4 ms·

> "If you think your views offend a lot of people, doesn't that mean you should maybe examine why you have those views..." Being an atheist or agnostic used to

> "If you think your views offend a lot of people, doesn't that mean you should maybe examine why you have those views..." Being an atheist or agnostic used to be offensive to a lot of people. Should people have "examined why they have those views" and the West have remained a thoroughly religious society instead of secular? Obviously not. Other examples abound, including the transition to democracy from monarchy and the civil rights movement itself. Your argument is basically conservatism in a nutshell: whatever the current zeitgeist is or was at any given time was "right" and things should remain or should have remained that way indefinitely.

jkepler 6y ago
Today, many Christians are disparaged by atheists, as the assumption of many in western late-modern cultures is that public discourse ought to be secular. Yet this is often based on an assumed common ground of Enlightenment humanism, with an a priori ruling out of any possible religious basis for claims. However, as Kuhn and Polyani have shown, science is a very human endeavor, full of underlying beliefs and assumptions that color and guide inquires, as well as setting conceptual limits on what is and isn't possible. Many of the great early-modern scientists (Kepler, Newton, and Boyle come to mind) were driven by their Christian convictions to break with older inaccurate theories and follow the observational data. I think much of the deep political divide in our culture ties back to a philosophical rejection of truth, à la Nietzsche, leaving only the raw power grabs. As a Christian who believes truth is both real and objective, yet also has a personal/relational character, I'm particularly saddened when Christian communities participate in power grabs that perpetuate deep political divides rather than living our a self-giving love that would build trust for conversations across political (or racial or socioeconomic) divides. Its acceptance of a secular zeitgeist that tolerates no real diversity of viewpoints, and Christians easily fall into the same habits.
Jordrok 6y ago
You're conflating thoughtful self-examination of your own beliefs and the motivations behind them with simply abandoning those beliefs. Just because you hold a belief that goes against the majority opinion doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but neither does it give any guarantee that you are right, either. These are exactly the cases which warrant the most thorough research and self-examination. The point that the parent is trying to make is that so often, nowadays especially, people will simply shut down and refuse to hear any challenges to their most tightly held beliefs. Instead, they choose to retreat to the comfort of like-minded echo chambers - something that is all too easy with the prevalence of algorithmically reinforced Facebook news feeds and heavily moderated subreddits which explicitly ban any dissenting opinions.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Is being an atheist hard to say, argue, or back up with fact? Contrast it with, as an arbitrary example, the idea that America should build a giant wall along one of its massive borders, in the era of air travel?
- ConceptJunkie 6y ago
  > Is being an atheist hard to say, argue, or back up with fact? Since I've never heard a compelling argument for it, I would say so.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I've heard several. The simplest one is the question of obligation to deliver evidence. Stories of deities are not reproducibleand modern observation does not align with what's recorded in religious texts regarding the cosmology of the universe. We don't accept evidence Spider-Man is real because his exploits were recorded in a comic book without physical evidence of a web swinging vigilante protecting New York City, but we accept evidence of various gods from various textbooks. gods are held to a different standard than comic book characters, and it's a less stringent standard.
    - ConceptJunkie 6y ago
      There's compelling evidence that you can't prove supernatural beings exist. However, it similarly impossible to prove they don't exist. In our experience, everything that exists comes from something else that exists. There is nothing that comes into existence from nothing. The Universe exists, therefore it must have come from something. It's a dodge to suggest that progression goes on forever. Something created everything, which was not itself created. We can't prove it is God Who did this, but there is no more reason to believe it "just happened" either. Atheism is as much an act of faith as is belief in the supernatural. You can no more give me physical proof that God does not exist than I can give you proof that He does. If you do not have faith and want to claim true objectivity and empiricism on your side, you admit that agnosticism is the only acceptable position.

jkepler 6y ago

Today, many Christians are disparaged by atheists, as the assumption of many in western late-modern cultures is that public discourse ought to be secular. Yet this is often based on an assumed common ground of Enlightenment humanism, with an a priori ruling out of any possible religious basis for claims. However, as Kuhn and Polyani have shown, science is a very human endeavor, full of underlying beliefs and assumptions that color and guide inquires, as well as setting conceptual limits on what is and isn't possible. Many of the great early-modern scientists (Kepler, Newton, and Boyle come to mind) were driven by their Christian convictions to break with older inaccurate theories and follow the observational data. I think much of the deep political divide in our culture ties back to a philosophical rejection of truth, à la Nietzsche, leaving only the raw power grabs. As a Christian who believes truth is both real and objective, yet also has a personal/relational character, I'm particularly saddened when Christian communities participate in power grabs that perpetuate deep political divides rather than living our a self-giving love that would build trust for conversations across political (or racial or socioeconomic) divides. Its acceptance of a secular zeitgeist that tolerates no real diversity of viewpoints, and Christians easily fall into the same habits.

Jordrok 6y ago

You're conflating thoughtful self-examination of your own beliefs and the motivations behind them with simply abandoning those beliefs. Just because you hold a belief that goes against the majority opinion doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but neither does it give any guarantee that you are right, either. These are exactly the cases which warrant the most thorough research and self-examination. The point that the parent is trying to make is that so often, nowadays especially, people will simply shut down and refuse to hear any challenges to their most tightly held beliefs. Instead, they choose to retreat to the comfort of like-minded echo chambers - something that is all too easy with the prevalence of algorithmically reinforced Facebook news feeds and heavily moderated subreddits which explicitly ban any dissenting opinions.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Is being an atheist hard to say, argue, or back up with fact? Contrast it with, as an arbitrary example, the idea that America should build a giant wall along one of its massive borders, in the era of air travel?

ConceptJunkie 6y ago
> Is being an atheist hard to say, argue, or back up with fact? Since I've never heard a compelling argument for it, I would say so.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I've heard several. The simplest one is the question of obligation to deliver evidence. Stories of deities are not reproducibleand modern observation does not align with what's recorded in religious texts regarding the cosmology of the universe. We don't accept evidence Spider-Man is real because his exploits were recorded in a comic book without physical evidence of a web swinging vigilante protecting New York City, but we accept evidence of various gods from various textbooks. gods are held to a different standard than comic book characters, and it's a less stringent standard.
  - ConceptJunkie 6y ago
    There's compelling evidence that you can't prove supernatural beings exist. However, it similarly impossible to prove they don't exist. In our experience, everything that exists comes from something else that exists. There is nothing that comes into existence from nothing. The Universe exists, therefore it must have come from something. It's a dodge to suggest that progression goes on forever. Something created everything, which was not itself created. We can't prove it is God Who did this, but there is no more reason to believe it "just happened" either. Atheism is as much an act of faith as is belief in the supernatural. You can no more give me physical proof that God does not exist than I can give you proof that He does. If you do not have faith and want to claim true objectivity and empiricism on your side, you admit that agnosticism is the only acceptable position.