Atheism/Theism

[Blue]

Even if I answered all of your objections to my beliefs to a degree of satisfaction, would there be any likelihood of you wanting to know more about Christianity for the purpose of believing it?

Edited November 18, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

Trying to read the Bible objectively is a conflict of interest.

 

I am absolutely unclear about why it should be?

 

You don't need to take an ancient book as the ultimate literal truth even if you subscribe to and believe in the correctness of the moral message it carries. The Book is a symbol and its message does not change regardless of its provenance but only if you don't intend to use it to justify imposition of your own prejudices on others. Only in that case a divine (or not) origin of the text has any relevance for when an argument is being lost on merits the only solution is to appeal to a higher power.

 

Regards

[Blue]

My retort is the fact that my previous post is also applicable to you Vapymid.

[Vapymid]

Even if I answered all of your objections to my beliefs to a degree of satisfaction, would there be any likelihood of you wanting to know more about Christianity for the purpose of believing it?

 

I have no objections to your beliefs nor am I trying to somehow weaken or subvert your faith.

 

I was looking at our debate purely as at an intellectual exercise which could help refine my (and hopefully other participants') understanding of where the boundaries between the core values and the extraneous "fluff" of our beliefs are (amongst other things).

 

It is unlikely that anything I can learn about Christianity can cause me to technically become a Christian, my views are pretty much set by now. Talking about teach old dogs new trick etc...

 

Regards

[Blue]

Personally I have little patience for "practice" debates.

 

Heartily

[Doom Shepherd]

Even if I answered all of your objections to my beliefs to a degree of satisfaction, would there be any likelihood of you wanting to know more about Christianity for the purpose of believing it?

 

I have, in the past, been convinced to alter or moderate my beliefs on the basis of a debate conducted on the internet.

 

To my knowledge, this has happened precisely once.

 

I'm open to my mind being changed, but the process is more like replacing a hyperdrive than it is like changing a tire... in degree of difficulty and resistance likely to be encountered. (And possibly danger of explosion / implosion.)

 

If I were you, I probably wouldn't consider it worth the effort, on that basis.

 

So if you decide not to, let's let this end here.

 

I do notice that I kicked this debate off by responding to you, rather than simply stating my own opinions. In hindsight, this was not the most appropriate choice. I shall endeavor to NOT do that in the future.

 

You're okay, Blue. You at least seem to understand and present your beliefs in a logical and consistent way; even if I don't agree with your premises or your conclusions, I would have to say that your opinions are well-informed. So you're better at this than most.

[Blue]

Thank you for the compliment. To be perfectly honest I was getting quite irked earlier in regards to how the 'debate' was being conducted, as I do not take any matters regarding my spiritual beliefs lightly or in any manner to be slighted, I take them with gravity and- well, I would say nobility, but the moment one calls themselves humble is the moment they silently shout they are proud.

 

I have every interest in fulfilling questions you have regarding Christianity to the best of my given ability to answer them, but I do not want to see such information simply taken at face value and then forgotten in the recesses of the mind. Statistics for aircraft on a database are for informing a pilot, not to simply entertain some office worker to be put on wikipedia.

 

In regards to debates in of themselves, my last post was said without much qualification: I'm all for practicing one's debate ability just as much one should practice how they should drive safely or write often if they which to convey themselves accurately and precisely (if not stylistically) however as I said, I do not take Christianity as anything "low" enough to be used in any sort of throw-away argument.

[Vapymid]

Personally I have little patience for "practice" debates.

 

What the hell's that supposed to mean??? Do you consider any debate which does not have a purpose of proselytising a "practice"? First you go all sensitive about your beliefs being objected to (which they weren't), then you seem to complain that noone is trying to convert you...

 

Your faith is your faith. By definition it is not subject to logical reasoning - cannot be, otherwise it won't be a faith. But only a portion of one's views are really a true unquestioning belief. The rest is a mixture of traditions, cultural influences and rites which purpose is solely to demonstrate one's belonging to a particular group of like-minded people. The core beliefs is pointless to argue about, the rest is a fair game.

 

Regards

[Blue]

Do you consider any debate which does not have a purpose of proselytising a "practice"? First you go all sensitive about your beliefs being objected to (which they weren't), then you seem to complain that noone is trying to convert you...

If I were to have a practice debate regarding Christianity with non-Christians, I would not consider it to be in the best interest to be a public one.

And I do admit that some of my reactions in the past posts were a bit rash, to which I apologize, and ask for your forgiveness.

Your faith is your faith. By definition it is not subject to logical reasoning - cannot be, otherwise it won't be a faith.

There is a difference between "A blind leap of faith" and "Reasonable assumption based upon logical conclusions drawn by evidences, testimonies and historical accounts". In the respect of this assumption definition, Theism and Atheism are equally faiths.

 

Even through I've never seen first-hand the rigorous testing that went into a safety belt installed into a car, I assume by the accounts of the rating stickers on the inside of the door, and the fact that it's been installed without being questioned by inspectors on its assembly line, that the safety belt would work just fine in the event of a crash; thus I put my faith in the safety belt that it will protect me from harm caused by deceleration.

[Doom Shepherd]

I DO debate for debate's sake. I find it fun. I don't consider anything off-limits. But the fact that I am a pretty snarky and aggressive debater can easily be taken for active hostility on my part.

 

That's not (usually) true. (And when it IS true, I usually lead with that.)

 

But for my part, I value "debate's sake" rather less than I do maintaining decent relations (most of) with the other forumgoers.

 

Some people can throw down and pull no punches in debates, while outside of that venue they will take each other out for dinner and drinks. And that's great. But not everybody can do that, and not everybody should be asked to. And it's kind of important to know who is who.

[kirkus]

I personally Identify as Atheist, but I've gotta say I've experienced things that make me believe there is more at work in the universe than what we are able to perceive and quantify. I don't believe this "energy" is necessarily conscious in what it does...but there's more going on than what we know.

 

A problem I have with some religions is the idea that the god(s) that create the world/us/etc. demand that we worship it/them or go to hell. What kind of all powerful, all knowing deity would really demand that we do such a thing...they ought to be concerned about more important things...

[Blue]

How I see God in regards to "demanding worship" is that Christ loves us; the last thing on Earth he wants us to do is ignore that love. He wishes that we would reciprocate the love as well, between ourselves and Him.

[Vapymid]

@Blue: you don't need to apologise, there was no offence. I was simply a bit annoyed at the suggestion that I've been wasting everybody's time by trolling around.

 

Your seat belt analogy is not directly applicable - here it is a matter of trust rather than faith. You can, if you want, test reliability of the mechanism and the strength of the belt objectively, using scientific methods. With faith you accept concepts which cannot (for the time being or ever) be tested objectively.

 

Now, this:

Theism and Atheism are equally faiths

is what I've been trying to say all along, but not only this.

 

Let me recap my points:

 

- God cannot come into being after the appearance of the Universe and still be God (otherwise he will just be a superior life form, one of many), therefore if God exists he must be greater than this Universe, hence the question really is "what appeared first - mind (God) or matter (no God)".

 

- An objective answer to this question is not possible, therefore both Theism and Atheism are equally the matters of faith.

 

- If God exists, he created the Universe the way it is by setting its fundamental laws in a certain way at the time of creation. Anything that is happening since is subject to these fundamental laws, including existence of life, intelligence and the aspects of human behaviour. If God does not exist, the Universe has appeared spontaneously with just the right settings of the same fundamental laws.

 

- There is no process that we humans can effect within this Universe which will violate its fundamental laws, therefore there cannot be such things as "playing God" or "unnatural actions" (there still is a concept of "artificial", which is not the same as "unnatural"). Anything we can do we will do within the Universal laws, which, if we assume that God exists, were predetermined by God and therefore allowed and natural.

 

- That does not mean that there is no difference between "bad" and "good" events and actions as "good" and "bad" are subjective, human, interpretations of specific aspects of objective reality.

 

- Because the concepts of "good" and "bad" or "evil" are rooted in objective reality, it is logical to assume that related concepts, such as morality, can also be objectively established. That implies existence of universal morality, which will be the same for all humans (and, indeed, any lifeforms) across the Universe.

 

- none of the above invalidates any particular religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Atheism (where everything within the Universe still holds, only the origin of the Universe changes), in as much as the premises of such religion are based on the said fundamental morality. However, when specific propositions put forward by a particular religion come into conflict with objective reality, as tested by the scientific method, they must no longer be accepted as literal truth.

 

Regards

[Vapymid]

@Doom Shepherd: I don't mind aggression and I am prepared to escalate my argument to match the aggression of the other party but I don't like it because aggression (or other strong emotions) tend to obfuscate the issues at the heart of the debate.

 

Regards

[Blue]

The more questions we answer, the more questions these answers generate, as if the universe is some kind of fractal of complexity.

What of things that cannot or have not been explained by the scientific method?

[Vapymid]

At school our philosophy teacher used to illustrate it by drawing a small circle on the blackboard. Inside the circle was what we know, outside - what we don't know and the perimeter is what we realise we don't know. As our knowledge grows so is the interface between known and unknown becoming bigger. Fractal? Quite possibly. I like that idea.

 

On the scientific method - we can theorise about what we have not yet empirically confirmed, beyond that we can hypothesise, beyond that we can speculate and further yet it's a matter of belief. Until the circle expands.

 

Regards

[Michael Archer]

Because there is no proof for a God, isn't Atheism the epistemological status quo?

[Blue]

If that were true, suppose this:

If there was no God, would there be such a thing as an atheist?

[Doom Shepherd]

If that were true, suppose this:

If there was no God, would there be such a thing as an atheist?

 

Yes.

 

For example... There is no Nibiru.

You can nevertheless find people who believe in it.

As well as people who do not. (And the latter are often compelled by the ridiculous statements and actions of the Nibiru-believers to point out the many factual reasons Nibiru does not and can not exist.)

 

The fact that something can be concieved of does not in any way necessitate its prior existence.

 

The fact that I can say "Santa Claus does not exist" (making me a "Hard" aClausist) does not mean that "Santa Claus therefore exists, because without Santa Claus there could be no aClausists."

[Blue]

But Theism predates Atheism.