Anti-Atheist Editorial in My College's Newspaper

[LSchune]

I painstakingly retyped it out, as my scanner will not work  

[curiosityandthecat]

At their worst, a militant atheist with a bone to pick with God can be an extreme nuisance to theological discussion.

Pfft, totally! People with logical viewpoints counter to your opinion really screw up your discussions!

 

Tear him up, LSchune.

[Will]

Their arguments tend to focus on the stereotypical Judeo-Christian deity.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that over one in three human beings on the planet are either Christian or Jewish. Don't worry, though, we don't have a problem pointing out fallacies, inconsistencies, and bad behavior by Muslims.

There's a lot of variation even in the way that Christians understand God, without even bringing the world's other faiths into the equation.  It doesn't make sense to me that regular atheists generally don't take interest in these subtleties.  I think different religious philosophies are still fascinating even though you don't believe in them.

Something can be fascinating and still be untrue. I happen to think Norse mythology is quite interesting, but if some Odin-worshiper were insisting that I'm going to hell for not burning a goat, I'd be just as inclined to say, "I'm unconvinced." as I would be to a Christian.

It's also curious how these angry atheists abuse science to make their points.

As a happy atheist, I can't tell you how many times my skeptical nature has lead people to intentionally mislabel me as a curmudgeon. It's a common tactic that can be seen in virtually every struggle for equal social standing. Black people wanting equality were also considered to be angry troublemakers.

They look around them at all the things that science has explained, and don't see why anyone would need God for anything else.  It's one thing to see the evidence for how things work in the physical world, and accept and use the laws that science forms from these observations.  It's another thing entirely to assume that because this process is so successful that the physical world is all there is.  Atheism requires an equally large leap of faith, in this respect, as religion.  It’s a bold, reasonless approach to make such arrogant conclusions like “there is no God” when there is not a single observation that supports this.

I'm going to have to throw a red flag on the field for a gross misuse of the word "reasonless". Reason, unlike logic, can be quite subjective. It may seem reasonless to you while it seems reasonable to someone else and you can both be right. The way you use it, though, is as if it's some objective and demonstrable thing, as if we can all come together and, after reviewing the facts and using our calculators, we can determine that coming to a conclusion that there likely isn't a god is somehow reasonless. That's just silly, though, and if you had used the methodology of logic, which can be demonstrated, instead of reason, you'd suddenly find yourself in a pickle. So far there has been no scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of god. Instead there are fallacies, logical paradoxes, inconsistencies, and my personal favorite: unverifiable personal experience. In the case you've made, you simply reintroduced the concept of a god of the gaps, or wherever science isn't 100% complete there must then be god. This is, of course, fallacious. Our scientific understanding is growing daily, and with each discovery, the gap grows more narrow. If trends continue, and there's no reason to assume they won't, the role of god in the physical universe will continue to reduce until it eventually reaches zero. At that point, when god simply doesn't have anything to take responsibility for, this silly game of the god of the gaps will finally end with a score of infinity to zero.

Anywhoozle, most atheists don't say, "there is no god", we say, "I disbelieve" or "I am unconvinced". I'm not surprised you used a strawman here, because the true position of atheists is completely logically sound. I, personally, am simply unconvinced about the existence of anything supernatural, including gods. People have presented me with their cases before, some even being kind enough to show up on my doorstep, but each of them has brought with them incredibly naive and fallacious cases that are full of holes. If someone came to your door with an ancient book about dragons, you won't just automatically accept their supernatural version of history. If you were nice, and patient, you'd allow them to make their case, but eventually you'd have to conclude, as atheists do, that there's no compelling evidence. It's just not there. If it were there, I'd be perfectly fine believing in god or dragons or what have you.

If atheists want to seriously debate religion, why don’t they approach religious differences and philosophy more accurately?  I think that the core reason for this reluctance is unfortunately a geniune lack of intellectual curiosity.  Rather than delve into the complex field of theology, they’re more satisfied with lumping every Calvinist, Sunni, Jain, and Aborigine into a tiny monotheistic simplification that fails to address any substantial issue.  I suspect that the average atheist is looking for a fight far more often than he’s interested in what his theistic friend might have to say.

I seriously debate about religion quite often, and I've never been accused, even by the most devoted and educated theist, of misrepresenting religion in a way that's provable. As for not being curious, a willingness to consider new ideas does not commit you to accepting them unconditionally. I've explored Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and such all very carefully, as many atheists have.

Perhaps your glaring misunderstanding of atheism communicates an unwillingness to honestly explore what atheism really is. Where is our intellectual curiosity? I suspect it's hidden away behind the cognitive dissonance of theism, for to truly explore atheism is very often to become atheist. And that's a sin.

[LoneMateria]

[LARA]

Will wrote:  If someone came to your door with an ancient book about dragons, you won't just automatically accept their supernatural version of history.

I'm thinking I would actually enjoy this presentation, at least the first time.  It almost makes me want to head out armed with my copy of Fairies by Brain Froud and Alan Lee to try to convince the world they do exist just to see what would happen.  Would they take me away?  Could I make a lawsuit out of it if they did?  Could my unjust arrest be fodder for the prevention of the religious discrimination suffered by non-Christians?  Oh you bad, bad atheists give me sooo many ideas.

[pckizer]

I painstakingly retyped it out, as my scanner will not work  

It probably would have saved you some time as there's a copy on the source site via:

the lantern: Atheists oversimplify religion
http://www.thelantern.com/opinion/atheists-oversimplify-religion-1.793927

They even allow public comments.

[LARA]

Although Fairies is a bit racy for general audiences, so that won't work.   But it does explore the rich history and traditions of delusions surrounding wee people.  Hmmm. What. To. Do.

[curiosityandthecat]

Aw, man, you didn't say you go to OSU. That's why. People in Columbus (especially journalists) are DUMB.

I dated one. Trust me. I know.

(I'm down at OU, btw.)

[Godless]

I think that the core reason for this reluctance is unfortunately a geniune lack of intellectual curiosity.

This made me laugh... Btw, what college do you go to LSchune?

[LSchune]

I'm a junior at Ohio State.

Aw, man, you didn't say you go to OSU. That's why. People in Columbus (especially journalists) are DUMB.

I dated one. Trust me. I know.

(I'm down at OU, btw.)

My younger brother is a freshman at OU this year!  He is also a budding atheist like his big sis, I think.

 

[Renegnicat]

My Response:

"Suck my plums. As long as you don't try to convert me, I really don't give a shit."

[curiosityandthecat]

I'm a junior at Ohio State.

Aw, man, you didn't say you go to OSU. That's why. People in Columbus (especially journalists) are DUMB.

I dated one. Trust me. I know.

(I'm down at OU, btw.)

My younger brother is a freshman at OU this year!  He is also a budding atheist like his big sis, I think.

 

If I were still an  undergrad I'd take him under my wing for ya, teach him the ways of the atheist Bobcat. As it stands I'm almost 30 and work for the registrar, so it'd probably be frowned upon, hah. Glad he's moving the atheist route. Being here will definitely help. It's like being in a little secular oasis in the middle of an intellectual desert.