Theism Vs Atheism

[animal]

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?

Normally that plays a pretty big role in what religion a person considers themselves to be a part of for their entire lives. Whether or not they're a true believer is a different story.

I'll respond to the rest later today.

 

[animal]

If you sincerely seek Him, you will find Him.

You don't see what my problem with this is? If you sincerely seek Thor, you will find Him.

 

[Guest]

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?

Normally that plays a pretty big role in what religion a person considers themselves to be a part of for their entire lives. Whether or not they're a true believer is a different story.

The question was understood. Yet, no answer was provided. Interesting. Why did animal avoid answering the question? What is he trying to hide from?

 

[animal]

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?

Normally that plays a pretty big role in what religion a person considers themselves to be a part of for their entire lives. Whether or not they're a true believer is a different story.

The question was understood. Yet, no answer was provided. Interesting. Why did animal avoid answering the question? What is he trying to hide from?

You asked me to clarify and for me there was no yes or no. Nearly yes I would say but per your request I clarified.. I'm not sure why you think im avoiding something or trying to "hide".

 

[Guest]

You asked me to clarify and for me there was no yes or no. Nearly yes I would say but per your request I clarified.

Yes, I wanted clarification. I presented what I considered to be a good summation of your argument. I wanted to know whether or not my summation was accurate. And now, with this response, the issue is even more obfuscated.

I'm not sure why you think im avoiding something or trying to "hide".

The manner in which your questions are formulated indicate an attempt to lead the conversation. That is, they focus on a common theme and are only loosely connected to the quoted passages. Where are you attempting to lead the conversation? Or, in more layman's terms, what is your point?

 

[animal]

This conversation has headed in way too many directions.

 

[Silver Bullet]

That is a good juxtaposition

Is there a greater purpose for our lives?

or

Is the only purpose for our lives what we make of it?

I would explore how the second option is livable as compared to the first.

I would like to point out that even if there is apparent value in the belief that our lives have a higher purpose (and I am not saying that there is), that would not for an instant provide any evidence that (a) our lives actually do have a higher purpose, nor that (b) Christianity defines the true higher purpose for our lives, nor that (c) Christianity (presumably the "theism" in question in the debate at that start of this thread) is correct/true.

Belief in the Tooth Fairy might make our lives more "livable".

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Also, explore the question of morality.

Is there an absolute moral law to follow?

or

Do we make up a moral law? Is it all relative?

Again, if we draw out the second question to its reasonable conclusions, is that really livable?

This question has to some extent been addressed in this thread, and I would like to emphasize that moral relativism is not the only alternative to a divine absolute moral law, as discussed in previous posts. This falsehood is commonly held among religious believers. The following debate involving William Lane Craig, one of the foremost Christian thinkers of our time, explores objective moral truth existing without God:

http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/693

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Another compelling argument is the existence of reason and logic itself.

Veritas,

I wonder if you would expand on how the existence of reason and logic support belief in the Christian God.

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

SB,

Did you research the prophecies of Daniel yet?

I have been unable to find any detailed information on this topic from an apparently unbiased, non-Christian source.

Can you point me in the right direction?

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Sorry - double post.

SB

 

[Guest]

I have been unable to find any information on this topic form an unbiased, non-Christian source.

It is a Quixotic quest to seek an unbiased account in any of the humanities. It's like seeking a linguist who has never pondered Chomsky's theory of generative grammar.

Nonetheless, The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume I and Volume II is an academic or critical series on the Book of Daniel from a variety of perspectives.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Thanks. You make a good point. It's also hard to know what to trust in the news given that reporters are supposed to be "unbiased", while there are fairly clear political biases in the way that the news is reported. Nonetheless, the appearance of bias when it comes to searching the prophecies of Daniel is powerful, to say the least. This sort of biblical prophecy is about all the "evidence" Christians have to go by isn't it (and Muslims and Jews seem to have their own as well)? That combination makes it especially suspect. As I have said before (though I wasn't the first to say it), 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. . .

"Quixotic".

I like that.

SB

 

[Guest]

Thanks. You make a good point. It's also hard to know what to trust in the news given that reporters are supposed to be "unbiased", while there are fairly clear political biases in the way that the news is reported.

This is what makes critical thinking important. With sound critical thinking skills, we learn to navigate through the accounts and develop our own perspectives.

Nonetheless, the appearance of bias when it comes to searching the prophecies of Daniel is powerful, to say the least. This sort of biblical prophecy is about all the "evidence" Christians have to go by isn't it (and Muslims and Jews seem to have their own as well)? That combination makes it especially suspect. As I have said before (though I wasn't the first to say it), 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. . .

I suppose such, the suspect nature of Christian claims, would depend on the perspective one begins with.

 

[Silver Bullet]

This is what makes critical thinking important. With sound critical thinking skills, we learn to navigate through the accounts and develop our own perspectives...I suppose such, the suspect nature of Christian claims, would depend on the perspective one begins with.

minnesota,

You have mentioned perspective in several of you posts. Can you expand on the interaction of perspective and critical enquiry? It seems to me that critical enquiry would require that one suspend their perspective as much as possible, that critical enquiry is impossible without the freedom to consider various if not all perspectives as objectively as possible.

Thus, the apparent truth or falsehood of Judeo-Christian beliefs should be subject to critical enquiry whether one is a Muslim, atheist, or Christian in the same sense that the apparent truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution should be subject to critical enquiry whether one is Canadian, a farmer, or Jewish no?

The perspectives one acquires while growing up are only a starting point.

Thus, I am sure that animal was not interested in why you came to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but why you believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

SB

 

[Guest]

You have mentioned perspective in several of you posts. Can you expand on the interaction of perspective and critical enquiry? It seems to me that critical enquiry would require that one suspend their perspective as much as possible, that critical enquiry is impossible without the freedom to consider various if not all perspectives as objectively as possible.

All human inquiry is bound to the human condition. That is, all inquiry takes place within a perspective. Perspective is inescapable.

Thus, the apparent truth or falsehood of Judeo-Christian beliefs should be subject to critical enquiry whether one is a Muslim, atheist, or Christian in the same sense that the apparent truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution should be subject to critical enquiry whether one is Canadian, a farmer, or Jewish no?

This would be ideal some desire for which to strive. Though, I do not believe it is a reality which will ever be achieved.

The perspectives one acquires while growing up are only a starting point.

Towards what end?

Thus, I am sure that animal was not interested in why you came to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but why you believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

I disagree. The only difference between these two questions is time. Rather, what is actually being sought is a list of reasons and/or evidences for why one should believe. Sadly, we lack the common framework which would be necessary for such a quest to be successful, and so it would not be beneficial to either of us.

 

[Silver Bullet]

what is actually being sought is a list of reasons and/or evidences for why one should believe. Sadly, we lack the common framework which would be necessary for such a quest to be successful, and so it would not be beneficial to either of us.

Can you help me to understand why your last sentence is true?

SB

 

[Guest]

what is actually being sought is a list of reasons and/or evidences for why one should believe. Sadly, we lack the common framework which would be necessary for such a quest to be successful, and so it would not be beneficial to either of us.

Can you help me to understand why your last sentence is true?

Which part?

 

[Guest]

Silver Bullet,

You recall our discussion about 'lack of belief' atheism? You're in luck. We happen to have one on the board now. This is from the thread "A New and Highly Disappointed Member."

Precisely. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Specifically a lack of belief in a theistic God, plain and simple.

And you thought I was pulling your leg.

 

[Silver Bullet]

what is actually being sought is a list of reasons and/or evidences for why one should believe. Sadly, we lack the common framework which would be necessary for such a quest to be successful, and so it would not be beneficial to either of us.

Can you help me to understand why your last sentence is true?

Which part?

I don't understand why you think that exploring your reasons and/or evidences for belief would not be beneficial. What is the common framework you are referring to? What do you mean by that?

SB