Argument against "lacktheism"

[MikeF]

I still don't understand why adding "in my opinion" to a statement like "You must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or you will be condemned to eternal hellfire!" is any less preachy than without it.

Edit: Not picking on anyone who holds such views btw. Just an example of a strong statement.

 

[PureX]

I still don't understand why adding "in my opinion" to a statement like "You must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or you will be condemned to eternal hellfire!" is any less preachy than without it.

Edit: Not picking on anyone who holds such views btw. Just an example of a strong statement.

The mistake in that example statement was the use of "you" instead of "we" ... In my opinion.

"We" supports it being a general opinion. "You" makes it personally preachy.

 

[Revoltingest]

But even then, I think moderation should be limited. Frankly I find this forum to be a paragon of balance as far as these things go.

As one with his finger on the pulse of dissatisfied
posters of RF, I observe few complaints about
being moderated for proselytization. I recall one
specifically, & believe there was one more. This has
been since I joined in 2010.
Oh, they moderate me for it every quarter million posts.
I can live with that (even though staff were wrong).

 

[PureX]

As one with his finger on the pulse of dissatisfied
posters of RF, I observe few complaints about
being moderated for proselytization. I recall one
specifically, & believe there was one more. This has
been since I joined in 2010.
Oh, they moderate me for it every quarter million posts.
I can live with that (even though staff were wrong).

All in all I am astonished by how well moderated this site is. Normally, if you give one person even the slightest bit of authority over others, they will immediately go completely burzerk with it. I have seen it happen on MANY, MANY similar discussion sites. So however this one is being run, I commend those running it for being able to stay the hell OUT OF THE WAY of the conversations, for the most part. And only stepping in when it's really necessary. God bless you folks whomever you are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course they don't SAY it. Alcoholics never SAY they're alcoholics, either. Because they both need to believe in their own delusions.

HI, I'm Tom, and I'm an alcoholic.

I've heard lots of alcoholics say they're alcoholics.

Or perhaps you're lashing out because deep down you know what I'm saying is true. By always pushing that you don't believe you can avoid having to defend what you do believe. Because you know you can't defend it any more than the theist can.

I believe in a lot of things I could defend.

I do not believe in god(s). Why? I've never seen anything that convinces me of their existence. What's to defend?

 

[PureX]

HI, I'm Tom, and I'm an alcoholic.

I've heard lots of alcoholics say they're alcoholics.

Yeah, that's only after the crap hits the fan so hard that they could no longer possibly deny it. Even then, more will still find a way to deny it than will actually admit it.

I believe in a lot of things I could defend.

I do not believe in god(s). Why? I've never seen anything that convinces me of their existence. What's to defend?

What's to defend is the very odd (and illogical) notion that your not seeing something is a reason to presume that it doesn't exist.

 

[Alien826]

I still don't understand why adding "in my opinion" to a statement like "You must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or you will be condemned to eternal hellfire!" is any less preachy than without it.

Edit: Not picking on anyone who holds such views btw. Just an example of a strong statement.

It softens it by suggesting that there could be other opinions. I think many people that say something like that would resist strongly any suggestion that it was "only" their opinion. "Oh, no! It's the holy word of God and therefore absolutely true!" Is it any less "preachy" though? Good question.

I'd be interested to hear what people think defines "preachy". Does it contain only unqualified claims? Are all questions rhetorical? Does it have to be religious as far as the subject matter goes? Does the audience have to be the choir?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that's only after the crap hits the fan...

Now you're explaining why you were wrong,
while not admitting you were wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah, that's only after the crap hits the fan so hard that they could no longer possibly deny it. Even then, more will still find a way to deny it than will actually admit it.

So... I just can't stay silent about this anymore. I'm sorry.

I really do not find these comparisons between atheists and those struggling with substance use or other addictions to be appropriate. As someone who has done sensitivity trainings to become an ally and a helping hand to those struggling with addiction, it leaves a very sour taste. The narratives you are telling here are not just unhelpful, they are hurtful and continue reinforcing negative stigmas regarding addiction and misconceptions about addiction. Maybe you didn't think about that when you created this metaphor earlier, so I'll grant the benefit of the doubt here, but please consider this going forward if you can.

 

[MikeF]

It softens it by suggesting that there could be other opinions. I think many people that say something like that would resist strongly any suggestion that it was "only" their opinion. "Oh, no! It's the holy word of God and therefore absolutely true!" Is it any less "preachy" though? Good question.

It doesn't seem so to me if advocating a particular position constitutes preaching.

I'd be interested to hear what people think defines "preachy". Does it contain only unqualified claims? Are all questions rhetorical? Does it have to be religious as far as the subject matter goes? Does the audience have to be the choir?

An advocation for any position could theoretically be considered "preaching", in my view. I think the validity of claims is immaterial. I think one can be "preachy" regarding valid claims such as moderating alcohol use to prevent alcoholism or promoting conservation methods to avoid ecological degradation. Perhaps it is the sense of one-sidedness that constitutes preaching. Rarely is their dialog when a minister for example, gives a sermon, i.e. preaches to the congregation. I also have the feeling that to be preachy the material is presented in absolutes and considered unquestionable by the preacher, although others may not consider this an element of preaching. For me though, if the material is presented in terms of probabilities or degrees of confidence, then I would not consider that preaching. Last element may be a sense of universality, that what is being preached applies to everyone, period.

Anyway, this would be my snapshot take on the subject.

 

[Heyo]

We come to those conclusions, if we're rational, through logical argumentation founded on strong evidence. Depending on the information we have, we will come to different conclusions even if we're both perfectly rational.

I tend to think, for a variety of reasons, that theists generally have good reasons for believing in God, even if I disagree with their conclusions. I don't know what those reasons are until I have that conversation with them. It's possible that their reasons for believing in God are superior to my reasons for believing that God does not exist.

I don't know if this is the place or if I'm going too far off a tangent but we need to discuss this sometime somewhere.
If logic is unambiguous and we both have the same information, we should come to the same conclusion. So, either logic isn't the right tool to deduce truth from true premises, or one of us is making logical errors if we come to different conclusions on the same premises.
Theists and philosophical Atheists can't be both rational if they claim their conclusion to be true. (I think they both are irrational.)

They may have reasons to believe (i.e. subjectively assign a believability threshold to their premises) but that doesn't mean they know.

And to get the bow back to the topic, lacktheists don't face that problem and are therefore (probably) right. There just isn't enough information to come to a rational conclusion. At least not enough to reach their threshold of believability.

 

[Heyo]

I still don't understand why adding "in my opinion" to a statement like "You must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or you will be condemned to eternal hellfire!" is any less preachy than without it.

Edit: Not picking on anyone who holds such views btw. Just an example of a strong statement.

By adding "in my opinion" to a statement or prefacing it with "I believe", one admits that their conclusion contains arbitrary elements of subjective assumptions.
Without those, the statement is a truth claim and an invitation to debate. You should be prepared to defend your premises and your reasoning.

 

[dybmh]

You should be prepared to defend your premises and your reasoning.

Naturally.. defend the claim that is made... not some other off-topic advertisement from a virtual pulpit or a virtual megaphone from the peanut gallery.

Example: "Hey did someone say 'book'? Your books are fake. All fake. And stupid. Critical thinkers are rational and beautiful. We're smart. We would never trust your books. They're all myths. Myths are stupid. Not like me. Yup. You said the word 'book' and your books are stupid fakes."

 

[PureX]

So... I just can't stay silent about this anymore. I'm sorry.

I really do not find these comparisons between atheists and those struggling with substance use or other addictions to be appropriate. As someone who has done sensitivity trainings to become an ally and a helping hand to those struggling with addiction, it leaves a very sour taste. The narratives you are telling here are not just unhelpful, they are hurtful and continue reinforcing negative stigmas regarding addiction and misconceptions about addiction. Maybe you didn't think about that when you created this metaphor earlier, so I'll grant the benefit of the doubt here, but please consider this going forward if you can.

Addiction is a self-protecting (ego) delusion. Something that we humans are prone to. Especially so when we do not learn to check our egos by applying skepticism to our own patterns of thought and behavior.

 

[MikeF]

Naturally.. defend the claim that is made... not some other off-topic advertisement from a virtual pulpit or a virtual megaphone from the peanut gallery.

Example: "Hey did someone say 'book'? Your books are fake. All fake. And stupid. Critical thinkers are rational and beautiful. We're smart. We would never trust your books. They're all myths. Myths are stupid. Not like me. Yup. You said the word 'book' and your books are stupid fakes."

Was the book myth?

If a book or other document are referenced and used to support a claim, it would seem appropriate to me to then examine the referenced book or document and make an evaluation as to whether it actually provides the purported support for the claim. Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree that personal attacks and name calling would never be appropriate, should it occur.

 

[Audie]

Now you're explaining why you were wrong,
while not admitting you were wrong.

That's almost like ironic.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's almost like ironic.

But it's definitely satisfying.

 

[Audie]

Addiction is a self-protecting (ego) delusion. Something that we humans are prone to. Especially so when we do not learn to check our egos by applying skepticism to our own patterns of thought and behavior.

So, you make up a definition to justify your behaviour.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What's to defend is the very odd (and illogical) notion that your not seeing something is a reason to presume that it doesn't exist.

I think it would be much more odd (and hugely more illogical) to assume the existence of things you've never seen. It seems to me that would require you to believe in leprechauns, unicorns, 5 mile-long snakes, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Addiction is a self-protecting (ego) delusion.

This isn't just wrong. It's punishingly so.
To dismiss it as ego, as though it's merely a
selfish choice is a popular view with harmful
consequences to public policy.
I highly recommend reading up on the
physiology of addiction.

Addiction and the Brain

It is frequently said that addiction occurs when drugs “hijack” the brain. It’s hard to nail down what that means, but it does rightly suggest that there is an involuntary takeover of the brain that compromises decision-making and diminishes freedom of choice, making quitting difficult even in...

www.psychologytoday.com