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

Tony R wrote: Ad hominem; my favourite fallacious argument.

Trademark is only saying the guy can't explain his own position. That's not even an ad hominem because he's not remarking on the argument or saying the argument is wrong because of anything Dennett is.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ It's pretty Anti-Theist though. You're re-defining the gods, making the positive claim that they're not what the Theists claim they are. I agree with you though - or at least, like I said, I'm leaning heavily towards it. And I always liked the term "Post-Theist", although I always understood it more literal: To me a "Post-Theist" is someone who refuses to discuss Theism vs. Atheism at all, because he's come to the conclusion that gods are man-made delusions and we should get past that stage of our cultural evolution and move on. Count me in on this definition! Except for this thread of course. I would never use the word "delusions" simply because it is inappropriate and not accurate - I do not believe that there was any deliberate attempt at deception in the creation of gods so subsequent believers have not been deluded or tricked at all. The reason people believe is (oddly enough) because it is believable. To you and I this is a contradiction and a problem, because to us it is not believable.

You're giving the word a connotation that it doesn't necessarily have ... it simply means "false belief" in that context. I like the word because a key element of religion is that once people hold these false beliefs they tend to get increasingly irrational in defending them - in essence they are being deluded by their fears and desires.

Dean wrote:   Of course I could ask where, in this or any other religious thread, have I ever discussed Theism vs. Atheism? I think I've made a point, especially with you, of discouraging such discussions because of the ultimate futility of them. The only evidence-truth-proof of a belief is self-referential and contained wholly within the belief system itself - that's the beauty of simplicity and the elegance of design - what people have called the "get out of jail free" card or the "god works in mysterious ways" card that there is no atheist trump-card for. After surviving 200 years of post-enlightenment thinking, the system isn't going to be tripped-up by anything I can write.   That's not to say I don't find such discussions to be interesting, and will "join-in" where I see an opening worth exploring.

If you think that "god works in mysterious ways" trumps anything ... I disagree. To me it's a self defeating argument. But I agree that many Theists will see it as a valid point, which is the key problem in these discussions: a disregard of logic.

Negoba wrote: Words are symbols we use to help understand phenomena. None are truth. All stories whether called myth or hypothesis are made up by humans. Usefulness is the only metric by which a story can be measured.   I respect that you don't find the creation storie(s) in Genesis useful. I do, though I don't think they are useful in the same way as "I made potatoes for supper" is for my family.

So for which purpose are those stories useful, in your opinion? I guess that we could call any old book useful in that we could read it for entertainment or historic study, that should go without saying. But a usefulness of the biblical stories should transcend those of other historic/mythical stories. If it doesn't, your argument is kind of pointless, since it advocates a very trivial form of usefulness IMO.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:    Iván_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Understood as a man for about 1800 years or more, and then maybe understood as humanity by an increasing number of people. Please excuse me for saying so, but this seems like a really, really lame excuse to me. Why not admit that the basis for your religion is a fairy tale? It even features a talking snake. Making up excuses in hindsight is not a valid defense for a position IMO.   Mike again WHY ARE YOU MAKING LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS THAT WE DON'T MAKE? The 1800 yeas is only allegoric if you want, but the Bihble is not a history book with exact dates and years., please understand tis. Even when it's obvious I didn't expressed mnyself well (Made a wrong cut and paste of a post I had started to write hours before),  you never tried to understand me.   For 1,800 or even 1,900 years, the people believed  that what we understand as allegoric today was an undeniable truth.

My point was simple: A literal belief in the story of creation was dominant throughout most of the history of Christianity, while the acceptance of Evolution and the rejection of the story of creation as a literal truth is a very recent event in historical terms - like 5% of the time. What I find curious is how modern Christians like yourself argue so confidently on the basis of some 1960 decree of the Catholic church that Evolution is to be accepted - like that would somehow remove the other 95% of the time from the discussion. I know that you probably grew up with that understanding, so it seems intuitive to you - what I'm trying to say is that Christianity is deeply tied to the story of creation, and you cannot remove it from the equation that easily.

Iván wrote: One of the mistakes of the Churches in general was to sell us this literal interpretation as the truth, because they believed that in this way we would believe without questions (They thought we would accept God if they told us the beautiful story of Genesis han if they told us the complicated reality), but even the most faithful persons, start to ask when something is not logic, and we are able tio understand God doesn't act in such obvious ways.   It was crucial for the Church that we believed Adam was a real person, because the Medieval concept  that expanded to the late 1800's was that the Original sin consisted in sexual relations between Adam & Eve because they wanted us ti believethat sex was dirty and unnecesary except for procreation.

I agree with much of that. But most of it is still true today. The Catholic church in particular is still very concerned with sex for any other purpose than procreation, for example. Little by little their values crumble (as Dan Dennett shows beautifully in the lecture, with religion starting like the Mount Everest and now being much like a somewhat hilly landscape).

Iván wrote: Even in this century, there was an Index Librorum Prohibitorum  (Abolished in 1966 byv Paulus VI) telling us what to read and what not to read, and and even when  "The Origin of the Species" was not  in that codex,. we were  recommended to avoid it.   So if men believed in an allegoric text as 100% real for more than 1800 years, it was for a wrong position of the churches (including mine) or simply lack of knowledge od men and churches....Now this has changed in most Churches, and the few that still believe in creationism of the Genesis Book, are the fundamentalists that will always exist   Iván

The principle still applies though, and you refuse to let go of flawed concepts. You refuse to draw the obvious conclusions. Most of what the church has ever taught has been proven wrong and is no longer believed to be true. What today remains are revised versions of some teachings that are now unfalsifiable - for example initially Christians were taught that heaven was a place on earth, soon to arrive, since Jesus said it would. Today that has changed into this concept of heaven (or hell) in the afterlife. To me this seems like a rather convenient move, since it eliminates the burden of proof. Unfortunately (for Christians) it also eliminates the relevance.

I don't expect you to agree with me - you're a devout Christian for whom abandoning the faith is obviously not an option no matter what other people say - but I hope that you see what my argument is about.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: seventhsojourn wrote:     ''We haven't found a good Mormon or Catholic''   ''The Concept of God Delusion'' doesn't have the same ring to it.  There we go with the pathetic straw men.

And the "Taking Things Too Seriously" award goes to...

Also, his use-mention error stuff is hard to follow, like all Philosophy of Language, and I'm pretty sure that's not the best stuff to bring up when trying to distance philosophy from the accused useless theology.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: My point was simple: A literal belief in the story of creation was dominant throughout most of the history of Christianity, while the acceptance of Evolution and the rejection of the story of creation as a literal truth is a very recent event in historical terms - like 5% of the time. What I find curious is how modern Christians like yourself argue so confidently on the basis of some 1960 decree of the Catholic church that Evolution is to be accepted - like that would somehow remove the other 95% of the time from the discussion. I know that you probably grew up with that understanding, so it seems intuitive to you - what I'm trying to say is that Christianity is deeply tied to the story of creation, and you cannot remove it from the equation that easily.

Mr Progreak wrote: I agree with much of that. But most of it is still true today. The Catholic church in particular is still very concerned with sex for any other purpose than procreation, for example. Little by little their values crumble (as Dan Dennett shows beautifully in the lecture, with religion starting like the Mount Everest and now being much like a somewhat hilly landscape).

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 21 2010 at 11:08

Proletariat wrote: I tend to find the recent post box useful on occasion... i dont know, you certainly have a point regarding it.

By all means continue to use it, I just think that it's not really useful for finding out what is going on in the forum. Here's the two biggest reasons:

a) It's limited to 10 entries
b) it's not aggregated by thread

So essentially as soon as one thread has much more activity than the others, the list becomes completely useless. The active topics page on the other hand is not only aggregated by thread, but also not limited in length. Its main drawback IMO is that it's grouped by forum category - I'd like an active topics page with only one big chronological list of threads.

Proletariat wrote: as to your second point, I see no "good reason" for either set of beliefs... If there is not a god then there is no point in either belief or disbeleif other than the ability to say one is right. Only if religion is correct does it matter... and as for definitive evidence, there will never be any either way. if we proved the big bang, evolution, whatever, the religious will say its a lie or that god created big bang, evolution. If the christians are right there proof will be the apocalypse and it will be to late for me, I will have the mark of the beast for sure

The problem is that religious beliefs cause people to behave differently - it informs their actions. I am opposed to religion mainly because of these harmful effects, and they are also why I think that these discussions matter. I agree with Dean on "Post-Theism", but as long as - just to give one small example - there are children suffering or even dying because their parents refuse medical treatment or vaccination because of medical reasons, as long as such things are happening, these discussions are relevant IMO.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: My point was simple: A literal belief in the story of creation was dominant throughout most of the history of Christianity, while the acceptance of Evolution and the rejection of the story of creation as a literal truth is a very recent event in historical terms - like 5% of the time. What I find curious is how modern Christians like yourself argue so confidently on the basis of some 1960 decree of the Catholic church that Evolution is to be accepted - like that would somehow remove the other 95% of the time from the discussion. I know that you probably grew up with that understanding, so it seems intuitive to you - what I'm trying to say is that Christianity is deeply tied to the story of creation, and you cannot remove it from the equation that easily.   Well Mike, you have a partial view when yu say Chritianity's acceptance of evolution is a recent issue.   Better say that EVOLUTION IN HISTORICAL TERMS IS RECENT FOR ALL HUMANITY, Darwin published his theory in 1859, this represents less than 1% of the history of humanity.   But again, you are not saying the truth, our minds didn't changed for a decree in 1966, in 1966 the Index Librorum Prohibitorum  was abolished BUT DARWIN WAS NEVER IN THAT CODEX. As a fact, Catholic Chutch accepts or at lñeast admits that the Biblical story of the Genesis is not accurate almost since Darwin's theory was released: In 1893, Pope Leo XIII accepted that the apparent literal sense of the Bible might not always be correct (Only 44 years after the publication of Darwin's theory). REven a couple decades before this, some Cardinals and Theologists accepted Evolution, evemn when thjis couldn't be official.- In 1950, Pius XII wrote Humani Generis (A Papal Encyclical) and said: the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. This is an acceptance of the Evolution Theory as lomng as we accept that the soul comes from God So Mike, again your claims are biased and flawed.

^ I wouldn't be as presumptuous as you and decree a winner here - I'll let the "audience" decide. Please keep in mind though that one of the core principles of science is change (along with the evidence), while one of the core principles of religion is dogma (which stays the same regardless of evidence). Sure, the theory of evolution is as new (in historical terms) for atheists as it is for
religious people. The difference is that it can destroy the foundation of a religion (by being incompatible with its dogmatic teachings), while atheists don't have any problem with it. The point is that atheists are not making any claims that could become problematic with new scientific findings. 

Iván wrote: Mr Progreak wrote: I agree with much of that. But most of it is still true today. The Catholic church in particular is still very concerned with sex for any other purpose than procreation, for example. Little by little their values crumble (as Dan Dennett shows beautifully in the lecture, with religion starting like the Mount Everest and now being much like a somewhat hilly landscape). First, the sex is not exclusive for procreation purpose, if this wasn't thruth, post menopausic women, or sterile men, wouldn't bre allowd to marry, what the Church insists is that the sex must be limited to the boundaties of matrimony and that contraception should not be admitted (Something most Catholics, including me, ignore)

Well, seems you have a lot of confessing to do. But I guess that you're not taking that one seriously, either. Am I really that wrong about Christians "on paper"? I mean, who are you to determine which things you can safely ignore? You need to fight those atheistic (humanistic) tendencies.

Iván wrote:   Now, you say Christian values start to crumble, that's just an expression of your wishes, I say Christian values are in constant evolution.

I would rather say "erosion" than "evolution". In any case it's more a form of artificial selection, where scientific advances force the church to little by little adjust their teachings to become more and more transcendental (that's what Dennett is referring to as "murky"), with Deism as the end result. Please, compare the teachings of your Catholic church at the time when it started to today. I'm not talking about 1000+ page doctrines here, I mean the stuff that the actual Catholic must do in order to be able to call him self a good, average Catholic. Will you honestly tell me that in this case the modern version bears any resemblance to the original?

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: The principle still applies though, and you refuse to let go of flawed concepts. You refuse to draw the obvious conclusions. Most of what the church has ever taught has been proven wrong and is no longer believed to be true. What today remains are revised versions of some teachings that are now unfalsifiable - for example initially Christians were taught that heaven was a place on earth, soon to arrive, since Jesus said it would. Today that has changed into this concept of heaven (or hell) in the afterlife. To me this seems like a rather convenient move, since it eliminates the burden of proof. Unfortunately (for Christians) it also eliminates the relevance. I don't expect you to agree with me - you're a devout Christian for whom abandoning the faith is obviously not an option no matter what other people say - but I hope that you see what my argument is about.   The funny thing is that you place us in a no win position:   If we remain faithful to the ancient concepts, we are fanatic, ignotrants and science enemies.

Of course. It's not my choice though, it's because you refuse to let go of your history. That baggage is yours, not mine.

Iván wrote: If we evolve, we are just taking a more convenient position according to you...So what must we do, stay and be morons otr evolve and be liars that take the most copnvenient position?

You should distance yourself from the flawed concepts. But, since Jesus is intimately tied to these concepts, you're blocked from that option. I notice that you're getting angry over this, but again: It's not my fault.

Iván wrote:   The truth is that you want humanity to evolve, but you ignore that religion is part of humanity, so we must also evolve in our beliefs, the message for people in the bronze age, was full of allegories and bbeautiful stories because they weren't ready to acccept evolution and the Big Bang /(Which by the way was discovered by a Catholic Priest), but today we are ready to accept that science and God may co-exist.   Iván

I would like for humanity to evolve beyond the need for religion. Some of us already have, so I'm sure that it's not a genetic thing. I simply think that our brains are not functioning completely logical all the time (to put it euphemistically), and while mechanisms like confirmation bias and the various ways of coping with cognitive dissonance certainly were assets in our evolution, they also make us vulnerable to not only acquire false beliefs, but also to having great difficulties to identifying and getting rid of them - the longer we carry them and the more we invest in them, the more difficult it is.

Maybe at some point you'll be able to let go of the bronze age baggage ... you're making this entire argument much more complicated than it could be. I simply won't accept any belief unless someone demonstrates to me that there are good reasons for holding it. That includes ancient myths like the stories of the old testament as much as the stuff that your particular religion added, like the wafer transformations and modern day miracles. If you don't like the label "atheist", simply call me a skeptic.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 21 2010 at 11:07

In time this thread will get too big, be closed, and we'd have to make Theism vs. Atheism ... is it settled? 2.