Wars between theists and atheists( P.S.)

[MG]

If I am not mistaken, you are a theist positing that:

1) debates between theists and atheists should be eliminated
2) debates between theists and atheists are futile

I used to be a theist, and I debated with other theists very contentiously. We created much heat and subsequently my view of the world became illuminated from heat. As I'm sure you well know, heat is the source of light. Because of those debates, I came to realize the absurdity and maliciousness of religion. "Those who can make [one] believe absurdities, can make [one] commit atrocities." Now, as you can see I bluntly disagree that those debates between myself and atheists were futile: I apostatized Islam after reading the entirety of the Quran front and back, then went on to read the Bible, then read the Talmud in a college course and re-read the Quran in a college course. I am still an anti-theist. My life and reasoning has benefited tremendously from those arguments.

Now, your first point is saying that debates should be eliminated. Now, why would you want to do that? Why would you try to hush up communication and contention? Because, it is through contention and argument that man is able to find truth. This (sometimes unpleasant) exchange is the communicative advantage we hold over all other species on this planet, and inventions which have facilitated communication (spoken language, alphabet, written word, printing press, radio, internet) have engendered the greatest leaps of advancements in human history.

You made a statement very early on which reminded me of a debate about metaphysical claims and scientific claims. This is your statement:

Scientists should agree not to deal with spiritual claims, such as existence of God or gods, and theologians should agree not to deal with material claims, such as the age of our planet or the reality of global warming.

Such agreement, between professional scientists and professional theologians, could be the very first step along the path toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect.

Basically, you're saying you don't have evidence or proof or anything to substantiate your absurd claims. So, instead you want to waive the need for evidence, by saying it's not a scientific claim. Rabbi David Wolpe made a similar fallacious point, and this is how Sam Harris addressed it:

I think this video of that debate demonstrates the fallacy in your statement above:
(please do me the favor of watching all 3 minutes and 44 seconds before continuing on to read my post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1r...eature=related

Now, I want to focus specifically on your statement:

"Theologians, on the other hand, rely on authorities (holy books)"

It's interesting to me that you made mention of mathematics, logic, axioms and a separation between mathematics and science. I would contend that physics would probably be hindered if that were true. Regardless, let's go back to the logic: if you know basic logic, then you might have learned of something called:

Begging the Question, or perhaps circular reasoning. Now, you made a claim that Theologians rely on authorities and then stated, holy books = authorities. What makes holy books authorities? The circular reasoning contained in the book? To open your eyes, there is a statement that I saw written on a napkin once stating:

"The Napkin religion is the one true religion, because it says so right here on this napkin."

That circular reasoning is precisely what is contained both in the holy books you label as authorities and on that napkin.

Therefore, labeling holy books as "authorities" to be "relied on" is utter fallacy of the simplest order.

This would be a good time to introduce that I define:

theism = religion, or a relationship between homo sapiens sapiens and "God"
theist = one who believes in a theism
deism = a definition of creator all the way up to all-powerful entity
deist = one who believes in a deism

Since I'm on the subject of language, I'll also ask you to stop using absolute claims like, "no one benefits" if you want to be taken seriously. I benefited from the argument and so have many societies which realized crusades, witch hunts, superstitions, banning research and a plethora of other religious prosecutions and hindrances should be disdained.

Finally, you made the statement:

the aggressive combatants are usually neither professional scientists nor professional theologians.

To which, I respond: "As if it mattered who held which opinion, rather than which opinion was worth holding."