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

If you think wading into a thread you're not interested in with irrelevant and rude attempts to stop it from proceeding is a more logical choice than just not posting, that's your bag but you might have an even harder time defending that than theism. We have a "Just For Fun" folder you know. I and others left "The Christian Thread" alone, why is it somehow "cool" to be stupid with this one?

I wasn't the guy complaining about the thread though. Why persistently post in a thread you don't like?

Why post in a thread where no answer is possible? Furthermore, why post in a thread that you know perpetually creates arguments that serve the desires of preachers on both sides? Don't misinterpret me, I'm all for constructive debates, but it is clear that no such logic exists in this forum, on this matter. It may have long ago, but it does not now. The internet is not the place to debate absolutes, never has, and never will.

JJLehto wrote: I don't know, maybe because I posted in here quite a few times with my honest opinions and what I thought was logic, and was quite calm about it. The response was quite closed minded, and I don't say that to be a troll. I had everything said roundly ignored, I was blasted for not "understanding" certain concepts, even though that was not even quite what I was talking about, and frankly the response was quite rude. I believe a certain someone, not you though actually...said my opinion was wrong, and did not matter. We try to be rational here. I did not know an opinion, by nature, could be wrong. And does not matter? Very enlightened. I think I made a rational point that you can't "prove" atheism more than theism, and was blasted with semantic arguments and no one did anything more to prove me wrong. And I quite often get grouped in with "The Christians" and I may be wrong, but your last comment gave me that same feeling. Though I have said many times I have not, voiced my disdain for all "religion" and books. I suppose Theism = full blown eh? I have never argued Theism....since that is, for the billionth time, a personal thing that can't be proved/disproved to anyone but yourself...but I usually just argue the middle ground. The middle ground has been perpetually ignored. Did you actually read any of that? If not: Long story short: I've tried, and you guys have not given me, nor anyone really, any reason to treat this thread with respect.

so disappear off to another thread then A bit like trolling.... are you and your pedestrian friend.

Textbook wrote: ACYL: While the odds are astronomically small that anything significant will come of the thread, they're not zero. And either way I find it entertaining. JJL doesn't seem to be having much fun though which is why I query his persistence.

Again, you make another total judgement. Not having much fun? Because I am no longer typing like a 13 year old? I am quite enjoying this, no one has yet to give me anything other than: "fine go"

For atheists it just seems like a very simple answer "you don't like it, leave"
I honestly believe you are continuing to prove me right, at least to me, and that is very fun.

^^ too much time......doing nothing in cyberspace/ A bit like PF's Youtube guy. Nothing some good insect repellant couldn't fix

Edited by Chris S - August 09 2010 at 04:46

JJLehto wrote: I don't know, maybe because I posted in here quite a few times with my honest opinions and what I thought was logic, and was quite calm about it. The response was quite closed minded, and I don't say that to be a troll. I had everything said roundly ignored, I was blasted for not "understanding" certain concepts, even though that was not even quite what I was talking about, and frankly the response was quite rude. I believe a certain someone, not you though actually...said my opinion was wrong, and did not matter.

Of course opinions matter, but they are only opinions. I think it's safe to say that for most Theists the opinions of Atheists don't matter, and Theists consider them to be wrong. I don't think that it can be considered to be rude to merely state that one considers an opinion to be wrong. Furthermore, I can reject some opinions as being totally irrelevant to me for various reasons, and that's still neither insulting nor rude. I can also choose to ignore some Theistic concepts - again for various reasons - and that does not make me close-minded. IMO being open-minded does *not* mean that you have to accept anything at all. An open-minded person should simply be open to evidence - if a person holds a belief and then discovers some evidence that contradicts the belief, the result should be a re-evaluation of the belief, and not - as with close-minded persons - an enforcement of the belief and deeper ignorance (meaning in this case: intentionally ignoring) of the evidence.

JJLehto wrote: We try to be rational here. I did not know an opinion, by nature, could be wrong. And does not matter? Very enlightened. I think I made a rational point that you can't "prove" atheism more than theism, and was blasted with semantic arguments and no one did anything more to prove me wrong.

Of course an opinion can be wrong. But if I said "your opinion is wrong" that would be yet another opinion that could also be wrong. In the end it boils down to which of those opinions has more basis in reality - in observable phenomena of the real world. And even then you could still ignore any opinion regardless of the evidence presented. This applies to Atheists and Theists alike - theoretically Atheists should be better at identifying false beliefs, but they're certainly not immune from holding them:



As much as I appreciate what Maher says about religion, I disagree with him 100% on the germ theory of disease. Well, maybe 90% because I think that even though the germ theory is correct and germs transmit certain diseases, it still matters a lot how we treat our bodies, meaning that environmental changes can have a huge effect on whether certain germs will be able to infect you.

JJLehto wrote: And I quite often get grouped in with "The Christians" and I may be wrong, but your last comment gave me that same feeling. Though I have said many times I have not, voiced my disdain for all "religion" and books. I suppose Theism = full blown eh? I have never argued Theism....since that is, for the billionth time, a personal thing that can't be proved/disproved to anyone but yourself...but I usually just argue the middle ground. The middle ground has been perpetually ignored. Did you actually read any of that? If not: Long story short: I've tried, and you guys have not given me, nor anyone really, any reason to treat this thread with respect.

I vaguely remember some of your posts - it's just too long ago - but I don't remember any striking point you made. If your central argument is that religion is simply a personal thing that can't be proved/disproved, then I still think you're wrong. As TJ (TheAmazingAtheist) pointed out in the video I linked to yesterday: If you're a deist, then your claim is essentially unfalsifiable - that means that it can't be proved/disproved, but it also means that it's totally irrelevant to any human being, because this deity does not interact with us in any meaningful way. If on the other hand you're a Theist then your religion does make certain claims, such as "The earth is flat" or "Diseases are caused by demonic posession" etc. etc.. If your response is that well of course the earth is not flat, but that doesn't mean that all the other claims of the Bible are equally invalid ... well, it's your opinion and I respect that, but IMO the conclusion has to be that it's so infinitely more likely that this collection of books was just a creation of those desert tribe societies and their attempt at explaining how the world works. And if you do not follow the Bible personally, then my response still applies to all the other religions as well, because each of them makes such falsifiable claims. If one doesn't, then it's deism and irrelevant to our lives.

Textbook wrote: ACYL: Yes I do get periodically bored of threads like this but it's alright, I can always come back later.   JJL: You're trolling, bye.

Well Mike, thank you for saying something.
And something was intelligent, and directly dealing with what I've brought up. Thank You.
For real. If more responses were like that, maybe I would actually want to deal with it.

Now textbook. Yes, very cute. Funny funny. But again, why come up with that lil joke? You simply just don't want to deal with it? Not very enlightening.

OK. Mike you know I have professed to Deism many times, unless you don't (my posts here have been quite spotty its true). Let's just make sure this bible thing is out of the way. NO. That is how I feel about it. Simple. I have no need to explain to you why the bible is just a book. And I also feel that organized religion, is wrong.

Why is deism irrelevant? Because the deity does not interact with us? While even if you disagree, at least a Christian gets something out of it? Well....isn't a non interventionist deity, pretty much like atheism?
Yes, obviously it is not....but is atheism irrelevant? If not, I don't see why deism is. I don't go to church, don't believe in it or any holy books, I don't pray, I believe in evolution, science in general. We don't live very differently in regard to our spiritual beliefs.
EDIT: OR LACK THERE OF. Yes, just to clarify I know atheism is not a spiritual belief but lack of.




Edited by JJLehto - August 09 2010 at 05:05

What has going to church have to do with being or not being a Deist?