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

Mr ProgFreak wrote: I'm pulling out of the debate about Scientific Realism ... I think I was wrong in mentioning it in the first place, since it carries some baggage that I don't care for at all. I avoided those points that you disagree with unintentionally, because I didn't know them at the time. Ever since I tried to clarify, but you seem to be more concerned with teaching me a lesson. Be that as it may, the victory is yours and I don't care - since my main point remains Theism vs. Atheism.

Fair enough. I wasn't intent on teaching any leasons: because it ran parallel with the Atheism (science) is Faith (belief) argument it was something I didn't want ignored and why I laboured the point that science does not apply to belief ... which is something I have maintained throughout these debates. To me that's the two side of the same coin - belief isn't science ergo science isn't belief (okay - that's simplistically put - extrapolate that anywhichway you like).

Mr ProgFreak wrote: I see it slightly differently. Theism vs. Atheism is a question of belief ... you either believe in a God or you don't. IMO science enters into this because many religions make claims about the world based on their theology which are in conflict with the knowledge we have gained by applying the scientific method. Most common example: Creationism vs. Evolution. Such contradictions can influence a person's beliefs. I'm not necessarily saying that they do, but IMO there is definitely a connection.

^ Do you have some examples for Atheists groups doing these things? Because I'm not aware that any popular Atheist that I would agree with advocates them, and neither do I.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: I see it slightly differently. Theism vs. Atheism is a question of belief ... you either believe in a God or you don't. IMO science enters into this because many religions make claims about the world based on their theology which are in conflict with the knowledge we have gained by applying the scientific method. Most common example: Creationism vs. Evolution. Such contradictions can influence a person's beliefs. I'm not necessarily saying that they do, but IMO there is definitely a connection. When religion makes such claims they are not using science - they are using something that superficially looks like science but it's not, so their claims are quickly refuted and dispatched with real science. That they ignore those findings and persist in repeating themselves is not reason to keep examining their evidence. For example vertical fossils have been explained using standard geological methods, yet they continue to use the same "evidence" as proof of either young-earth or biblical flood and as evidence against evolution, to the extent that they've even gone as far as inventing their own term for it (polystrate) to make it sound scientific. Science has demonstrated a workable methodology for formation of vertical fossils and the process (trees growing through alluvial deposits) has been observed as happening in nature today - no further examination of their claims is required. Which kind of takes us all the way back to the animation at the beginning of this thread.

I agree - and this is also why I claimed that the discussion is settled early on in the thread and added a "" right from the get-go.

IMO what this discussion really boils down to - once you remove the pseudo-scientific layer - is this:

A) You believe anything until it is demonstrated to be wrong
B) You believe nothing until it is demonstrated to be true

I've seen A) so often with Theists or even Deists and Agnostics. It's a kind of "live and let live" attitude where you're supposed to respect (as in: not criticize) any theory until there is hard evidence that proves it wrong. I much prefer B), and I think that B) is more rational than A).

PF...whre is that zappa clip again? Absolutely brilliant, best youtube clip I have seen in ages. Point me in the direction please I cannot find the thread...erm that is if you have not been blown up by angels yet EDIT: found it, dumb dumb dumb

Edited by Chris S - September 05 2010 at 14:33

Mr ProgFreak wrote: @Dean: Islam and Judaism "wholeheartedly" accept the theory of evolution ... when did that happen?

Sorry to intrude(especially since I am new). Islamic creationism, unlike other form of creationism, addresses the issues of evolution to a new different level.

Muslims believe that Humans are the children of Adam, but they adhere to the fact that all creatures are formed from the process of abiogenesis, and then furthered into evolution - this is because Earth was created a long time ago, as per their belief. This is quite the contrary of the popular creationism, where all creatures where placed at the same time, and there is no evolution; everything is static, and the earth is 6000 years old.

Al-Jahiz was the first Muslim to propagated the theory of evolution. 

------

Enough with that.

My stance on Atheism and Theism: I am an Irreligious  and a secularist sceptic. 

I was a Muslim; I was non-observant Muslim when I was a child. Apostate? I don't know. You decide. 

Most people think I am a Muslim, or a Muslim pretending to be an atheist, or a Pro-Islamist(especially on youtube).

I am non of that. It is called playing the devil's advocate. 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: but if as you say they believe in the literal story of creation (at least as far as Adam is concerned)  then that would also be incompatible with the scientific theory of evolution.

I agree. We already have viable evidences that we are not exactly the children of Adam. Still, I have to respect the Abrahamic religion beliefs. 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Apostate? I guess you are, from a Muslim point of view. From my point of view any child is born without a belief - forcing it on them when they're too young to make that decision is indoctrination, and I would call it a form of child abuse which hopefully some day will be illegal - but don't ask me how that could be accomplished without infringing the rights of the parents - that's a tricky problem. But anyway, as far as I'm concerned you were never a Muslim by choice and therefore you are not an apostate.

Yeah. But ssshhhh, keep it quiet, I don't want to be killed!

No. When you are born from both Muslim parents, you are automatically a Muslim, and already a Muslim(believes in God instinctually), if you are not a Muslim(but you have to preform the Sahada).

To be honest. My parents never taught me to pray, or forced to me to by heart Quran and etc. My father was non-religious(back then), and mother isn't even concerned about my faith. Though, I believed in Allah and what not. 

Around here, in Middle East-Arabian Gulf. If a person declares his apostasy, then that's a problem. Atheist, and even agnostic are prone to prejudice. The best thing to do is to call yourself a Secularist(which is, I am) around here. I am agnostic, as I don't know if god exist or no; whence sceptic.

^ It surprises me that you calling yourself a secularist causes you less problems in such societies, since the separation of church and state is a blasphemous act. But maybe it depends on which country in the Middle-East you're living in. I doubt that it would work in Saudi-Arabia, for example.

 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ It surprises me that you calling yourself a secularist causes you less problems in such societies, since the separation of church and state is a blasphemous act. But maybe it depends on which country in the Middle-East you're living in. I doubt that it would work in Saudi-Arabia, for example.

Secularist as in irreligious; not a devotee, does not follow religious matters, or out of religion.

I live in Kuwait. freedom of religion is practiced, but not publically because it is a predominately an Islamic country. Declaring apostasy from Islam is still a problem, though. 

The only other ones that are safe in K.S.A are the Christians and Arabs.  

CCVP wrote: Besides, if you account that the book is something like 6-4 thousand years old, you can pretty much tell that, accortding to it, the Earth is between 10-12 thousand  years old. If you think that the first civilizations came into existance around that point in time, it makes perfect sense, for the people who wrote it, that the whole creation was only 6k years old.

Civilisation did came around 12k year before. But Muslims also believes that Adam lived for approximately 15000 years; Noah, which came long after Adam, lived for 9000 years or so.

I actually don't know what kind of years are those. But, as you can see. And Evidence shows that human were actually around for over 60k years.

And the book is certainly 4000 years old. But, oh we do have evidence that earth is a bit more older than 12K. 

Edited by DreamerVerX - September 05 2010 at 16:06

DreamerVerX wrote: CCVP wrote: Besides, if you account that the book is something like 6-4 thousand years old, you can pretty much tell that, accortding to it, the Earth is between 10-12 thousand  years old. If you think that the first civilizations came into existance around that point in time, it makes perfect sense, for the people who wrote it, that the whole creation was only 6k years old.  Civilisation did came around 12k year before. But Muslims also believes that Adam lived for approximately 15000 years; Noah, which came long after Adam, lived for 9000 years or so. I actually don't know what kind of years are those. But, as you can see. And Evidence shows that human were actually around for over 60k years. And the book is certainly 4000 years old. But, oh we do have evidence that earth is a bit more older than 12K.

Yes, definitely. I do know that our planet is actually billions of years old and that mankind, despite being relatively young, is still much older than mythologycal accounts, such as The Bible, set them to be. But to be completely fair, science is still struggling to set a definitive timeframe as when man really came by, etc, etc. I can easily agree that the homo sapiens came by around 60k years ago, if not even more back in time, but the thing is, you must think like they did. They didn't have all these researches and sources to drink from. They only had tales and  myths to back their writings. Therefore, I can easily say that their accont for the creation is pretty close to what they believe it actually happen, with the ammount of knowlege they had at the time.

I'm not here to defend creationism or other silly thing. Those so-called "theories" are one of the most hurtful things to the intelect of any person that gives some minimal thought about it. Despite the evidences of the theory of evolution not being 100% conclusive, they are pretty damn strong and to defend that everything came out of thin air overnight is one of the silliest things I could ever think of.

My point is that, if you read the mythological books of creation (The Bible Q'uran, etc) using a methaforica understanding, they make a lot of sense, only if you put your mindset in the mindset of the people that wrote it, of course. if you take it literally, it would not make any sense.

In fact, I do believe in avolution .