| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Devil's/Angel's advocate; - think the other way... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 18 2009, 02:43 AM (387 Views) | |
| Post #1 Aug 18 2009, 02:43 AM | Prometheus |
|
During a discussion about religion with a friend yesterday i asked a question that I want to ask you too: Atheists, what do you think is the best argument(s) for theism? Theists, what do you think is the best argument(s) for atheism? And finally, what do you think is the best argument(s) for your own worldview, whatever that might be? I think that the cosmological/fine-tuning-argument is one of the better ones for theism, though I don't think it's valid. The problem of evil, evolution and comparative religion is i.m.o. the best arguments for atheism. |
|
|
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil... prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon... - Terry Pratchett | |
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Aug 18 2009, 03:49 AM | Perry |
Human weakness. Not qualified to answer. It fits the world. Perhaps we just need to appreciate the depths of our ignorance? That there are some things we cannot explain. No deity construct is necessary. Edited by Perry, Aug 18 2009, 03:50 AM.
|
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Aug 18 2009, 06:12 AM | Huxley |
I do not think there is a 'best argument' for theism. All of them are pretty weak and I have never encountered one that didn't involve simple wishful thinking. However, you might just as well humour them with the ontological argument: If you can imagine God then he exists. There you go; it's that pathetic.
I demand evidence and proof. I am prepared to accept anything on the strength of it. I see no good reason to believe in a God and have seen nothing appraoching persuasive at all.
Do not fall into the theistic trap of lumping these in with your argument. That is what these theists want. The 'problem' of evil is no problem to the humanist, cynic or sceptic. He recognises humans have warts. Evolution is true whether you beleive in a Hindu God in your anus. Only real fundies deny it - some very intelligent people who call themselves Christians accept evolution entirely. Comparative religion is just mythology that some people still believe in. All of these has nothing to do with atheism which is nothing more than a lack of beleif in God/s. Do not get embroiled in these debates where you end up being defensive over items that have nothing to do with religion. It is for the theist to present some sort of viable case for their silly beliefs. |
|
  | |
|
|
|
| Post #4 Aug 18 2009, 01:54 PM | Joe E. Holman |
| PoE and evolution for atheism. Theism...uh, probably the Kalaam Cosmological quibble. I may do a full-length article on this topic. Good post. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Aug 19 2009, 10:47 AM | Huxley |
|
With respect, Evolution is no argument. Evolution has nothing to do with deism or theism and it behoves anyone who undertands evolution to not get embroiled with a dense, ignorant thesits who wilfully or otherwise, has no understanding of evolution - because he/she cannot square it with their mythology. One should make a simple statement about atheism. If a theist engages you about evolution, you should simply ask them what do they wish to know? If they suggest holes in the theory, just point out that they are talking crap and the very holes they imagine just simply do not exist. I am starting a personal campaign to ensure that theists cannot discuss evolution within a religious context. If the theory were found to be completely wrong, it would still not validate the notion of a fire and forget, creator God. Dont let theists put you on the backfoot. If they wish to discuss evolution, do so but if they start with their cynical and wilful denial of the theory just refer them to the likes of talkorigins.org ar similar where their ignorance will be corrected. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #6 Aug 19 2009, 12:32 PM | Prometheus |
I see what you mean, but what I meant with "arguments for atheism" was of course in a content like a discussion between an atheist and a theist. If you start with a skeptical mindset you don't need any arguments for atheism. |
|
|
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil... prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon... - Terry Pratchett | |
|
|
|
| Post #7 Aug 23 2009, 01:50 PM | Huxley |
|
I think you'll find that when an atheist and thesit engage in actual conversation, its gonna need the theist to bring up the subject - which will be very easy for them to do. They will be curious about atheism and evangelistic over their theism. Just dont get sucked in to matters that dont concern atheism. "(which is not much other than you have no good reason to believe in Gods) There is at least one idiot on here who will gladly waste a slice of your life by trying to change parameters of what constitutes proof and evidence - these people are just obnoxious to your spirit and should be avoided like an overflowing cesspit. But you will occasionally - very occasionally meet a theist who might be prepared to engage you in discussion - because they might have their own doubts also. Have a word with Joe; he has been handling these people for a long time and he can advise you how to deal with them. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #8 Aug 23 2009, 03:05 PM | Perry |
Hhhmmm . . . I thought double-barrelled shotguns were no longer in vogue? Even in Texas. Edited by Perry, Aug 23 2009, 03:06 PM.
|
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Aug 25 2009, 04:46 AM | Noel Cookman |
|
And just when I received this nice note from Huxley . . . Hello, Ionian Spirit.net here. It is some time since you last posted anything on here. Some of you have not posted anything yet. Be a devil and jump right in, create some thoughts and be adventurous! Introduce yourself; be a part of our peanut butter community. If you are reading this, we want to hear from you - it's been a while! Thanks for reading, Huxley. Admin. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Aug 25 2009, 05:18 AM | Noel Cookman |
|
Dear Prometheus: I, for one (and maybe the only one) think that your questions can be fruitful; but, only if taken seriously of course. You should know that the reason Huxley wishes for you to avoid me is because he cannot answer my questions and is aghast that I do not think and argue on his terms. As you probably know, context and framework are everything. That is, without a realistic appraisal of the very framework under which you make an argument, debate and even conversation is just "blah-blah-blah." However, please take note of a couple of things. First of all, note the manner in which Huxley has stated his worldview. He hasn't. He simply says "I demand proof." This may be a factor in how he claims to evaluate truth or reality. But, it is not a world view. In my experience, it is a deflection of the real issue of evidence. This is illustrated in that he (and anyone else on this forum) has been unable to successfully state a reasonable response to this question: Precisely what evidence would you accept for God's existence? Joe made a good go of it. Perry, after much cajoling and back-and-forth, posited a silly response. I was able to demonstrate that neither response would actually be evidence of God's existence. In fact, the question is virtually unanswerable by any atheist. The only response is to cry "foul" or to obfuscate. Without intending to, I pushed them into a dogmatic "corner." The basic and only response of an atheist is dogmatism. Watch for response to my posts and you'll see what I mean. Yet, my question is somewhat related to your set of questions. And one that I think could be addressed by you. Also note that, even though your atheist compadres deny a philosophical category of atheism (i.e. the word atheism is a denotation of what does not exist and therefore needs neither defense nor category), they each cannot help but to speak in terms of a category of atheism. In truth, the entire forum is predicated upon the notion that atheism is a philosophical category. Thus, in my opinion, it needs and requires a defense. To address your questions head-on, I think that the strongest argument for atheism is hedonism. Albert Camus was candid about it. Essentially he said that his preferred lifestyle (sexual promiscuity) did not emanate from his philosophy/theology. Rather, he said, his philosophy/theology emanated from his sexual appetite. To put it in street terms, he preferred to fuck around on his terms and therefore found it useful to dismiss a belief in God. I personally find this forthrightness refreshing. Unredeeming; but, refreshing in a twisted way. The strongest "argument" for theism is both evidence and experience. If there is no credible testimony for a belief system (or a "truth claim") it should be relegated to theory and studied only when reasonable evidence surfaces and embraced only when the individual has no other choice, sort of like Martin Luther "here I stand, I can do no other." I have greater difficulty with the experiential part; for, even within "Christian" circles, experience varies widely and is many times judged harshly to favorably - and for good reason I believe. As Joe has rightly noted in his book, personal experience can be used to "validate" a great many things. This is why things should be "tested" as one of the apostles urged. I have studied the evidence and am quite convinced that there is overwhelming credibility to a great body of evidence for Jesus Christ and the claims made by and about Him in the New Testament. But, that is the product of my having done my homework and I am unwilling to do it for someone else for a few reasons. Mainly because of my earlier question of the precise evidence that would be required to convince you (or anyone) of God's existence. If I do the research for someone else, I might well produce evidence that is satisfactory to me but unsatisfactory to another, depending on their resistance levels. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Aug 25 2009, 08:05 AM | Joe E. Holman |
I've got to disagre with you here, Hux. Evolution is atheism and atheism is evolution. That's how I see it. All attempts to meld beliefs of evolution and god-belief have failed because the idea that a great mind who uses time to set up his creation canot be made sense of. A man who lives for 500,000 years before he learns to add a slanted roof to a house so that water will not pool up on top and collapse it is not smart. It's just time and experience that made the change. He finally learned! That's Ingersoll, btw, not me. If God created everything through evolution, then he isn't very smart. Nothing makes sense. He had to spend a virtual eternity growing the right sized animals and landscapes, the moon had to recede, etc. No creator would stretch out those changes, and that's what it gets down to. The system of evolution itself doesn't make room for belief in a deity. I know it's not current thought, but it once was. When the integrity of Genesis was respected 60 years ago and back, there was no acknowledging figurative days of creation or God slowly evolving lizards, or anything of that shit. So, no, I believe the unshakable understanding of evolution says there is no deity. And just as Dawkins says, I believe there should be no debate between those who oppose evolution. There's no debating the facts. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Aug 25 2009, 07:38 PM | Huxley |
Oh Fuck. Cookman is off again. What the prick hasn't told you is that we have demanded an explanation of his idea of evidence and proof.
See how far up his own ass the deluded fuck really is? This has been requested by many members but Cookman is either too thick or wilfully ignorant of the requirement. Prom, if you can be bothered to read all the pronouncements of Cookman you are most welcome to try and, if you don't lose the will to live , you can draw your own conclusions about this flaming Troll who cannot produce any evidence to back his ridiculous assertions and blathers on about the nature of evidence, attempting to divert attention from the fact he is a vacuous prick. You will also see he has been requested many times by many members. Several people have tried to deal with him on a rational level to no avail. In fact most of us, despite his incessant bullshit, cannot figure out what the prick actually thinks, since he wraps everything in hyperbole. But please by all means - enjoy. I would ban his ass off this site but he's too damn funny to lose.  Joe, we will have to agree to disagree. I am perfectly well aware that if evolution is true there could not be a perfect creation. Evolution is imperfect. But the important points are that: Evolution is true whether you believe in God or not. There is no percentage in engaging these pricks in discussion of evolution because of their ignorance. Let them learn about it before they attempt to pick holes. Evolution for all its imperfections, teaches nothing more than that a perfect creation is totally unnecessary and that the evidence shows none occured. Why allow these pricks to dictate the agenda? If they know the square root of fuck all about evolution, why allow them to use it as a reason for their theology?
And that's exactly what I mean; don't let it be part of their agenda. [/big] Edited by Huxley, Aug 25 2009, 07:45 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #13 Aug 25 2009, 11:52 PM | Prometheus |
For example that the world would look like the bible describes it. Even though there might be a few people that leave faith because they want to live as they want to, I think that almost all of the ex-christians here left faith because there's no evidence for christianity being true. |
|
|
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil... prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon... - Terry Pratchett | |
|
|
|
| Post #14 Aug 26 2009, 03:27 AM | Joe E. Holman |
But it still remains the fact that evolution will "de-convince" anyone who happens to hold the preconception that life was created or designed by a heavenly tailor. Properly considered, even OECs (not just YECs) are convinced in time. I look back to my doubting days and remember trying to solve the issue of carnivorous life. It's the details that get to you. Hence, the facts of evolution are convincing as arguments against a position. It doesn't matter that Aristotelian logical models aren't set up to prove it. Just think of how the discovery of a non-flat earth is also counterbiblical. Don't get into that trap of saying such-and-such is "not an argument." |
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Aug 26 2009, 04:39 AM | Perry |
|
To save you searching, Prometheus . . . In the simplest of terms, Noel was asked to adduce anything empirical that would be fairly classed as supernatural. Being unable to do that, it was suggested that walking on water would suffice. Being unable to do that, he dismissed the request as silly. Noel has no empirical evidence (for his gawd-construct) and also avers he need not advance any. EOS |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Religion discussion/biblical criticism/philosophy · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:55 PM Jul 31
