It's pretty common to encounter religious theists, and Christians in particular, who misunderstand and misrepresent atheism. This can seem strange given how simple and easy to comprehend atheism really is, but maybe the reason lies deeper. Maybe religious theists like Christians need to misunderstand atheism because it's so much easier to dismiss or argue against straw man ideology they've created in their imaginations than against mere disbelief in gods.
Borsia:
Of course all of these attempts to define atheism as a cause are to further define it as a religion, so that they can challenge it as such rather than be stuck trying to attack something that is in effect nothing.
They want to say that atheism teaches blah, blah, blah. So that they have a target to allow them to go on the offensive of saying that atheists have to prove there is no god. Just as a lawyer tries to open channels of questioning that aren't related to a case.
It tears them apart that atheism isn't a belief or a religion. Even more that it is only 3 words. They have all of their "holy books of superstition" poised to strike but when there isn't anything to strike they are left poised in the wake.
I'm often asked what atheists believe in? When I say "No gods exist." they realize that all of their tactful arguments won't have any place. They ask "What are the core elements of atheism?" and get the same answer.
"But how do you determine right from wrong?"
"Atheism doesn't address that." leaves them with the wind gone from their sails.
"But what about the Commandments and the Bible to steer your morality, how does atheism guide you?"
"There is only one useful commandment. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' But it is not a part of, and has nothing to do with, atheism."
It's similar to telling theists that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life.
Both subjects leave them doing their impression of a motorboat "but, but, but, but...."
[original post]
I've seen hundreds if not thousands of debates and discussions between atheists and theists. I can't think of any off hand that were actually productive and useful, though I'm sure there were a few and I'm sure there are few out there. Genuinely productive debates seem to me to be the exception rather than the rule.
There are, however, a few ways you can decrease your chances of getting caught up in the worst and least productive discussions. Insisting on a correct understanding of atheism up front is key -- there's no point in saying anything else or listening to anything the other person has to say if they are going to persist in denying what atheism is and what atheists think.
You should just flat-out refuse to proceed on any other topic unless and until that one is resolved correctly. If it can't be, then you know that there wouldn't have been any point in going further.
There are other things you can do, too, like insisting that they clearly define what they mean by "god" and that they not waste time with any arguments except those which, if proven false or at least proven weak, will cause them to reconsider their position. Getting these issues out of the way first can help a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment