Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Dean wrote: *ignores troll*

Pretty sure that still acknowledges

Seriously, this happens every damn time, and this thread seems particularly....well dumb.
Admins/mod

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Close this thing!
Dont make me pray


Edited by JJLehto - July 07 2010 at 03:12

Both theism and atheism can descend very easily into fundamentalism. I think moderate theists and atheists would be more respectful to views differing from theirs to even suggest that there is a battle between them. There is no battle. People all have different belief systems. For thousands of years people have turned to the idea of a God or gods to explain the mysteries of life such as why we are here and what happens after death. Some people believe that our life {with all its growth, experience, happiness, pain, love, loss,} cannot end in just one sudden dead moment. That something more mysterious and profound is happening beyond the veil of this world and it leads people to notions of God. It can be seen in the building of Pyramids, Stonehenge, and in the vast pilgrimages to Mecca during the Hajj. They are a testament to the primordial feelings of fear and wonder that human beings have about their existence. Not everyone concludes from this feeling of wonder that there is a God but belief in God is just one of the many ways we try to make meaning out of our lives. Some find it in Humanism or other areas outside religious belief. So theism and atheism both try and make assertions about the universe and therefore give meaning to our lives. Everybody reacts in different ways to their existence and whether they believe in God or are humanists they should both be accepted as valid ways of responding to the mystery of life as long as they are respectful of differing views and not hurting anyone. They are simply responses to humanity’s long quest for meaning.

I’ll finish with a quote from Albert Einstein:

 

‘’ The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.’’

seventhsojourn wrote:   Quote from Mr ProgFreak: even though today billions of people are worshipers, they're as obviously wrong as those who worshiped Zeus or Apollo. Well, this pretty much seems like a claim by an atheist that God isn't real.

Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote:   Quote from Mr ProgFreak: even though today billions of people are worshipers, they're as obviously wrong as those who worshiped Zeus or Apollo. Well, this pretty much seems like a claim by an atheist that God isn't real. Not quite. You are making an assumption based on your own belief that neither Zeus nor Apollo are real.

seventhsojourn wrote: Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote:   Quote from Mr ProgFreak: even though today billions of people are worshipers, they're as obviously wrong as those who worshiped Zeus or Apollo. Well, this pretty much seems like a claim by an atheist that God isn't real. Not quite. You are making an assumption based on your own belief that neither Zeus nor Apollo are real.   No I'm not. Mr ProgFreak is making that assumption.

You are assuming that.

seventhsojourn wrote: Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote: Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote:   Quote from Mr ProgFreak: even though today billions of people are worshipers, they're as obviously wrong as those who worshiped Zeus or Apollo. Well, this pretty much seems like a claim by an atheist that God isn't real. Not quite. You are making an assumption based on your own belief that neither Zeus nor Apollo are real.   No I'm not. Mr ProgFreak is making that assumption. You are assuming that.   ... if he had said ''they're as wrong as'' then maybe, but he says ''they're as obviously wrong as''... important difference.

Not really. That the worship of the Hellenistic pantheon has fallen from favour it does not imply that those gods are not real, Mike is just saying that the worship of them was "obviously wrong" to believers in the Abrahamic god.

Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote: Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote: Dean wrote: seventhsojourn wrote:   Quote from Mr ProgFreak: even though today billions of people are worshipers, they're as obviously wrong as those who worshiped Zeus or Apollo. Well, this pretty much seems like a claim by an atheist that God isn't real. Not quite. You are making an assumption based on your own belief that neither Zeus nor Apollo are real.   No I'm not. Mr ProgFreak is making that assumption. You are assuming that.   ... if he had said ''they're as wrong as'' then maybe, but he says ''they're as obviously wrong as''... important difference. Not really. That the worship of the Hellenistic pantheon has fallen from favour it does not imply that those gods are not real, Mike is just saying that the worship of them was "obviously wrong" to believers in the Abrahamic god.

 

I don't see where ''believers in the Abrahamic god'' come into this, seems like his own opinion to me... sorry if I'm missing the obvious though. 

I sympathise with the athiest standpoint, and quietly concede that in all liklihood there is probably not a god in the way suggested by any mainstream religion. But, I draw the line at calling myself an athiest. For me there is something more tedious about athiests pedantically driving their point home, than there is about a bible basher spouting their poisoness biblical riddles.

Because theism relies on an individuals blind faith in a higher being, they are in a very safe position, not having to demonstrate any kind of proof of the existence of their chosen god. Athiests, however consider themselves scientific, so they go on about evolution, dinosaur bones, big bangs etc to prove their point. But to me, religion is an irrelevance, regardless of the existence or non existence of god.

Religions are merely man made systems of control, and are in essence primitive political frameworks designed to control and organise communities of people. If we look at Christianity as an example, we have a religion splintered into historically warring denominations, all aspiring to be accepted into the Heavenly kingdom of ONE god. This all loving, all forgiving god, for some strange reason demands to be worshipped, and will condemn to hell all those who dont worship him. These character traits dont seem consistent with the the benevolant god we're led to believe is wathcing over us, and guiding us with his love. Is it possible that this charcter was merely a creation of MEN, aimed at frightening people into a manageable pattern of group behaviour? Probably.

The reason I remain aloof to atheism, though, is that I consider there to be so much we dont understand about the universe and its origins. To state that we know there is no creator because we can prove scietific phenomena is too simplistic for me. To cite understanding of plate tectonics, photosynthesis, the human genome or whatever, as proof of the non existence of a creator could be very widely missing a point. Why should scientific understanding and the existence of a creator be mutually exclusive? At present most in the scientific community are happy with the idea that everything we see around us, came about by chance and from absolutely nothing. One could argue that this perspective is in itself 'un-scientific' and that the 'big bang' theory is flawed in it's failure to explain why the laws of physics determined by man himself, fail to account for a huge explosion, where matter and a catalyst for the reaction didn't exist. Scientists will counter this, saying the big bang was actually not really a bang at all, more an expansion from a singlularity that preceeded the BB. What caused the singularity? Why did the singularity come into existence at a time when time, space and energy didn't even exist, according to BB theory? Scientists will happily admit they dont understand this, but in light of their lack of knowledge, they should perhaps keep an open mind as to the origins of the universe. At least until the LHC yields some secrets, if indeed it is able to create and isolate the 'Higs Bosun' or 'God Particle' I just hope scientists find what they want, and not something that turns science and our entire understanding of our place in the universe on its head.

Blacksword wrote: I sympathise with the athiest standpoint, and quietly concede that in all liklihood there is probably not a god in the way suggested by any mainstream religion. But, I draw the line at calling myself an athiest. For me there is something more tedious about athiests pedantically driving their point home, than there is about a bible basher spouting their poisoness biblical riddles. Because theism relies on an individuals blind faith in a higher being, they are in a very safe position, not having to demonstrate any kind of proof of the existence of their chosen god. Athiests, however consider themselves scientific, so they go on about evolution, dinosaur bones, big bangs etc to prove their point. But to me, religion is an irrelevance, regardless of the existence or non existence of god. Religions are merely man made systems of control, and are in essence primitive political frameworks designed to control and organise communities of people. If we look at Christianity as an example, we have a religion splintered into historically warring denominations, all aspiring to be accepted into the Heavenly kingdom of ONE god. This all loving, all forgiving god, for some strange reason demands to be worshipped, and will condemn to hell all those who dont worship him. These character traits dont seem consistent with the the benevolant god we're led to believe is wathcing over us, and guiding us with his love. Is it possible that this charcter was merely a creation of MEN, aimed at frightening people into a manageable pattern of group behaviour? Probably. The reason I remain aloof to atheism, though, is that I consider there to be so much we dont understand about the universe and its origins. To state that we know there is no creator because we can prove scietific phenomena is too simplistic for me. To cite understanding of plate tectonics, photosynthesis, the human genome or whatever, as proof of the non existence of a creator could be very widely missing a point. Why should scientific understanding and the existence of a creator be mutually exclusive? At present most in the scientific community are happy with the idea that everything we see around us, came about by chance and from absolutely nothing. One could argue that this perspective is in itself 'un-scientific' and that the 'big bang' theory is flawed in it's failure to explain why the laws of physics determined by man himself, fail to account for a huge explosion, where matter and a catalyst for the reaction didn't exist. Scientists will counter this, saying the big bang was actually not really a bang at all, more an expansion from a singlularity that preceeded the BB. What caused the singularity? Why did the singularity come into existence at a time when time, space and energy didn't even exist, according to BB theory? Scientists will happily admit they dont understand this, but in light of their lack of knowledge, they should perhaps keep an open mind as to the origins of the universe. At least until the LHC yields some secrets, if indeed it is able to create and isolate the 'Higs Bosun' or 'God Particle' I just hope scientists find what they want, and not something that turns science and our entire understanding of our place in the universe on its head.

You're thinking like me and frankly that scares me. 
Why does anything exist at all?  And if God is real, who made God?  As soon as any organized religion can answer these fundamental questions to my satisfaction, I'll gladly join it.  For me, science is progressing, religion can't much anymore.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: JJLehto wrote: And man, you can argue semantics with me all you want. X means Y, Z means Q it is fact not opinion... Bottom line: Atheism can't be proven. I've talked long with people about it, eventually answers end it comes down something like "I just think/believe/know so" you can call it whatever the f*ck you want. To me its faith. Not biblical but literal....you are taking it on FAITH, with some evidence to guide you granted. And about atheism not needing to be proven, I dont see the point. If anything helps me more. Christians claim it is, proof not needed. Are you saying the same? Theists make the claim that (their) God exists. It's a specific claim, and it requires evidence or at least good reasons in order to believe it - or at least that's how it should be. Atheists on the other hand make no specific claim at all. They believe that no god exists, but they don't assert that they can prove it ... it's simply the only reasonable position to take, as long as there is no good reason to assume that there must be a God, let alone assuming that one of the thousands of religions is actually correct. Once you take personal bias out of the equation, what I just explained should be obvious to anyone. Instead of Theism vs. Atheism, think about "Bigfootism" vs. "ABigfootism". Isn't it obvious that believing in Bigfoot requires more evidence and reasoning than not believing in Bigfoot? And if you now think "you can't possibly compare God to Bigfoot" - this is your personal bias speaking! (and by *you* I mean anyone to whom this might apply - not you (JJLetho) in particular)

Why is it the only reasonable position to take, Mike? it may be for you; for me it is just the other way round., and for believers too. Many believers are very reasonable people. Saying that your position is the  only reasonable one is down the nose and nothing else than saying "believers are stupid".