The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[SilentScope001]

Perhaps a better question would be why do people want to go beyond the acceptance of their beliefs and go into trying to make others have the same beliefs?

 

1) One has to gratify his ego.

 

2) Here's a theory I have been having: People are secretly afraid that their Ideas are, well, wrong. For example, look at the USSR and the USA. The USSR believes they are forming a utopia...and the USA...well, they believe they are forming a utopia. So why didn't the USSR and the USA shrug each other off and say, "Alright, let go form utopias!" Because both the USA's view of a utopia and the USSR's view of a utopia state that the other side's view of a utopia is just plain wrong.

 

In which case, the USSR and the USA want to PROVE that the other side is wrong, they want to show it to the whole world that the USA is really a capitalist dystopia or that the USSR is a communist dictatorship. If not, then both the USSR and the USA fears that other people may see the other side as nice...and most importantly, they fear that people will see their side as being wrong.

 

What I am trying to say is that the USA and the USSR really waged this war in order to tell themselves "Look, see, people believe in me, and not the USA. That must mean I am right! See, I'm right! I'm so right!" It is used to conceal their true fears, since the other side act as proof against their own side, and if the other side is defeated, their side can feel safe in their own ideas. Think of it more as "pre-emptive strike", if you will.

 

And it's the same thing here. Religious people and Atheistic people hate each other's ideas because the Atheistic acts as a way to counter the Religious Idea, and the Religious Idea act as a way to counter the Atheistic Idea. Nobody wants to face up to the fact that their own beliefs may be wrong, so they have to attack and remove the offending Idea that causes them to question and believe.

 

Nancy Allen''', I am writing some sort of book about Ideas and how exactly they work in today's world. I wonder if you do Beta reading, and if so, would you like to review my work if it gets done?

[Nancy Allen``]

Sure I'll have a look. You might want to pass it on to a couple of experts as well as they'd know a lot more than I would.

[Ray Jones]

The idea of right and wrong is belief and opinion created by the viewpoint of someone based on the society they live in and the upbringing they received, whether it be by themselves or from their parents. One person can say God does not exist, another can say God does exist. Both believe they are right and the other is wrong. Thus, the idea (or at least the belief) of right and wrong is relative to me because I believe that every action, every opinion and veiwpoint taken has an equally "good" and "bad" repercussion and that no opinion is right or wrong and that applies to my opinion as well.

I think you speak about the right and wrong of the own, perceived truth. I speak about the states of right and wrong of a statement. I mean there are people believing god is existent and there are those who "believe" he is not. Both have their own perceived truth of what they believe is correct, right, the truth. What I talk about is the "right"or "wrong" as in testible fact which exists regardless of any belief (for example the dog-poo-universe).

 

I'm not exactly sure if you are mocking me, disagreeing with me, or agreeing with me to be honest.

I think I agreed in general, disagreed in particular and mocked not you but the fact that so many seem to know the right belief.

 

Although science does have some ideas that can be stated to be right and wrong. If one person says "You are breathing!" and the other person says "No, I am not." then the other would be wrong in this day and age. But, if the other person states that they are merely absorbing the life given to them by god everytime they draw breath and that it is not the air that keeps them alive, but god, how do you prove him wrong?

I don't. Because ..

Sure, science states that when you breath the oxygen is used to power your muscles and brain and it has been concluded as such

Bingo. No need to add extra magic.

but we make scientific discoveries all the time that disprove theories and conclusions before us.

Usually, theories which science has proven to be correct don't change. Whatever conditions extend the "theory of breathing", the fact that we right now breathe air, and use its oxygen to power our system won't change and cannot be proven wrong anymore.

 

Maybe in a thousand years we can be proven wrong on that like so many other things.

Depends. I don't think the fact that the earth is round won't change. Global warming or games causing violence on the other hand...

 

Maybe reality itself can be proven wrong somehow. Science and Religion are simply ideas being applied to what we have and a conclusion being created from that information. At the core, they are almost the same to me and the constant bickering does not help either side.

Religion is what was before science. Religion was the attempt to explain things and find rules for a peaceful together when mankind was not able and had no time to investigate their environment because they had to survive.

 

Indeed, and if we could not get an answer I suspect people would probably fight over the right to call god theirs.

And according to the religions everybody would be right, wouldn't they?

 

I do not really mind if you hate me or like me for my opinion because if I really cared I would not dare post, but please do not disrespect me by calling me a coward and labeling me to a side because I will not pick a side in this timeless debate.

Okay, I cowardly withdraw my cowardly comment about you behaving cowardly and cowardly apologise.

[Nancy Allen``]

Fifteen thousand years ago everybody knew Earth was the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago everybody knew the world was flat and five years ago everybody knew that Bush wouldn't be reelected. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

[SilentScope001]

Fifteen thousand years ago everybody knew Earth was the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago everybody knew the world was flat and five years ago everybody knew that Bush wouldn't be reelected. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow

 

Technically, five hundred years ago, everyone knew the Earth was round. There was scientific proof that the Earth was round, by the Greeks. The problem was this: How big the Earth actually was? If it was too big, then it would be physically impossible to cross the Atlantic Ocean and reach Asia.

 

I think the more accurate statement would be: Everyone knew there was no such thing as the American continent.

[Windu Chi]

 

the right and wrong of a statement, idea, conclusion, whatever is not relative.

I disagree, everything seems to be relative.

This relativity of knowledge and information continues to forever change.

Also since Quantum Mechanics experiments suggest other universes of alternate histories and other realities, any truth is relative.

No, truth of any kind seems to be constant truth.

Truth is variable!

[Nancy Allen``]

The quote's actually from Men in Black, but the point is we know now what everybody knew then, some of us are so damn sure there is or isn't a God. Regardless of your belief good for you I say. But it's today's equivilent of the belief the world was flat however many years it was they believed it.

[Windu Chi]

The quote's actually from Men in Black, but the point is we know now what everybody knew then, some of us are so damn sure there is or isn't a God. Regardless of your belief good for you I say. But it's today's equivilent of the belief the world was flat however many years it was they believed it.

Nancy are you talking to me, or just talking to everybody here?

[Darth InSidious]

Technically, five hundred years ago, everyone knew the Earth was round. There was scientific proof that the Earth was round, by the Greeks. The problem was this: How big the Earth actually was? If it was too big, then it would be physically impossible to cross the Atlantic Ocean and reach Asia.

 

I think the more accurate statement would be: Everyone knew there was no such thing as the American continent.

 

Actually, there was a rather fierce debate in philosophical/scientific circles over whether the Earth was round or flat.

[Ray Jones]

Fifteen thousand years ago everybody knew Earth was the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago everybody knew the world was flat and five years ago everybody knew that Bush wouldn't be reelected. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Yes, but that doesn't change the *unchangeable* fact that Fifteen thousand years ago Earth was not the centre of the universe, five hundred years ago the world was not flat and that Bush was reelected.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, but that is what people knew as fact back then, the same as people know as fact there is or is not God.

[Ray Jones]

No, it's what people assumed because they couldn't certainly test it and thus not prove it. It were theories, hypotheses, ideas, nothing more.

[True_Avery]

I think I agreed in general, disagreed in particular and mocked not you but the fact that so many seem to know the right belief.

Ah, well, good enough for me

 

I don't. Because ..

Bingo. No need to add extra magic.

Usually, theories which science has proven to be correct don't change. Whatever conditions extend the "theory of breathing", the fact that we right now breathe air, and use its oxygen to power our system won't change and cannot be proven wrong anymore.

Yeah, when I think back that 5am idea does seem rather stupid. I'm freakin tired right now as well, so I'll try and make an acceptable example later to make myself seem less stupid.

 

Depends. I don't think the fact that the earth is round won't change. Global warming or games causing violence on the other hand...

Well, there are a lot of things we saw as fact a few hundreds years ago and had, to ourselves, proven right. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just saying that everyday things we know as fact are proven and disproven. There are some things, however, that I highly doubt can be proven wrong, making my breathing example all the more silly. I apologize for that, but I think you get the idea I was trying to get weakly across anyway.

 

Religion is what was before science. Religion was the attempt to explain things and find rules for a peaceful together when mankind was not able and had no time to investigate their environment because they had to survive.

Well, religion will always be there to fill in the gaps for science. I doubt humanity can disprove religion on everything and even if it did, religion would still exist. You destroy science as we know it, religion is still a science by base definition as far as I can tell. The two are stuck with eachother for the rest of human's time on this earth, so a little more respect between the two could do wonders. But overall, I agree with your statement.

 

And according to the religions everybody would be right, wouldn't they?

And then they would rip eachother to pieces as they have done since the beginning of human history. Even if God was proven and presented before me, and I was looking directly at Her in heaven or on earth or whatever or knew 100% that She existed I still wouldn't join any of the religions personally. I might be a lot more spiritual than I am now, but I believe God just wants us to be spiritual, not religious. To not confuse dogma for spirituality and just live life to the best we can.

 

Okay, I cowardly withdraw my cowardly comment about you behaving cowardly and cowardly apologise.

Wow.

[Ray Jones]

I'll try and make an acceptable example later to make myself seem less stupid.

Not so much stupid but quite weird and pretty much screwed. XD

 

 

Well, there are a lot of things we saw as fact a few hundreds years ago and had, to ourselves, proven right. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just saying that everyday things we know as fact are proven and disproven. There are some things, however, that I highly doubt can be proven wrong, making my breathing example all the more silly. I apologize for that, but I think you get the idea I was trying to get weakly across anyway.

I think with the time mankind became more carefully with stating facts. I don't think we'll see things like the flat earth is round very often anymore. I mean the earth was supposed to be flat because that's what it looked like, and it was the center of the solar system because it was the easiest way to have the sun etc moving around it. We looked on our everyday world and simply drew analogies. Since we are able to prove in many ways how it really is I doubt that will ever need correction.

 

So I seriously doubt that many if not all proven and tested physical laws will ever face a fundamental change. Maybe we have to add new stuff and dependencies and whatnot, but nothing basic will change.

 

However, I won't and cannot deny the possibility that we will have to change mind about some things where we currently have not really a concept about, just some untested theories and ideas. For instance how gravitation or any other of the fundamental forces work. Or how life began.

 

 

Well, religion will always be there to fill in the gaps for science.

I think, basically, religion is ought to give hope in bad times and science is ought to have answers during good times. Also, religion shows how we live together and science where we live together. Religion is static and science is underlying a permanent change.

 

 

Even if God was proven and presented before me, and I was looking directly at Her in heaven or on earth or whatever or knew 100% that She existed I still wouldn't join any of the religions personally. I might be a lot more spiritual than I am now, but I believe God just wants us to be spiritual, not religious. To not confuse dogma for spirituality and just live life to the best we can.

If I would ever be presented to a god, and if it really turns out that she participated in creating the universe I would thank her for three things: raspberry-buttermilk ice cream, LEGO and the process of creating offspring. No really.

[John Galt]

Observation: When science does actually manage to disprove a bit of dogma(such as the old belief that God lived above the clouds), dogma just changes in such a way as to make the assertions impossible to prove or disprove with current technology.

 

pardon the non-sequitur.

[Emperor Devon]

You're forgetting one very important facet here. There's a general rule that if one's religion interfere's with their humanity, then there's something wrong with their religion. Example? Condemning homosexuals. Not quite, it's the condemnation of homosexual activity. Witches, not just condemning Harry Potter but wanting to burn those who declare themselves witches at the stake. It says that we are meant to follow the law, and murdering someone who is supposed to be a witch is against the law. This is the stumbling block abortion clinic bombers, plane hijackers, ect, stumble over.

 

Uh... huh? I've looked at that through every perspective I can think of, but to put it bluntly you're blatantly contradicting yourself and only making my previous statement about religion inhibiting morality more true.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay, look at it this way then. There's a story of a group of monks who were religious, the visual clues indicate they were Christian. Now they had taken in a man people believed to be a demon and treated him as their own. But one of them couldn't stand by and allow the evil to infiltrate his temple, so he went to the village who feared the man and told the villagers where he was. They try and hunt down the man, unsuccessfully, and all that they achieve is part of the temple being burnt down. Most telling is when this monk confronts the man he had set the villagers on and the man has the chance to kill him, but doesn't, saying it is not his place to judge. This story illustrates that we shouldn't cast judgement on others, and the danger of taking your religion too far.

[JediMaster12]

This story illustrates that we shouldn't cast judgement on others, and the danger of taking your religion too far.

Ah but what constitutes as taking it too far? Evangelizing because it is written that His disciples should spread the word? Or is it something like the insurgents killing the infidels in the name of Allah?

[Nancy Allen``]

The world, including the Muslim world, sees the latter as certainly going too far. Not only do such acts condemn their religion it's meant to be not allowed according to the Quran. I'm not sure if it's a specific passage or if such acts contradict what is written, I know that suicide (suicide bombings, hijacking and dying in the plane crash) is against Islam. The Bible says the law overrides religion, except when the law has us sin. Now that could go off into a whole other topic on whether not killing infidels is a sin but I think if murder is a sin then it sort of cancels it out. However some would think preaching religion is going too far, it's something that should be outlawed, and there are those who go further than that, those who have it in for religion and outright condemn it. I'm not talking about Atheism, it goes further than that, those who stir and stir and push and push in the hopes of making the other party give up their beliefs or provoke a negative reaction which they can then use to portray religion in a negative light.

[Emperor Devon]

Okay, look at it this way then. There's a story of a group of monks who were religious, {snip}

 

I honestly don't see what this story proves apart from that religious superstition (belief in demons in this case) can lead to the destruction of property.

[Totenkopf]

Okay, look at it this way then. There's a story of a group of monks who were religious, the visual clues indicate they were Christian. ....

 

Problem with your allegory is that it doesn't say anything at all about the villagers being religious, and they're the ones who actually caused the damage. It does seem to speak to the "law of unforseen consequences", such that the monk probably didn't intend for 1/2 the monestary to be burnt to the ground. Also, for people of religious faith, specifically Christians, I think there's the admonition "judge not, lest ye be judged", though somehow I don't believe that speaks to the question of law and order so much as to us thinking we're really better than anyone else in the eyes of God. The other popular one is "let he w/o sin cast the first stone". That one, no doubt, is often cited by the opponents of capital punishment. But really, whether it's religion or any -ism, there's always the danger that carried to an extreme, there will be ugly consequences.

[Nancy Allen``]

Did I mention that the 'demon' was in fact religious, probably even more devoted than the people he was with? Could the fact he spared the one who wanted him killed have something to do with how devoted he was to his religion? How about reversing the story, have a man who is believed to be religious taken in by Atheists. One of them doesn't want the lies to possibly affect them and takes action. Could it be said that Atheist superstition of the effect religion may have on people would cause similar events? To push the idea further could it be argued that because Atheists do not believe in religion they can bestow themselves as being more moral than someone who does?

[Jae Onasi]

I just found this link for a debate in 2003 between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Quentin Smith, and thought you all might find it interesting. Enjoy.

[Achilles]

*shudders*

 

I can't say that I've read that particular debate, however I have white-knuckled my way though several of Dr. Craig's other debates and resources. As someone who is frequently guilty of heaping un-earned credibility upon those that hail from academia, I find it particularly distasteful that this man has a doctorate.

 

For instance, in this article, he offers several flimsy arguments for the existence of jesus, however fails to support any of them. Most frequent reason? "I don't have time to cover this now". As though someone was holding a gun to his head as he sat at the word processor.

[Jae Onasi]

Two doctorates, plus post-doc work.

 

Craig's BA in communications from Wheaton College, 2 MAs from Trinity University which is highly regarded, a doctorate from the University of Birmingham (England) and a second doctorate from the University of Munich, along with the further research at University of Louvain in Belgium disqualifies him how? Don't you think that if he was really unqualified, _somewhere_ along the line _someone_ would have said "Hey, you know, maybe we shouldn't give this guy his first doctorate, let alone a second...." I don't think he could have fooled that many profs if he really was a hack.

 

Whether you agree with him or not, he's earned those doctorates with a tremendous amount of hard work. I'm very familiar with Trinity in particular (I live fairly close to it and my brother-in-law struggled through a year of master's work there, and he's a very intelligent man) and the standards at that school are extremely high--it is not a cake walk to get a degree there, particularly graduate degrees. None of the other universities are breezes to get a degree from, either.

 

The article is just that--a short article of an excerpt from a larger book. There's more discussion in the book itself, obviously, and in this debate.