I don’t think that the conversation is nearly as intentional as atheists may imagine… I think that it is much more unplanned and organic. I think that this lends to the awkwardness… I’ve been around church and apologetics quite a bit, and I can say that, for most people, atheists are like Jr. High Schoolers… Everyone agrees that they exist, but no one really knows what to do with them. I don’t mean that as an insult to atheists, but rather that they are somewhat enigmatic. So, when conversations take place, they are typically taking place contextually from a position of emotion, as @AllenWitmerMiller says, and not as a concerted effort to address the issue of atheism.
It may be a case of good intentions and poor execution. That’s pretty much been my hallmark, anyhow.
to claim that you know that no god exists is a claim to universal knowledge.
the claim to possess universal knowledge, by definition, makes you at least “god-like”
it is therefore much more sustainable to admit you just don’t know, or are not yet persuaded, or have become disillusioned with, or disaffected by, the topic of “god.”
that makes those who do so claim otherwise unique, but not necessarily idiotic
which means there’s good room for productive dialogues, like these
I would imagine this forum to be a place of self-selected participation along these lines.
I find, more cogent than the question “do you believe in God” the question, “do you wonder whether God believes in you?”
After all, the opening chapter claims that you were “created in God"s image, according to His (sic) likeness.” That sounds like it starts out with a vote of confidence in each of us, and I find that very cool.
Was that intended as a serious question? If so, I do find it slightly insulting. It seems like a lot of empty wordplay that obfuscates any disagreement.
Might I suggest that if you’re going to reply to someone you insert some clue as to who that is? I think it might have been me.
I don’t see the point of the “God believes in you” idea. The atheist will just reply with some version of “No, he doesn’t”, like “Does Spider-Man believe in me too?”. Fictional characters don’t believe in things. Now I imagine that if there were a God, and he were omniscient, he would believe in me for values of “believe” that include certain knowledge. Still don’t see the point.
Yet that is exactly the kinds of “gotchas” that people learn at a Ken Ham or Eric Hovind speaking engagement. (Popular speakers who complain about atheists in their talks recycle these kinds of questions on a daily basis—and they get lots of affirming nodding heads and applause from the audience, if not standing ovations.)
Why are the questions insulting? My opinion is that they are insulting because they are morally objectionable, they offend the moral sensibilities of the person being asked.
So many things come down to a judgment whether something is true or false, and what people ought to do or believe in light of that. A person ought to believe something if it is true. A person ought not believe something if it is false.
If this is so what makes it the case that a person ought to believe something if it is true.?
Almost all of the atheists I know would never claim that they know that no god exists. They simply say, “I don’t find the arguments for the existence of God to be compelling. So I’m not a theist, I’m an atheist.”
Some distinguish between “hard atheism” and “soft atheism” and some prefer “gnostic atheism” versus “agnostic atheism.” In my entire lifetime I can recall conversing with only two gnostic athiests who dogmatically asserted that God doesn’t exist.
(I’ve heard Wm. Lane Craig say that these distinctions in the classifications of atheists are “cop-outs” but I’ve not understood his reasoning—though I haven’t really tried to investigate.)
There may be a consensus that they are bogus, transparently so, and insulting mainly to the intelligence of the hearer. Is that the same as morally objectionable?
I suppose, if “don’t be a dick” is a moral rule. Or perhaps “don’t be an idiot”. It seems to me, though, that there are things you ought not to do that aren’t immoral. You ought not to piss into the wind, for example.
As an atheist, I am quite happy to say that deities could exist. However, I lack a positive belief that a deity does exist.
I certainly don’t claim to possess universal knowledge.
I am quite happy to say that I am unconvinced.
There are “idiotic” people in every group. Death, taxes, and idiotic people seem to be the three unavoidable things in life.
I also believe that there is room for productive dialogue. Atheists and theists can find agreement on many subjects, even including the advantages of a secular government. There is also wide agreement on the importance of science, as this site demonstrates.
I tend to think of morality in the context of personal liberties and how it affects society. Hypocrisy seems more of a character flaw that falls under the banner of personal liberties. Lying to the public in order to advance your economic or political interests pushes into the territory of morals.
And it is my opinion that by “a character flaw” you mean “a moral failing.” In what other sense is it a character flaw? If we both agree that atheists can have morals then why is there any need to try to distance hypocrisy from morality?
Would it be such a bad thing for atheists to say that hypocrisy is morally wrong?
Or if they don’t think it’s morally wrong, to say that hypocrisy is not morally wrong. Of course, that would just invite a shrug of the shoulders towards the atheist when they accuse someone of being a hypocrite. If it’s not morally wrong then who needs to change?
Why does it matter? You seemed to think it important to distance his statement from having anything to do with morality, as did he. So you seem to acknowledge there is some importance to whether or not a claim is a moral claim or not.
And I’m curious about your question. Why did it matter whether his claim was a moral claim? Why did you feel like you needed to comment?