How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:16 am The purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible
To Me this is not always true. In a philosophy forum the purpose of communication would be to be as precise as possible. The very nature of philosophy is in having the love of wisdom, and to gain more wisdom so as to become wiser it is better done with precise and succinct two-way communication. However, in just about all other areas of life any form of communication that gets the message across is good enough.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:16 ambut the ambiguity of language however cannot always guarantee this
That is why agreement and acceptance on the words and their definitions and meanings to be used in a discussion should be done prior to a discussion taking place. Then if complete honesty and openness remains throughout the discussion and peaceful clarification is sought, asked for, and given, then through this type of medium logical reasoning takes place and two-way communication is freely allowed to proceed, from which sound and valid arguments, which are unambiguous truths that can not be disputed, are very simply and easily found.

All very simple really. Finding other human beings with the patience and temperament for this is the only hard part here.

You wrote, "The purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible". So, let us be as precise as possible. You also wrote,
1."Both atheists and theists are irrational since all human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent.
2. But atheism unlike theism is not irrational.
3. Because all it is is the rejection of a specific class of truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity for which there is precisely zero
evidence.
4. It is only irrational to accept such a truth claim.
5. Since even if it is true it cannot be demonstrated to be so".

To Me,
First half of the first sentence is not precise at all.
"Atheists" and "theists" are not actual real things. There are, however, human beings who are real things and who see things in a certain way. "atheist" and "theist" are just labels given to people with certain views.
'All human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent' is pretty precise though.

Second sentence is not precise either.
"Atheism" and "theism" can neither be rational nor irrational. Only human beings can be either rational or irrational. "Atheism" and "theism" are both sets of views formed by human beings, of which both sets are equally irrational. If there is no conclusive evidence for some thing, then there is no use nor purpose in believing either way for that thing. To believe or disbelieve some thing is true or not without any evidence IS irrational. If evidence, however, is said to have already been obtained but that person is unable to or unwilling to share that evidence, or remain open to the fact that what they have may not actually be evidence, when and if they do share it, then that also IS just as irrational. In fact any time a person is not truly open, then they are being irrational.
Believing "atheism" is not irrational unlike "theism" is, based solely on the beliefs that person maintains IS irrational.

Third sentence also not precise.
The "it" word is not specifically in relation to one thing, so "it" could be misconstrued.
Wholeheartedly rejecting some thing just because that person has not, yet, experienced any evidence for that thing IS irrational.
There is NO evidence that there is precisely zero evidence.
Either believing or disbelieving (in) some thing, (other than believing in One's ability to do, make, or create some thing), IS by its very nature irrational. For example, believing that there is precisely zero evidence, because they themselves believe there is no evidence, as above, IS irrational.

Fourth sentence is not precise.
Believing it is only irrational to accept such a truth claim because a person believes the truth claim is NOT true IS irrational.
If the actual Truth of the truth claim has not yet been presented, then to either accept or reject the truth claim prior to gaining and having this knowledge IS irrational.

Fifth sentence also not precise.
To believe that evidence can not be demonstrated of some thing that IS true IS very irrational.
The "it" word again in the fourth and fifth sentence also leave things open to being misconstrued somewhat.

If, as you suggest, that the purpose of communication should be to be as precise as possible, then you should be as precise as possible.

To make your statements more precise we could try;
1."Both the human beings who believe that God does not exist and those who believe that God does exist are irrational since all human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser extent.
2. Both the human beings who create atheism and theism are irrational.
3. To accept or reject a specific class of truth claim with regard to a specific class of deity for which no evidence has been given successfully either way is irrational.
5. The evidence for such a thing existing or not has not been demonstrated YET".
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:09 am
ken wrote:
In truth are labels identifying aspects of a persons life or are they what the person actually is
They can be both as labels are descriptors that apply not just to one thing but to many things
But can one thing actually be two separate and distinctly different things?

If so, then could you provide some examples please?
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by Londoner »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:33 pm
Ah. Well, clearly I haven't made my point very well. There are, I would argue, three positions:
1. I believe that god exists.
2. I believe that god does not exist.
3. I don't believe either of the above.

The third is commonly understood as agnosticism, and as someone who firmly believes that language is contextual, I am bound to accept that is frequently what people mean by agnostic. It has a technical meaning though; it is the belief that there cannot be any evidence for metaphysical or supernatural claims. Strictly speaking, that is true: if there is physical evidence for something, it isn't metaphysical.
Anyway: I don't know whether there is a god or not. I don't believe it, because I don't think the arguments presented are compelling. However, unlike an agnostic, in the technical sense, I don't rule out the possibility of some future evidence that will persuade me. Nor do I rule out the possibility that some god has actually presented itself to others, for some divine reason it hasn't equipped me to appreciate. But I don't believe it.
Yes, I understand that. But what I was getting it is that those three positions are not self-supporting. All of them are the consequences of a more general attitude; the sort of things we think justify a belief or lack of it.

What I am taking issue with is the idea that being an atheist or agnostic is in some sense neutral, a default. That we are atheists simply because of an absence of positive reasons to be theists. I do not think this can be true, I think that it is like circular reasoning. We are atheists because we do not see some sorts of evidence as compelling - and we do not see some sorts of evidence as compelling because we are atheists!

Suppose I put it from the other side. Christians often say that if you first open your heart to God, then you will find evidence of God everywhere! How do we know the reverse isn't the case? I am not speaking only of religion here, might it not be the case that all our beliefs are only beliefs because they fit in with our existing understanding of the world?

(I am being a sort of Quine)
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 am
Indeed; you either believe, or you don't.
I do neither. I remain open.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:47 am 'Sufficiently specific' does not mean it is the truth.

So, you are seeing a "physician", who is a "cardiologist". What does a "physician" look like, and which one are they, a physician or a cardiologist?
It is my understanding that a cardiologist is a physician but a physician is not always a cardiologist. Being a physician is what a person does, not how they look and a label that is accurately applied is true about that one aspect of a persons life. Stereotypes are labels that could be accurate or not and they don't usually define all that a person is.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:35 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 am
Indeed; you either believe, or you don't.
I do neither. I remain open.
I would think that remaining open is like sitting on the fence, just remember when it comes to religion, Satan owns the fence.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9559
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by Harbal »

thedoc wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:33 pm I would think that remaining open is like sitting on the fence, just remember when it comes to religion, Satan owns the fence.
Another one of doc's little gems. :roll:
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by Dubious »

thedoc wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:33 pm
ken wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:35 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 am
Indeed; you either believe, or you don't.
I do neither. I remain open.
I would think that remaining open is like sitting on the fence, just remember when it comes to religion, Satan owns the fence.
...and I always thought he was just renting!
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by uwot »

Londoner wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:27 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:33 pm
Ah. Well, clearly I haven't made my point very well. There are, I would argue, three positions:
1. I believe that god exists.
2. I believe that god does not exist.
3. I don't believe either of the above.

The third is commonly understood as agnosticism, and as someone who firmly believes that language is contextual, I am bound to accept that is frequently what people mean by agnostic. It has a technical meaning though; it is the belief that there cannot be any evidence for metaphysical or supernatural claims. Strictly speaking, that is true: if there is physical evidence for something, it isn't metaphysical.
Anyway: I don't know whether there is a god or not. I don't believe it, because I don't think the arguments presented are compelling. However, unlike an agnostic, in the technical sense, I don't rule out the possibility of some future evidence that will persuade me. Nor do I rule out the possibility that some god has actually presented itself to others, for some divine reason it hasn't equipped me to appreciate. But I don't believe it.
Yes, I understand that. But what I was getting it is that those three positions are not self-supporting. All of them are the consequences of a more general attitude; the sort of things we think justify a belief or lack of it.

What I am taking issue with is the idea that being an atheist or agnostic is in some sense neutral, a default. That we are atheists simply because of an absence of positive reasons to be theists.
I take it you mean agnostic in the popular sense. On the one hand, I think it is trivially true in that, until I have heard of a belief, hypothesis or theory, I really don't have a view on it. Once I am presented with the evidence, or argument I will probably reach some verdict, but that, I think, will be influenced by your second point:
Londoner wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:27 pmI do not think this can be true, I think that it is like circular reasoning. We are atheists because we do not see some sorts of evidence as compelling - and we do not see some sorts of evidence as compelling because we are atheists!

Suppose I put it from the other side. Christians often say that if you first open your heart to God, then you will find evidence of God everywhere! How do we know the reverse isn't the case? I am not speaking only of religion here, might it not be the case that all our beliefs are only beliefs because they fit in with our existing understanding of the world?

(I am being a sort of Quine)
I'm not really a logician, so while I have read Two Dogmas and some other scraps of Quine, it was a long time ago and I can't really judge if you are sort of Quine or not, but I'd be happy to hear your reasoning. Where I'm from, history and philosophy of science, the go to philosopher for this sort of argument is Thomas Kuhn. As he noted, scientists operate within paradigms and this principle can be extended to more or less everybody. So yes, there is a degree of the circularity you highlight in nearly all arguments. I've made the point before that some people are fooled into believing that, because the narrative they have generated is coherent, it must be true. Some people are very defensive of their story, which frequently leads to confirmation bias, some of the links we are exhorted to read on this forum are very clearly selective, for instance. Some people have apparently blown their minds making up a story that pleases them, if they weren't bonkers in the first place. Others still will resort to rank dishonesty in an attempt to persuade others that the mumbo-jumbo they are flogging isn't the utter bollocks it appears to be.
The other big cheese in HPS is Popper, of course. He made the point that no amount of supporting evidence will confirm a theory, whereas one inconsistent observation can falsify it. While the general principle holds, few people take it literally. On the rationalist side, there is the Inference to Best Explanation of Peter Lipton. For the empiricists, there is the anti-realism of Van Fraasen. The long and short of both is that we don't actually 'know' anything, but Lipton's case is that we might as well believe something, whereas Van Fraasen is more 'don't commit yourself to anything'; which, in the foaming madness of human imagination, to me seems like sound advice.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
Atheism and theism can neither be rational nor irrational. Only human beings can be either rational or irrational. Atheism and theism are both
sets of views formed by human beings of which both sets are equally irrational. If there is no conclusive evidence for some thing then there is
no use nor purpose in believing either way for that thing. To believe or disbelieve some thing is true or not without any evidence IS irrational
If evidence however is said to have already been obtained but that person is unable to or unwilling to share that evidence or remain open to
the fact that what they have may not actually be evidence when and if they do share it then that also IS just as irrational. In fact any time a
person is not truly open then they are being irrational
Atheism and theism are definitely not equally irrational. All manifestations of theism assume the existence of God for which there is no evidence
To accept something as true for which there is no evidence is irrational. It would still be so even if God did exist but knowledge of said existence was merely assumed instead of actually known. The default position is actually agnosticism not atheism. However I am an agnostic atheist and so accept in principle the probability of God existing because that cannot be completely disproven. But just because a proposition cannot be proven or disproven does not automatically mean that both possibilities are equally likely. They may be. But one may also be more or less likely than the other. In this particular case atheism is more likely than theism and it shall remain so unless actual evidence for God can be provided. And that is
evidence in the true sense of the word. Namely that which can satisfy the rigour of the scientific method. Since every other type would be invalid
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
In truth are labels identifying aspects of a persons life or are they what the person actually is
They can be both as labels are descriptors that apply not just to one thing but to many things
But can one thing actually be two separate and distinctly different things

If so then could you provide some examples please
Something cannot be two separate and distinct things that are mutually incompatible

Because that would constitute a paradox and so violate the law of non contradiction

But something can be two separate and distinct things where that law is not violated
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
Your belief is If labels and definitions are in common usage then they must by definition be sufficient and successful

Would you like to delve into this more
The common usage of words or labels is the way that human beings communicate with each other in written and spoken form
Without them there would be either no communication or a far more limited type such as sign language. And while individual
words may come and go language shall remain. Because as a social species zero communication would be entirely impractical
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by thedoc »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:17 pm Something cannot be two separate and distinct things that are mutually incompatible

Because that would constitute a paradox and so violate the law of non contradiction

But something can be two separate and distinct things where that law is not violated
Unfortunately people are not always logical and sometimes are quite paradoxical. These laws don't usually apply to people.

For example I have heard some criminals claim that they are just modern day Robin Hoods (a good person) robbing the rich and giving to the poor, except that anyone who has something they want is rich and they give to themselves because they consider themselves poor (not being very good).
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

thedoc wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:06 pm
ken wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:47 am 'Sufficiently specific' does not mean it is the truth.

So, you are seeing a "physician", who is a "cardiologist". What does a "physician" look like, and which one are they, a physician or a cardiologist?
It is my understanding that a cardiologist is a physician but a physician is not always a cardiologist.
You are missing My point.

A 'cardiologist', like a 'physician', like an 'american', like an 'atheist', and like a 'theist', are NOT, I repeat NOT, real things. They are just labels placed onto human beings. They are labels usually defining how human beings think and behave, and/or what human beings do, those labels are NOT what a human being IS. SO, when you write like you have above you are not talking about an actual thing. You are talking about how a human being is thinking and what that human being is doing instead.
thedoc wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:06 pmBeing a physician is what a person does, not how they look and a label that is accurately applied is true about that one aspect of a persons life. Stereotypes are labels that could be accurate or not and they don't usually define all that a person is.
Exactly. That is why I questioned you the way I did. I wanted you to see and understand what the truth is.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

thedoc wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:33 pm
ken wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:35 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 am
Indeed; you either believe, or you don't.
I do neither. I remain open.
I would think that remaining open is like sitting on the fence, just remember when it comes to religion, Satan owns the fence.
If you are going to make comments like that, then expect open, clarifying questions from Me.

What is the 'fence' you are talking about?

What do you mean by 'religion' when you wrote, "... when it comes to religion?

Who/what is satan?

How does satan own that fence?

What do you give satan a captial S?

Until you provide some clarification I have no idea what you are talking about here.

By the way, if you can provide an answer to who/what is satan, can you provide an answer to who/what is God also please. I am very interested on your perspective of this.
Post Reply