5 ms·

I'm often left a bit baffled and frustrated when atheists start off their arguments with coherent and interesting thoughts only to end, what could've been the s

by Satam 8y ago

I'm often left a bit baffled and frustrated when atheists start off their arguments with coherent and interesting thoughts only to end, what could've been the start of a productive discussion, with snarky and childish remarks. I, for one, dabble in these questions out of genuine and innate curiosity and I believe others do too. Isn't it then counterproductive to deal in absolutes when the only thing we can be certain of is that we are still quite too ignorant to answer those ultimate questions? Maybe I am reading too much into your "theology studies that which does not exist", but, again, remarks like these are really off-putting. It is already almost impossible to find discussions in this area that take an exploratory and open-minded approach, and I'd hope that at least forums like these could be free of that.

solipsism 8y ago
Sounds like you're expecting everyone to see eye to eye with you. The person you're responding to expressed how he or she sees things. The only person who seems to be trying to cut off certain lines of conversation is you.
- Satam 8y ago
  I don't think you're being fair here. Although it is possible that the person did not write the comment in the disingenuous way in which I perceived it, I am not willing to regard him as so naive. Importantly, it is not the opinion itself which I find off-putting - it's the way in which it is conveyed. It was neither insightful nor did it encourage any meaningful discussion... No, I'd go further: consciously or unconsciously its only purpose was to reaffirm the author's pre-existing convictions and to put down those of others. I also understand why my comment could come off as trying to cut off certain lines of conversation as well, but the only reason why I am even getting frustrated about this is because I want to have MORE of those honest conversations about these seemingly controversial topics; it doesn't matter to me which way they lead me. I believe that the "ultimate" questions have value in them that is not necessarily tied to them being answered, at the very least in the same way the exercise is good for one's body - I hope you would agree here as well. Unfortunately, most of the time, it is quite hard to find balanced online discussions which would bring an exploratory and open mindset to these questions; instead, they're usually quickly bombarded with dogmatic responses - an example of which I'm now ranting about.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    Theology is generally the study of the dogma of your chosen religion. Assuming any of the field is based on truth requires you to already believe what the religion says, as "a long time ago this guy said this" is not a convincing argument. Almost everyone will find this true, as even if they believe it for their chosen religious theology they generally don't for all the others. The "ultimate questions" are the realm of philosophy.
    - Satam 8y ago
      Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. But, again, my issue is not with the dismissal - I'm completely fine with the idea that people might come to that conclusion and I'm open to the idea myself. My issue is with the cheap jabs that are not even honest expressions of one's feelings. My criticisms might seem strange and uncalled-for if one only considers this instance in isolation, but it keeps happening, again and again, and throughout many different types of media. Just recently I was reading Sam Harris' book; it's quite small and a fun read at times, yet it quickly became a chore to get through, as it is full of those irrelevant cheap-shots. The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder. I consider it really unfortunate that it seems that the atheist side, whose thoughts I'm most interested in hearing, fallbacks to this strategy quite too often. And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. You either dismiss it all as false, accept it all as true, or you are a hypocrite. The evidence is the same for all theologies. It's unproductive to consider ideas that either have no evidence or have no logical basis, and that describes theology. > The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are. >And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious. There is no debate with "the religious," there belief is based on things that are not debatable. They often pride themselves on how their belief comes from faith. The philosophical debate is another thing altogether.

by Satam 8y ago

solipsism 8y ago

Sounds like you're expecting everyone to see eye to eye with you. The person you're responding to expressed how he or she sees things. The only person who seems to be trying to cut off certain lines of conversation is you.

Satam 8y ago
I don't think you're being fair here. Although it is possible that the person did not write the comment in the disingenuous way in which I perceived it, I am not willing to regard him as so naive. Importantly, it is not the opinion itself which I find off-putting - it's the way in which it is conveyed. It was neither insightful nor did it encourage any meaningful discussion... No, I'd go further: consciously or unconsciously its only purpose was to reaffirm the author's pre-existing convictions and to put down those of others. I also understand why my comment could come off as trying to cut off certain lines of conversation as well, but the only reason why I am even getting frustrated about this is because I want to have MORE of those honest conversations about these seemingly controversial topics; it doesn't matter to me which way they lead me. I believe that the "ultimate" questions have value in them that is not necessarily tied to them being answered, at the very least in the same way the exercise is good for one's body - I hope you would agree here as well. Unfortunately, most of the time, it is quite hard to find balanced online discussions which would bring an exploratory and open mindset to these questions; instead, they're usually quickly bombarded with dogmatic responses - an example of which I'm now ranting about.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Theology is generally the study of the dogma of your chosen religion. Assuming any of the field is based on truth requires you to already believe what the religion says, as "a long time ago this guy said this" is not a convincing argument. Almost everyone will find this true, as even if they believe it for their chosen religious theology they generally don't for all the others. The "ultimate questions" are the realm of philosophy.
  - Satam 8y ago
    Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. But, again, my issue is not with the dismissal - I'm completely fine with the idea that people might come to that conclusion and I'm open to the idea myself. My issue is with the cheap jabs that are not even honest expressions of one's feelings. My criticisms might seem strange and uncalled-for if one only considers this instance in isolation, but it keeps happening, again and again, and throughout many different types of media. Just recently I was reading Sam Harris' book; it's quite small and a fun read at times, yet it quickly became a chore to get through, as it is full of those irrelevant cheap-shots. The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder. I consider it really unfortunate that it seems that the atheist side, whose thoughts I'm most interested in hearing, fallbacks to this strategy quite too often. And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. You either dismiss it all as false, accept it all as true, or you are a hypocrite. The evidence is the same for all theologies. It's unproductive to consider ideas that either have no evidence or have no logical basis, and that describes theology. > The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are. >And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious. There is no debate with "the religious," there belief is based on things that are not debatable. They often pride themselves on how their belief comes from faith. The philosophical debate is another thing altogether.