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

Mr ProgFreak wrote: He's certainly not trying to "get" the political correct guys.

And neither is Pat Condell. Which is their mistake and why the rest of us will continue to ignore them or be amused by them depending on whether we can endure their diatribes to the bitter end or not.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: He's certainly not trying to "get" the political correct guys. And neither is Pat Condell. Which is their mistake and why the rest of us will continue to ignore them or be amused by them depending on whether we can endure their diatribes to the bitter end or not.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ He is making the point about the earth being round instead of flat. Of course you can choose to ignore it and/or come up with an apology (defense) of why it's no big deal that the Bible makes such a blatantly claim about the world.

Adams Bolero wrote: Mike if you’re going to showcase atheists then at least showcase ones that are articulate and not some arrogant YouTube star with an attitude problem. This guy is an insult to atheism. Jean Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche must be turning in their graves.

You mean like ... Dawkins?

The T wrote: ^That common sense has a double side Mike. Believing that some higher power is watching you may make you care more about what you do on this life, specially if you are meeting him afterwards. If you don't, however, you might don't give much of a damn about anything.  It all has relation with what kind of person you are, not what you believe in or what you don't believe in. Your argument makes sense but an opposite one like the one I just made makes as much sense.

"Take no thought for tomorrow". Some advice ...

Do you honestly believe that doing things in order to please a God will make any one behave more sensibly than they normally would? I would think that our motivation should be to get along somehow and help each other, and not to ensure that we'll do well in the next life.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ He is making the point about the earth being round instead of flat. Of course you can choose to ignore it and/or come up with an apology (defense) of why it's no big deal that the Bible makes such a blatantly claim about the world. Trying to think where the bible blatantly claims the Earth is flat...     ...nope.

Think of all the verses that mention the four corners of the earth. BTW: That's also why we have four gospels in the canon.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: I don't agree with Dean when he says that the tools of science can not be applied to religion. I knew you'd say that     Religion is not a science, even if theology has an -ology to show that it is a subject of study the subject being studied is not science so you cannot apply the scientific method to it.   In the past you have accused me of being an apologetic - I'm not - I make no excuses for religion or religious thinking, I just accept that it cannot be defeated with simple logic and scientific facts because it is a belief system, not an explainable, falsifiable, logical, scientific system.

Religions makes claims about the world - the Theistic God interacts with the physical world, and that's where religion becomes falsifiable.

Another example: The soul. Many Christians claim that stem cell research is murder because the blastocyst  has a soul - but they fail to explain at which point the soul enters the fetus - or whether identical twins share a soul, or Chimera have two souls.

See? Even when the concept of "soul" is entirely metaphysical and essentially not falsifiable, religion goes a step further and makes detailed claims which can be shown to make no sense.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: He's certainly not trying to "get" the political correct guys. And neither is Pat Condell. Which is their mistake and why the rest of us will continue to ignore them or be amused by them depending on whether we can endure their diatribes to the bitter end or not. Do you think that there is any way at all to "get" the politically correct guys? I honestly doubt it.

Stop calling them "the polically correct guys" and you're halfway there. No one ever listens to people who call them names.

You can't be a theist and a scientist. A scientist believes the universe is an object with properties and causal chains which can be studied and understood. A theist believes the universe is under the control of a sentient being that can do as it pleases, much like magic, making all scientific knowledge illusory.

No, a theist cannot be a scientist. Anyone who says they are is pretending on one front. Either they don't fully believe in science or they're not fully committed to their faith. Either you believe the world is governed by physical properties and we can attain mastery over our lives by fully understanding those, OR you believe it operates at the whim of a magical mastermind who can alter the "rules" or steer things down any path it pleases at any time without regard for scientific law. I don't see how you can say "both".

Textbook wrote: No, a theist cannot be a scientist. Anyone who says they are is pretending on one front. Either they don't fully believe in science or they're not fully committed to their faith. Either you believe the world is governed by physical properties and we can attain mastery over our lives by fully understanding those, OR you believe it operates at the whim of a magical mastermind who can alter the "rules" or steer things down any path it pleases at any time without regard for scientific law. I don't see how you can say "both".

I don't know any christian who believes that the world operates on the whim of a magical mastermind. Please give examples of this so I can go away and ponder it more.