Theism Vs Atheism

[GojuBrian]

SB,

Did you research the prophecies of Daniel yet?

 

[Guest]

You can say whatever you want to say to this post, but be advised that i am not going to read it nor care about it.

Then I shall provide a brief response. (Which you will read and probably respond to.)

The definition of "atheism" employed comes from "atheists," themselves. (See evidence above.) If "atheism" is merely the lack of theism, then "atheism" has nothing to contribute to discussion of the god-question.

 

[animal]

What do theists have to offer to the discussion that atheists don't?

 

[merlow]

So, I would like to repost GojuBrian's question in a modified form. What does the atheist believe?

I'm not going not going to go around and around in this dance with you. You can spend all day creating strawmen and defining atheism in whatever way you like.

The burden of proof is on the theist. You have not supported any reason that it should be otherwise.

SB

GojuBrian's question wasn't asking for proof. It was simply asking what do you believe. You do believe something don't you?

 

[animal]

I'm not going to speak for SB but I'm a naturalist. I "believe" what is experimentally verifiable. I "believe" what I and what the rest of sane humanity agrees to be real.

 

[Guest]

What do theists have to offer to the discussion that atheists don't?

If you mean "atheists" then the theist offers a position with reasons. "Atheists" offer no position because they have no position. Therefore, they can offer no reasons for their position. "Atheism" is the "non-position position." Atheists, on the other hand, offer a competing position with reasons. Allow me to elaborate.

Let P be "I believe Q." Let Q be "God exists." Therefore, Q is a subset of P. Also, let ~ be "not" or negation. There are four potential statements which can be adhered to on the belief continuum.

P(Q) = I believe God exists. (Theism)
P(~Q) = I believe God does not exist. (Strong Atheism)
~P(Q) = I do not believe God exists. ("Atheism" or Weak Atheism)
~P(~Q) = I do not believe God does not exist. (Never seen it used.)

Next, what is a position? A position is an opinion or perspective which adheres to a given belief. This means, in order to be a position, it is necessary to have a belief. This excludes "atheism" as a position. So, as to prevent any doubts about the clarity of my logic, I will employ the logical syllogism of modus tollens to show "atheism" is not a position.

[Modus tollens: If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.] If a position necessarily has a belief, and "atheism" is merely a lack of belief in God, then "atheism" is not a position.

If a discussion is defined by the exchange of alternative ideas between parties involved, then what does the one without an alternative idea have to offer the discussion? Nothing.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Can we universally agree? A dispassionate look at nature won't help us.

Who cares? This is irrelevant. The animals you refer to do not have the intellectual capabilities that we have (or if they do, they are not as developed) - capabilities that allow us to ponder our actions, consider their consequences, empathize with other creatures, reason etc. What animals do seems irrelevant as it relates to our morality.

I don't think it's irrelevent when deriving a morality. It is a point that is being overlooked and it is especially relevant when those doing the "overlooking" consider humankind nothing more than an advanced animal.

Veritas,

Why do you write "nothing more" than an advanced animal?

In this case, we are talking about a species that is advanced enough that it can appreciate objective moral truths on its own as I have described. What is the "more" that will satisfy you?

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

SB,

Did you research the prophecies of Daniel yet?

I'm working on it.

SB

 

[Guest]

I'm not going to speak for SB but I'm a naturalist. I "believe" what is experimentally verifiable. I "believe" what I and what the rest of sane humanity agrees to be real.

Thank you. I do actually believe the discussion is between theism and naturalism, rather than atheism. That is, unless we define atheism as including naturalism. Though, I know many do not.

With regards to your question about Krishna, my response is P(~Q). I believe Krishna does not exist outside of the myths and legends about him. Of course, that is unless someone could show Krishna and the God of the Judeo-Christian faith to be one in the same. However, I do not reject the existence of Krishna on a lack of evidence. Rather, I reject the existence of Krishna because the idea is logically inconsistent with the God of the Judeo-Christian faith in which I believe.

I know many people love to cite Stephen Roberts. So, I always found it odd that Roberts rejected the God of the Judeo-Christian faith because he found it to be inconsistent with the God of the Judeo-Christian faith.

And if anyone ever asks, you are my favorite person on here.

 

[animal]

And you believe in the Judeo-Christian God rather than Krishna because?

 

[Guest]

And you believe in the Judeo-Christian God rather than Krishna because?

Given my current understanding of the nature of belief, I am incline to suggest the most influential reason probably has to do with sociocultural factors. Then, again, belief is never a simple thing. Beliefs come about through the interactions of many factors (e.g., intellectual, educational, experiential, emotion, and so on). Thus, it would be difficult for me to say anything with a high degree of confidence. After all, I am still discovering who I am.

Indeed, asking "Why do you believe X?" is like asking "Who are you?" Each question seems simple on the surface, but we often struggle to orchestrate anything more than a meager response.

 

[animal]

We're on the same page with this one. Why do you think that's a good reason (I presume) to believe something?

 

[Guest]

We're on the same page with this one. Why do you think that's a good reason (I presume) to believe something?

Do you mean, "Why do you think sociocultural factors are a good reason to believe something?" If so, I prefer to use other terms to describe the reasons because "good" and "bad" come with too much luggage. I would consider the reason for belief to be both pragmatic and incomplete. It is pragmatic because it promotes social integration. It is incomplete because, let's be honest, I lack omniscience. That, of course, is quite simplified and the benefits and problems of the reason are far more complex than such a brief analysis would suggest.

 

[animal]

So you're saying the belief in the supernatural is "good" (my word) because it's useful and because it's existence can't be proven or disproved? Looking back at the history of all religions it is obviously useful. Cultural evolutionists and even evolutionary biologists have agreed it's beneficial but that includes Buddhism so they're not just talking about "God" being beneficial. Just wanted to make that clear before someone ran with it. You've agreed that you're a Christian rather than a Hindu because you grew up around Christians and possibly even in a Christian home I presume. I did the same. I still spend most sundays in church with my family. If we agree on so many things and most likely even live very similar lives why do I not believe in anything supernatural? All religions have their miracles. All religions have had that "stone" rolled away. Why can't I see a difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Krishna?

 

[Guest]

So you're saying the belief in the supernatural is "good" (my word) because it's useful and because it's existence can't be proven or disproved?

I should address three issues.

First, this question appears to separate the supernatural from the Judeo-Christian God. Within our common heritage, they are two ideas in one package. Thus, those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God rather come to such belief through choosing supernaturalism and then the Judeo-Christian God. Rather, they accept them together.

Second, I suggested belief in the Judeo-Christian God serves the purpose of social integration. Social integration is something which happens, and I do not perceive it as necessarily good or bad.

Lastly, my response to choosing the Judeo-Christian God was merely a response as to how I came to believe, to the best of my knowledge. It was not an attempt to argue why the Judeo-Christian God should be accepted by others, nor why the Judeo-Christian God is a better choice than Krishna. My rejection of Krishna is the logical consequence of a prior belief. This does not mean I am closed off to exploring the reasons for people's beliefs, nor reasons why one should believe in other deities (or reject them).

Why can't I see a difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Krishna?

That's because our reasoning begins from differing perspectives.

 

[JoJo]

Why can't I see a difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Krishna?

Because you don't know Him.

Have you ever spoken out, "God, if you are there, reveal yourself to me! I need to know you. I want to call you Lord!" ?

 

[animal]

I've told you before I was as much a Christian as you at one point. And if I ever asked that question wouldn't it be obvious I was either already, or desperately wanted to consider myself to be a believer in God?

Thor, if you are there, reveal yourself to me! I need to know you. I want to call you Lord!

Whoa ..you guys won't believe what just happened... Unless you want to.

I'd like you to repeat the line about Thor, Jojo and tell me how it feels. That's exactly how I would feel if I repeated yours.

 

[animal]

So you're saying the belief in the supernatural is "good" (my word) because it's useful and because it's existence can't be proven or disproved?

I should address three issues.

First, this question appears to separate the supernatural from the Judeo-Christian God. Within our common heritage, they are two ideas in one package. Thus, those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God rather come to such belief through choosing supernaturalism and then the Judeo-Christian God. Rather, they accept them together.

I was actually going for the opposite. As far as the belief goes, belief in the Judeo-Christian God is no different than believing in anything that's "supernatural".

Second, I suggested belief in the Judeo-Christian God serves the purpose of social integration. Social integration is something which happens, and I do not perceive it as necessarily good or bad.

As well as other religious beliefs correct? At least the major ones.

Lastly, my response to choosing the Judeo-Christian God was merely a response as to how I came to believe, to the best of my knowledge. It was not an attempt to argue why the Judeo-Christian God should be accepted by others, nor why the Judeo-Christian God is a better choice than Krishna. My rejection of Krishna is the logical consequence of a prior belief. This does not mean I am closed off to exploring the reasons for people's beliefs, nor reasons why one should believe in other deities (or reject them).

I'm in a rush so I'm going to make this quick.. Do you agree these different people's beliefs are no different than my disbelief?

Why can't I see a difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Krishna?

That's because our reasoning begins from differing perspectives.

I don't believe it does.

 

[Guest]

First, this question appears to separate the supernatural from the Judeo-Christian God. Within our common heritage, they are two ideas in one package. Thus, those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God rather come to such belief through choosing supernaturalism and then the Judeo-Christian God. Rather, they accept them together.

I was actually going for the opposite. As far as the belief goes, belief in the Judeo-Christian God is no different than believing in anything that's "supernatural".

Fair enough.

Second, I suggested belief in the Judeo-Christian God serves the purpose of social integration. Social integration is something which happens, and I do not perceive it as necessarily good or bad.

As well as other religious beliefs correct? At least the major ones.

Yes, they can and do serve the purpose of social integration.

That said, I want to clarify your argument. You are arguing all religious belief is the same because the choice to follow a given religion is based on the cultural context of a child's upbringing, correct?

Lastly, my response to choosing the Judeo-Christian God was merely a response as to how I came to believe, to the best of my knowledge. It was not an attempt to argue why the Judeo-Christian God should be accepted by others, nor why the Judeo-Christian God is a better choice than Krishna. My rejection of Krishna is the logical consequence of a prior belief. This does not mean I am closed off to exploring the reasons for people's beliefs, nor reasons why one should believe in other deities (or reject them).

I'm in a rush so I'm going to make this quick.. Do you agree these different people's beliefs are no different than my disbelief?

You are going to have to expound upon this question.

Why can't I see a difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Krishna?

That's because our reasoning begins from differing perspectives.

I don't believe it does.

Explain.

Edit: Fixed quotation.

 

[JoJo]

I've told you before I was as much a Christian as you at one point. And if I ever asked that question wouldn't it be obvious I was either already, or desperately wanted to consider myself to be a believer in God?

Thor, if you are there, reveal yourself to me! I need to know you. I want to call you Lord!

Whoa ..you guys won't believe what just happened... Unless you want to.

I'd like you to repeat the line about Thor, Jojo and tell me how it feels. That's exactly how I would feel if I repeated yours.

"As much a Christian" as me? animal, the fact that you could so thoroughly drop your belief in God shows me that you did not experience Christianity as I experience it. For you to make suppositions about my level of commitment to Christ and then compare it to your own is pretty gutsy.

There is a difference between calling out to God and repeating a line. It's what's in the heart that counts. If you sincerely seek Him, you will find Him. It's not an imagined experience; it's very real. I pray you will one day experience Him as I do.