Something we (atheists) do that bothers me

[C-Nub]

I'm starting to be rather bothered by some of our default atheists reactions around here.

As example, there's a thread on the will of God out there, what God wants, what God desires of and from us and so on.

Now, clearly, this is a topic started under the assumption that there is a God, and looking to delve a little deeper into his nature and whims. There's a lot of topics like this on these boards, and one of us, if not more, always seems to jump in with a very smarty-pants kind of 'there is no God' kind of post that does nothing to address the questions being asked. I kind of think this is a little, for lack of a better word, 'dickish' on our parts. People know we're here, and they know what we're here to debate, what position we hold, I don't think we need to continue doing that.

There are, of course, threads and topics in which it's highly appropriate, but in others, while I certainly wouldn't advocate pretending you believe in God, the focus shouldn't really be on how the original question-asker is completely wrong to ask it in the first place. Might sound a littler counter-intuitive for debating, but it was bothering me, so I thought I'd put it here. At least now there's something in this forum to read and disagree with.

[OnceConvinced]

I tend to agree. It's futile really and it isn't going to make a theist change their view, nor does it add anything to the debate. It's a little like a theist using Pascal's wager as a reason to believe in God. No unbeliever in their right mind is going to take that seriously.

I think the best thing to do is to just put on the God glasses. After all, in the thread you've mentioned that's what the thread creator is wanting people to do. (assuming that she wanted arguments from both side of the fence, otherwise she would have posted it in the Holy huddle room).

I reckon if you can't put on the old god glasses for a thread like that, it's better just to move on to another thread and not participate.

[C-Nub]

I certainly think we have something to contribute to these conversations, we're not really tied to any one 'theory' where God is concerned, and can suggest just about anything, but do we really need to pop up in every thread discussing the being, all of which are pretty hypothetical to begin with, to contradict the original point anyways.


I also really, really, really am tired of seeing 'Can you define God?' in situations where reading what the person is saying puts the 'God' they're discussing in pretty apparent context. That one is just coming across as snide to me.

[byofrcs]

I'm starting to be rather bothered by some of our default atheists reactions around here.

As example, there's a thread on the will of God out there, what God wants, what God desires of and from us and so on.

Now, clearly, this is a topic started under the assumption that there is a God, and looking to delve a little deeper into his nature and whims. There's a lot of topics like this on these boards, and one of us, if not more, always seems to jump in with a very smarty-pants kind of 'there is no God' kind of post that does nothing to address the questions being asked. I kind of think this is a little, for lack of a better word, 'dickish' on our parts. People know we're here, and they know what we're here to debate, what position we hold, I don't think we need to continue doing that.

There are, of course, threads and topics in which it's highly appropriate, but in others, while I certainly wouldn't advocate pretending you believe in God, the focus shouldn't really be on how the original question-asker is completely wrong to ask it in the first place. Might sound a littler counter-intuitive for debating, but it was bothering me, so I thought I'd put it here. At least now there's something in this forum to read and disagree with.

I kind of agree we shouldn't be dickish on the issue of discussing a topic in an "In-universe style".

"In-universe" is used on Wikipedia as a term meaning that it is discussed as if the topic was real even though it is fictional e.g. long discussions about warp drives are possible when discussing Star Trek if you adopt an in-universe style even though they are completely fictional.

With Religion then it is sometimes useful to assume God is true because, unlike Star Trek (which is surprisingly consistent within canon), discussing God in an In-universe style creates a whole world of new absurdities.

What is annoying is then some theist wakes up and implies that because I don't actually believe in God anyway my argument isn't valid. So there are dicks on both side.

[catalyst]

I'm starting to be rather bothered by some of our default atheists reactions around here.

As example, there's a thread on the will of God out there, what God wants, what God desires of and from us and so on.

Now, clearly, this is a topic started under the assumption that there is a God, and looking to delve a little deeper into his nature and whims. There's a lot of topics like this on these boards, and one of us, if not more, always seems to jump in with a very smarty-pants kind of 'there is no God' kind of post that does nothing to address the questions being asked. I kind of think this is a little, for lack of a better word, 'dickish' on our parts. People know we're here, and they know what we're here to debate, what position we hold, I don't think we need to continue doing that.

There are, of course, threads and topics in which it's highly appropriate, but in others, while I certainly wouldn't advocate pretending you believe in God, the focus shouldn't really be on how the original question-asker is completely wrong to ask it in the first place. Might sound a littler counter-intuitive for debating, but it was bothering me, so I thought I'd put it here. At least now there's something in this forum to read and disagree with.

C-Nub,

For me, it would depend on where the specific thread was started. If it was in the christians to christians subforum, I would not go in there, just as I suspect that christians in turn would not enter this particular sub-forum? ( I don't know...do they come into this area?) If however the thread was started elsewhere, then I reckon carte blanche is the "order of the day" and if they were going to start on about god this and god that, they had better be able to back up their position.

I suppose I told the same in RL as well. I would never bother going into a church and questioning any individuals personal belief system, however if some guy or girl is evangenising on a a street corner, or the centre of a mall, I WOULD debate them on their beliefs. If they decide to take it elsewhere, in open forum, then it IS open forum.

[Evales]

Well sometimes people say, for the purpose of debate assume ________
If they don't have this, or anything of the like then they are probably asking for it. People thrive on confrontation. However I'd have to agree with you C-Nub the whole "define God" thing irks me too. While this may have a place in the Philosophy just assume the God they describe to be God.

[Beto]

Might sound a littler counter-intuitive for debating, but it was bothering me, so I thought I'd put it here. At least now there's something in this forum to read and disagree with.

Unless we restrict ourselves to the Holy Huddle Room or to the A-Room, we have to indulge "God" as much as they indulge (or should) "no-God". Fact of the matter is, "no-God" is inferred from lack of "God", meaning lack of evidence. The only way to "no-God" is by asking questions about "God" and finding them all subjective and lacking in substance. If theists like to think we're acknowledging "God" as anything more than a concept, than that is more their problem than ours, don't you agree?

Personally, a while back I decided to start using quotation marks with "God". I'm not sure if that is always understood as a non-recognition of the concept as anything else, but for the most part I think it transmits that impression.