has paid for a large billboard outside the Lincoln Tunnel reading “You KNOW it’s a Myth” says it is targeting “closet” atheists as part of its Christmas season campaign.

The large billboard featuring a silhouette of a traditional manger scene is located on the New Jersey side of the tunnel and sponsored by a group called American Atheists.
american-atheists-billboard.jpg

The billboard is causing some controversy among those in the Garden State.

“I don’t think it’s any good for the kids. I’ve got a 7-year-old daughter — she believes in Christmas,” one woman told 1010 WINS’ Terry Sheridan."
source


Video News report

video-on-demand-news

It isn't any worse than some of religious billboards that've been around. Such as:

atheist_billboard.jpg

Billboard_smaller.jpg
christianbillboard.jpg
IMG_3124.jpg


When it comes to bad taste, the christians have the atheists beat. ;)


The problem with all these ads is that they are not either:

a) making me laugh

b) making me think

There is also the abundance of facepalming to consider in both cases.

I mean if we are already spending a lot of money to attack each others belief can we at least make it....fun? (or at least non-retarded)
 
That billboard seems fine to me.

We shouldn't be ring-fencing religious mythology from reality just because some parents want to brainwash their children into believing that fiction is fact. What that women really meant was that it wasn't good for Christianity if children are encouraged to consider alternatives to the Christian account of history and reality in general.
 
Top