Theism Vs Atheism

[Guest]

Minnesota, does Krishna exist?

I am not a stamp collector!

 

[Silver Bullet]

I fully admit I base my morality on faith. And I work logically from that point; rather than overlooking the fact I made a presupposition in the first place.

In fact, I am quite sure that the consideration of the wellbeing/harm of others is precisely the primary consideration you apply to the Bible when you read it and decide that its morality is appealing to you.

It does have a ring of Truth to it, yes. An honest introspective look at myself reveals that, although yes, I do think the consideration and wellbeing/harm of others to be somewhat primary

Your statements above seem contradictory to me. Either your primary source of morality is scripture, as you claim, or it is a consideration of well-being/harm, as I have described. I will remind you that you have suggested that obtaining morality from scripture is intellectually superior to other methods, including what I and Dr. Kagan have described. This is precisely what we have been discussing, and you can't have it both ways. Which is it?

What "faith" is required to say that "rape is evil"?

Rape is objectively evil. The only thing required to recognize that are the faculties that advanced apes called humans possess.

You've presupposed it is objectively evil. (By the way, I think that is a VERY good presupposition) Conversely, Nietzsche had other presuppositions that were primary, that are not yours or mine or Kagan's. Nietzsche remained logically consistent in his thought process: I am not saying I agree with Nietzsche, just that he remained logically consistent.

No. Rape is evil. Full stop. I haven't presupposed anything. Our species is intelligent and empathetic enough to recognize that rape is evil precisely because of the consequences of rape. No presuppositions are required, only the faculties that make us human. If other species developed those faculties, they would come to the same conclusion.

I don't know a thing about Nietzsche but on the moral considerations that I have described, we could certainly have a discussion about whether his advice was moral or not. The Nazis might have been logically consistent (I'm no saying they were, I don't know enough about them), but whether they appreciated it or not, they were immoral.

I still do not understand why you think that morality must come from a supernatural perfect source of morality, or that the universe must have a supernatural source. You have not provided good arguments supporting why scriptural morality is the best morality, nor why the "laws" of science require a "lawmaker" (this is a logical fallacy of equivocation).

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

The connotative meaning is that defining atheism as "without belief in theism" is asinine and non-contributory. Basically, it's a weasel definition employed by atheists, often unknowingly, attempting to avoid their responsibility to the conversation -- which is to support their perspective. The definition has reached the status of myth as atheists now seek to defend it with such topsy turvy reasoning that it bends even the minds of the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalists. It has also become encircled by other fanciful notions like "you can't prove a negative," "atheism is the default position," and "babies are atheists."

In other words, if the "without belief" atheist is unwilling to actually engage the question, "Does God exist?" then why should I bother appeasing them by presenting my perspective and reasons? I should not.

Sorry, but Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot deftly dealt with this common attack on atheism long ago. I have not yet seen an adequate rebuttal to Russell's teapot. Are you saying that you have one?

I hope, given the admitted drama of your avatar, that you will have the courage to respond to this and animal's post. If you prefer to exclaim at the top of your lungs that you don't collect stamps, please do so elsewhere, as we are trying to have a productive discussion here.

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

God never set out to prove he exists, he simply said " I Am."

God says this in the Bible. So how did you decide that the Bible is worth believing in the first place?

And how is believing in this God anything other than being gullible?

SB

 

[Guest]

Sorry, but Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot deftly dealt with this common attack on atheism long ago.

Really? And which attack would that be, old chap?

I hope, given the admitted drama of your avatar, that you will have the courage to respond to this and animal's post. If you prefer to exclaim at the top of your lungs that you don't collect stamps, please do so elsewhere, as we are trying to have a productive discussion here.

How ironic. My point has been made for me.

 

[Guest]

Rape is evil.

Why is rape evil?

 

[Evointrinsic]

You do know i was referring to the original posters incorrect claim that all atheists believe in evolution, and the implication that evolution is an intrinsic property of atheism? not just simply stating that "Atheist means not Theist"? There for making my post a contribution to the topic at hand and opening up more discussions. Unlike your post which is completely irrelevant and the actual one which provides no contribution what so ever.

 

[Guest]

You do know i was referring to the original posters incorrect claim that all atheists believe in evolution, and the implication that evolution is an intrinsic property of atheism? not just simply stating that "Atheist means not Theist"? There for making my post a contribution to the topic at hand and opening up more discussions. Unlike your post which is completely irrelevant and the actual one which provides no contribution what so ever.

What are the marks of a productive discussion?

 

[GojuBrian]

God never set out to prove he exists, he simply said " I Am."

God says this in the Bible. So how did you decide that the Bible is worth believing in the first place?

And how is believing in this God anything other than being gullible?

SB

If I am gullible for believing in God and his word then I am happy to be gullible!!

 

[Evointrinsic]

What are the marks of a productive discussion?

One that allows for further analyzes at the topic at hand without straying too far from the original points in question. There for random outbursts over minuscule remarks over an element that really had nothing to do with the original post is irrelevant to bring up in the first place.

Making this post in response to your most recent one and your most recent one unproductive. Also meaning that your continuous dragging on over an irrelevant discussion a misuse of most forum rules otherwise known as "Topic Hijacking"

So i suggest you refrain from bringing this topic off hand and not bother anyone with a response to this post other than "ok ill stop" in avoidance of unnecessary mod interference.

thank you.

 

[Guest]

What are the marks of a productive discussion?

One that allows for further analyzes at the topic at hand without straying too far from the original points in question.

Interesting. Then, shall we return to the "original" point to which you were responding?

What do atheists who don't believe in evolution believe in ??

This is a curious question, indeed Brian. What do "atheists" (placed in quotations to distinguish from strong atheism) believe? It is a common assertion that "atheism" is merely the absence of theism. Something which has be hinted at in the post to which I initially responded. This means "atheists" have no beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God. They have no position, no perspective, nothing on the existence or non-existence of God. That makes for a curious situation. What is the thread about?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions

It seems the original post was looking for suggestions -- suggestions for supporting the existence of God in a debate. If the "atheist" has no position, no perspective, nothing on the existence or non-existence of God, then it raises the question as to what the "atheist" could possibly contribute to such a thread.

This creates a dilemma. If the "atheist" posts to this thread, then it can be assumed the "atheist" has something to contribute and by deduction a position, perspective or some opinion on the existence or non-existence of God. However, in such a case, the "atheist" would cease to be an "atheist."

The atheist (note the absence of quotes) or persons with differing perspectives may well be able to contribute to such a thread, but the "atheist" cannot.

So i suggest you refrain from bringing this topic off hand and not bother anyone with a response to this post other than "ok ill stop" in avoidance of unnecessary mod interference.

How quaint.

 

[GojuBrian]

minnesota,

I think you just proved the thread doesn't exist!

 

[JoJo]

So i suggest you refrain from bringing this topic off hand and not bother anyone with a response to this post other than "ok ill stop" in avoidance of unnecessary mod interference.

I'm not bothered. Anyone else bothered?

 

[Evointrinsic]

Any atheist has a right to post here Minnesota. And you dont need a perception of god to respond to a suggestion topic about a debate. Especially when it includes Atheists.

If you re-read my first post I (assuming that you are referring to me when you say "The atheist") clearly am giving aid to the original poster by stating a flaw in his original questions there for helping by giving him facts about Evolution, Atheism, and Theism instead of a continuously reoccurring myth that only Atheists believe in evolution and that they are intrinsic properties of each other. In other words, suggesting that he/she use a different list of questions, which would be the entire point of this thread. correct me if im wrong.

 

[Guest]

Any atheist has a right to post here Minnesota. And you dont need a perception of god to respond to a suggestion topic about a debate. Especially when it includes Atheists.

No one has a right to post here. We are all privileged. However, this misses the point.

My argument is that the "atheist" cannot contribute to this thread because the "atheist" has no opinion. There is nothing they can contribute. It is an impossibility. On the other hand, the atheist is capable of contributing.

If you re-read my first post I (assuming that you are referring to me when you say "The atheist") clearly am giving aid to the original poster by stating a flaw in his original questions there for helping by giving him facts about Evolution, Atheism, and Theism instead of a continuously reoccurring myth that only Atheists believe in evolution and that they are intrinsic properties of each other. In other words, suggesting that he/she use a different list of questions, which would be the entire point of this thread. correct me if im wrong.

Then we agree you are not an "atheist."

 

[Silver Bullet]

My argument is that the "atheist" cannot contribute to this thread because the "atheist" has no opinion. There is nothing they can contribute. It is an impossibility. On the other hand, the atheist is capable of contributing.

Wow. This is powerful stuff. Now we are really getting somewhere.

Kindly search back in this thread or use google to learn about Russell's celestial teapot.

Let us know when you have an actual argument.

SB

 

[Evointrinsic]

Then we agree you are not an "atheist."

What again is your definition of an "atheist"? (with quotes)

 

[Silver Bullet]

God never set out to prove he exists, he simply said " I Am."

God says this in the Bible. So how did you decide that the Bible is worth believing in the first place?

And how is believing in this God anything other than being gullible?

SB

If I am gullible for believing in God and his word then I am happy to be gullible!!

Of course you are. The 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11 were too, as is virtually every suicide bomber in the middle East. Same with the Mormon's who believe that their underwear will protect them from bullets, and the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny their children life-saving blood transfusions because they are happy to know that they are securing their child eternal life by doing so. I'm sure the people who believe that the holocaust or moon-landing didn't happen are happy to believe what they believe, as are those who still put stock in their horoscope or fortune teller's information.

The bottom line is this: you either have good reasons for believing what you believe, or you don't.

You didn't answer my first question.

SB

 

[Guest]

Kindly search back in this thread or use google to learn about Russell's celestial teapot.

Being familiar with Russell's teapot, I am curious what makes you believe it is somehow relevant to my argument?

Please, enlighten me.

 

[Veritas]

What i see you doing is actually a bit of mistake. Most people who believe in evolution are actually theists. And seeing how Atheism isnt really a religion, not all people who are Atheists believe in evolution as it is not a requirement of Atheism or Evolution.

Am I the original poster you are refering to? My intent was not to claim all atheists believe in evolution. I meant to show that some atheists derive their morality in strikingly different ways depending on their initial suppositions. Also, as far as theists who believe in evolution: more often than not, they admit to a moral framework above and beyond that of the mere natural.