View Full Version : Please, only a friendly debate as atheism/theism has been picked apart, the both
sisyphus__
05-12-08, 01:37 AM
Both of them have been picked apart here at sci-forums.
The most convincing arguement made in point of atheism (if it is even valid whatsoever) is "Because theists have yet to demonstrate their claims." Or something like that. ...
S.A.M. continues with her defense of theism and hatred of atheism and all of these points have been well founded and I don't feel like posting all of the comments made towards all of the sides.
Theism is beliefe in the universe as God.
Atheism is beliefe that there is no God, they hold the beliefe that God basically doesn't exist so why should we care about him or her? Which is an epistemologicial problem and also a metaphysical problem maybe.
My point is, since both of them have been picked apart so greatly, what's the point anymore?
I believe the universe is God, and I hold value to what happens to our after death experiences, and this would validate the existence of some form of a God. So therefore God to me is a valid beliefe, until I perhaps were to examine it further.
So, what is the point? Atheism is false, they can hold their beliefs, but are their beliefs examinend? If so they may well hold a Good position. But do they? They don't know and want to know, or don't, or do either way. But in my opinion, God is the universe. God exists due to our connectivity. I can hold the beliefe that God exists, and be agnostic claiming that I don't know if he exists or not, because the universe as God, despite the fact that it does have a great presence in existence, is something of huge debate.
So with them all being picked apart I was wondering how we would continue in the religion forum.
The only way possible in my opinion is to talk about the epistemology behind Gods existence, and to find a way to either 1)dismiss god entirely. 2)Show that God exists.
What the hell are we to do?
iceaura
05-12-08, 02:10 AM
My point is, since both of them have been picked apart so greatly, what's the point anymore? One of the points might be to keep alive the possibility that you will some day arrive at a better understanding of atheism than the one you reveal in the OP.
Which would also of course enlighten your understanding of any deities you might have, etc.
Sisyphus,
Both of them have been picked apart here at sci-forums.And will continue that way as each set of new members attempt to comprehend the issues.
The most convincing arguement made in point of atheism (if it is even valid whatsoever) is "Because theists have yet to demonstrate their claims." Or something like that. ...Clearly not picked apart enough otherwise you would have no doubt.
The overwhelming primary argument against theism is that it has made no progress in thousands of years in demonstrating that any of its claims have any basis in reality.
Theism is belief in the universe as God. That’s a variation of theism known as pantheism. At its very basic, theism is simply a belief that a god or gods exist.
Atheism is belief that there is no God,No. Atheism is – A-Theism – where A is a negation (i.e. No) so atheism becomes “No Theism” or No Belief that a god or gods exist. That is a substantially different position to one of Belief that a god or gods do not exist.
Disbelief in a proposition is not the same as a belief that the proposition is false.
they hold the belief that God basically doesn't exist so why should we care about him or her? You expose your theist thinking here. The issue of caring about a god does not enter the debate if one had already asserted such a thing does not exist. This is reminiscent of much theist thinking that asserts that an atheist is one who denies god, and the subsequent theist comment “how can anyone possibly deny god after all he has done for us”.
My point is, since both of them have been picked apart so greatly, what's the point anymore?Until one side wins the argument.
The only way possible in my opinion is to talk about the epistemology behind Gods existence, and to find a way to either 1)dismiss god entirely. 2)Show that God exists.Or simply use logic and the theist position evaporates.
Michael
05-12-08, 03:19 AM
Sisyphus,
You forgot Alienism. You know, like Raëlism or Scientologists. At least we can all agree that there is no more and no less convincing evidence of your Universe God as there is for an Elohim or Xenu. So that's good.
I suppose you can always keep pushing the bolder,
Michael
Or simply use logic and the theist position evaporates.
What is your logical argument?
Please keep in mind that you are figthing against many kinds of god :p
So don't be surprised if someone tell you that you disprove one god, but not his/her god.
Did you ever think that logic could not be sufficient ?
Do you know about Gödel theorem of incompleteness ?
I agree to assume at least at first that logic is sufficient to prove or disprove but I am waiting for your logical argument against the exisetnce of god.
I ll try to find one in its favor (I don't think I will give it soon :p)
By the way, it would also be good to prove or disprove the existence of the atheist reality, which is what ? particles? quantum state?
Saquist
05-12-08, 04:02 AM
Both of them have been picked apart here at sci-forums.
The most convincing arguement made in point of atheism (if it is even valid whatsoever) is "Because theists have yet to demonstrate their claims." Or something like that. ...
S.A.M. continues with her defense of theism and hatred of atheism and all of these points have been well founded and I don't feel like posting all of the comments made towards all of the sides.
Theism is beliefe in the universe as God.
Atheism is beliefe that there is no God, they hold the beliefe that God basically doesn't exist so why should we care about him or her? Which is an epistemologicial problem and also a metaphysical problem maybe.
My point is, since both of them have been picked apart so greatly, what's the point anymore?
I believe the universe is God, and I hold value to what happens to our after death experiences, and this would validate the existence of some form of a God. So therefore God to me is a valid beliefe, until I perhaps were to examine it further.
So, what is the point? Atheism is false, they can hold their beliefs, but are their beliefs examinend? If so they may well hold a Good position. But do they? They don't know and want to know, or don't, or do either way. But in my opinion, God is the universe. God exists due to our connectivity. I can hold the beliefe that God exists, and be agnostic claiming that I don't know if he exists or not, because the universe as God, despite the fact that it does have a great presence in existence, is something of huge debate.
So with them all being picked apart I was wondering how we would continue in the religion forum.
The only way possible in my opinion is to talk about the epistemology behind Gods existence, and to find a way to either 1)dismiss god entirely. 2)Show that God exists.
What the hell are we to do?
I think the point is to make an individual choice, hopefully based on the information and not blind faith. It should be noted that some atheist don't merely believe that their isn't a god but merely have an absence of belief in God.
pharaohmoan
05-12-08, 05:27 AM
I think most of the proof lies in the afterlife. My hunch is that earth is so far removed from God which is why there has been little to no divine interaction. Those that will move forward and will have a distinct advantage in the hereafter will no doubt be the theists. Tha atheists will probably be shipped off to some remote location untill they understand the concept of faith!
Unfortunatly it is human nature to try and turn atheists into believers but this is a losing battle as their mind set is normally made up and they have shut our God like some intruding door to door salesman. The non-believer will always want the answers on a plate rather than invest and have faith, they live by the moto 'prove it to me?' they seek to inflate their ego by denouncing anything greater than themselves, they are disconnected from the source and being mainly lead by their ego will probably remain disconnected.
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 06:49 AM
The non-believer will always want the answers on a plate rather than invest and have faith,
Surely faith in a holy book is an example of having your answers handed to you on a plate?
Faith is simply another word for giving up on the search for truth - can't understand or explain something? no problem! substitute knowledge and the search for truth with faith and Bingo! problem solved.
Personally I find that kind of thinking unsatifying and limiting.
Having had a very christy upbringing ( chapel 8 times a week and regular bible study ) I felt even from an early age that while I had an instinctive understanding on what was right and wrong, the religious teachings I received didn't do anything but add a bunch of pointless and arbitrary rules on top of what already seemed to me to be self-evident - and indeed religion seemed counter-productive - as far as I'm concerned we humans are one - one species one people etc - and yet religion sets abritrary boundaries between people based on some of the most ridiculous premises (eating the wrong kind of meat, having part of your penis cut off, beleiving that wine magically transmogrifies into blood etc etc).
My path to atheism was not in the sense that I rejected god or beleived itdidn't exist - moreso that I was simply better off without it and that it was a hindrance to any kind of enlightenment - so I am an atheist in the sense that I am without theism - despite that I have many shared values with a large number of theists.
pharaohmoan
05-12-08, 07:47 AM
Surely faith in a holy book is an example of having your answers handed to you on a plate?
Faith is simply another word for giving up on the search for truth - can't understand or explain something? no problem! substitute knowledge and the search for truth with faith and Bingo! problem solved.
Personally I find that kind of thinking unsatifying and limiting.
I can see where your coming from however I don't believe having faith means you give up the search for truth, rather it is an aid to seeking out the truth.
We've been given some but not all of the answers and it is our job to complete the puzzle.
Sure some people do wholeheartedly follow the bible and close their minds off to new information and revelations, this is a mistake.
Having had a very christy upbringing ( chapel 8 times a week and regular bible study ) I felt even from an early age that while I had an instinctive understanding on what was right and wrong, the religious teachings I received didn't do anything but add a bunch of pointless and arbitrary rules on top of what already seemed to me to be self-evident - and indeed religion seemed counter-productive - as far as I'm concerned we humans are one - one species one people etc - and yet religion sets abritrary boundaries between people based on some of the most ridiculous premises (eating the wrong kind of meat, having part of your penis cut off, beleiving that wine magically transmogrifies into blood etc etc).
I agree that religion can be counter productive. As an organisation the church could have pooled its resources to do good many times but when was the last time a churches activities have had a direct impact on you? Singing hymns does not change the world action does and I think the church is letting the race down in this respect. If the church wasn;t so dogmatic it would embrase other practices that do actually enlighten the individual and nurture the spirit within. As for having part of your penis cut off, well this practice is spits in the face of God and indirectly says that the body is somehow 'faulty'.
S.A.M. continues with her defense of theism and hatred of atheism and all of these points have been well founded and I don't feel like posting all of the comments made towards all of the sides.
Are you saying challenging a viewpoint is a sign of hatred?
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 07:56 AM
As for having part of your penis cut off, well this practice is spits in the face of God and indirectly says that the body is somehow 'faulty'.
This is one of the wierder things about religion that I could never get to grips with - on the one hand almost all religions are very clear on the point that what is important is your soul, and your body is merely a vessel for it.
Then they give you a nice big long list of all the things you can and can't do with this supposedly unimportant vessel lest god think you exceedingly naughty - WTF????
Syzygys
05-12-08, 09:50 AM
What the hell are we to do?
It is easy. Do you have a coin?*
* Brought to you by Syzygys' Easy Solutions
Ronon,
What is your logical argument?Asserting a certainty for a proposition that has no evidential basis.
Please keep in mind that you are figthing against many kinds of god The type and quantity is irrelevant. It is the method used to reach the conclusion that is invalid.
So don't be surprised if someone tell you that you disprove one god, but not his/her god.Again, irrelevant. The theist cannot demonstrate their assertions are true and hence have no credibility.
Did you ever think that logic could not be sufficient ?It is the most disciplined method of thinking we have. The theist should at least reach that standard first.
Do you know about Gödel theorem of incompleteness ?Very well, I have the book next to me.
I agree to assume at least at first that logic is sufficient to prove or disprove but I am waiting for your logical argument against the exisetnce of god.I have no interest in offering counter proposals to theist assertions. The theist argument – an assertion of certainty – has no valid basis. Once that is realized then the only valid position is that of the atheist or agnostic – i.e. we don’t know.
The onus is on the theist to offer evidence or proof for their case. This is the basis of logical reasoning. The theist has not begun this process yet.
I ll try to find one in its favor (I don't think I will give it soon )Unless you have discovered some new verifiable evidence then you are unlikely to have anything worthwhile beyond what we have discussed here before in thousands of threads.
Cris (My name is Ronan)
I see your point, but I think we have an evidence: the feeling of existence (consciousness) Our logic mind necessisate that something cannot come from nothing
just to be sure of your logic: do you agree that science neither has no evidence for anything?
i think the greatest area of discrepancy within theism and atheism both, and therefore a great area of potential resolution between the two, lies within the definition of what god is. some people talk about god as if he's like a man, some describe it as some collective conscious that works towards the greater good, and some people think that they are it, and some that all of us and everything are god. it seems to me like if we put our efforts into a realistic and viable definition of what god actually does and is, maybe we wouldn't be at such odds about what i think many times are just incidental and interpretive things.
Ronan,
Cris (My name is Ronan)Apologies for typo.
I see your point, but I think we have an evidence: the feeling of existence (consciousness)But that does not necessarily point to the existence of a god. That would be speculation on your part. I can equally speculate that consciousness might be an emergent property of brain function. While I cannot prove that is true, it is in the area of associated phenomena that we know do result from brain function, i.e. memory, thinking, emotions, etc. IOW words my speculation has a basis of further investigation, i.e. the brain.
What similar observation could you describe that could connect consciousness with an unobservable, supposedly immaterial (no known way to know if that is possible), and an undetectable, super intelligent entity? I do not see that you have a starting point or a basis for claiming your speculation as evidence.
But more importantly all the time I can describe credible alternatives that you cannot eliminate then you cannot claim any evidence for your speculation. Any event only ever has one unique cause.
Our logic mind necessisate that something cannot come from nothingI would tend to agree with that. That also tends to support the notion that nothing was ever created but has always existed. That in turn defeats the argument for a creator god.
just to be sure of your logic: do you agree that science neither has no evidence for anything?No that is false. Science is all about evidence and nothing else. What science doesn’t claim is a proof for anything.
sisyphus__
05-12-08, 05:34 PM
Are you saying challenging a viewpoint is a sign of hatred?
And I said:
S.A.M. continues with her defense of theism and hatred of atheism and all of these points have been well founded and I don't feel like posting all of the comments made towards all of the sides.
I don't know, now that you think about it. I guess not, I could challange viewpoints and if you'd noticed the first few words were spoken with a breath of fresh clean air, repeating this sign.
I .. can't really say more at the moment. I challange bush's viewpoints that God bless America; and I don't really say I would hate to do that. Would you?
And I said:
S.A.M. continues with her defense of theism and hatred of atheism and all of these points have been well founded and I don't feel like posting all of the comments made towards all of the sides.
I don't know, now that you think about it. I guess not, I could challange viewpoints and if you'd noticed the first few words were spoken with a breath of fresh clean air, repeating this sign.
I .. can't really say more at the moment. I challange bush's viewpoints that God bless America; and I don't really say I would hate to do that. Would you?
Hating to do something and doing something out of hatred is different isn't it?
Do you feel I am hating on you if I ask you questions?:p;)
Cris,
But that does not necessarily point to the existence of a god. That would be speculation on your part. I can equally speculate that consciousness might be an emergent property of brain function. While I cannot prove that is true, it is in the area of associated phenomena that we know do result from brain function, i.e. memory, thinking, emotions, etc. IOW words my speculation has a basis of further investigation, i.e. the brain.
You should read about qualia, jackson argument (what mary did not know), zombie argument, nagel argument (What is like to be a bat) it will help you understand why consciousness could not arise from matter.
What similar observation could you describe that could connect consciousness with an unobservable, supposedly immaterial (no known way to know if that is possible), and an undetectable, super intelligent entity? I do not see that you have a starting point or a basis for claiming your speculation as evidence.
forgot your pre-conceived idea about god please, be open minded (don't talk about god as creator or as a external agent..., it is true that some believe in it but many do not)
God if defined as the generator of consciousness (we know it is not the brain) has to exist
I would tend to agree with that. That also tends to support the notion that nothing was ever created but has always existed. That in turn defeats the argument for a creator god.
everything depend on your definition of god, many theist do not believe in creator god but in a god that is the reality (eternal, never born...)
No that is false. Science is all about evidence and nothing else. What science doesn’t claim is a proof for anything.
evidence can only be an evidence if it is proved to be an evidence :)
Do not forget that you can be dreaming after all (It is a logical argument that you cannot deny while you have to have consciousness for dreaming!!
cosmictraveler
05-13-08, 08:35 AM
What the hell are we to do?
Believe in whatever gets you through your life and makes you feel comfortable. The religious and non religious all have one thing in common, they live together side by side each owing their own existence to whatever they think is their own belief to keep them with peace of mind. Arguing won't bring any conclusions but acceptance of each others beliefs will. :)
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 08:45 AM
Cris,
You should read about qualia, jackson argument (what mary did not know), zombie argument, nagel argument (What is like to be a bat) it will help you understand why consciousness could not arise from matter.
Nagel:
"if we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done."
Absolutely Classic God of The Gaps style statement!
forgot your pre-conceived idea about god please, be open minded (don't talk about god as creator or as a external agent..., it is true that some believe in it but many do not) God if defined as the generator of consciousness (we know it is not the brain) has to exist
So if at some point we do understand how consciousness arises you'll become an atheist?
I think not - I predict you will be looking for another gap to find god hiding in.
Nagel:
"if we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done."
Absolutely Classic God of The Gaps style statement!
You cannot deny his points by just quoting one sentence. And he is not alone, I told you to look at other arguments as well.
So if at some point we do understand how consciousness arises you'll become an atheist?
I think not - I predict you will be looking for another gap to find god hiding in.
We do understand how consciousness arise:it is from god ;-)
I don't think there is anything to understand if you mean by understanding that we can express the reality by language (being mathematic or not) , Reality is ineffable as Hume and Kant shows (they in fact believed in a stronger claim: that we cannot even know).
One interesting book on this subject (there are better books for people we do not believe in science only) is: On the Origin of Objects by Brian Smith (http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/view?isbn=0262193639)
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 11:49 AM
You cannot deny his points by just quoting one sentence. And he is not alone, I told you to look at other arguments as well.
That one quote is enough to shoot it down - the other views have more or less the same outlook - namely "we don't know, it is very hard if not impossible to find out, therefore it must be god" - Nonsense!
Show me a religious bonobo
That one quote is enough to shoot it down - the other views have more or less the same outlook - namely "we don't know, it is very hard if not impossible to find out, therefore it must be god" - Nonsense!
Nagel overall point is not that we don't know it is that we cannot know.
Even by knowing evrything about bat's brain, we will not know what it will feel to be like a bat.
You know the zombie argument which is different?
Show me a religious bonobo
If you talk about religious institution, maybe there is not, but the point is not about institution but about the feeling of god as a encompassing reality .
In this latter case, we cannot know (Nagel, Zombie argument...) but we have data that suggest that they have a reverence for nature, probably a starting point for a feeling of an encompassing reality (I agree that it is speculation but anyway even if they have not, does it makes reality as encompassing inexistent ? No )
Chimpanzee rain dance:
http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/behavior/rain_dance.asp
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 01:11 PM
Nagel's overall point is not that we don't know it is that we cannot know.
Exactly!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.