Subject:
|
Re: Heads up, atheists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:19:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1100 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
Well, it’s an opinion piece, so we can only dispute the opinion as given. I
gather that Hattersly considers himself a nonbeliever, but his beliefs are
irrelevant to the validity of his argument, of course. Regardless, here are
a few notes:
Hattersly comments that the Salvation Army’s efforts have been augmented
almost exclusively by groups that “have a religious origin and character.”
Well, that’s largely due to the fact that Dubya’s webpage (I think it’s
FEMA’s, actually, but my home web-connection is too slow to facilitate
documentation; I’ll follow up later with more) lists faith-based groups
exclusively as donor groups, one of which feeds millions directly into
radical cleric Pat Robertson’s pockets. Secular aid groups exist, but these
were ignored by Bush (much like the levee warnings and scope of the disaster
were ignored by Bush).
The piece contains an apocryphal anecdote about the noble mid-ranking
Salvation Army officer who ministers to the wicked despite their wickedness.
Frankly, I’m not impressed, nor do I believe the tale at face value. It may
have happened, but to say “an unnamed guy did something nifty” is witnessing
and is wholly unconvincing as argument.
The argument that “good works are done most often by people who believe in
heaven” is useless. Let’s say that in any group of 100 people, 51 believe in
heaven and 49 do not. If all 100 do good works, then “good works are done
most often by people who believe in heaven.” See? The statistic is
meaningless because most Americans do believe in heaven, so I’d hope that
these believers carry their share of the “good work” weight (which is to say
“most of it).
Beyond that, I reject the claim that heaven-believers are, per capita, more
likely to do good works than non-believers. Show me the data, Hattersly;
otherwise you’re just witnessing again.
If, in rhetoric, you encounter a phrase like “it is impossible to doubt,”
then the first thing that you should do is doubt. So when Hattersly opines
that “it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand,” a
reasonable reader must object.
Hattersly declares that “believers answer the call.” Where is his evidence
that non-believers do not? He presents no data to back up his claim, so it
must be dismissed.
He follows with another absolute phrase: “the only possible conclusion.”
Therefore we must question his conclusion because he himself does not (or can
not) do so.
Essentially, Hattersly’s argument boils down to this:
“Based on my anecdotes and impressions, I have decided that people of faith
are more likely to undertake acts of charity in times of need.”
But because he doesn’t support his argument at all, and because he instead
assumes that his readers’ preconceptions will lead them to share his
conclusion, we must set his entire article aside because it doesn’t actually
advance the larger argument.
| |
Sorry, but this opinion piece is simply preaching to the choir, even if the
|
preacher isn’t part of the congregation. Maybe he’s trying to shame atheists
into charitable action. Maybe he’s trying to goad uncharitable theists into
action. Who knows? But in any case he’s certainly not mounting a convincing
argument.
|
Thanks for the response, Dave!
Okay, so you’d tend to disagree with his supposition:-) What interested me
about the piece is the fact that the author claims to be an atheist, so the
typical “preaching to the choir” accusation doesn’t quite fit as it would were
the writer a Christian, for example, making the case. So I guess, given your
analysis, that non-believers can make bad arguments as well as believers? :-)
Here is, if I may, boil down what I believe is the essence of what he is talking
about-- does one believe that he/she is their brother’s keeper? I believe the
responses to this question will cut down along faith lines. Christians (and I
will only speak for and about that particular faith group because it is the one
to which I am a member) are charged by God to care for their neighbor-- it is
the tangible way for us to manifest our commitment.
Non-believers, OTOH, do good for any number of reasons, all of which I don’t
understand (except the ones for self-satisfaction). But I do know that their
motivation isn’t because of any sense of obligation.
And that leads me to my best argument for believing in and acknowledging God--
it puts one in a proper attitude when socializing with others. Life is not
about MEMEME, but about caring for and about others. Even if God doesn’t exist,
living by an imperative to “love thy neighbor” is still the best way to live
one’s life IMO.
An atheist could easily take upon his or herself that same imperative, but it
seems to me that it would lack a motivating force (except for self-satisfaction,
which argueably isn’t altruism anyway).
So, doing good is more of priority for a Christian, and may or may not be for a
non-believer, depending on I don’t know what. I still have a hard time
understanding what would motivate a non-believer to do good anyway, if not for
personal gain.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| (...) I'm an atheist, and I tend to agree with that opinion, just not as strongly, ie life is about a *mixture* of MEMEME and caring for others. But if your opinion is your best argument, then I don't think you have much of an argument - the article (...) (19 years ago, 19-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| --SNIP-- (...) I would think that doing good for religious people is more about personal gain than for atheists. Theists always believe that their good deeds will go rewarded by God or Karma or some other external system whereas atheists care only (...) (19 years ago, 19-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| (...) That's why I coined this stunningly witty phrase: preaching to the choir, even if the preacher isn't part of the congregation. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. (...) No. All arguments by non-believers are inherently perfect and sumptuously articulated. (...) (...) (19 years ago, 19-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| (...) Well, it's an opinion piece, so we can only dispute the opinion as given. I gather that Hattersly considers himself a nonbeliever, but his beliefs are irrelevant to the validity of his argument, of course. Regardless, here are a few notes: (...) (19 years ago, 18-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
