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

 

Kestrel wrote: Don't forget the hiding of child rape! And telling Africans condoms are evil!

thellama73 wrote: I think something we can all agree on is that the Westboro Baptist Church are a bunch of despicable, despicable people.

Any Colour You Like wrote: Atavachron wrote: what if everyone is right What if everyone is wrong? Should we really care?

If it turns out that there is a supreme being who is the cause of all of our existence, I think we should care, yes.

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: Any Colour You Like wrote: Atavachron wrote: what if everyone is right What if everyone is wrong? Should we really care? If it turns out that there is a supreme being who is the cause of all of our existence, I think we should care, yes. Define what "everyone" believes so we know what "what if everyone is wrong" or "what if everyone is right" means...

I meant that everyone may have a part of the puzzle right--  or put another way, couldn't there both be a 'higher power' and not?   Say it turns out everyone who's dead must be God for 24 hours, it would explain a lot     (that's just an example of what I mean, please don't take it as gospel.. no pun intended)

Pfft. If there really was a god, I'd say it'd be Robert Fripp.

The T wrote: DT-PT wrote: Pfft. If there really was a god, I'd say it'd be Robert Fripp. No, I think it'd be Phil Collins...

Henry Plainview wrote: Atavachron wrote:   I meant that everyone may have a part of the puzzle right--  or put another way, couldn't there both be a 'higher power' and not?   This is a logical contradiction. People often like to show their enlightenment by admonishing dogmatics that they're "missing the forest for the trees", but their position is even more logically impossible to defend than any dogma.

it was just a suggestion meant to widen the possibilities of this discussion, just ignore it

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The problem is that we have accepted this from the first day, but guys like Mike insist in placing all of us in the same sack.   Iván

I've never done that. You all share the irrational belief, but of course how you act on it and to which extent you apply that belief in your daily life greatly varies among all the religious people.

But take Ted Haggard as an example. Before the scandal I'm sure that many religious people, including those of other denominations, had great respect for him - because he was a man of faith, a role model. Now, afterwards, many of those who used to approve of him would call him a hypocrite.

In this case the reason for the hypocrisy is the Bible, teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

Henry Plainview wrote: Atavachron wrote:   I meant that everyone may have a part of the puzzle right--  or put another way, couldn't there both be a 'higher power' and not?   This is a logical contradiction. People often like to show their enlightenment by admonishing dogmatics that they're "missing the forest for the trees", but their position is even more logically impossible to defend than any dogma. And I don't mean this as an insult towards you Atavachron, I don't think you're being a jerk, but the Christian, Muslim, and Hindu Gods would not get along very well, and it's ridiculous to act like they're all pretty much the same.

Religious leaders will often say that all the religions have much in common (especially Christians), but privately, when proselytizing or from the pulpit or in the mosque, they'll still say that only their particular denomination leads to salvation. Talking about cognitive dissonance ...

^ The tricky part about accepting evolution is that the notion that "god may have helped it along the way" is in conflict with the theory. Many catholics may accept the fact that we evolved from microorganisms, but not the idea that it all happened naturally, without any intelligence guiding the process. This is why I am reluctant to accept the hypothesis that today most moderately religious people accept the theory of evolution - some do, but I think that the majority only accepts it on a superficial level, but not the more serious implications which *are* still at conflict with religious dogma.