Pelican Beach said- If believers are faulted for believing in the unseen are atheists to be credited for believing the unseen does not exist? Which side can be said to have an open mind?
You seem to have a very-skewed definition of what it means to be 'open-minded', as well as the benefits of 'open-mindedness'?
I'd argue that many theists have a tendency to let their minds get stuck in the 'wide-open' position, due to their acceptance of the benefits of 'faith', a tendency which allows them to accept beliefs without any compelling evidence to justify. Problem is some allow a faith-based approach to spill over to other decisions, including the decisions they make for others (eg pro-life issue ongoing in Texas, with a dead woman kept on "life support" against the families wishes).
Many atheists are skeptics, adopting the approach of not believing in 'things' until AFTER sufficient compelling reason has been presented to justify an acceptance. Skeptics strive to use a more-selective filter that attempts to keep unjustified ideas (eg, pixies) at bay, while only allowing 'justified true beliefs' in, i.e. ones which they can offer REASONS for holding.
However, many who self-identify as atheists are not granted any special immunity to cognitive biases (such as confirmation bias, seeing only evidence they WANT to see), and many carry over the same cognitive burdens from their days of religious thinking so the use the same ol' "sticking thinking" (bad logic) of religious beliefs, except they're now trying to score goals for the new 'team'.
Oh, on believing in 'unseen things': atheists believe in radio waves, unseen and intangible forces that are undetectable without the use of a device built for the purpose (eg an AM/FM radio). Tos deny the existence of electromagetic waves would be delusional, like the schizophrenic who believes the gov't intercept and interpret his thoughts from afar by radio waves.
However, the theist spends time praying, based on the concept of unknown Heavenly beings who are able to intercept and interpret his thoughts from afar (by some unknown mechanism, since it's NOT by radio waves). But since 85% of the World believes and acts as they do, what's preventing anyone from calling the practice as 'delusional' BESIDES an "appeal to popularity" defense ("everyone ELSE does it, too")?
Adam said- But your suggestion only raises the question:
How is a believer expected to obtain information from God, explaining to us WHY God failed to intercede on the tsunami of 2004?
Viviane said- Oh, it's not JUST doing that, it's casting in sharp relief the real underlying question, WHY is there absolutely no way to get information and why are any potential reason why so uncomfortable?
Huh? Can you clarify?
Despite the incomprehensibility of the part in bold, I suspect you're simply 'begging the question', rephrasing the very question being asked in the thread. And from your next sentence, I think I get what you're try to say.
Viviane said- It's an invitation to dig, not to stop thinking. That's the only way come up with any potential answer to anything, to keep asking questions. Everything you wrote suggest stopping thinking is the rational answer, and that's the real wrong answer.
Sure, I agree with "invitation to dig" concept, and even with your conclusion, since the act of pointing out those "thought-stopping" concepts buried within the lines of the Bible is required, since theists cannot begin to question something they may not have even noticed until AFTER others point specific examples (as I just did, above).
However, you went off the rails with the part in bold, falsely concluding my words were prescriptive, and not merely descriptive of the current situation. That's a classic example of the "naturalistic fallacy", confusing the description of 'what is' for an argument that is prescriptive, arguing for 'what ought' to be, as if I was defending theology).
That's silly, since as an atheist for the last half-century (who lost my JW family as a result of deciding to adopt a rationalist approach to go to college and eventually earn a doctorate), the odds are great I've likely had more motivation, time, and opportunity to investigate the question of theology than many here, including learning of physiology and psychological roots that explain WHY religious beliefs are so pervasive and tenacious within the human mind (even while many here were still knocking on doors with WT/Awake! in hand, trying to 'save' others!).
I'm arguing FOR skepticism and rationality, a commitment that encourages LEADS people to ask big uncomfortable questions (like why the Bible contains so many Appeals to Divine authority as 'thought stoppers', if not to make them more malleable and easier to control).
Simon said-
Does it 'make no sense' to criticise theist belief? Hell no! I say the only rational and human thing to do is to redicule it mercilessly and show it up for what it is - a con, a massive trick foistered on people, used over and over throughout history to captivate, control and subdue the weak minded and vulnerable and to create armies when raw body count was a good measure of military success. Really, redicule is the very least that it deserves.
You're preaching to the choir here, since as I said above, I've personally paid the price of irrational beliefs in my personal life and understand the pain.
But you mischaracterize my position, since if you've read anything I've written on my blog or posts, you'd know I have NO problem criticizing and challenging theist beliefs; only I'm NOT willing to throw out the rules of logic to do so!
To throw out principle of logic and rationality in the name of challenging theism is the non-believers form of "special pleading", appealing for some kind of "exception to policy" in the name of meeting a special goal of toppling delusional beliefs. Sorry, but rationalists call theists on their BS when they engage in "special pleading" (eg asking us to tentatively accept their vapid presuppositionalist-based arguments to prove a God exists), but the same holds true when a non-believer engages in special pleading to forget about those basic principles of rational thought in a debate (likely relying on teleological-based "ends justify the means" rationale).
The irony is most rationalists would likely agree that the long-term solution to theological-driven thinking (which includes theodocies) IS learning to use and apply the principles of logic when investigating one's beliefs. But some would paradoxically be willing to throw out the same time-honored principles and rules, the very basis of the "cure"? I point out flawed arguments and fallacies when I see them, since ultimately eroding the cure threatens the long-term SOLUTION to the problem of theological irrationalism and dogmatism (where it should be clear that believers have no monopoly on dogmatism, either).
The same rules apply to BOTH sides, and theists DO have a legitimate beef of complaining of favortism and obvious biases since 'the game' is rigged against them to favor the house; that's why many are refusing to enter an 80-page "kangaroo court" where it's clear the deck is stacked against them, since their evidence is suppressed and ignored and deprecated, even when they offer valid defense.
Ultimately we don't need to ignore the rules of logic: those opposing irrational beliefs have the FACTS on their side, so we don't have to cheat to 'win'. The facts alone speak for themselves, and the truth itself is sufficient.
Adam
