Atheists versus theists

[libstaK]

Bravo brother.... The mobile version dosnt have the like button.

Thank you Seeker

[ranrod]

I have to agree with you Leonardo. Science vs. Religion is this big strawman thing that doesn't face the real issue. My experiences in the debates has led me to conclude it is a matter of applying Law as well. I'll get even more specific. When I encounter atheist and we discourse a long time and get past all the strawman issues, I have consistently found that at the root of their objections to religion is really about sexual prohibitions. The other aspects of the debate end up being facades on the part of atheist proponanants. You strip away at the facades and you end up with a person who has a burr under their saddle about religion being against their pet sexual agenda. This may sound too simple, but I have consistently found that it distills down to this. It is religion vis a vis social law.

It's kind of a revelation to not find an intellectual foundation atheism that can stand upon. For all the pretense and bluster, the sophistry only frustrates the simple. But by not allowing atheist to lead the topic around in circles, and to focus on any point with tanacity, the atheist intellectual facade just crumbles and you find the real agenda was about sex all along.

You gotta explain that to me. I have zero unusual sexual behavior, nor did I ever have it (not that I'm proud of that). It must be so easy to sit there in your ivory tower judging all those beneath you. Just like Jesus said, "Let the first one without sin cast the first stone...or even if you have sin, GO FOR IT!" Can anyone make unsubstantiated accusatory remarks? "In my experience, the strongest believers always end up being people who were molested as little kids"???

About the OP's article. It was well-thought out, well written with a lot of things that ring true to me. However, I hate to be THAT guy but I also hate not seeing a reconciliation of the malleable bounds of their religious beliefs. When someone becomes a believer all-of-the-sudden you see all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and downright ridiculousness stop being a concern and stop being addressed. It's not that they think, "aha, I see where I went wrong!" It's more like, "I don't see any problems. I don't think I ever did." For example, "ok so we were clearly out of our minds when we thought our god was an old bearded man in the sky like Santa Claus, but now..." As more and more of the bible becomes evidently ridiculous as humans progress further and further, how you interpret the bible has to take bigger and bigger logical leaps to un-ridicule itself. I can't imagine what kind of leaps they'll take in another hundred years. He makes no attempt to reconcile his new attitude with his old one, or why all-of-the-sudden it's ok to ignore the "created in his image" part. The sad-but-true answer is: For obvious reasons a good amount of Atheists become believers when they get older.

Edited June 30, 2012 by ranrod

[ranrod]

I would like to chime in on this, if that is okay. You said that science and religion (and spirituality) clash over beliefs. This I must disagree with. Beliefs clash over science. One man may look at evidence of the Big Bang and say, "See? Genesis was wrong!" And another may retort, "And God said, 'Let there be light.' and it was so."

Except "let there be light" was day 3, *after* the heavens and Earth had been created; Earth with the oceans already in it. How did Earth survive the big bang?

I agree that science doesn't have to be at odds with religion, but as long as religion is really flexible as to how it interprets itself (as necessitated in the above example).

[Cybele]

There is no "clash". What it seems to you is based only on trying to logically apply material knowledge in a material fashion.

Spirituality incorporates a journey into alternate realms of personal epithany and experience through visions, synchronicities for some and altered states as per meditation. Science can see what occurs in the brain when these states occur and recognise chemical processes taking place but it does not inform as to the intimate significance of the experiences on the individual nor can it account for the deep seated knowledge which is the outcome of some of these experiences, although it posits and theorises based on the chemical processes and material changes that take place.

It simply offers it's results to those who pursue the journey, intellectualising does not apply any level of true comprehension. That is lacking to someone reading this but unavoidable in it's intrinsic nature - I have tried both paths btw and on applying myself steadily to the meditative experience was astounded at the results

And then there is the other experiences which I spent many a year reasoning away until the body of personal evidence just failed to allow any room to do that any further.

My own experiences have led me to the opinion that the spiritual "realm", if it is more than simply tricks of the mind, is entirely subjective (i.e.- not existing independently). Clearly there's not much one can do to prove the reality of inner realms, nor is a personal god something that one can really debate fruitfully.

Spirituality of this sort is a bit different than theism of the traditional sort. When people say an objective god affected and brought about the physical universe through specific means, well, in theory there should be evidence to back this up. A universe and planet designed by an intelligent creator ought to show signs of the processes used to bring it into existence. Unfortunately for many theists, the evidence does not point towards intelligent design. These issues have real political significance, and need to be debated because of the way in which they affect laws and education (as a recent article about Nessie being in U.S. textbooks would indicate ).

We have theories from science and psychologists NOT explanations.

They're posits, if we had the "explanation" for all this there would be nothing to disagree over.

I'm inclined to disagree. A posit implies a hypothesis or statement you assume to be fact. Theories are developed in order to explain facts and observations and make predictions based on them.

An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, which are proposed explanations of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method, that fulfill certain criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[libstaK]

My own experiences have led me to the opinion that the spiritual "realm", if it is more than simply tricks of the mind, is entirely subjective (i.e.- not existing independently). Clearly there's not much one can do to prove the reality of inner realms, nor is a personal god something that one can really debate fruitfully.

Spirituality of this sort is a bit different than theism of the traditional sort. When people say an objective god affected and brought about the physical universe through specific means, well, in theory there should be evidence to back this up. A universe and planet designed by an intelligent creator ought to show signs of the processes used to bring it into existence. Unfortunately for many theists, the evidence does not point towards intelligent design. These issues have real political significance, and need to be debated because of the way in which they affect laws and education (as a recent article about Nessie being in U.S. textbooks would indicate ).

The evidence does not negate intelligent design either, however let's be clear - what is being possited as the basis of intelligent design by christian fundamentalists in the USA is blatantly flying in the face of actual known and well tested scientific facts. Unfortunately in the USA quite particularly right now, people seem to blur those lines and the "intelligent design" taught in texts books there does attempt to negate science and it's current theories. That is not the way to a fruitful answer to the question either and I find it very unfortunate that the education of children in America is being made to suffer by the fundamentalists elements there.

I'm inclined to disagree. A posit implies a hypothesis or statement you assume to be fact. Theories are developed in order to explain facts and observations and make predictions based on them.

From the free online Dictionary:

To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.

2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: "If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better" (Anthony Burgess).

Clearly there is no recourse to "fact" in the nature of making a posit on a position - it is a suggestion, which is very akin to a theory. In what way can something be pursued if not first suggested/posited and then theorised?

An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Explanation

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, which are proposed explanations of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method, that fulfill certain criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Yes "proposed explanations" aka: propositions, akin to posits.

[Beckys_Mom]

Thank you Seeker

I thought you were female...he called you brother and the funny part is..you said thank you lol...

Edited July 1, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[libstaK]

I thought you were female...he called you brother and the funny part is..you said thank you lol...

LOL I let it slide cos I knew what he meant

aka: "asexual" as in "mankind" type thingy hehe

Edited July 1, 2012 by libstaK

[Eldorado]

A fine article, Ludwik with some fine words.

I'd love a world where the "versus" in your title is replaced by "and".

A world where people are free to believe whatever they wish to believe without being branded and ridiculed.

A world where violence is taboo and "morals" cannot be compromised when it suits our own self-interests.

A world where it doesn't 3,000 years of debate to decide that maybe slavery isn't really a nice thing.

An honest world. Only then will we resume evolving, in my opinion.

[White Crane Feather]

LOL I let it slide cos I knew what he meant

aka: "asexual" as in "mankind" type thingy hehe

how funny. I guess I should pay more attention to profiles. . Ok sister ...... Mmmmmmm does that imply that I'm female ? Oh I give up.... "Like"

[Beckys_Mom]

how funny. I guess I should pay more attention to profiles.

Yup ..like shift your eyes to the left of the screen...right under the avatar.. and go whoooopss there it is

[White Crane Feather]

Yup ..like shift your eyes to the left of the screen...right under the avatar.. and go whoooopss there it is

Mobile version all the time I only post from my phone

[Beckys_Mom]

Mobile version all the time I only post from my phone

Oh dear...you are one of those that sit forever with your phone in your hands..lol...I know a few people that do the same..they cannot switch their phones off.. they use them things for everything..I often wondered what would happen if I were to hide their phone..would they go bonkers? lol Sometimes when i have friends over..they are so attached to their phone..one night..I wanted to go to bed but one of my friends wouldn't leave my house...I was yawning..pointing at my clock for ages ( trying to chuck a hint )...she wouldn't budge ......But suddenly she saw her beloved phone needed battery charging..so she then left............I had to wait until her flaming phone battery was running done before she left my home lol. Crazy !! ...............I never use phones much at all. ..I can live without them easy...after all we did grow up in a world with no cell phone at one time lol

Edited July 2, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[White Crane Feather]

Oh dear...you are one of those that sit forever with your phone in your hands..lol...I know a few people that do the same..they cannot switch their phones off.. they use them things for everything..I often wondered what would happen if I were to hide their phone..would they go bonkers? lol Sometimes when i have friends over..they are so attached to their phone..one night..I wanted to go to bed but one of my friends wouldn't leave my house...I was yawning..pointing at my clock for ages ( trying to chuck a hint )...she wouldn't budge ......But suddenly she saw her beloved phone needed battery charging..so she then left............I had to wait until her flaming phone battery was running done before she left my home lol. Crazy !! ...............I never use phones much at all. ..I can live without them easy...after all we did grow up in a world with no cell phone at one time lol

Haha well yes. To my shock an amazement, I am bordering on being a phone zombie. I used to tease all the teenagers about it, now I am one of them. In my defense it's much more stimulating than television, I can't remember that last time I watch a show. I also spend 98% of my time with children. All day at home, then all evening at work. You folks are just about my only adult contact throughout the day. If I had to sit and post from a computer, no one would know me.

[Beckys_Mom]

I used to tease all the teenagers about it, now I am one of them.

Karma at its best lol...I cannot use those phones well anyway.. If I have to have a cell phone.. it would be for emergency use only...and I do not need the internet on it or any other special feature

Edited July 2, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Cybele]

The evidence does not negate intelligent design either, however let's be clear - what is being possited as the basis of intelligent design by christian fundamentalists in the USA is blatantly flying in the face of actual known and well tested scientific facts. Unfortunately in the USA quite particularly right now, people seem to blur those lines and the "intelligent design" taught in texts books there does attempt to negate science and it's current theories. That is not the way to a fruitful answer to the question either and I find it very unfortunate that the education of children in America is being made to suffer by the fundamentalists elements there.

Which is why the atheism vs. theism debate does not simply come down to philosophical discussions about the existence of a god. Beliefs can influence politics and the education of our children in very real ways. The idea of scientists not debating theology and theologians not debating science is all well and good if one thinks of these groups and their ideas as being holed up in ivory towers. In reality, the works of scientists and theologians pervade our lives, influence our culture, and ultimately can be used to influence education and policy. The layman and the professional have the right to defend their way of life, and to uphold the value of separation of church and state as guaranteed by the Constitution.

From the article:

"The story of creation, the world being created in one week, for example, is no longer taken literally, even by many theologians. A formal unambiguous recognition of this, for example, by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican, would be a tremendously important step toward the elimination of futile debates."

Except that, frighteningly enough, some people in my country do take creationism quite literally, and they want to have it formally taught to children. The Vatican is not exactly a source to be relied upon for progressive thinking. They are entirely concerned with upholding tradition, and disapprove of things like birth control on moral grounds, rather than due to evidence or a desire to resolve conflict.

From the free online Dictionary:

To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.

2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: "If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better" (Anthony Burgess).

Clearly there is no recourse to "fact" in the nature of making a posit on a position - it is a suggestion, which is very akin to a theory. In what way can something be pursued if not first suggested/posited and then theorised?

Yes "proposed explanations" aka: propositions, akin to posits.

The common use of the word "theory" is not exactly equivalent to its scientific usage. A posit implies something that is not substantiated or evidenced, which a scientific theory absolutely is.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."^[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Edited July 2, 2012 by Cybele

[libstaK]

From the article:

"The story of creation, the world being created in one week, for example, is no longer taken literally, even by many theologians. A formal unambiguous recognition of this, for example, by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican, would be a tremendously important step toward the elimination of futile debates."

Except that, frighteningly enough, some people in my country do take creationism quite literally, and they want to have it formally taught to children. The Vatican is not exactly a source to be relied upon for progressive thinking. They are entirely concerned with upholding tradition, and disapprove of things like birth control on moral grounds, rather than due to evidence or a desire to resolve conflict.

Pope John Paul the II has indeed taken steps to move do just as you have suggested, pity nobody noticed - , refer the link:

http://law2.umkc.edu...aticanview.html

.

an excerpt:

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly half century since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

btw just as a side note I was taught the merits of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by an eccentric but lovable Science Teacher - at a Catholic School, Darwin was a definite fave of his and no one ever suggested that was a problem.

Edited July 2, 2012 by libstaK

[Mr Walker]

btw just as a side note I was taught the merits of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by an eccentric but lovable Science Teacher - at a Catholic School, Darwin was a definite fave of his and no one ever suggested that was a problem.

Just one of the many side benefits of living in Australia, I believe. That divide between science and religion simply doesn't exist . Nor between "state " and religion.

[Viviana98]

Read "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong...its a really interesting book:)

[Bluefinger]

Except "let there be light" was day 3, *after* the heavens and Earth had been created; Earth with the oceans already in it. How did Earth survive the big bang?

I agree that science doesn't have to be at odds with religion, but as long as religion is really flexible as to how it interprets itself (as necessitated in the above example).

Let there be light was day one. You should probably go back and read it. The sun was created on day four.

[Viviana98]

Let there be light was day one. You should probably go back and read it. The sun was created on day four.

Where did the light come from if the sun wasn't created until day 4...did god have a flashlight? And the heavens and the earth and the oceans were still there before let there be light was....Genesis 1;1

[Viviana98]

I was raised up in church, my grandpa is a non denominational pastor with a very southern baptist hell fire and bremstone way of teaching. I was actually going to go to school for theology because I wanted to be a pastor as well but the deeper I got into it and read about things the more questions I had that no one could answer. Things just didn't make since and the amount of hypocrasy and hate that is in the bible made me sick. People have the right to believe what they want and if it makes them happy, thats good but sadly most believers people don't feel that same way. To all the believers out there, your way is not the right and only way for everyone. You need to practice what you preach...If you don't want to practice love and acceptance then take those words out of your vocabulary. Should be easy to do since you already pick and choose what you want out of the bible anyways. If your going to believe in gods teachings then believe in it all....lets go back to stoning non virgins lol god told me its what should be done so has to be right. Stop the hate people please...god does not hate gay people or non virgins or athiest, hes supposed to love everyone!

[Bluefinger]

I was raised up in church, my grandpa is a non denominational pastor with a very southern baptist hell fire and bremstone way of teaching. I was actually going to go to school for theology because I wanted to be a pastor as well but the deeper I got into it and read about things the more questions I had that no one could answer. Things just didn't make since and the amount of hypocrasy and hate that is in the bible made me sick. People have the right to believe what they want and if it makes them happy, thats good but sadly most believers people don't feel that same way. To all the believers out there, your way is not the right and only way for everyone. You need to practice what you preach...If you don't want to practice love and acceptance then take those words out of your vocabulary. Should be easy to do since you already pick and choose what you want out of the bible anyways. If your going to believe in gods teachings then believe in it all....lets go back to stoning non virgins lol god told me its what should be done so has to be right. Stop the hate people please...god does not hate gay people or non virgins or athiest, hes supposed to love everyone!

I think that many people, both atheists and Christians, don't know much about Christian Orthodoxy. They know usually one way of thinking about God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel. They don't often know the history of how that line of thought developed. They picked it up from their parents or culture and believed like they believed. Not many know that the background and occupation of theologians like Tertullian, Origen, and Iranaeus presented AT LEAST three orthodox ways of Christian thinking in the West.

I strongly recommend Christian Thought Revisited by Justo L. Gonzalez, 1988. It does much of the research for you, provides notes and cites resources concerning the history of Christian thought. It is simply an eye opening experience that I recommend for anyone who wants to empirically know more about Christianity.

Beside, a lot of people react to Christianity based on experience and impression. But not many know how or why many Christians have come to believe the way they have.

An example: Tertullian, a Latin lawyer from Carthage, laid much of the ground for the way that the Roman Catholic Church came to think later on. Tertullian, whose culture embraced the Stoic philosophy of Law and Order, saw Christianity from a legalistic point of view. He defined God using legal terms such as: Three 'persons' being of one 'substance." He defined the Gospel as Jesus paying our debt of offenses to God's Law. He saw Jesus as the giver of a stricter Law than was given to Moses. He also believed that, after Baptism, you were not allowed to sin anymore. If you did, then you were condemned to hell. This line of thinking posed great problems for later Latin thinkers, which led to the development of dogmas such as penance, treasury of merits, purgatory, and indulgences. This complication led to the Reformation, which was really just a reform of Tertullian's line of thinking.

By the way, Tertullian left the Church because he thought they were too lenient with apostates, backsliders, and habitual sinners. Knowing this may change the way many Christians and atheists think about Western Christianity.

[Viviana98]

I think that many people, both atheists and Christians, don't know much about Christian Orthodoxy. They know usually one way of thinking about God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel. They don't often know the history of how that line of thought developed. They picked it up from their parents or culture and believed like they believed. Not many know that the background and occupation of theologians like Tertullian, Origen, and Iranaeus presented AT LEAST three orthodox ways of Christian thinking in the West.

I strongly recommend Christian Thought Revisited by Justo L. Gonzalez, 1988. It does much of the research for you, provides notes and cites resources concerning the history of Christian thought. It is simply an eye opening experience that I recommend for anyone who wants to empirically know more about Christianity.

Beside, a lot of people react to Christianity based on experience and impression. But not many know how or why many Christians have come to believe the way they have.

An example: Tertullian, a Latin lawyer from Carthage, laid much of the ground for the way that the Roman Catholic Church came to think later on. Tertullian, whose culture embraced the Stoic philosophy of Law and Order, saw Christianity from a legalistic point of view. He defined God using legal terms such as: Three 'persons' being of one 'substance." He defined the Gospel as Jesus paying our debt of offenses to God's Law. He saw Jesus as the giver of a stricter Law than was given to Moses. He also believed that, after Baptism, you were not allowed to sin anymore. If you did, then you were condemned to hell. This line of thinking posed great problems for later Latin thinkers, which led to the development of dogmas such as penance, treasury of merits, purgatory, and indulgences. This complication led to the Reformation, which was really just a reform of Tertullian's line of thinking.

By the way, Tertullian left the Church because he thought they were too lenient with apostates, backsliders, and habitual sinners. Knowing this may change the way many Christians and atheists think about Western Christianity.

Thank you, I will definitely love to read that book. I'm always looking to gain just that much more knowledge:) I do have a question though...you say that most Christians don't even know why they believe or think the way they do, that it's usually family and just the way they were brought up correct? Well since I was brought up that way and all my family are Christians or Catholics(I'm the only who chose a different direction)wouldn't I or shouldn't I know just as much as they do about why they believe or think the way they do, because I once was just like one of them?? I'm not basing my choice on an impression or experience, so to say...unless me reading and learning about so much more than what I was ever taught in any church is the kind of experience your talking about.