I think my gripe with this whole thing is that proving a positive or a negative is difficult. I don’t think a theist or non-theist needs to prove their position, but if a non-theist says that “until you prove theism, I am completely justified in my non-theism”, not only does that seem wrong it is simply placing too high a bar. Moreover, It comes across as abrasive. Although in some cases I’m sure the non-theist is tired of being pestered by an evangelist. Regardless, the proper view on all of this is to do what you said at the start apportion your belief to the evidence. If the evidence is in better favor of one position than the other, you should hold the better supported position. What neither a theist nor a non-theist should say is “well, you have not proven/disproven my position so I can hold my position despite the evidence.” Anyways there’s my rant. I think I’m basically in agreement with you, though I read that quite quickly.
I defend atheist sloganeering because I was kind of there when it first started and I get the vibe, but I will say I definitely think it’s annoying and pervasive. That’s probably why people feel the need to “debunk” it.
But I still think the sequence of events for people who are not spamming reddits is usually
1) someone is raised religious
2) someone leaves religion for philosophical reasons
3) Former co-religionists try to re-convert him by bringing up philosophy he/she has already read
4) co-religionist doesn’t have good answer to apostate’s objections
5) “You’re an atheist yet you can’t prove a negative. Not very rational to hold a position you can’t prove!”
6) <rage face>
Like, I’m not exaggerating when I say the Atheist Experience and Atheist YouTube would not have any views if that wasn’t the experience for 80% of former Christians.
I don’t think the position is “I’m justified in believing whatever the hell I want so long as you can’t prove your position” as it is “the generic arguments for this position aren’t satisfying, life is short, let’s stop talking about this.” I do think it’s a stop gap of sorts. People want to feel validated and not talked down for not believing certain things (not just in religion, but other subjects as well). I think the nature of religious apologetics is antithetical to that.
Funnily, I grew up in a religious house hold. Was never really Christian but didn’t identify as an atheist until college, and the later in college converted, and then nearly had a crisis after reading Hume in a philosophy of religion class.
I think you are right about what people are experiencing. The struggle is that from an atheists POV it really is “life is short stop annoying me and I’ve made up my mind” (or something to effect). Whereas for the theist, especially for Christians, your told to go make disciples, and if your a hard line infernalist lives are on the line. The atheists incentive is to move on and make the most of the time they have, and the theists incentive is the opposite, which naturally can lead to some frustrations.
I think both parties would do well to understand the other persons perspective. I also think theists would do well to trust God has a good plan, and not try to force people’s hands if you sense what I’m getting at.
"For our purposes, there are two kinds of atheists: Those that believe we can prove negatives about non-trivial matters, and those that believe we cannot.
We’re going to call the first group lacktheists."
I think the lacktheists are in the *second* group, not the first, unless I'm misunderstanding.
I think my gripe with this whole thing is that proving a positive or a negative is difficult. I don’t think a theist or non-theist needs to prove their position, but if a non-theist says that “until you prove theism, I am completely justified in my non-theism”, not only does that seem wrong it is simply placing too high a bar. Moreover, It comes across as abrasive. Although in some cases I’m sure the non-theist is tired of being pestered by an evangelist. Regardless, the proper view on all of this is to do what you said at the start apportion your belief to the evidence. If the evidence is in better favor of one position than the other, you should hold the better supported position. What neither a theist nor a non-theist should say is “well, you have not proven/disproven my position so I can hold my position despite the evidence.” Anyways there’s my rant. I think I’m basically in agreement with you, though I read that quite quickly.
I defend atheist sloganeering because I was kind of there when it first started and I get the vibe, but I will say I definitely think it’s annoying and pervasive. That’s probably why people feel the need to “debunk” it.
But I still think the sequence of events for people who are not spamming reddits is usually
1) someone is raised religious
2) someone leaves religion for philosophical reasons
3) Former co-religionists try to re-convert him by bringing up philosophy he/she has already read
4) co-religionist doesn’t have good answer to apostate’s objections
5) “You’re an atheist yet you can’t prove a negative. Not very rational to hold a position you can’t prove!”
6) <rage face>
Like, I’m not exaggerating when I say the Atheist Experience and Atheist YouTube would not have any views if that wasn’t the experience for 80% of former Christians.
I don’t think the position is “I’m justified in believing whatever the hell I want so long as you can’t prove your position” as it is “the generic arguments for this position aren’t satisfying, life is short, let’s stop talking about this.” I do think it’s a stop gap of sorts. People want to feel validated and not talked down for not believing certain things (not just in religion, but other subjects as well). I think the nature of religious apologetics is antithetical to that.
Funnily, I grew up in a religious house hold. Was never really Christian but didn’t identify as an atheist until college, and the later in college converted, and then nearly had a crisis after reading Hume in a philosophy of religion class.
I think you are right about what people are experiencing. The struggle is that from an atheists POV it really is “life is short stop annoying me and I’ve made up my mind” (or something to effect). Whereas for the theist, especially for Christians, your told to go make disciples, and if your a hard line infernalist lives are on the line. The atheists incentive is to move on and make the most of the time they have, and the theists incentive is the opposite, which naturally can lead to some frustrations.
I think both parties would do well to understand the other persons perspective. I also think theists would do well to trust God has a good plan, and not try to force people’s hands if you sense what I’m getting at.
Heads up, I think this is a typo:
"For our purposes, there are two kinds of atheists: Those that believe we can prove negatives about non-trivial matters, and those that believe we cannot.
We’re going to call the first group lacktheists."
I think the lacktheists are in the *second* group, not the first, unless I'm misunderstanding.
ahhhhhh thank you
No problem!