Article on the debate between atheists and non-atheists

December 10, 2010 8:48 AM

Elevating the discussion between believers and non-believers.
posted by jb (30 comments total)

> Here’s my humble contribution: It may be that atheists themselves are inadvertently affirming the existence of a loving God. Lao Tzu, the ancient Chinese sage, noted that a great leader makes his followers believe they’ve led themselves. In that sense, a scientist, humanist or atheist who chalks up all progress to the human mind could be showing what an empowering and effective leader God actually is.

Futurama did it.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:53 AM on December 10, 2010

Manji hardly elevates the discussion by taking a few potshots at atheists.

And I'll eat my shoe if an elevated discussion evolves (or is created) on Metafilter.
posted by kozad at 8:57 AM on December 10, 2010

As much as I agree with the broad message that people out to be more respectful to one another, especially when discussing contentious issues, and ultra-especially when discussing things like religion, it seems to me that all of these articles and essays and speeches that advocate for moderation and quietude in discussions between atheists and theists are coming from theists. I don't mean to imply anything by this, because I don't know what it would imply: That (broadly speaking) atheists are jerks, and theists are kind? I don't believe that. That theists are feeling bullied even though atheists are being perfectly civil? I don't really believe that either. But I'm not sure what to make of it.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:59 AM on December 10, 2010

In that sense, a scientist, humanist or atheist who chalks up all progress to the human mind could be showing what an empowering and effective leader God actually is.

Perhaps "God's" creator did an equally good job of camouflaging himself.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:59 AM on December 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

t may be that atheists themselves are inadvertently affirming the existence of a loving God. Lao Tzu, the ancient Chinese sage, noted that a great leader makes his followers believe they’ve led themselves.

I have to say, this is perhaps the most offensive thing I've read in this debate. Unbelievable.

You contribution is to elevate the conversation to the level of condescension. Well done.
posted by victors at 9:02 AM on December 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Perhaps "God's" creator's creator did an equally good job of camouflaging itself. :)

The Globe and Mail is a British paper, and I don't know how y'all roll over there, but here in the US calls for atheists to be "civil" are tired and expected. Tone arguments are a classic tactic that majorities with power use to silence any criticism, legitimate or non-.
posted by muddgirl at 9:03 AM on December 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

Elevating the discussion between believers and non-believers.

You have to have certain type of person on both sides. When you do, discusses can often be fun and enlightening and this can occur in one on one or small groups.

But large scale? There are various kinds of believers and non-believers and getting them to all agree or see the other as equals ain't gonna happen. At most, one can talk to the people in one's vicinity and work towards understanding that way.

Now, who wants to talk about pie?
posted by nomadicink at 9:05 AM on December 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Is this really necessary? more religion rubbish 'discussions'. You know how this is going to end. Atheists for the most part think Theists are 'somewhat retarded idiots' and Theists think Athesist are 'lost'...

I happen to be an atheist
posted by mary8nne at 9:06 AM on December 10, 2010

It often seems to me that what writers like this really mean when they say "hey, let's elevate the tone of the atheist/theist debate" is "why don't you atheists just concede that God exists?"

This guy whines that "new" atheists haven't offered anything new. Well, that's because theists haven't offered anything new in terms of proving their god's existence. Until they offer new proof or evidence, the atheist arguments that have disproven all previous proofs still stand, and we can just keep having the same discussion over and over again.
posted by dnash at 9:07 AM on December 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

> don't mean to imply anything by this, because I don't know what it would imply:

I think it probably implies that it's easier to get your opinion in print if you're a theist.

Before this devolves (see what I did there?) into the usual war of words, I'd like to state that while I'm always in favour of polite, elevated discourse, when it comes to matters of faith debates seem kind of pointness. You believe in God, I don't (or vice-versa). There's nothing to debate, really.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:07 AM on December 10, 2010

The Globe and Mail is a British right-leaning, pro-establishment, pro-family compact, Canadian paper,
posted by bonobothegreat at 9:07 AM on December 10, 2010

*makes popcorn*
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 9:09 AM on December 10, 2010

Age old question of the existence of God? Let me settle it for you.

I DON'T CARE WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS JUST BE NICE TO PEOPLE
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:10 AM on December 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

Don't worry, atheists. Even if you don't believe in God, he still believes in you.
*condescending smirk*
posted by charred husk at 9:10 AM on December 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

Toward the end of our exchange, he took a jab at my belief in God. I chuckled and retorted that the existence of successful atheists like him is proof positive that a merciful God exists.

Thankfully, the absence of unicorns is also evidence of a loving God, as those fuckers would run around impaling us all the time if they actually existed.

So thank God for that.
posted by quin at 9:11 AM on December 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

*makes pancakes*
posted by nomadicink at 9:12 AM on December 10, 2010

I'd like to state that while I'm always in favour of polite, elevated discourse, when it comes to matters of faith debates seem kind of pointness. You believe in God, I don't (or vice-versa). There's nothing to debate, really.

I'd agree with this.

And, further, I agree with all of the (for lack of a better term) policy positions of the 'new' atheists: secular society, secular government, secular education, certain awful charismatic figures who use religion as a tool to get rich and/or make life worse for minorities of any kind should absolutely not be allowed to do what they do. However, I believe in God. I don't think the existence of God/gods is much of something to debate, and I agree with you on everything else. Let's be friends.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:14 AM on December 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

This debate can only be settled with squirtguns.
posted by hellojed at 9:14 AM on December 10, 2010

I am so tired of religion.
posted by Evernix at 9:14 AM on December 10, 2010

*gets the maple syrup*
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:14 AM on December 10, 2010

The problem is basically that atheists' and theists' very theoretical foundations are different, not just their beliefs. The atheist asks that a theist prove existence, while a theist asks that the atheist proves non-existence. They're at an impasse, because scientific proof of God's existence is impossible (God's existence is predicated on Faith), while scientifically proving a non-existence is impossible.
posted by explosion at 9:15 AM on December 10, 2010

Here's my humble contribution: You guys are so shallow. Let's elevate this.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:15 AM on December 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

The Globe and Mail is a ... right-leaning, pro-establishment, pro-family compact, Canadian paper,

Yeah, I apologize for my laziness. My momma warned me about assuming - it makes an ass out of u and ming.

So I don't know how you do in Canada...

Also, the author works in America. I'm sort of conflicted now because it seems like Muslims and atheists should be natural allies in the US. I DO think that atheists organizations should take some steps to strengthen our relationship with minority religious organizations, and perhaps that means taking a more respectful approach toward their beliefs (without ceding our own rights).
posted by muddgirl at 9:16 AM on December 10, 2010

Spinoza is rolling over in his grave. But, then again, that happens a lot.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:18 AM on December 10, 2010

This debate can only be settled with squirtguns.

Beats RealGuns.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:19 AM on December 10, 2010

Ok, who wants cross shaped pancakes and who wants mickey mouse shapes?
posted by nomadicink at 9:19 AM on December 10, 2010

I think the proof that God doesn't exist is the fact that theists think that atheists believing God doesn't exist proves God exists.

Unless of course THAT'S WHAT GOD HAS WANTED US TO THINK ALL ALONG

WAKE UP SHEEPLE FLOCK
posted by AugieAugustus at 9:20 AM on December 10, 2010

I know that he says he wants dialogue, but he comes off as appallingly condescending. This isn't an attempt to understand each other or strive toward truth, it's just him trying to fit atheism into his world view.
"Aren't they cute? I bet God has a plan for them too!"

I thoroughly enjoy good debate between religious and atheists, but it's appallingly rare. It requires a critical openness that the author of this pieces if failing to reach.
posted by Stagger Lee at 9:23 AM on December 10, 2010

I think this excerpt from Sartre is worth considering, as atheists:

The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense....

The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie...

Therefore he thinks that man, with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment to invent man.

To me, that's what atheists ignore or forget when arguing with theists. They just argue over the facts - that god can be proven or disproven or whatever. But once we agree to the nonexistence of god, then what? I think Sartre is right that we have to face the meaning of that. So the question then is, is it more important to be "authentic" or to have our values be certain? If we reject god but embrace, for instance, the constitution, then in a thousand years, it will just be George Washington instead of Moses who came down from the mountain. It's the deification of values that leads to the idea of God.
posted by mdn at 9:24 AM on December 10, 2010

The Card Cheat is correct. This is just more flailing about. The fact remains ALWAYS that an active and interested Creator would indeed act active and interested. There is no backdoor oblique secret handshake going on, no codes to break, no right path to choose. If there were, we would be witnessing the actions of a sick and twisted creature not worth worshiping in the least, but better to avoid any affiliation whatsoever with. Most pious people are dim, but the ones that can write big words and construct inane logic paths to belief in something no one has ever seen are a dangerous lot, simply because the dim ones will be so impressed with their five dollar words and pretzel logic as to follow them straight to nothing, but that nothing will always be used as a tool to suppress. As science advances and the "spirit fire" meant to keep the ancient shadows at bay slowly fades, we are bound to see much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the slowly dwindling faithful. When science does find the origin and purpose of existence, as it most certainly will if we don't snuff each other out first, it will be so unlike anything any religious or spiritual person would have had the imagination or intelligence to think up as to render them instantly irrelevant. There may be a God, but none of us knows shit about it yet.
posted by venbear3 at 9:27 AM on December 10, 2010