05 Jan 05
Originally posted by kcamsQuite possibly it will rage for sometime to come.
the debate about religion (any religion) and atheism will rage forever, because faith requires faith and atheism requires proof.
with proof there is no faith and faith requires no proof.
But the battle is mainlyfor minds not yet entrenched in faith or athiesm (the strong variety) and there is no reason to give up the fight on either side.
Even those entrenched can change their position I have seen it happen, people gain and loose faith every day.
In the past people had faith that sun went round the earth now very very few retain that aspect of faith.
I see no reason not to continue the debate on other as yet unassailed fortresses of faith or atheism.
If you tire of the debate you should probably not be posting here, a simple statment that nothing will ever change contributes little to the debate apart from implying we are all wasting our time... something that history has shown is plantively not the case.
05 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepfaultI am not familiar with the term "supra-agnosticism". You have indicated that it is your term for someone who holds all claims as being equally credible. Is that accurate? I don't know of any other term for it, unless it would be "a fool". I deny that such a position would be intellectually superior. As I have tried to indicate, not all claims are equal.
A little bit of a barb there indicates a degree of irritation I think, well fair enough I will attempt to establish some commonality.
This does appear to be only a dispute over definitions you have introduced a new one called 'Strong ...[text shortened]... ou say athiesm is in fact this in your mind?
A trivial claim would require much less proof for me to accept it. If you claimed to be wearing a red hat as you typed your posts, I would willing to accept that on your word alone. It simply doesn't matter. An extraordinary claim would require a much greater threshhold of proof. If you claimed to be able to stop the earth from rotating by snapping your fingers, I would be strongly inclined to disbelieve you. I would require you to demonstrate the ability before believing you.
We would also have to examine the continuity of your claim with things that are already accepted as being true. If a claim proceeds logically from pre-existing truths then it is much more likely to be true than is a claim that contradicts those truths. In the example I used above about stopping the earth from rotating, it contradicts everything we know about how the universe works. We have never observed such a phenomenon.
So if you claimed to be able to stop the earth from rotating by snapping your fingers, we would have to doubt such a claim as it is an extraordinary one which contradicts our previous knowledge of celestial bodies in motion. By contrast, claiming to wear a red hat while typing your posts is a trivial claim which is fully in accordance with our previous knowledge (we know that red hats exist), so we would have no qualm about accepting the claim as being true. Anyone who says both claims are equal is not displaying intellectual superiority as far as I can see. They are displaying a large measure of gullibility.
So, yes, I am saying that everyone's default position, or starting point, should be that of an atheist. When someone subsequently introduces their conception of god we are perfectly willing to give it our unbiased attention. But we will be unable to accord it any belief without a certain level of substantiation. It should not be viewed as starting off with the concept of god already in hand and then accepting or rejecting it. It should be viewed as starting off with nothing and then being introduced to the concept of god and then making a decision.
I've provided a few link to sites that deal with atheism below:
About.com has an excellent atheist site which has many well researched articles. They also have an atheist forum which I have frequented occasionally. There are many atheists there who are much more knowledgable on the subject than even I am (hard to believe, I know).
http://atheism.about.com/
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism
Then, of course, is the website of American Atheists, founded by the infamous Madalyn Murray O' Hair.
http://www.atheists.org/
An excellent book on the subject is:
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
05 Jan 05
1 edit
It is really amazing,how those that do not believe in GOD,THE CREATOR of all things.Try to convince GOD that HE does not excist. GOD is because HE is,and will always will be who HE is.Most of us donot last 100 years.
But HE has been before there was Adam and Eve.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101Uh huh. Thanks for sharing.
It is really amazing,how those that do not believe in GOD,THE CREATOR of all things.Try to convince GOD that HE does not excist. GOD is because HE is,and will always will be who HE is.Most of us donot last 100 years.
But HE has been before there was Adam and Eve.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfaultto attempt to argue for victory in one corner or the other is pointless as neither discipline requires what the other is trying.
Quite possibly it will rage for sometime to come.
But the battle is mainlyfor minds not yet entrenched in faith or athiesm (the strong variety) and there is no reason to give up the fight on either side.
Even those entrenched can change their position I have seen it happen, people gain and loose faith every day.
In the past people had faith that s ...[text shortened]... are all wasting our time... something that history has shown is plantively not the case.
you seem to think there is a struggle between the two doctrines, there isn't.
there is a struggle between people trying o get other s to agree with them and to believe what they believe.
i'm an atheist nothing tha a religious person can say is ever going to change my mind because what they believe is dependent upon faith. i have none. therefore it is all a mute point.
to examine both my statement and this post, debates are about people attempting to argue people into seeing things from their point of view and agreeing with their stance.
there can be no common ground on this arguement as both sides disagree on the requirements of their beliefs.
you are indeed welcome to continue debating until the end of time and i apologise if you feel that my contribution has wasted your time, but my point i feel is valid. in order to truly argue and debate this issue is purely of academic purpose as there can be no resolution.
History has shown us many things, and in hindesight when we look back on history we see things in a very different light. what history has never shown us that is that for two groups to argue and war over issues that are later both proved to be wrong is not a waste of time, how many Wars have been fought because he believes this and you believe that, and how many of those winners still exist now?
i will think you'll agree that what history teaches us is that very often the answer is self evident and that we choose to ignore it. in this example two sides simply argue about semantics without examining their real differences, well there can be no resolution.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by kcamsWhere to start....
to attempt to argue for victory in one corner or the other is pointless as neither discipline requires what the other is trying.
you seem to think there is a struggle between the two doctrines, there isn't.
there is a struggle between people trying o get other s to agree with them and to believe what they believe.
i'm an atheist nothing tha a religi ...[text shortened]... argue about semantics without examining their real differences, well there can be no resolution.
There are the big issues and the smaller ones.
Big issue : God exists.
Small issue : Jesus was married
It may be that you will never change you position on the big issue and a theist similarly. Unless of course God 'speaks' to you personally or a theist 'looses his faith'.
But we can debate the small issues and there are lots and lots of those. We can prove to a theist that Jesus was married, just like it was proved to him that the earth revolves around the sun. We can perhaps prove to you that someone was actually healed.
It is the small issue that make up the debate, the little battles that turn the tide of the war.
There are ALWAYS struggles between doctrines whether it be two or more, this debate and many others on this site and others are signs of this struggle as are most of the wars in history.
People are the temporal warriors of the doctrines that are struggling against each other in the past it was the inquisition and the heretics now it is the humanists and the church. The struggle is there the weapons are less bloody then in the past.
To say you are never going to change you mind is very foolish and shuts off a world of knowledge and experience, but if this is the case why bother participating in debates, surely for you at least it truly is a pointless exercise.
There is common ground here the common ground of communication of logic and argumentative technique and probably on such things like Jesus existed and the church exists and has these characteristics.
I was a little harsh by saying you are wasting our time and you are entitled to your opinion of course. But it is true in a debate about something a statement that there is no point in debating it contributes nothing to the debate apart from, if we believe you, its demise.
In nearly every war there is a winner, whether it is a war of words or swords. My comment about history is that history HAS shown us that debate can change things and this debate in particular.
The dogma and dominance of the church has changed considerably over the years, free thought and expression have won through. History shows us we must not give up the fight against entrenched belief because we can win the battles. Every mind that is not dogmatic and sterile and locked into a belief system is a victory for some and every mind that gets its directions for thinking from the bible and the clergy is a victory for others.
I realise you may be tired of this debate and have heard it all before but there may be a new take on the debate you have not yet heard from both sides of the divide.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101More trite comment.
It is really amazing,how those that do not believe in GOD,THE CREATOR of all things.Try to convince GOD that HE does not excist. GOD is because HE is,and will always will be who HE is.Most of us donot last 100 years.
But HE has been before there was Adam and Eve.
Are you a real person or simply one of those bible bots?
If i was to say...
In the begining there was a Turkey Sandwich and the Turkey Sandwich was good and lasted for 100.3 seconds whereas most sandwiches do not last that long.
In a 'debates' forum
Would you not expect me to back this up with some evidence or logic?
And I am not trying to convince God of anything directly as he does not post here, unless you claim you are his mouth piece.
No doubt it makes you feel good about yourself typing in such things perhaps we should analysise this and show how you may be able to increase this good feeling by actually getting some converts.
Your technique is crude and self serving, rather then serving the lord GOD. he would be embarrased by you.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettI do not regard the comparison to a fool as derogatory if you mean the ‘divine fool’ whose mind is an open book setting out on his journey through life.
I am not familiar with the term "supra-agnosticism". You have indicated that it is your term for someone who holds all claims as being equally credible. Is that accurate? I don't know of any other term for it, unless it would be "a fool". I deny that such a position would be intellectually superior. As I have tried to indicate, not all claims are equal ...[text shortened]...
An excellent book on the subject is:
[b]Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith[/b]
I believe I understand what you mean by the relative believability of concepts and the fact that you filter any new concept through your knowledge base to determine if your default response is belief, disbelief or some point between the two. 99.99% of people do this.
This position is more intellectually compromised then someone who does not do this or has the ability not to do this at will.
Your knowledge base and what I call ‘reality references’ are by there very nature compromised, they have been laid down without your control with all forms of complex emotional attachments tied to particular facts and assumptions. You are a product of your environment, you parents, your culture and your experiences none of this have been controlled, least of all by yourself (I am assuming this but it’s a pretty safe assumption).
Because of who you are you state that everyone’s default position should be that of an atheist, but a child brought up in a deeply mystic or religious community would probably have a different default position. Which is right?
I agree (I think) that you should start of with the concept of nothing and then be introduced to the concept of GOD, but as soon as you learn of this new concept your position should not be it is wrong till proven (or it is right till proven) but it is unproven.
Atheists as I understand the definition (or strong atheists if you like) take the position it is wrong till proven or it is plain wrong.
If intellectual argument is divorced from all non understood influences and bias the position ‘I don’t know’ in the lack of any evidence one way or the other is superior to I believe this based on no evidence at least intellectually.
This position of complete and utter open-mindedness is the new concept I am suggesting is superior and the best tool for dealing with highly emotive and metaphysical subjects, in my experience.
Thank you for the atheist links I will check them out shortly.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfaultthe facts in this case however can never be prooved, so it will always reduce to what you believe and the two sides don't accept the same reasoning behind what they believe therefore no common ground and no conclusion.
[b]Where to start....
There are the big issues and the smaller ones.
Big issue : God exists.
Small issue : Jesus was married
you keep using terms like war and battle a debate is about using reason and logic to argue a point of view and pursuadeing an audience to conform with your point of view. when the two sides of the argue don't require the same 'facts' or 'proofs' but base their membership on faith or reason two things which in essence are not compatible then the debate is unwinnable.
i know that sometimes my tone is somewhat bleak and isn't necessarily in the spirit of the debate but this is because i feel that the people involved are simply going to continue to argue over these small points winning small victories while not admitting to themselves or others that they really aren't going o achieve anything because at the end of it all while i disagree with those of faith i don't want to stop them believing because their belief comforts them and who am i to take that away.
also on the flip side i have come to my own decision about God through much thought and reading and no one has the right to criticise me for that. i just feel that so much time is wasted on these discussions and the bigger picture is lost.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by DeepfaultThere are only two points I will take exception to here. One is about children. All newborns are atheists. Even the children of deeply religious parents in a deeply religious community. They are later taught to believe in god, but they all start out as atheists. Albeit, this is what is known as "implicit" atheism. Someone who is incapable of understanding the concept of god, or someone who has never been introduced to the concept of god would be an implicit atheist. They simply lack a belief in god. This is everyone's initial default position. Most children are then taught to believe in god at an age when they are incapable of independant judgment. So they are assigned a new default position which supercedes their original one. Someone who is familiar with the concept of god, but who does not believe it would be an "explicit atheist".
I do not regard the comparison to a fool as derogatory if you mean the ‘divine fool’ whose mind is an open book setting out on his journey through life.
I believe I understand what you mean by the relative believability of concepts and the fact that you filter any new concept through your knowledge base to determine if your default response is belief, d ...[text shortened]... subjects, in my experience.
Thank you for the atheist links I will check them out shortly.
The second point is the position of atheists. For an extraordinary claim like the existence of god (which is the only claim atheism addresses) their position IS that it is unproven. What follows is how they react to that realization. Since the claim is unproven, they cannot believe it. They will act as though it were false until shown otherwise. At no time will they claim that it is demonstrably false.
05 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by kcamsWhat has been lost is there is a battle. The battle is beween GOD and satan. GOD --------------satan
the facts in this case however can never be prooved, so it will always reduce to what you believe and the two sides don't accept the same reasoning behind what they believe therefore no common ground and no conclusion.
you keep using term ...[text shortened]... ime is wasted on these discussions and the bigger picture is lost.
good, or evil(bad)
obediant, or sin
love, or hate
truth, or lies
heatlth, or sickness
life, or death
and all other battle grounds
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by kcamsOk ...
the facts in this case however can never be prooved, so it will always reduce to what you believe and the two sides don't accept the same reasoning behind what they believe therefore no common ground and no conclusion.
you keep using terms like war and battle a debate is about using reason and logic to argue a point of view and pursuadeing an audience to c ...[text shortened]... t. i just feel that so much time is wasted on these discussions and the bigger picture is lost.
I debate only to adjust the 1% on top of the 99% of my knowledge base because... I like debating I am eating my intelectual cake and while the big issues may not be resolved soon several little ones can be a new ideas occasionaly surface.
I still maintain that many are swayed by debates and thus it worth having them.
In regard to whether people have the right to critise other peoples decisions... of course they do thats how we improve society if you put youir decision up for measure or if it affects anyone else (your country, your community, your kids) then you should expect to have it challanged.
If you keep it to yourself then it can not be challanged although ultimately there is little point in it existing unlesss it makes you happy and whole in some way without hurting others or yourself then all the best to you and your secret decision may you both prosper.
The most intriquing thing about your post is this feeling that there is a 'bigger picture' that is lost.
What is this bigger picture?
Are you saying I am missing something pray reveal all I'd hate to miss out.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfaultthe bigger picture i feel is that it really doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, the basics of our moral codes are independent of faith.
Ok ...
The most intriquing thing about your post is this feeling that there is a 'bigger picture' that is lost.
What is this bigger picture?
Are you saying I am missing something pray reveal all I'd hate to miss out.
i don't believe in God but if someone is in help and i can help them i do, this isn't through Christian values or because i fear the wrath of God in the afterlife, i do it because i feel it the right thing to do, to help my fellow man.
what do i care if you or anyone else believes in God or if Jesus literally meant that we are all descended from Adam and Eve or if it was a parable meant as a teaching device, these issues while contencious and worrisome to some miss the fact that the Earth continus to spin and the World continues to evolve and time advances, i know its hypocritical to state that so many people are missing out on what i think really matters, and by that i mean the people out there and the living world around us, by worry about petty little points scored in arguements about stuff that can never be resolved. when i myself am argue points that will not be heard.
but i've finished all my work in the office and i like to debate and argue, i feel that i've made some counter points in the discussions and have something to take home and think about from your posts,
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettSo atheists are unbelievers because it is unproven Explicit (weak athiests) or because they have not heard of it implicit atheism.
There are only two points I will take exception to here. One is about children. All newborns are atheists. Even the children of deeply religious parents in a deeply religious community. They are later taught to believe in god, but they all start out as atheists. Albeit, this is what is known as "implicit" atheism. Someone who is incapable of understanding ...[text shortened]... were false until shown otherwise. At no time will they claim that it is demonstrably false.
Fair enough. You acknowledge belief as a state of mind and the absence of that belief is unbelief that everyone else must have?
But a child does not not believe in something just because they have not heard of it.
And is there not a third state that of neither belief or disbelief that is not agnostic as defined (i.e believing you can never know)
Terminology aside do you understand what I am trying to conceptually convey.
Not an ignorance of the concept as in children but a knowledge of a concept and yet still niether believing or disbelieving.
If this is your atheism (weak) then this is what I think is the best intellectual position.
But it means that you percieve all other things from the premise that God may or may not exist. Not that he does not exist until proven otherwise or that he does exist.
This is not your atheism I think which i think from your posts tends to fall on one side of the fence albiet conditionally.
A person who is a supraagnostic (for want of a better term) would argue equally from a god exists perspective as from a God does not exist perspective just as an astrophysist may argue equally passionately for the big bang and steady state theory of the universe if he truly could not choose between them.
Perhaps the key point is they do not regard that a claim that God exists is particularly any more extraordinary then a claim that earth is suspended in a Vacuum and moves round the sun. They have NO bias by which to seperate out the two claims.
They will NOT act as if it is false until shown otherwise nor will they particularly Act as if it is true.
Am I making myself clear this is is a particular and rare state of mind that is not atheism and is in its intellectual purity it is far superior to athesim because it is completely and utterly unbiased or unscathed by any preconceptions or requirements for proof before it can work on the basis that something may be true.
It is childlike in its open mindedness and requires no step to move from its base mental position to consider the possibility of the existance of God or anything else with the same ease as considering the existence of this keyboard in front of me. i.e there is no bias that purports to propose one is more likely then the other and thus all concepts can be analysed with equality.
This by the way is an idealist mental concept the reality required to achieve this state of perception is somewhat more complex.
Am I making any sense to you? Do you understand what I am trying to propose as supraagnostism? Do you acknowldge it is different from atheism even if you do not agree it is superior or do you think they are one and the same thing?
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by DeepfaultI understand what you're saying. But I don't think anyone is capable of actually behaving that way, despite their claims to do so. Unless you mean that it's possible for you to entertain two mutually incompatible concepts as a purely intellectual excercise. Anyone could do that. I could argue a theistic position if I chose. But I would not believe it.
So atheists are unbelievers because it is unproven Explicit (weak athiests) or because they have not heard of it implicit atheism.
Fair enough. You acknowledge belief as a state of mind and the absence of that belief is unbelief that everyone else must have?
But a child does not not believe in something just because they have not heard of it.
And ...[text shortened]... heism even if you do not agree it is superior or do you think they are one and the same thing?