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

thellama73 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Theist A: "Only Muslims will be saved" Theist B: "Only Christians will be saved" Conclusion: "They can't all be saved" (if either A or B is true) I like this. Let's continue. Conclusion 2 (the Mike postulate): Probably neither A nor B is true. Conclusion 3: The possibility of everyone being saved is not ruled out.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: On the other hand let's compare some specific Theist claims: Theist A: "Only Muslims will be saved" Theist B: "Only Christians will be saved" Conclusion: "They can't all be saved" (if either A or B is true)   I disagree because your claims are FALSE   A.- Even when I don't know much about Islam, I read that several scholars talk about salvation outside Islam.   B.- Catholics (who represent the vast majority of Christians) believe that there is salvation outside Catholicism, and I proved with quotes that I won't repeat another time   As I said before, have you ever stoped to think that the three, Jews, Catholics and Moslems believe in the same God of Abraham, and the perspective of followers is what changes?

If you think that everyone is saved regardless of which religion they believe in, religion becomes equally pointless.

Iván wrote:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: The fundamental difference here is that the Atheist position isn't a positive claim.   No, you make negative claims with no definitive proof.   Iván

Which claims would that be? Some claims require evidence, some don't - and it doesn't depend on who is making the claim, but on what kind of claim it is. Tell me the particular claims that you have in mind, and I'll try to explain the situation to you.

Negoba wrote: In a nutshell it's making sure that the claims that you make are demonstrably true.   This is a pretty high standard for "rationality," and I'm not sure that this is how many people would define the term. I've said I believe in objective reality, but "Demonstrably true" can be pretty slippery. Many things are reasoned (and reasonable) but don't meet the threshold of "demonstrably true."

Can you provide some examples?

Negoba wrote: But of course you have to distinguish between the subjective and objective point of view. In the subjective realm more claims may be demonstrably true, since you can use your memory as a form of evidence. But in the objective realm - which you may claim might not exist, we discussed this and I disagree - you have to demonstrate that your claim is rational to other people. Again, I believe in objective reality, I just think our ability to accurately describe it is limited. Your final sentence refers to the scientific process and not rationality per se. It may be splitting hairs but there are alot of people who would be offended if you said "That statement is not rational," but if you said "That statement is not scientific," they'd easily accept that.

Maybe so, but using the word "scientific" would lead to an immediate dismissal of the point for many people as well - for the old "science doesn't know everything" point. I disagree with that, because the scientific method has turned out to be the only reliable way to find out what's real, and what isn't.

How about this:

"That statement has no basis in objective reality"

Negoba wrote: "There is probably no God" Subjective, irrational.

Why? This is exactly the flaw in your reasoning. "God" is a placeholder for many theories, most of which have been demonstrated to be flawed in the aspects which are subject to scientific investigation, others have simply been dismissed by their followers in favor of other theories. All in all, they all make some positive claims (and quite extraordinary ones, too) without a shred of evidence. I think that it's a rational decision (albeit not a scientific one, which is exactly why I don't use the word in this context) to say that it is more likely that none of them are true than that one of them is true.

Negoba wrote: This is rational because the many God claims cannot be demonstrated objectively to be true.   Replace rational with scientific you may actually be able to defend the statement. With rational, as you can see, you're going to get pounced on.

It's exactly the other way round. Using "scientific" here would be wrong. And sorry, I'll get pounced on regardless of which word I use, the pouncing is caused by my not accepting the subjective arguments that Theists have for their particular religion.

Negoba wrote: So while by all means Theists can continue to believe that their particular version of "God" exists, the Atheist position (which this statement paraphrases) is arguably the more reasonable position.   With all the qualifiers, ok.   Again, once you accept subjective points of view then it all changes - but we're talking about the objective point of view here.   I assert that by limiting yourself to overtly objective phenomena, you've evaded the question.

That's a good one. First of all, what's the difference between "objective" and "overtly objective" - and if there is one, could you provide some examples for stuff that is "clandestinely objective"? I submit that you're simply trying to sneak in subjective stuff that way.

But I'll gladly make the concession that I am limiting myself to objective phenomena. If you think that this is evading the question, then maybe you misunderstood it.

Negoba wrote: And finally, let's look at an irrational claim: "God exists, and He wants you to have your male children circumcised"   Again, this is rational, but is based on an authority some recognize and some don't. You can argue about the validity of the authority but it's not irrational.

Very funny. By your logic every possible statement is rational as long as I can suppose some authority behind it. Well, if you do then you're simply shifting the irrationality to this authority. The inherent problem with all religion is that they're establishing an authority without any good (rational) reasons.

Negoba wrote: There are no objectively rational reasons for believing that, and that is the whole point of this thread.   No, for the reasons already stated.

I've refuted those reasons.

Negoba wrote: I think there's an important distinction that needs to be pointed out. 1. Is there a white haired guy in the sky that gets angry when you look at curvy girls too long?   I find this unlikely, though this might point to an aspect of divinity. (I actually doubt that too but it's possible)

So you find Theism unlikely. How is this different from saying that it's probably not true?

Negoba wrote: 2. Is there any kind of higher consciousness that played a part in our origins?   I find this much more possible, but virtually impossible to know given the nature of our universe.

That's Deism - I agree that it's possible, and most other Atheists will agree.

Negoba wrote: 3. If so is this consciousness, outside, or intrinsic to, our conception of reality?   I happen to believe both (panentheism) but many seem to conceptualize God as outside our reality. When Atheists make their case, they almost always address only this idea of God.

I'd say that this is a pointless question until we can definitively answer it - or rather, until we know whether the premise is true (the "if so" part). If all the answers we come up with are merely speculations, then it simply doesn't matter - I don't care which speculation you prefer.

Negoba wrote: 4. If not, are there non-conscious higher forces that played a part in our origins?   Yes. Obviously.

Why? And if so - which higher forces created those higher forces? The fact that we don't know how abiogenesis worked doesn't mean that a higher force must have done it. In fact, evolution shows that simple things can give rise to more complex things. Experiments in the 60s have shown that some of the building blocks of life can form from inorganic material in a natural way, without any higher force.

Negoba wrote: 5. If so, what is their nature?   Who knows, and this here is the kicker. Whether those forces can completely be described by current physics (unlikely) or whether the process is simply watchmaker-like (also seems unlikely), we simply don't know. The Atheist position is reasonable but not the only reasonable possibility. Thus, my objection to Mike's line of argument.

You have not demonstrated a position that is as reasonable as Atheism. See the previous point - it's Atheism plus one added positive claim ("there was obviously a higher force") without any evidence to back it up.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 27 2010 at 01:56

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: On the other hand let's compare some specific Theist claims: Theist A: "Only Muslims will be saved" Theist B: "Only Christians will be saved" Conclusion: "They can't all be saved" (if either A or B is true)   I disagree because your claims are FALSE   A.- Even when I don't know much about Islam, I read that several scholars talk about salvation outside Islam.   B.- Catholics (who represent the vast majority of Christians) believe that there is salvation outside Catholicism, and I proved with quotes that I won't repeat another time   As I said before, have you ever stoped to think that the three, Jews, Catholics and Moslems believe in the same God of Abraham, and the perspective of followers is what changes? If you think that everyone is saved regardless of which religion they believe in, religion becomes equally pointless. Well, no, becuase neither catholics nor muslims believe that everyone will be saved (sinners ain't gonna be saved that they all agree on) - if everyone gets a free-pass then not only is religion pointless, but the whole concept of judgement and salvation becomes pointless.

Thanks, saved me a retort -mea retorta

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Negoba wrote: I think there's an important distinction that needs to be pointed out. 1. Is there a white haired guy in the sky that gets angry when you look at curvy girls too long?   I find this unlikely, though this might point to an aspect of divinity. (I actually doubt that too but it's possible)   So you find Theism unlikely. How is this different from saying that it's probably not true?

The pleasure I receive from listening to "Firth of Fifth" or "Revolution Calling" is purely subjective. Yet others can experience similar pleasure sufficient that we'd like to talk about it. There might even be enough to make a website.

Edited by Negoba - August 27 2010 at 13:24

^ We've been down this road before ... I've specifically said that I reject God and am by no means seeking him sincerely, and even then you weren't sure if I was going to go to hell.

^ Do as you please, it's not relevant to this discussion whether you believe this claim or not.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: Well, no, becuase neither catholics nor muslims believe that everyone will be saved (sinners ain't gonna be saved that they all agree on) - if everyone gets a free-pass then not only is religion pointless, but the whole concept of judgement and salvation becomes pointless.   Lets be clear, I will talk for us Catholics and repeat the quote for 4th time:   ::snip::   It's clear, even when we believe our Church is the true and only one, salvation may be reached by other religions in special cases.   Iván