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

It would be interesting to go through this thread and see when the last time was that someone said something that hadn't been said before. 60 pages at least I bet. People are just affirming their own positions over and over in the face of contrary views without really taking anything in from others. Some call that pointless. I call that life.

Boogabooga...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The T wrote: Ivan, in my country (which probably is similar to yours on this regard) confirmation usually happens by the sixth grade... At that point in life nobody is really able to say "I don't want to be confirmed!" Most parents decide whether the child will be confirmed or not, not the child himself.  I don't think religion is ever a free choice for children.    If I'm not wrong Ecuador never signed the Concordate with the Holy See that defines the atributions of the Church and the acts that afect education. , but again if I'm not wrong, in the 6th grade you don't do Confirmation, but First Communion.   I studied my whole school in Saint Mary's Catholic School, I made my first communion and first confession there, but never we made the Confirmation, I can tell you this by personal experience, my Sister also studied in a Catholic School and she made her confirmation in order to marry, also I know this because I'm her confirmation Godfather.   Iván

Textbook wrote: I agree with T. People generally have a religion forced on them but in order to maintain personal dignity, make up a story about how they freely believe in it. I mean South America in particular, come on. I don't know how the Catholic church hasn't been kicked out of the continent by now. I'd love to know what gets taught in history class over there.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Textbook wrote: I agree with T. People generally have a religion forced on them but in order to maintain personal dignity, make up a story about how they freely believe in it. I mean South America in particular, come on. I don't know how the Catholic church hasn't been kicked out of the continent by now. I'd love to know what gets taught in history class over there.     Please don't question our history knowledge, having been in some countries outside S. A. I found that in some cases we know about their history more than them.   We are not the ignorant people many outside our region believe.   Iván

Negoba wrote: Mike, For this conversation, consider me a belligerent agnostic, I don't know, and neither do you. And since you don't, actively trying to take down other beliefs is misguided.

Negoba wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Negoba wrote: Mike, For this conversation, consider me a belligerent agnostic, I don't know, and neither do you. And since you don't, actively trying to take down other beliefs is misguided. There's much that I don't know - but that doesn't affect my Atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s), and I fail to see how this lack of belief could be contradicted by a lack of knowledge. You on the other hand draw the opposite conclusion: "We don't know" -> "Any belief is justified" Sorry, but that seems totally bogus to me.   I don't make that claim, though I get your point. I personally think many religious ideas are overly concrete, literalize metaphor, and are immature in a way. But I don't have enough knowledge to try to convince other people of my views. I'll share them in an open conversation, but I'm not going my ideas are better for the reasons you describe below.

I simply don't have any such ideas. I mean, I may have them from time to time, but I think they're personal and aren't worth communicating to others.

Negoba wrote: Negoba wrote:   I admit I hope for divinity, sacredness, and an afterlife. I highly doubt that my conceptions of those things resemble anything you think about when you think about religion, however. For this argument I make no difference between any supernatural claims. If you can't prove them, they're not rational - it's as simple as that. I'm fine with you having such beliefs, and I won't try to talk you out of them, short of merely pointing out that they're not rational.    It's not supernatural in my mind. These things are completely natural. You're statement "If you can't prove them, they're not rational" is patently false. And that's my main point. I can point to things that operate beyond anything we can prove or understand and yet are clearly part of the natural world. They are rational, just beyond me.

They may be rational to you, but not to other people, which is why I simply call them irrational. I imply an objective (or collective, if you will) point of view, which may be wrong - I should be more precise.

Negoba wrote: Negoba wrote:   Frankly, my personal experience gives me personal evidence that points toward everything from blackest nihilism to benevolent creation. All these things have validity and flaws. Even putting aside the question of where's the point in evidence which points toward everything - it is, as you said, personal, which means that it's totally irrelevant to me. They exist in your consciousness, and there is no way for you to demonstrate them to me in a way that I could verify their validity.   Not everything can be proven with a double blind placebo controlled trial. Some things are only accessible (at least right now) through appeal to personal experience. Shared personal experience is the way we evolved in fact. Now if my ideas and experience cannot be shared usefully in any way, sure you can say they're irrelevant. I don't feel that's the case though.

Things that are only acccessible through appeal to personal experience may very well only exist in your head. The only thing that can be proven about them is that you believe they're real. Sharing is not possible, although of course a group of people might develop the idea that they shared the same experience. But usually our minds are predisposed to have supernatural experiences of concepts that they already have a firm idea of ... that's why Jesus usually doesn't appear to Hindus.

Negoba wrote:   Negoba wrote:   The question Theism or Atheism - is it settled? Well of course not - you don't know for sure, I don't know for sure, and as far I can imagine, it is impossible for any human to know within the confines of this human existence.   In fact it is settled - it was always settled (hence my wink emoticon in the first post). See the first paragraph of this reply - Absolute knowledge is not necessary for the Atheist position.   The only way it's settled then is that you've settled on it.

Think again about what it is that I'm saying. That *is* settled. If you think it isn't, please point it out to me - but I think that you misunderstand my position. I think that I understand your position, and it's not really incompatible with mine.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 26 2010 at 10:05

^^ If you think that nothing can be proven - or in other words, that rationality as I define it doesn't exist for you - then you can't have any meaniningful discussion with anyone ... and if nothing matters anyway, I wonder why you even bother to bring up stuff like genetic drift or punctual equilibrium.

I think that we can assume as fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. If it doesn't, we'll have worse problems than pondering whether reality is an illusion.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^^ If you think that nothing can be proven - or in other words, that rationality as I define it doesn't exist for you - then you can't have any meaniningful discussion with anyone ... and if nothing matters anyway, I wonder why you even bother to bring up stuff like genetic drift or punctual equilibrium. I think that we can assume as fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. If it doesn't, we'll have worse problems than pondering whether reality is an illusion.