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."

[Dayuhan]

Couldn't help but notice this...

theologians say that the universe was created in six days, as revealed in holy books

I'm not much of a theologian, but I had the impression that the whole "6 days" thing was a feature of only one of the thousands of origin myths circulating in the world. "Some theologians" might have been more accurate.

Debate is of course inevitable when people hold different beliefs. That's not a problem. Debate can escalate to violence when people want to force other people to believe what they believe, an excellent reason for keeping these debates below that level.

I think these guys have it about right:

http://www.venganza.org/

Pastafari!

[120mm]

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:



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:



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:



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

The question I have for you, is that what makes you think that human logic is the end all, be all? Or that everything that exists requires so-called "proof".

You wouldn't be the first short-sighted egotist to decide they have somehow discovered there is no God.

Personally, as a non-God like creature, I am convinced I am spectacularly unqualified to make informed judgements as to the existence or non-existence of God.

Hubris, anyone?

[M-A Lagrange]

God does exist: it's me!

[jmm99]

where fools fear to tread.

Cheers

Mike

[Tukhachevskii]

...an a/theist I am often reminded of the wise words of an almost forgotten sage (whose name I have,ahem, forgotten)

"Whosoever concieves of God in his head is an atheist".

[Bob's World]

The religion or lack there of between combatants is really a bit of a silly debate.

Certainly religion is a common motivational tool employed by leaders to rally the people, and offers a source of support to those who are in the fight; but the fight itself is typcially about wealth, power or revenge in some combination. Those are the ugly whores of war that lie beneath the pretty makeup of religion.

[DVC]

BUF(Bias Up Front) - I'm a committed Christian and believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.


That said, one question:

Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?

[Deus Ex]

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:



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:



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:



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

I agree with all that is written above. Furthermore, I think debates on religion are healthy, both for the individual and for society. The Constitution allows and guarantees us the right to continue such debates, even if they descend into the nitty-gritty and offend people.

120mm said:

"The question I have for you, is that what makes you think that human logic is the end all, be all? Or that everything that exists requires so-called "proof".

You wouldn't be the first short-sighted egotist to decide they have somehow discovered there is no God.

Personally, as a non-God like creature, I am convinced I am spectacularly unqualified to make informed judgements as to the existence or non-existence of God.

Hubris, anyone?"

Come, now. That is a terrible argument. If we scarcely have the capability to understand a god enough to say he/it most likely doesn't exist (as you posit), then it would be the absolute height of hubris to assume we could understand the nature of god in any way (not that you are positing that, necessarily). Strange that Christians, Muslims, etc. all claim to know nearly every facet of god's dictations, i.e., his opinions on sex, marriage, adultery, prayer, yet the very question of "does he exist?" is beyond our reasoning?

I look at it this way, until I see proof for god's existence (and there is none whatsoever in terms of empirical data), or a way to settle the which-religion-is-the-true-one debate, I will not believe in god. I do not claim god doesn't exist with absolute certainty, but using basic logic, I can claim that he is very likely to not exist given what we, as humans, understand about the universe.

[Rex Brynen]

Personally, I'm a Pastafarian.
Unless this discussion somehow relates to pirates, beer, or strippers, I'm afraid it lies entirely outside of my theological frame of reference.

[Dayuhan]

Personally, I'm a Pastafarian.
Unless this discussion somehow relates to pirates, beer, or strippers, I'm afraid it lies entirely outside of my theological frame of reference.

Ramen!

That makes two of us on this thread so far. Next, the world...

[Deus Ex]

Actually, three. Been believing in His Holy Noodle Appendage for years now. The ONE TRUE FAITH.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

is the only right way to true enlightenment and the pathway to the tao of chūkamen and the zen of yakisoba.

http://www.venganza.org/

[motorfirebox]

The problem with trying to separate science from belief is that various belief structures do not limit themselves to matters of spirituality. If someone believes that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, you can't just say "Well, why don't you just go ahead and believe that the earth was created billions of years ago so that we don't have to argue anymore?" The creation of the planet isn't the issue. The issue is that the Bible gives them a timeframe for the creation of the earth, and attacking that timeframe is (to some minds) attacking the veracity of the religion(s) the Bible acts as a basis for.

[AdamG]

Fnord! This thread is chock full of Heresy!

WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- Two groups representing atheists and humanists serving in the U.S. military are pushing for atheist chaplains to serve their members.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...#ixzz1KokRApKn

See also
http://jmason.org/slack/

[J Wolfsberger]

Personally, I'm a Pastafarian.
Unless this discussion somehow relates to pirates, beer, or strippers, I'm afraid it lies entirely outside of my theological frame of reference.

Yet you give us a picture of Cthulu.

And its titled "Flying_Spaghetti_Monster." Ftagn!

[kowalskil]

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 am not against all debates, I am against futile debates. What is a futile debate? It is a situation in unacceptable methods of refutation are used.

... 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. ...

Yes, mathematics is extremely useful to scientists.

Ludwik
.